HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.02 Market StudyShlaes &Co.
MARKET STUDY
Los Amigos Ranch
PREPARED FOR
Mr. William G. Kane
Sno-Engineering Inc.
Aspen, Colorado
BY
SHLAES & CO.
405 North Wabash
Chicago, Illinois
May 1980
Shlaes &Co.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary 1
Location 4
Site Description 4
Regional Context 4
Glenwood Springs and Vicinity 6
Los Amigos Ranch 7
Energy Resource Development and Housing Demand 9
Competitive Developments 12
Glenwood Springs Area 12
Missouri Heights 15
Basalt 16
New Castle 16
Carbondale 17
Selling Pace, Pricing and Marketing 19
Sales Pace 19
Homesite Prices 20
Marketing 21
Addenda
M.L.S. Residential and Lot Sales, Upper Colorado Region, 1977-80
Homesite Sales at Selected Developments
Location Map
Recent Housing Developments: Missouri Heights
Recent Housing Developments: Glenwood Springs and Carbondale
SUMMARY
Shlaes &Co.
1. The Los Amigos Ranch site consists of about 2,200 acres
of partially agricultural, gently rolling mesa on the
southwest side of Spring Valley. The site is about six
miles south of U.S. Interstate 70, and about three miles
south of the Glenwood Springs corporate limits.
2 Access from Glenwood Springs to the Los Amigos site is
very good, with a four -lane divided highway covering
most of the distance; a paved two-lane county road
connects Highway 82 to the site's entrance.
3 Homesites at Los Amigos Ranch will tend to be perceived
as a part of the greater Glenwood Springs housing mar-
ket, competing primarily with lot offerings in the
vicinity of Glenwood Springs and lots in the Missouri
Heights area.
4 The majority of competitive homesite offerings are found
in unincorporated areas of Garfield County within 15 to
20 miles of Glenwood Springs.
5 Homesites at Los Amigos Ranch will be generally superior
to most other product in the local market. This super-
iority is due to a unique combination of attributes:
(1) proximity to Glenwood Springs, both in terms of
physical distance and ease of access, and consequently
travel time; (2) the site's elevation, about 1,000 feet
above the grade of Highway 82, and the resulting sense
of remoteness; (3) spectacular views of the surrounding
mountain terrain; (4) excellent solar access; (5) a
large buffer of agricultural land which will insulate
the development from any additional development in Spring
Valley; (6) extensive forest vegetation, with heavy
growths of juniper and pinon, giving the majority of
potential homesites a degree of privacy that cannot be
matched in most other developments.
6 Homesites in comparable developments have recently sold
for between $40,000 and $70,000, with lots ranging in
size from about one to over ten acres. Within this range
of sizes, the major determinants of price appear to be
the general quality of the subdivision, the location and
orientation of the lot, and accessibility.
1
Shlaes &Co.
7. The minimum initial price for a Los Amigos Ranch homesite
should be between $55,000 and $60,000; a suitable induce-
ment to early sales may be a 10% discount during a brief
(four to six months) pre -opening period. Opening prices
should be within the current market range, but above the
average to correspond to the superior quality of sites
in the Los Amigos development.
8. The pace of sales at other subdivisions containing about
100 or more lots appears to have been no more than 20
to 30 lots per year at periods of peak demand; absorption
of all sites appears to take between four and eight year
to accomplish.
9. Assuming an improvement in the national economy, a lower-
ing of interest rates, a recovery of activity in the
Glenwood Springs homesite market, and an aggressive mar-
keting strategy, we estimate that the rate of homesite
sales should range between 15 and 25 per year at Los Amigos.
10. The terms for similar lot sales have typically been 25%
to 30% down, with the balance due within or at the end of
a three to five year period, and at an interest rate of 12%
to 14%.
11. Subdivisions and P.U.D.s approved during the last ten years
in areas between Basalt and Glenwood Springs have included
about 1,900 single-family lots. Of these, about 700 are
in recently approved subdivisions and not yet actively
offered on the market. Of the remaining 1,200, fewer than
half now have houses on them.
12. Among recently offered subdivisions, we estimate that as
many as 5% to 10% of the 1,200 vacant lots may remain un-
sold; this amounts to an unsold inventory of 60 to 120
lots. A new offering must compete with this remainder, as
well as resales of previously sold but still vacant lots
and additional new offerings.
13. Because of the potential volume of known and potential
offerings, we recommend that the Los Amigos site's unique
combination of natural and locational attributes be de-
veloped with a predominantly, and perhaps exclusively
single-family plan, at prices which will at least in part
compensate the developer for the reduced density.
2
Shlaes &Co.
14. It is not unusual for new subdivisions and P.U.D.s in the
Glenwood Springs area to include combinations of lower
density and moderate density development (e.g., Glenwood
Park, Oak Meadows and Oasis Creek). However, this mix-
ture of density is not typical of planning for sites in
the Missouri Heights and Spring Valley areas. We have
considerable doubts regarding the appropriateness of the
site for higher density development, the capacity of the
access road to service such a development, the ability of
the market to absorb relatively expensive high density
sites, and the impact higher density development would
have on large single-family homesites in a development
that would otherwise be superior to most competitive
offerings.
15. The quality of potential homesites at Los Amigos Ranch is
generally superior and distinctive from many other com-
petitive offerings. Achieving a satisfactory rate of sales
will depend in large measure upon communicating this dis-
tinction effectively to both real estate professionals in
the corridor from Aspen to Rifle, and ultimately to poten-
tial purchasers. The type of marketing campaign originally
conceived for the Los Amigos project should be resumed and
implemented.
3
LOCATION
Shlaes &Co.
The Los Amigos property is located about three miles south of the
corporate limits of Glenwood Springs in Garfield County, Colorado.
Glenwood Springs lies both north and south of Interstate Highway
70, about 160 miles west of Denver and about 100 miles east of
Grand Junction, Colorado. The subject property is on a mesa above
the east wall of the lower Roaring Fork Valley. (See location map
on following page.)
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Los Amigos property consists of about 2,200 acres of mixed
agricultural land and forest on the west side of Spring Valley,
southeast of Glenwood Springs. The property lies generally north
and east of Highway 82, and north and west of County Road 114.
The configuration of the parcel is somewhat irregular. The eleva-
tion of the buildable areas of the property vary from about 6,400
feet to 7,000 feet above sea level; there is also a "lower bench"
area consisting of about 40 to 50 acres at elevations between
6,200 and 6,400 feet above sea level. The property includes por-
tions of the valley wall extending at several points from Highway
82 north and east to an extensive mesa. Approximately half of the
mesa portion of the property has been and will continue to be ir-
rigated cropland. Most of the uncultivated area at the southwest
edge of the mesa has a broken cover of pinon and juniper forest.
Residential development is proposed for this forested southwestern
half of the property, with almost half of this portion remaining
natural open space.
REGIONAL CONTEXT
Garfield County extends from the Western Slope of the Rocky
Mountains to the Utah -Colorado state line. Perhaps as much as 50%
of the land in the county is federally owned, with the two major
agencies being the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service
(White River National Forest) and the U.S. Department of Interior's
Bureau of Land Management. The mountainous terrain is characterized
by continuous changes in elevation, from valleys at elevations of
about 6,500 feet or less to mountain peaks at about 12,000 feet.
4
i
20 Statute Miles
30 Kilometers
15 Nautical Miles
N
0
0
O
0
CONTOUR INTERVAL 200 FEET
5
WITH SUPPLEMENTARY CONTOURS AT 100 FOOT INTERVALS
0
0
I
I
r
u1
1
4%.
rr
1
•
•
?_ _ _ '1. 71 v_
J NT\iL
'\
__ �,s
/
i
II
IL
d.
I\
11 1
'1
'1 U
•
h1
rn
m
//
ftft
� 41.1. 1
I
1
IINNWR 41,
jr
4G" `t,
(N1
I
/11
if
I'
1'
i
1tc l
'
i......cS)
1 'N
\ ' a` --
1/,
x
�µr
0
ie
I
I
u1
/
\ I
Njj
f �r
✓ 'J •���/ x/6200 --tom
w
w
0
J
0'
w
Z
0
F -
z
0
0
cc
0
0
0
U J
0
W
1i J
dL
N
1-
2 2
w -
ax N
rt
(0
wQ
zo
0
w
1-
0
0
1�W
7
/•
\
6
6600:/.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
U
CC
O ^
(n
L
CC N
or
'7 r
>- 4. -
CI C] O
J
LU • N
LL O C
Q U
z
0
J L
QF --
Z
C
V1 --
LLI
Cl
47
> LC)
r-
4-+ 01
10
0)
C
C N.
r 0)
07
010)
C I-
40
a .o
L .
U 111
1-0
01
01
4
10 LO uJ r� v N C Q O
in
g1 1 1 + 1 1 1 1 + +
In N N M N — 10 N
1
] .O I N v 10 N
1 I + + + 1, 1 1
Cr, M O Q. 10 - i O
r\ IO O v N v' 1C. M V O
r N N 4-
4-
C LC
4.
