Laserfiche WebLink
<br />nu2~68 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />under Alternatives Two and Three, housing prices at the <br />proposed Wolf Creek Valley developl1ent are projected to be <br />several times higher than prevailing housing prices in the <br />pagosa HRU. This housing will be beyond the financial means <br />of the majority of the retail and service employees which <br />comprise the bulk of the new employment generated by the ski <br />area. <br /> <br />Because of the lack of private land available for developnent <br />in the mediate area in Mineral county, virtually all of <br />this housing impact caused by new employment will occur in <br />Archuleta County. The COunty has, however, a large number of <br />residential subdivisions with room to accommodate this <br />developnent. During the early stages of developnent, these <br />areas will be relied upon to satisfy employee housing needs. <br />The following profile may be applied to future housing demand <br />in Archuleta COunty. <br /> <br />Tl\BLE IV-23 <br />RrlllHJr. TEmRE AND MIX <br />AR('R(1T.1fflt. CYllNI"7. 1985-2020 <br /> <br />Total <br /> <br />()omer Renter Average 1I <br />Occupied Occupied Price/COst <br />40.4% 12.9% $88,000 <br />8.6% $80,000 <br /> 23.2% $50,000 <br />11.0% 3.9% $35,000 <br />60.0% 40.0% <br /> <br />Single Family <br />Nulti-Farnily Owner <br />MUlti-Family Renter <br />Mobile Heme <br /> <br />l/ Includes land cost <br /> <br />Source: U.S. Census of Housing and <br />Hammer, Siler, George Associates <br /> <br />Archuleta County housing needs attributed to Alternative Two <br />or Three imp3cts based on the percentages abO'Je are shown <br />below (Table IV-24) . The projected needs shown are <br />cumulative over time, not annual needs. Futhermore, they <br />reflect total needs without regard to existing hOUSing and <br />lot availability. Existing housing and lot availability <br />would satisfy a large portion of the projected needs. <br /> <br />Under Alternatives TwO and Three, the total housing demand is <br />2,141 units over a 35 year developnent period, an average of <br />61 units per year. The employment growth associated with the <br />alternatives, however, creates a "bulge" of early hOUSing <br />demand with an annual need of nearly 100 units per year until <br />2005 and very little additional construction thereafter. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />219 <br />