7E) 10 .0 t0 V r ' 10 t0 N CCQQ
«0 Q r� CO M V ,—
01 r- •• l0 lO O 01 N M 01
E
1E
01
01
Q
r`
N N CO N o- n 10 M CO n,
v 1O O O N v O O1 u'
r r N r r r
O1
u'1
M
Q7 10 N r- CO N M) CO N
N O - - O 1� N 01
E r. 0' 10 V R 01 C' CO C
V r 01 10 � r N 10 r
_C 1 r
C
n N 01
O M M
M M'Ol
r V 17'1
LO M 01
O C
O
V 1!-
r` If•
C _
u7 01 10 CO CO to OO '0 10
6�
Cr., W el CV Q LC C Q)
r N N
O
C
r
4.
C
4
E O In OO U'1 10 in O '0
C In 0 0 01‘C,1 r�(O O v 1
C u7 M t0 M N V C 1
r _
E r
1.
I n
00
CO
It1
M O CO n N Q C Q Q
r
M 10 O N N v 10 In n
N N
sot
• 10
O
O 10 In
� M
cr O 10 10 r\ M 01 O N 0)
O N O CO N 01 CO O M l0
E O 01 M l0 1'n O O V V
C - -__
L. r M t\ r N 07 In
0
,-
.--. a o 0
M 0)
M r�
. M CO
N. 0)
M ,-
- O
N r�
CO N
•0' M
01
.0
47
CC
o-0
0
IL
- Trans./Comm./Utilities
- Services
N
E
0
U
.0 C
L
0 L
0
Ion+
L L J 47
47 07
+' O r0 - Cl
O C7 4' O
0'.-
Misc. Income *
0)
E
0
U
C
0
O C
u 0
O O
4-404
m .1
u W
C
0. N
10
V
O
W
0)
d
0. O
0)
C u
4r m
CI
41 .0 •O
CO v
7.
4.2
4-1C
C
U
0.
O In
nN. -
O, 01 O'1
M
Employment:Population =
—J 0
Q 0 N +--
I—
F- 0 +-7 4'
Q 4-' 0. CC
40 Io
U
7
Cl. S-
O
O 4
a O.
(D) Data suppres§ed _ derived estimates
4-, .
C N
v C
L O
_ +1
++ 7
N L)
41., 4-
S- L
(7 '-1
47 C
O
V
C
47 7
U
47
N
O
b
VI r
47 V
0
N
trU- -01
C C
0
(February 1981).
Region II Council of Governments,
Shlaes &Co.
The population of the county is about 20,000 according to current
estimates. Most of this population is concentrated in the eastern
half of the county, in the Colorado River and Roaring Fork valleys.
Glenwood Springs is the county seat and the largest community in
the county, with a population of about 4,500 people. Carbondale
is the second largest community with an estimated population of
over 2,000 at present. The remaining principal towns include New
Castle, Silt, Rifle and Parachute (formerly Grand Valley), with
populations varying from 400 to about 900 persons.
The basic economy of the county is dominated by mining and related
heavy industry, agriculture (both ranching -and farming), tourism and
recreation. Mining operations in the eastern half of the county
produce coal for the most part. In the western half of the county,
mining operations today concentrate upon the production of synthetic
petroleum from oil shale. Both ranching and farming are supported
by a considerable supply of good land and the plentiful supplies of
water which are required to make the land productive in the relati-
vely arid climate. Glenwood Springs is a major access point to the
Snowmass and Aspen ski areas, and the local economy benefits from
ski resort traffic, although more tourism dollars are generated
between spring and fall by recreational travelers and users of the
extensive camping and wilderness recreation areas in the national
forests both north and south of the Colorado River in the eastern
half of the county.
The Garfield County economy showed particularly strong growth
during the 1970s, with employment in every major sector of the
county economy (except agriculture) nearly doubling in the last ten
years. In part this was due to new developments in mining and
continued expansion of the recreational sector, with much of the
growth due as well to increased trade, service and government em-
ployment. Several coal operations were reopened in the eastern
part of the county, and in the western part of the county the
federal government's synthetic fuel program moved from studies to
policy to the initial stages of implementation. A major result
has been an increase in the population of the county, from about
14,800 in 1970 to over 20,000 in 1980. Building permit data indi-
cate a corresponding expansion of housing production, with an
average of 500 new units per year between 1977 and 1979. About
180 units per year of this total were constructed in the eastern
third of the county.
The extent to which population increase has stimulated the economy
of the county is reflected in retail sales data. Between 1970 and
1979, retail sales grew by almost $167 million, representing an
increase of about 289% (from $57,608,000 to $224,193,000). The
increasing prosperity of the county economy is also reflected in
the 127% increase in per capita income between 1970, when the fig-
ure was $3,331, and 1978, when it was $7,754.
5
Shlaes &Co.
The only major highway in the county is Interstate 70 which con-
nects Denver and Grand Junction, the largest city on the Western
Slope. Topography and other factors have prevented the develop-
ment of Interstate 70 into a continuous, four -lane divided highway.
The only fully improved stretch of Interstate 70 in. Garfield County
is a continuous 30 -mile span -from Glenwood Springs west to Rifle.
From Glenwood Springs east to Eagle, there is a 40 -mile length of
two-lane highway (U.S. 6) connecting sections of Interstate 70; to
the west of Rifle, there is another length of two-lane highway
which is over 40 miles long. Both of these two-lane segments are
located for the most part in narrow canyons created by the
Colorado River. Although there is continuing pressure to complete
these interstate segments through the canyons, the physical chal-
lenges are considerable, as is the opposition from those who would
like to see the natural beauty of canyons protected.
The economic impact of new development on the Western Slope has
been most evident in the vicinity of the established population
concentrations, however small. In Garfield County, almost all of
these communities are located along the Colorado River/Interstate
70 corridor between Glenwood Springs and Parachute. Even in its
early stages, the development of prototype test facilities for
synthetic fuel production has brought new population to this area.
For example, the number of real estate transfers in Rifle during
1980 was greater than the total number of sales during the pre-
vious five years. Construction workers tend to predominate among
the first new households, followed by an increasing flow of pro-
duction employees. The most likely locations for new housing and
businesses are existing towns, no matter how small, because they
have at least the rudimentary physical and organizational infra-
structure required to support a concentrated residential
population.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS AND VICINITY
Glenwood Springs has traditionally been both a resort area and a
service center for mining and agricultural operations in its sur-
rounding hinterland. The extensive warm water springs located
adjacent to the Colorado River attracted entrepreneurial interest
to the area in the 1880s. In addition to resort traffic, the
original developers saw the value of the location as a service
center for the surrounding territory in which there were extensive
crop and grazing lands, ample year-round water supplies, and ex-
tensive mineral deposits. The town has been able to grow steadily
since the turn of the century due to its role as an urban service
center for an extensive surrounding area, and its location at the
junction of the Colorado River and Roaring Fork River valleys
which have also served as major transportation corridors.
6
Shlaes &Co.
The traditional focus of the town has been the Colorado River and
the rail and highway routes which follow it. To accommodate con-
tinuing growth, the town has grown to the south along the floor
of the Roaring Fork River valley, and to a lesser extent along the
gently sloping terrain west of the original town and north of the
Colorado River.
Glenwood Springs looks like a town that would house more than 5,000
or so people. What probably contributes most to this impression is
the number of commercial establishments extending from the north
side of the river, along the length of Grand Avenue for a distance
of about two miles. Along with government offices and private
service firms, commercial establishments in Glenwood Springs serve
a much larger population than can be seen in the town itself. Al-
though people in the area do travel freely to both Denver and
Grand Junction, the nearer of the two is still at a distance of 95
miles and neither can be reached via a continuous interstate high-
way connection. The travel time to Grand Junction is between 12
and 2 hours from Glenwood Springs, and Denver is between 3 and 4
hours away. Residents of the valley as far south as Aspen and
along the Colorado River between Rifle and Eagle are therfore
likely to look to Glenwood Springs to meet as many of their needs
for goods and services as possible.
In addition to serving the resident population, the town also
benefits from and serves a large volume of visitor traffic. In
the winter the town serves as a major gateway to the Aspen-Snowmass
resort area, and although most of the recreational spending occurs
at the resort destinations, businesses in Glenwood Springs also
benefit from this traffic to a degree. The town is also continuing
to promote its own Sunlight Ski resort area located about 10 miles
southwest of Glenwood Springs. The remainder of the year the town
serves an even larger number of travelers with the well developed
warm springs facilities being a destination for many. The town is
also likely to be a stop for many recreational travelers using
Interstate 70 between the Western Slope and the front range of the
Rocky Mountains.
Los Amigos Ranch
The subject property is located about three miles south of the
corporate limits of Glenwood Springs. Access to the property from
Interstate 70 is excellent, following Grand Avenue/Highway 82,
which is an equally direct and well marked access route to the
towns farther up the valley, including Aspen. Prospective buyers,
residents and visitors should encounter no great difficulty in
navigating the relatively simple route to Los Amigos Ranch.
7
Shlaes &Co.
The initial part of the route from Interstate 70 passes through
both the old and new commercial areas of Glenwood Springs. South
of 27th Street and Sunlight Bridge, the approach to the subject
property consists of increasingly spectacular scenery marred only
by a scattering of poorly regulated commercial, industrial and
residential development. However, the same situation prevails
along the approaches to virtually all other subdivisions at the
edge of town and in more distant parts of the county.
At the junction of Highway 82 and County Road 114 which leads to
the subject property and the adjoining Colorado Mountain College
campus, there is a small complex of new, one-story commercial
buildings including a convenience food store. The turnoff to the
campus is well marked and should facilitate directing people to
the subject property. Once the visitor has passed the small
cluster of commercial buildings, there is an immediate feeling of
having left the developed parts of the valley behind.
Although we do not profess to have special expertise in traffic
engineering, it does seem reasonable to question whether or not
the county road access to the property woudl have been adequate
for a development of the scale originally proposed for the Los
Amigos Ranch site. The county road is a surfaced, barely two-lane
route with a rather steep and winding grade. With the road also
having to serve the college (a two-year, community college facility
with an enrollment between 700 and 800 students) and additional
development proposed in the Spring Valley area, it seems unlikely
that it would have been able to serve adequately the needs of
nearly 570 households in the Los Amigos development as originally
proposed.
It appears that Glenwood Springs will continue to be the urban
center servicing most of the population in the eastern half of
Garfield County. Projections developed by the regional Council of
Governments indicate that Rifle's population may exceed Glenwood
Springs' by the middle of this decade. However, it appears likely
that new housing opportunities will continue to be somewhat dis-
persed along the Interstate 70 corridor, and that at least some of
the new population projected for Rifle may be correspondingly dis-
persed. Although the population projections do indicate the
possibility that Rifle may replace Glenwood Springs as the county's
major urban center, this process will probably take more time than
the projections indicate and will take more than residential loca-
tion decisions to accomplish. What would probably be equally
damaging to the prominence of Glenwood Springs would be major
shopping center development in Rifle and/or the relocation of
county, state and federal government offices to Rifle. Such de-
velopments are not a part of current projections for Rifle's future,
and no one appears to expect such changes in the future. It ap-
pears more likely that Glenwood Springs will continue to be the
county's primary urban center, and that even if Rifle surpasses
8
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED, 1960-1990
POPULATION GROWTH,
Ln
O
rn
•K
Ln
a)
rn
0
CO
rn
H
4c
0
CO
CSl
r
r
C)1
H
0 co in r to H r 0 0 0 0 H
o v' H Ln Cn H CO Ln 0 0 O
H Ln to CO r CO N rt± 0 M 0 'Cr V'
o In V. M N Z OD in o in
M H N H
of in 01 in O O L v co
r co H 0 H rn 0
M 0 H LC) Ln r Ln t0 to
V' N • Ln H N rl N 0 H Z Z Z
LC) N H H
O v' O co Ln v' v' cr O N O m
o is r l0 t0 N NLn O m O H
co H t0 r l0 0 CO KC. t0 Ln CO M Ln
ro
o Ln(n rn m H z Ln Orn M r
M H H H a) 1T
H H
CT
ro N
W a)
A
V. of O V. M M H in O 1 0
rn v' r 0 o r t0 Ln Mr.0 d-)
O COr n r
LC) 0 N in M L '''. r -C rC o ▪ r-+ H Cr)N O
Ln t 0 ▪ 0 Z Z Z Z w U
a
Ln H H H -
A
ro in
H
-H 0
MS -H
0 H M r M N d 0 0 d' 0 0
0 N 0 Cr) Ln N NO 0 C' 0 H it0
01 CO n d
N L' Cr H ‹ r M l0 in 0 a)
1)-r)
.--iv' N N H Z 0 H v' 0 0
N H H H 0 $1
a
o b
co
rn al
N M v' M CO M CA CA N H
LSD H d' r 'Cr CO r CO 0 U)
H '0 M r v' 0 0 Ln '0 r.0 f,t r.0 r a)
CD +)
N Ln N r) • H CO Z Z Z Z
N
a)
4J 4J
OA U)
a) W
O
O H d' M r d' 01 H CO 01 to 0
O CSl v' v' r d' LnCr L0 H d' .- 0
CO 0 to Ln M N 00 rz1 0 Ln N l0 H -H
H
CO v' H N Z Z N 0 M ro u)
H H H 0 U)
•r1 ill
-P 0 w
O a U
Q) -
H l0 t0 CT) 0 0 v' l0 O Cr) Ln N •n
N 0 N 0l r in r')M CAH CO M 0
CO H r V' N H v'KC. t0 C' d H d' }-I U)
' Z o 0- o a
v 0 N N -r1
H -• ro
Ln 4-W
4J w
(1)
r r N r Ln Ln V' r M H r -I H
H CO H v' d M Or H O 0 O MIO t0 l0 'V' CV H M4. r - to N M H U
a) 0
N ri N Z z v' N r -I > 1.-1
H a, 0
0 4-1
4-4
0
O +)
0
H (I)
-r-1 E
0
O i• t
O 04
U 0)
0
(Middle range projections)
state and local government projections, and Shlaes & Co.
Garfield County
Glenwood Springs
Carbondale
New Castle
(
Parachute
H
X 0
Ti
A U 0 (111
(1).--i -1-)0 U � 0 aa) -H O
LN H 4 r1 0) U) r1 04 to H
-H -H ro 0 H ro X 0) 0) 0
a u) ao 0 Cn ao +) KC a U
Ea
Pi
1960, 1970 and 1977(Special)U.S.
Sources:
Shlaes &Co.
Glenwood Springs in population, Glenwood Springs will manage to
maintain its traditional prominence. It is also likely that many
people will find the boom -town environment unattractive and un-
satisfactory, and that they will continue to favor Glenwood Springs
and its environs as a good residential and business location.
ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEMAND
Western Garfield County, from Rifle almost to the state line, is
at the southern end of the richest defined oil shale resource in
the United States. The economic feasibility of commercial produc-
tion of synthetic crude oil from oil shale was greatly improved as
a result of the rising price of crude oil and the development of
retorting technologies in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
In June 1971 the Secretary of the Interior announced the Prototype
Oil Shale Leasing Program to promote the commercial exploitation
of this resource, with the main focus of attention being the Green
River Formation located in southwest Wyoming, northeast Utah and
northwest Colorado. After preliminary information gathering and
program development, the Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program iden-
tified six tracts (two each in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado) of
5,120 acres each to be leased by the Federal Government to private
energy development firms. Successful bid payments were to be due
in five equal (annual) installments. As an incentive for diligent
development, the last two payments and initial production royalties
may be offset by direct expenditures for development of the leased
tracts.
To date only the two tracts in Colorado have been developed. (The
two Wyoming tracts received no bids due to the inferior quality of
the oil shale resources there, and the development of the Utah
tracts was enjoined by the Federal District Court in 1977.) The
two Colorado tracts are located in Garfield County, almost due
north of Grand Junction, in an area approximately 25 miles south-
east of Meeker and 50 miles northwest of Rifle. The production of
synthetic crude oil at these sites will involve extensive under-
ground mining. The process involves removing a portion of the oil
shale deposit by conventional mining methods, then rubblizing
remaining shale in the underground vaults and igniting this rubble
to produce vaporized petroleum liquids and combustible gas, which
are pumped out of the in -ground chamber to processing facilities
on the surface.
The commercial production of synthetic crude oil from oil shale
represents technological and physical challenges which are stag-
gering to the layman. It was not until January and February 1978
9
IDAHO
0
{
UTAH
N
i
25
SCALE, MILES
LEGEND
Area of oil shale deposits
�r Gle ood Spring
Area of nahcolite or trona
deposits
Area of 25 gal. /ton or richer t Grand 1unc$on
oil shale lofk or more thick
Oil shale lease tracts �a
• Sketch map showing oil shale areas in Colorado,
Utah, and Wyoming; and sites of Prototype Oil
Shale Leasing Program tracts
Source: Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program Enivronmental Impact Statement,
U.S. Department of Interior, 1973; and U.S.G.S. Area Oil Shale Office.
Shlaes &Co.
that the first service production shafts were sunk on the Colorado
leased tracts; a small retort product treatment plant was under
construction on one of the tracts in September 1978. Production
from this modular plant was scheduled to begin in late 1980. Con-
tinued development will proceed by scaling up to the in -ground
retort chambers and above -ground treatment plants in successive
stages, to a commercial production scale at some time in the late
1980s.
Development of the two leased tracts to commercial production
scale could add as many as 2,000 workers to the population of
Meeker, Rifle and other nearby towns. Many of these production
workers would be accompanied by spouses and children, together
adding perhaps another 3,000 to 4,000 people to the population
of the area. All of these would in turn attract support and
service businesses, and additional population.
However, at least sixteen additional companies have announced
plans for expansion and/or new development of energy resources
on the Rockies' western slope. These include:
Colony Oil Shale Project (Arco/Exxon and TOSCO)
Union Oil Shale Project
Superior Oil Shale and Minerals Project
Snowmass/Anshutz Coal
Colowyo Coal
Northern Minerals Coal
New Coal (leasing and expansion of BLM's Hams -Fork
Green River E.I.S.)
Ancillary Basic Response Development in Mesa County
Colorado UTE Power Plant
Utah International
GEX/CMC Coal
Sheridan Coal
Energy Fuels
Mid -Continent Mesa II
Moon Lake (power plant and coal)
Storm King
10
shale tracts and other oil—shale research
rn
rn
- V-)
O 0
--4 m
ro CZ
$4
CU r.
v v
CU v
0
w U
O CD
C 41
O 'C
+4 C
� 7
cD
U U1
O G)
� G
C13
00
• v
— 4
• cn
O a)
w- --4
ro • c
E o
-i
4-1
r
C.) cc
w
J CU
.Y a
C!] 0
011 Shale Mining — Plans and Practices (Crockston and Weiss), 1979;
Shlaes &Co.
A 1977 Special Census indicated that the population of the four -
county planning region (Moffat, Rio Blanco, Garfield and Mesa
Counties) was 101,051. To indicate the type of growth the region
has experienced during only the beginning phases of oil shale and
related energy resource development, unofficial regional planning
agency figures estimate the January 1980 population at 119,865.
It is estimated that if shale oil and coal production in the re-
gion were accelerated to meet the Federal Government's proposed
program for synthetic fuel development, the population of the
region would be tripled (to over 360,000) by the year 2000. One
indication of the extent to which this impact is expected to
materialize at some time in some form is the provision that 37.5%
of the Prototype Oil Shale Lease Program lease payments be returned
to the states as impact funding assistance to affected communities.
As of early 1980, almost $75 million have been returned to Colorado
under this lease provision.
Any estimate of the growth potential of the synthetic fuel industry
on the Western Slope must also be tempered by an appreciation of
the experimental nature of the prototype production facilities, the
vicissitudes of the marketplace, and the fact that as early as 1917
efforts were being made to produce the same synthetic fuel in the
area. The prototype projects in Colorado have already experienced
delays of up to a year. Given the complexity and scale of the
technology required tomake commercial production feasible, it
would not be surprising to see more delays occur before success is
achieved.
Glenwood Springs is not likely to feel much direct impact from oil
shale development, because of its distance from the planned pro-
duction sites and efforts to produce housing closer to the sites.
Nevertheless, there will be some small degree of direct impact and
probably considerable indirect impact. Information on place of
residence for new energy employees in the area indicates a clear
preference for locations in the vicinity of Rifle, but also that
there is some spillover eastward along the Interstate 70 corridor,
including a small percentage of oil shale production employees in
Glenwood Springs. Coal mining employees working south of Carbon-
dale in the hills west of the Crystal River tend to choose
residential locations in Redstone, Carbondale and Glenwood Springs.
Those working at the Storm King mines just west of Glenwood
Springs tend to be distributed throughout the Interstate 70/
Highway 82 corridor.
Future increases in coal production are expected to depend less on
proportionate increases in employment. Consequently there is not
likely to be a repetition of the explosive growth experienced in
Carbondale. However, there will be some increase in employment
and both Carbondale and Glenwood Springs are expected to benefit.
11
Percent of Employees Residing In:
frl
a)
a)
U
H O
rt OU
PO
I
H+� RS
C U>
4 a) a)
b Z
P4
a)
r -I
W
—1
a
4)
.—I
N M 0 0 0 M 0 0
M d
N O O M in 0 to tf1
Ln r 'D ri N M ul
r-� H 0 M 0 0 0 to
H 00
to V
0 'O In M 10 O
In N 0 O) N N 61 0
O O N O In m O O
in
O 0 0 0 0 in 0 O
N 00
N M CI' 0 0 1n O O
. -i H
OJ M Ol co is) co 10 10
✓ lO N rl H ri
N to O 10 N N O 0
N
N N
0 to N O O O
ri (-
Ln
In rl 0 0 O 10
M M
O O 0 N 0 0 0 0
1
(March 1980)
Garfield County Housing Study
a)
a)
0
3
ro
U U in 0 ••
0 fa •ri >, a)
O • U b a) 0 0 - N
0
«4 «4 SI 0 a •�I H 0
b a :~ O 4, 0
E+ E+ a U) u) a U u) u)
COMPETITIVE DEVELOPMENTS
Shlaes &Co.
Homesites at Los Amigos will be competing primarily with other
single-family homesite developments in the immediate vicinity of
Glenwood Springs and in the more distant Missouri Heights area
between Carbondale and Basalt. Missouri Heights is one of the
very few areas in which people can find a number of homesite
alternatives, as close to Aspen-Snowmass as possible, and without
having to pay Pitkin County's premium prices. Los Amigos Ranch is
between 10 and 15 miles farther downvalley, and consequently will
be a less satisfactory compromise for people with Pitkin County
aspirations.
Carbondale is an area in which substantial amounts of new housing
will be available during the next decade, but little if any of
the Carbondale product is expected to offer competition for Los
Amigos sites. Most of the new housing in Carbondale will be in
the form of higher density development (patio homes, townhomes,
multi -family). Los Amigos and similar developments will in fact
benefit from an increased volume of potential homebuyer traffic
generated by new offerings in the Carbondale market, and the
shortage of superior sites in Carbondale.
We expect the Los Amigos project to be perceived as a part of the
housing market in the greater Glenwood Springs area. Single-
family homesites at Los Amigos will be competing with developments
offering lots of similar size, with a similar sense of remoteness
combined with ready access to Glenwood Springs. Competing
developments consist almost universally of subdivided agricultural
land (usually former pasturage, occasionally former cropland),
while Los Amigos has the unique advantage of offering sites dis-
tinguished by a heavy growth of juniper and pinon forest.
Glenwood Springs Area
To accommodate the steadily growing population of Glenwood
Springs, developers have provided a continuous series of sub-
divisions. In the 1960s and early 1970s, a substantial number of
homesites were offered in the West Glenwood area, north of the
old Highway 6 in the vicinity of the West Glenwood interchange on
Interstate 70. These subdivisions varied in size from about 50
to about 150 homesites, and included Western Hills, Cedar Crest,
Vista Heights and Sunny Acres. The size of homesites in these
subdivisions was typically between one-quarter acre and one acre.
Similar developments took place in Glenwood Springs proper, on
both the east and west sides of the lower Roaring Fork valley,
and included South Park in the 1950s, Crestwood Park in the late
1960s and Lincolnwood shortly thereafter.
12
Shlaes &Co.
Additional subdivisions to meet a continuing demand for homesites
in and near Glenwood Springs have tended to occur farther south
in the Roaring Fork valley and along Four Mile Road leading to
the Sunlight ski area. The Westbank Ranch P.'U.D. is located about
three miles south of the city limits in unincorporated Garfield
County. Westbank Ranch consists of a total of about 200 one -
acre homesites, the first phase of which was offered in the early
1970s. Three subdivision filings in the mid- and late -1970s con-
tained a total of about 100 homesites. An equal number of sites
is contained in the fourth and final subdivision filing, which
has just begun to enter the market.
In many respects homesites in the Westbank Ranch development are
not equal to the potential sites at Los Amigos. Westbank Ranch
sites are located on the valley floor on what was once agricul-
tural land. Some of the sites do offer pleasant views up the
valley toward Mount Sporis and views of the east wall of the val-
ley. Some of the disadvantages of the sites at Westbank Ranch are
limited solar access due to the valley floor location, and a lack
of tree growth. As is frequently the case with former agricul-
tural land converted to residential use, the amount of privacy
afforded by individual homesites is almost exclusively a function
of the size of the site. Viewed from Highway 82, Westbank Ranch
is a highly exposed development which carpets the valley floor
with 100 one -acre homesites adjacent to a small golf course.
Glenwood Park is a more recent development on the north edge of
the Glenwood Springs Municipal Airport, within the corporate lim-
its of the city. This subdivision contains about 120 single-family
lots, ranging in size from 0.15 to 0.25 acres, but also including
slightly larger homesites (still under one acre) and higher
density housing (both townhomes and condominiums). Glenwood Park
appears to have been one of the fastest selling subdivisions in
Glenwood Springs, entering the market in the late 1970s at a period
of peak demand, and offering a good location at competitive prices,
although for generally small sites.
Oasis Creek is one of the newest subdivisions in Glenwood Springs.
It is located in the direction of West Glenwood, north of Inter-
state 70, although it will be annexed to the city of Glenwood
Springs. Oasis Creek consists of about 63 single-family homesites
ranging in size from one-half to just over one acre, and additional
areas to contain almost 100 multi -family units. Although the site
is slightly elevated and offers good views to the south of Glen-
wood Springs and the more distant mountains. Once it is developed
it will not be substantially superior to similar subdivisions
along the north side of Interstate 70, which are similar to the
larger -lot Westbank Ranch development in sprawl and exposure.
13
Shlaes &Co.
Higher priced subdivisions in the immediate vicinity of Glenwood
Springs are located in unincorporated parts of the county along
Four Mile Road. These include Sunlight View and Oak Meadows.
Sunlight View is located about three miles south of the city and
consists of about 40 homesites averaging slightly less thanone
acre in size. Its sales pace appears to have averaged about ten
lots per year; where developments closer to Glenwood Springs such
as Glenwood Park and Westbank Ranch appear to be virtually built -
out as well as sold out, Sunlight View is more typical of the
slightly more remote subdivisions in having a larger percentage
of the lots still vacant. Oak Meadows is a slightly more remote
and decidedly higher -priced subdivision about one mile south of
Sunlight View. It contains almost 140 homesites generally vary-
ing from five to ten acres in size, as well as sites for a number
of townhome units. Some of these have been developed at the
north end of the subdivision. The rolling slope of the sub-
division and the generally large lot size offer a superior
residential environment. Oak Meadows is also screened from and
located off of Four Mile Road, with a generally enhanced sense of
privacy and remoteness over other major subdivisions in the Glen-
wood Springs area. Among the first 60 or 70 lots in Oak Meadows,
it appears that most have been sold but only about half have been
built on.
In general it does not appear that there is a large inventory of
unsold lots in the Glenwood Springs area subdivisions discussed
above. Apart from Glenwood Park, the pace of lot sales appears
to have been somewhat slow even at periods of peak demand; how-
ever, the pace of sales appears to have been at least satisfactory
for most developers, and there has been little effort to increase
the pace with aggressive marketing campaigns. Two factors of
greater importance when considering the potential competitive
position of Los Amigos sites are the inventory of sold but still
vacant lots, and additional offerings at established projects.
None of the subdivisions in the Glenwood Springs area shows
evidence of a large volume of purchases for merely speculative
purposes; however, anywhere from 10 or 15 percent of the sales
in a normal year to 50 percent of the sales in a year of peak
demand may have some speculative factor involved. Few people buy
for strictly speculative purposes, but a substantial number pur-
chase homesites on which they have somewhat tenuous plans to
construct a residence for their own use in the future, with an
option to sell the undeveloped site if that becomes necessary or
advantageous. As a result, there are a large number of unimproved
sites, some unknown number of which might be offered on the market
at any time.
14
ACTIVE COMPETITIVE DEVELOPMENTS
Single -Family Lots (1/80)
Approved
Glenwood Springs
Built Vacant
Glenwood Park 122 100 22
Lake Springs Ranch* 195 0 195
Oak Meadows 138 31 107
Oasis Creek 63 0 63
Sunlight View 40 21 19
Westbank Ranch 201 77 124
Total
Carbondale
759 229 530
Crystal Village 124 90 34
Ranch at Roaring Fork 92 63 29
Rock Creek 13 4 9
Total
Missouri Heights
229 157 72
Aspen Mesa 97 33 64
Aspen Mountain View* 76 0 76
Blue Creek* 91 0 91
Cattle Creek Ranch* 131 0 131
Homestead Estates 28 4 24
Kings Row 53 11 42
Lake Springs Ranch* 195 0 195
Mountain Meadows Ranch* 37 4 33
Panorama Ranches 56 0 56
Los Pinones 9 4 5
Total
Basalt
Basalt South
Holland Hills
Total
GRAND TOTAL
773 56 717
78
58
136
1,897
0
25
25
78
33
111
467 1,430
* Expected to enter the market during 1981; total 688 lots.
Source: Garfield County Planning Department; and Shlaes & Co.
Shlaes &Co.
An equally important consideration is prospective offerings, in-
cluding the fourth subdivision filing at Westbank Ranch and
additional filings at Oak Meadows. The fourth filing at Westbank
Ranch includes about 100 additional homesites, with an almost
equal number still to be offered at Oak Meadows in both large -lot
single-family sites and higher density sites.
Oasis Creek appears to have invited a large number of speculative
purchases based upon unusually low down payments (10%) with full
payment due within 18 months. A number of sites at Oasis Creek
may therefore be expected to reenter the market.
Missouri Heights
The Missouri Heights area is located north of Highway 82 between
Carbondale and El Jebel, and extends from the edge of Garfield
County eastward into Eagle County. The main access routes to the
area are county roads running north into the area from Highway 82
at Catherine and El Jebel. Subdivisions in the Missouri Heights
area are almost all within county zoning categories requiring a
two acre minimum lot size or a ten acre minimum.
Missouri Heights is the nearest expanse of buildable land north of
the Pitkin County line. The proximity of the area to the Aspen-
Snowmass resort corridor, in combination with Pitkin County growth
control and the continuing attractiveness of residential sites in
the corridor, has made the Heights an attractive alternative loca-
tion for many. Most locations in Missouri Heights are no more
than 30 miles from Aspen, and within 20 or 25 miles of Glenwood
Springs.
There are at least nine subdivisions to be found in the Missouri
Heights area. These range in size from Los Pinones with nine
lots to Cattle Creek Ranch offering 131 lots. The remainder range
in size from about 25 lots to nearly 100 each, for a total of 578
homesites. More than half of these are in subdivisions which have
only very recently been approved: Blue Creek (91 lots), Cattle
Creek Ranch (131), Mountain Meadows Ranch (37), and Panorama
Ranches (56). Of the remaining 263 lots in more established sub-
divisions, it is estimated that between 20 and 25 percent have
homes built on them. One source estimates that there are perhaps
as many as 60 to 80 lots, including previously unsold lots and re-
sales, being actively offered in the older subdivisions in the
Missouri Heights area.
The Missouri Heights area appears to contain some of the more at-
tractive homesite opportunities in the Downvalley area, from Basalt
to Glenwood Springs. Subdivisions in this area have attracted
both speculators and households with definite intentions to build.
15
Shlaes &Co.
Particularly attractive features of the Missouri Heights homesites
are large lots and an elevation of about 7,000 feet, providing
opportunity for excellent solar access and panoramic views of the
natural scenery. However, Missouri Heights homesites tend to be
similar to other large -lot offerings in that they are located on
what was predominantly unforested grazing land. As the area con-
tinues to be developed the result is likely to be a large,
sprawling subdivision of ranchettes.
Basalt
Holland Hills and Basalt South are two subdivsiions developed
largely to capture Pitkin County spillover. These two develop-
ments lie immediately north of the county line and are similar to
the Westbank Ranch and Glenwood Park developments near Glenwood
Springs. Holland Hills consists of 58 single-family homesites
ranging in size from one-third of an acre up to almost three
acres; most sites are between one-half and one acre in size. The
sites in the Holland Hills development were originally offered in
1973, with most selling between 1974 and 1979. Today the develop-
ment is virtually sold out, and about half of the lots have been
built on. Basalt South is an approved planned unit development
zoned for 402 dwelling units on fifty out of a total of almost
67 acres. The plan calls for 78 single-family lots, 156 town -
homes and 168 multi -family units. None of the lots at Basalt
South has been offered on the market, pending sale of the P.U.D.
as a whole or some other resolution to the present disagreement
among the developers. Both of these projects appear to have the
aim of providing primary housing for area employees, at prices
lower than those that can be found in Pitkin County.
New Castle
The town of New Castle, with an estimated population of little
more than 600 people, is the location of two major developments
aimed at capturing some of the new housing demand generated by
oil shale development on the western slope. One project is the
Wood Landing planned unit development in an unincorporated area
of the county about 1.5 miles southwest of New Castle and on the
south bank of the Colorado River. Wood Landing will contain 340
detached single-family homes on 57 acres of land, with an addi-
tional 34 acres of open space. One aim of the project as stated
in the May 1980 P.U.D. application is to provide single-family
housing which will be moderately priced at about $60,000 per
unit. A second and much larger development was proposed in late
1980 for annexation to the town of New Castle. This project is
tentatively called the S.E.W. Ranch on a site immediately north
of the Hogback ridge adjacent to the town. Preliminary plans
indicate a target of 1,776 units (816 single-family and 960 multi-
family) on 348 acres, out of a total site area of 643 acres.
16
Shlaes &Co.
Both projects will be trying to capture a share of the housing
demand being generated by oil shale development on the western
slope. Most of the housing demand of initial oil shale develop-
ment has been felt in Rifle, a town of about 3,500 people located
about 20 miles west of New Castle along Interstate 70, County
population projections indicate that most of the housing demand is
expected to be felt in the immediate vicinity of Rifle, with the
town's population growing to nearly 24,000 by 1990. However, the
two major developments in the vicinity of New Castle, one approved
and one just proposed, indicate the potential for this impact
being felt farther east along the Interstate 70 corridor between
Rifle and Glenwood Springs. The crucial factors in the process
will be the ability of prototype oil shale production facilities
to become economically viable commercial production facilities,
the ways in which this generates new housing demand, and the
locations at which any new housing supply is provided. At a
distance of 27 miles, Glenwood Springs is within a reasonable com-
muting range of Rifle. And although most of the new housing
development will be directed toward the middle-income or upper -
middle -income market, those which are located in the direction of
Glenwood Springs will help to create the image of a continuous
supply area from Rifle east to Glenwood Springs, and perhaps in-
cluding Carbondale as well. To the extent that Rifle is adversely
affected by explosive growth, and perhaps unable to extend public
services fast enough to meet the demands of an increasing popula-
tion, Glenwood Springs may be an increasingly attractive location,
particularly for management, professional and technical
personnel.
Carbondale
Carbondale is a small community located about 12 miles southeast
of Glenwood Springs, immediately south of State Highway 82.
Between 1970 and 1977 the population of Carbondale increased from
726 to 1,644, with most of this growth attributable, directly or
indirectly, to the opening of mining operations south and south-
west of Carbondale in 1973 and 1974. This local population
explosion was accompanied by an increase in the number of housing
units from 262 in 1970 to 639 in 1977.
The four -county Council of Governments estimates that the popula-
tion of Carbondale will reach nearly 5,200 by 1990. Armed with
projections of this magnitude and the experience of rapid growth
in the late 1970s, three major subdivisions have been added
to Carbondale and are in various stages of building. Out of a
combined total of 694 as yet unbuilt units in these subdivisions,
27 are small single-family lots, 464 are attached single-family
units, and 203 are multi -family units. In addition, there is the
Gray Ranch (formerly Thompson Ranch) P.U.D. proposal now under
17
Shlaes &Co.
review by the City of Carbondale. This project would include
about 1,000 units on 500 acres at the south end of the town. With
nearly 700 units in the first three projects already approved,
and an average new housing absorption rate of 55 to 65 units per
year during the 1970s, it seems unlikely that there will be any
haste to begin construction on the Gray Ranch project, if and when
it is approved.
To the extent that housing even at the higher end of the moderate
price range can be provided in Carbondale, the town is likely to
increase its role as a bedroom community with residents working
in Glenwood Springs and in unincorporated areas of the county.
The opportunities for expanding employment in nearby coal mines
and in Carbondale itself are limited. Nevertheless, the town may
be able to approach its estimated population of more than 5,000
by providing housing in the quantities planned.
Two additional projects near Carbondale but in unincorporated
parts of the county are the Ranch at Roaring Fork and St. Finnbar
Farm. The first of these was originally zoned for 140 townhouse/
condominium units and 92 single-family homesites. One hundred of
the condominium units were built and sold in the mid- to late
1970s, and only 29 of the original 92 single-family homesites are
still vacant. A separate parcel zoned for 40 additional condo-
minium units has not yet been developed, and efforts are being
made to bend the zoning for a commercial (probably motel) use.
The second of these projects is reported to be in serious finan-
cial trouble and therefore unlikely to be carried forward. The
original concept called for 120 single-family homesites.
The amount of development activity in Carbondale during the recent
past and proposed for the future, and the dependence of many resi-
dents on employment at locations outside of the town again
emphasizes the amount of commuting that occurs in the Downvalley
area and the extent to which the supply of new housing at a
variety of price ranges is appearing at generally scattered loca-
tions from Basalt to Glenwood Springs and on west to Rifle.
18
Shlaes &Co.
SELLING PACE, PRICING AND MARKETING
Generally speaking, the number of sales in any one year (between
1977 and 1980) at any particular subdivision is not likely to be
an impressive number. In large part this picture is due to the
incomplete nature of information about the pace of sales. How-
ever, it is evident that few if any developments have had strong
marketing campaigns, and that subdivisions with a relatively
strong sales pace have been those with natural prominence. The
data regarding prices is much clearer: between 1977 and 1980,
prices for lots of virtually all subdivisions in the area tended
to increase rapidly, at rates anywhere between 12% and 15% per
year (compounded annually).
Our investigation of the market in the Glenwood Springs vicinity
has led us to the conclusion that the pace of sales at Los Amigos
can be enhanced relative to similar developments by means of
superior marketing techniques. Providing that there is some re-
duction in interest rates and a return to stronger market activity
generally in the area, it should be possible to achieve a selling
pace of 15 to 25 lots per year at the Los Amigos development.
Roughly comparable sites were selling at between $40,000 and
$70,000 per lot during the latter half of 1980. In our opinion
the Los Amigos site offers the opportunity to create homesites
which are superior to the average found even in the region's higher
priced developments. Opening prices should therefore be no lower
than the median in this range, at a minimum of $55,000 per lot,
ranging up to $60,000 per lot and perhaps slightly higher.
Sales Pace
Estimating the number of sales at any one subdivision in any par-
ticular year has been extremely difficult, due largely to the
mixture of different types of transactions that enter the public
record at the same time. Contract sales, for example, are not
registered in the public record until the terms of the contract are
fulfilled, which may occur anywhere from one to five years after
the contract was negotiated.
In general, however, available information indicates that the
annual rate of sales tends to be higher at a larger, more prominent
and moderately priced subdivisions. Westbank Ranch and Glenwood
Park are the primary evidence for this finding. Sales at Westbank
Ranch appear to have peaked in 1977 (and perhaps one year earlier)
at 24 lot sales, followed by 19 sales in 1978, at which point the
development was within about 10 or 20 sales of selling out. The record
of transactions at Glenwood Park indicates that the selling pace
did not peak until 1980, when 30 sales were recorded. However, we
19
Shlaes &Co.
suspect that this includes a number of contract sales being form-
ally concluded in 1980. Oak Meadows is a development much more
comparable to that being proposed for the Los Amigos site, but
most of its sales were conducted in the early 1970s. Nevertheless,
it appears to have been well received with the bulk of transactions
occurring between 1971 and 1973.
In general it appears that subdivisions containing anywhere from
25 or 30 homesites up to 150 sites have taken at least four or
five years to dispose of the bulk of their inventory. The normal
span of time for a sellout appears to be bewteen five and eight
years, depending in part upon the size of the development and the
number of lots offered, and in part upon the general level of
activity in the market. From the mid-1960s up to the present,
there has been a healthy degree of competition between subdivision
offerings in the greater Glenwood Springs area, and the variety of
offerings seems to have operated beneficially for most developers
in contributing to a very active market in the area.
Homesite Prices
The table on the following page summarizes annual sales at six major
subdivisions between Glenwood Springs and Basalt, along with both
the high and low extremes in selling prices for each year and what
we estimate to be the middle range of selling prices (excluding the
extremes in each range). What is particularly striking is the
rapid escalation in homesite prices at each subdivision. Inter-
views indicated that 12% would be a conservative figure to use in
estimating the annual rate of increase in homesite prices. Infor-
mation on sales at various subdivisions between 1977 and 1980 tends
to corroborate this information. Lot sales at Glenwood Park
generally ranged between about $12,500 and $19,500 in 1978, with
the range increasing to $15,000 to $26,000 in 1980. At the high
end of the range, this amounts to a rate of increase at over 15%
per year. A similar rate of increase is reflected in prices from
year to year at Oak Meadows and Sunlight View. The price of lots
in the Holland Hills development at Basalt reflected similar rates
of appreciation, as did smaller homesites at Crystal Village in
Carbondale.
The price of homesites at Westbank Ranch appears to have increased
at a much higher rate. On the one hand we suspect that the sales
in 1977 included a large number of contracts being concluded in
that year; on the other hand, it is possible that Westbank Ranch
lots were somewhat underpriced at the start.
20
LOT SALES AT SELECTED SUBDIVISIONS
0
Co
0)
0)
N
01
o
N
01
r1
N
rn
N
01
oW do dA do d°
CO to I VD N I 01
d' I • oW • I • do • dA
I do ul tf) 11) do M H H Ill
oM to H • H N N • r-1
to d' 0 'Cr
d' 01 r -E d' N N
En
r1
m
N
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
$51,500-57,500
O O
O O
0 0 0 0 t11 0
In N U) U1
N M o U1 CO l0 EU r- N d'
Hi t9 d' . 1 N N H d' ri M
M I I rti I I Ed I EES I
W 0 O m O 0 0) 0 W 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
M to 0 0 N 0 N 0 N 0
M
N CO r1 111 H 01
M M H H d' H
V} V}
V} t? tn-
(
O 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
W (n
(I) “0 • O W O Ell 0 1-
rl M 0 8--1 O r -I 01 CO
KS 10 EES 0 rtS I I
In 0 m In 0 0
O N N 0 0
M O M H M 01 0 0
- t? t?
t11 ul 0
N �0 I--
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 M 0 to to
0) • In In [n
W 011) N r-1 u) 4) M N N N 0 N O O 01
H d' M r-1 M N H d' r-1 M N H d' 0 H H
1 I I rtS - I Etl I b l I ro 10 MI I
W 0 0 m0 (10 En0 EnoEno
00 00 0 0O CD Ln 0
d' 0 u1 r-1 0 0 d' in O E1 0 01 O N N O
N ▪ r1 - V}
d' • d' M d' CO CO 0) in 0)
r1 ri ri r-1 M r -I r -i N r -I
V} V} V} V} V} t? V} V} V}
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 u)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0
0 0 in ul 0 0 0 in
U) to fn U) EA
w O O N M 01 En N N O O O O N tO
r -t M M rl N r-1 Ell 0 rl N O ri M M r1 H
Ed I I EIS I I H O Itl I to EIS I I EES I
U)00 m0 E>s0 Eno(O0 In0
0O 00 0) 000 00 0
0) in to M In in M d' 01 H N 0 0 OJ 0
H rf • M M - V}
M d' O N V} N d' • d' 10
HI rl rl Hl H H H H
V} V)- V} V} V} V} V} V}
O O
0 0 0 0
0 0 N 0
M O
() u)
O CO
I rl I
I O
d' 0 0
NOLO
0
- H
(1) r1
V} V}
En s En 0
11) a) CO O 0
H O 1-1 r1 O ra to
Ed 0 EES I to RS N
U) 0 En OU) I
0 N 0
H O to to HI 6) 0
M - V} 0
1,000-21,000
En
N
HI O1 (-I
H - V>
50 sales
54 sales
50 sales
Shlaes &Co.
More recent sales at Oak Meadows and Westbank Ranch tend to cor-
respond to the reported current range in prices in the Missouri
Heights area. This range is generally reported to be between
$40,000 and $70,000 per lot, with fairly liberal terms. However,
there have been two noteworthy departures from this pattern. One
is the sale of at least ten lots in the Panorama Ranches develop-
ment for $35,000 cash each. These sales were conducted in order
to improve the developer's cash flow position, and occurred in an
area in which prices had been between $55,000 and $58,000 plus lib-
eral terms, prior to the rapid cooling of market activity in the
latter half of 1980. At another extreme, lots averaging about one
acre in size at Oasis Creek were offered in mid -1980 at prices
between $49,000 and $60,000, with terms requiring only 5% to 10%
down and the balance due within 18 months. It has been reported
that between 40 and 50 contracts were signed within a 24 hour
period; at present there are no more than 10 single-family lots
remaining unsold in the subdivision.
Homesite prices at Oak Meadows are now above $50,000 per lot, and
if lots at Oasis Creek can be offered at prices of $60,000 per lot,
then lots at the Los Amigos site should probably not be offered for
less than $55,000 each. If general market activity has picked up
significantly by the time lots are offered in the first Los Amigos
subdivision, pricing closer to $60,000 per lot should be seriously
considered. Homesite prices closer to $60,000 per lot would still
be within the general market range, and would be more appropriate
to the general quality of homesites obtainable in the Los Amigos
project. The crucial factor during the initial selling period is
likely to be the general state of the market in the area, and not
a price differential of 5% or 10%. The examples of recent sales
at Panorama Ranches and Oasis Creek demonstrate that the market is
noticeably sensitive only to extreme variations in price and/or
terms. It would be a serious mistake to market Los Amigos home -
sites as superior and virtually unique, and then to offer the
sites at prices which are merely average.
Marketing
Compared to other major subdivisions in the Glenwood Springs area
offering lots roughly similar in size and quality, the Los Amigos
site remains distinctive in its combination of proximity to Glen-
wood Springs, the feeling of remoteness, elevation, solar access,
vegetation, views and insulation from other residential develop-
ment. Given a generally improved economic climate and the return
of the local residential real estate market to a more active pace,
homesites at Los Amigos should prove highly competitive with de-
velopments such as Oak Meadows and those in the Missouri Heights
area. However, because the site is virtually invisible from all
points in the valley, and because its unique combination of char-
acteristics cannot be adequately communicated by comparing it to
21
Shlaes &Co.
any other development, a strong marketing effort will be required
in order to communicate the distinctive and often superior quality
of Los Amigos homesites to brokers and their clientele in the area
between Rifle and Aspen. Aggressive marketing has not been a
prominent feature of any of the major large -lot subdivisions in
the region, and in our opinion Los Amigos can be given an edge
over the competition with a determined marketing effort of the
sort originally planned. The only change we recommend is better
photographic illustration of the characteristics of the site, and
less dependence upon illustrating views of the surrounding terrain
which are not much different from the views obtainable at other
locations, such as Missouri Heights.
It still appears that the most important single factor in determin-
ing the success of initial homesite offerings at Los Amigos will
be the general condition of the residential real estate market in
the Glenwood Springs area. Most developers and brokers in the area
expect the pace of the market to improve very gradually, due pri-
marily to the expectations that interest rates will decrease very
gradually, reaching more acceptable levels between six and twelve
months from now. With an improved market and a strong communica-
tions effort, it should be possible to achieve a sales pace of at
least 15 and perhaps better than 30 lots per year, with opening
prices of at least $55,000 per lot and ranging up to $60,000 or
somewhat higher for the best lots in the initial offering.
In our opinion this is the appropriate time to prepare the Los
Amigos project for its initial offering late in 1981 or early in
1982. In spite of the current sluggishness of the local market,
there are several large developments being readied for entry once
the market situation improves. These include three developments
in the Missouri Heights area with a total of 298 homesites, ad-
ditional filings at established subdivisions in the Glenwood
Springs area, and two new developments in the same area containing
about 280 single-family and over 200 multi -family units. We
expect that Los Amigos will compare and compete favorably with
these announced developments, but it must be prepared to enter the
market in order to achieve this position.
22
Shlaes &Co.
ADDENDA
0
CO
61
r-1
r --
c0 c0
r
1977 1978 1979 1980
Residential
N N NI0 r-1 d' H I0 N r N
61 CO d' to CO l0 0 r-1 r-1 CO CO
H N N CO 0 N CO d' 0 l0 m
l0 H O M d' in l0 r co O 6•
tO c0 ,--I N CO H 0 CO CO 10 I0
t? tfr to- t?
ri M co 0 m 0 0 U1 N l0 CO
N 61 l0 If) 61 N H 61 N l0 01
CO d' 1-1 61 NN to N N r -I 61
CO CO d' u1 CO r-1 CO ▪ • r In O 61
10 N 0 NN r -I H N CO d' N
r -I
CO VD
CO roN
CO
N N
LO N
t?
�p d'
r -I
LC) CO
0 r
10 r1
V} t?
1.0 I0 a) 0 0 M 0 0 0 0
10 61 N 0 Ca 0 d' 10 0 0
r u1 r--1 N l0 N 1.0 N l0 in
N LI) 1-1 N l0 M 61 H 0 10
r-1 M CO M r H d' tO CO 0
l0 61 0 CO N M in m d'
✓ CO l0 N N H
th t? in-
In
?
to C0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0
r M 0 0 r-1 0 an 0 0 0
N CO I0 Lf) r d' r -t 61 61 an
61 r N 61 00 •c C11 In m 0
N N 10 to N N in 10 l0 N
10 d' 10 N M N N In H r -i
d ' CO tO H
tn- ti} ti}
$8,707,
909,472 $2,099,540 $5,546,990
O
ID
61
r
10
tn-
an 0 if) M M d N 10 10 CO 0
r1 H to N 0 r-1 N ri M CO
4
✓ C0 M 0 CO 0 d' 0 co m 0
r 0 l0 N M r
✓ I
0
a) 3
4-4C4 0
a)
Carbondale
Aspen -Basalt
LC) 0
r 1 d
N
N an
r 1 ID
ri
0
Mobile Homes
N
all
cn
o
>~ •ra a) 3
•rt y c
4-1 m
ri 0 •r1 r-4
r1 Sa 0 0
CO
S
Carbondale
Aspen -Basalt
10 0 0 0 d'
co O Ln In
10 0 N CO
N 1n 0 0
N co d' d'
t? t?
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
O u) O in
l0 H H r r4
M 0 N l0
r4
V}
N
in
N
r
N
tn-
r
ID
N
t/}
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
H 0 0 r -I
O O ri H
O r l6 M
N ri r1 11)
(1)-
0
?0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
N M d' In
61 t0 0 10
d'
to
r N d' 0 CO
N N d' N 0
r-1
M
10
r --I
M
N
Aspen -Basalt
(2-10 acres)
ri
4J
0
$139,768 $174,633 $266,089 $249,108
963,400 $1,985,516
466,040 $
HOMESITE SALES AT SELECTED DEVELOPMENTS
Total Selling Sales Selling Size
Lots Period Date Block -Lot Price (S.F.)
Western Hills 140 1965-69 8/71 1-10 $ 7,150
6/77 1-8 15,000 16,800
5/77 4-12 12,500
7/79 7-10 12,000 15,600
Vista Heights 30 1969-73 12/76 6=5 $11,000
6/79 4-5 22,500
7/79 1-4 24,000 10,400
12/79 1-3 20,900 13,200
Crestwood Park 20 1967-69? 1967? $14,500
1968? 12 17,500
7/69 8 15,750
12/69 16 16,675
7/80 20 21,500
Fowler Additions 10 1976-77 11/76 2-6 $11,300
1 & 2 8/77 2-5 9,500
9/77 2-3 14,800
10/79 2-2 29,900
Cedar Crest
Filings 1-3,6,7
65 1969-77 4/76 7-7-10 $13,000
5/76 7-6-3 12,700
7/76 7-6-2 12,800
10/76 6- -1 8,600
4/77 7-7-3 12,500
5/77 7-7-11 22,000
4/78 1- -1 23,000 11,190
10/78 5-7-2 19,000 30,000
11/78 7-7-10 19,800
7/79 3-x-6 28,000
7/79 6-x-8 26,000
10/79 6-x-13 31,300
12/79 6-x-9 31,500
4/80 6-x-14 31,300
4/80 7-7-7 27,500
(Acres)
Westbank Ranch #1 32 3/71- 12/76 12 $11,500 1.060
6/73 2/77 29 15,000 3.343
6/77 17 15,000 1.611
5 11,500 1.088
5 17,000 1.038
7/77 24 18,000 2.454
10/78 16 30,000 1.258
11/79 24 40,000 2.454
8/80 22 63,000 1.659
4/81 31 38,500 2.463
Total Selling Sales Selling Size
Lots Period Date Block -Lot Price (Acres)
Westbank Ranch #2 32 8/74-
5/78 11/75 10 $23,000 1.080
1/76 31&32 21,000
3/76 30 13,000 1.069
12/76 3 11,500 1.046
1/77 19 11,500 1.074
3/77 18 12,000 1.059
22 12,500 1.007
4/77 23 14,000 1.121
5/77 13 12,500 1.020
7/77 13 14,500 1.020
9/77 19 10,800 1.074
1 9,800 1.125
10/77 5 14,500 1.040
12/77 12 15,000
4/78 6&9 29,000 2.742
3/78 8 15,000 1.242
9/79 8 32,500 1.242
11/80 31 46,000 1.010
Westbank Ranch #3 36 2/74- 3/77 13 $13,000 1.001
6/78 29 13,000 1.031
5/77 12 14,000 1.057
7/77 3 13,500 1.267
9/77 11 14,100 1.024
9 15,000 1.239
10/77 14 12,000 1.024
8 15,000 1.612
11/77 10 15,000 1.039
15 14,500 1.292
3/78 24 15,000 1.008
5/78 17,19,20- 85,000 1.001-
22,25 (14,167 avg.) 1.178
5/78 7 14,500 1.351
7/78 30&31 30,000 2.214
17 20,000 1.045
9/78 36 20,025 1.063
10/78 4 14,500 1.264
11/78 26 13,500 1.008
14 13,500 1.024
6/79 7 14,000 1.351
7/79 33 14,450 1.064
3/80 28 37,500 1.057
12/80 26 38,000 1.034
Glenwood Park
Subdivision
Total Selling Sales Selling Size
Lots Period Date Block -Lot Price (Acres)
120 3/78- 1/78 121 $23,000 0.33
+multi- 12/80 3/78 4 13,000 0.13
family 5 13,500 0.13
6+ 10,500 0.24
6/78 27 12,500 0.13
24 19,500 0.20
10/78 14 12,500 0.13
15 12,500 0.15
12/78 37 19,000 0.17
1978 101 16,000 0.19
103 15,000 0.13
104 15,000 0.13
111 23,500 0.30
4/79 17 13,900 0.14
Tract C 25,000 0.30
31-33 13,000 ea. 0.13 ea.
7/79 4&5 62,000 0.13 ea.
8/79 17 14,500 0.14
9/79 40 21,500 0.17
44 17,000 0.13
10/79 36 19,500 0.13
51-54 17,200 ea. 0.13 ea.
43 17,200 0.13
1979 93 21,500 0.23
110 25,500 0.71
106 22,000 0.31
118 24,500 0.40
108 25,500 0.75
114 25,000 0.30
3/80 42,55-57, 11,200 ea. 0.14 ea.
60,61
5/80 82,84,85, 20,500 to 0.15 to
87,89,92 21,500 ea. 0.23
9/80 10 15,000 0.15
81 27,054 0.25
106 16,000 0.31
11/80 96 26,000 0.25
12/80 122 25,000 0.60
85 21,000 0.30
1980 80 16,000 0.20
67 25,000 0.14
85 21,000 0.30
98 20,500 0.13
96 26,000 0.25
115 27,500 0.36
119 28,000 0.23
89 23,000 0.23
Total Selling Sales Selling Size
Lots Period Date Block -Lot Price (Acres)
Glenwood Park 1980 81 $21,000 0.25
Subdivision 107 24,000 0.40
(Continued) 116 21,500 0.40
1981 102 21,000
Sunlight View 40 10/76 -
Subdivision 12/80? 6/77 3-3 $17,500 1.16
7/77 4-5 17,500 1.29
9/77 3-4 18,200 1.14
10/77 4-2 16,500 0.63
11/77 4-3 17,900 0.78
3/78 4-1 18,500 0.87
8/78 4-4 17,900 0.86
9/78 4-4 18,200 0.86
10/78 6-7 22,000 0.78
1/79 5-4 22,000 0.94
2/79 5-1 18,700 0.82
3/79 5-5 21,900 0.78
4/79 5-5 19,000 0.78
5/79 6-11 20,500 0.91
6/79 6-5 27,200 0.88
5-3 18,500 0.78
8/79 6-4 26,800 0.79
9/79 5-1 22,000 0.82
10/79 5-6 32,300 2.61
1/80 5-7 34,000 3.17
7/80 6-8 19,000 2.22
Oak Meadows, .#1 17 9/71-
2 28 9/73
3 21 2/77 3-8 $30,000 5.140
66 3/78 3-2 33,000 5.041
3-6 33,000 5.486
6/78 3-1 31,600 5.853
4/79 3-9 34,100 4.326
8/79 3-5 44,300 7.267
1-3 41,200 10.820
10/79 3-6 38,500 5.486
3/80 3-2 47,500 5.041
9/80 3-7 41,000 6.874
2/81 3-4 51,500 8.286
3/81 3-5 57,000 7.267
Total Selling Sales Selling Size
Lots Period Date Block -Lot Price (Acres)
Oak Meadows, 4-V 10/79 16 $24,000
13 20,200
11/79 10 23,700
12/79 16 24,000
5/79 15 20,200
6/80 19 23,700
Cattle Creek 12 ? 7/76 7 $ 6,500 2.65
9/77 2 19,500 4.75
2/78 4 12,000 2.62
2/79 4 15,000 2.62
8/79 3 31,000 4.99
5/80 11 25,000 4.44
Holland Hills 58 12/73- 12/72 47&48 $19,500 0.69
at Basalt 7/79 6/73 58 16,500 0.37
12/73 1 11,000 0.37
9/74 2-12,
14-17 207,000 13.91
38-43,45,
46,49,
52-54 207,500 8.21
7/75 2 30,000 0.80
51 15,000 0.36
8/75 5&6 20,000 0.82
53&54 20,000 0.82
55 20,000 0.41
2/76 9 23,000 0.81
21 23,000 0.81
3/76 15&16 29,000 2.36
4/76 41 13,000 0.78
5/76 11 18,500 2.86
6/76 19 12,000 0.84
7/76 27 12,000 0.82
8/76 16 15,500 1.20
11/76 2 12,200 0.80
38-40,42,
43,45 92,300 4.69
2/77 6 8,000 0.38
4/77 25 18,900 1.19
5/77 46 21,000 1.18
12 20,400 0.61
7/77 20 16,500 0.50
10/77 18 25,000 2.10
11/77 52 15,000 0.40
12/77 22 21,000 0.63
51 16,600 0.36
Total Selling Sales Selling Size
Lots Period Date Block -Lot Price (Acres)
Holland Hills 1/78 5 $20,000 0.44
at Basalt 3/78 47 14,200 0.37
(Continued) 49 14,200 0.32
4/78 36 14,000 0.68
36 21,000 0.68
7/78 52 19,900 0.40
29,000 0.40
8/78 36 30,000 0.68
1/79 44 31,100 0.50
2/79 13 47,500 0.16
14 25,000 0.49
3 25,000 0.80
4 25,000 1.26
8 25,000 1.68
10 25,000 1.13
12 25,000 0.61
56 25,000 0.41
57 25,000 0.37
11/79 44 37,500 0.50
12/79 36 40,000 0.68
2/80 14 25,000 0.49
6/80 20 32,000 0.50
8/80 45 36,000 0.78
Source: Stewart Title and Shlaes & Co.
-i G
, , f
.---
.,.....------ 0--
,
: .
Map
No.
EAGLE COUNTY
RECENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS: MISSOURI HEIGHTS*
Units Approved
Units Constructed
(1/80) Vacant Lots
Established Subdivisions
1 Aspen Mesa 97 33 64
2 Kings Row 6 0 6
3 Los Pinones 9 4 5
4 Mountain Meadows Ranch 37 4 33
5 Red Table Acres 57 35 22
Subtotal 206 76 130
6 Blue Creek 91
7 Aspen Mountain View 76
Subtotal
0
0
91
76
167 0 167
EAGLE COUNTY TOTAL 373 76 297
GARFIELD COUNTY
Established Subdivisions
8 Homestead Estates 28 4 24
2 Kings Row 47 11 36
9 Panorama Ranches 56 0 56
10 Panoramic Mesa 19 16 3
Subtotal 150 31 119
New Subdivisions
11 Cattle Creek Ranch 131 0 131
12 Lake Springs Ranch 195 0 195
Subtotal 326 0 326
GARFIELD COUNTY TOTAL 476 31 445
GRAND TOTAL
*Single-family homesites only
849 107 742
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RECENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS: GLENWOOD SPRINGS AND CARBONDALE
Map Single -Family Cluster Multi -Family Vacant (1/80)
No. Approved Built Approved Built Approved Built Single Cluster Multi.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS
13 Cedar Crest 84 51 0 0 0 0 33 0 0
14 Colorado Midland 0 0 0 0 120 0 0 0 120
15 Four Mile Ranch* 282 0 0 0 88 0 282 0 88
16 Glenwood Park 122 100 0 0 140 66 22 0 74
12 Lake Springs Ranch 195 0 0 0 0 0 195 0 0
17 Mountain Springs 40 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0
18 Oak Meadows 138 31 106 38 0 0 107 68 0
19 Oasis Creek 63 0 47 0 50 0 63 47 50
20 Racquet Club 0 0 0 0 32 12 0 0 20
21 Redcliff 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 0 0
22 Riverview 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 24
23 Sunlight View 40 21 0 0 0 0 19 0 0
24 Vista Heights 30 25 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
25 Westbank Ranch
Filings 1-3 100 77 0 0 0 0 23 0 0
Filing 4 101 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 0
TOTAL 1,195 305 153 38 474 98 890 115 376
CARBONDALE
26 Carbondale South 0 0 140 0 126 60 0 140 66
27 Crystal Village 124 90 150 0 0 0 34 150 0
28 Ranch at
Roaring Fork 92 63 140 100 0 0 29 40 0
29 Roaring Fork
Village
0 0 140 0 125 0 0 140 125
Recent Housing Developments: Glenwood Springs and Carbondale
Page 2
Map Single -Family Cluster Multi -Family Vacant (1/80)
No. Approved Built Approved Built Approved Built Single Cluster Multi.
Carbondale
(continued)
30 Rock Creek 13 4 0 0 0 0 9 0 0
31 St. Finnbar Farm 120 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 0
32 Thompson/Gray
Ranch 350 0 460 0 165 0 350 460 165
TOTAL 699 157 1,030 100 416 60 542 930 356
*PUD ordinance under review, not yet approved