Here’s one hangar home that certainly fits into the elaborate and unusual category. Unfortunately, only the name of the builder, Dan Shaw, was available to us, not the airport location itself. If you know of its actual whereabouts, please be sure to let us know where we can find it.

And, in the case of some real estate professionals, multiple sales were recorded on the same form. For example, one real estate professional indicated the sale of two homes and six lots during the last year. The end result is that it appears we received information on about 35 to 40 transactions.

Our survey was designed to discover whether residential airpark properties were suffering a sales slowdown like much of the residential market in many areas of the country. We also sought information on how long a property had been on the market, how the asking and selling price compared, the price range of the property and whether there were plenty of lookers for the property.At least 20 undeveloped lots were reported sold among the transactions reported. An airpark home with hangar (whether it was integrated into the house or a separate structure), came in second with at least half a dozen sales reported while homes or hangar only sales were considerably less, two in each category.

The purchase price for 28.6 percent of the properties was less than $100,000 and a like percentage reported a price of $100,001 to $200,000. Another quarter of the respondents claimed a transaction at the $200,001 to $350,000 category. Three sales were reported in the $350,001 to $500,000 class, There was one reported sale each at $500,001 to $750,000 and $750,001 to $1 million.

Survey respondents reported the property they were involved with was on the market for longer than a year in just under 40 percent of the cases. In contrast, 32 percent said their properties were listed for less than 3 months. Five properties were listed from 3 to 6 months and another three places were sold in 7 to 12 months.

The survey asked buyers how many properties they had visited before making a deal. Nearly 80 percent of the buyers reported visiting 1 to 5 properties before deciding which one to purchase. Another 16 percent reported visiting more than 10 properties in their search for the perfect residential airpark property.

Financing the purchase was primarily with cash. Eleven survey respondents (58%)reported paying cash for their purchase while almost 37 percent said they used conventional or VA financing. Only one reported the seller financed the deal.

Needless to say, with that high a percentage paying cash, the financing aspect of the deal was extremely simple for most people.

Sellers had a somewhat different view of the number of visitors to their property. Nearly 37% said their property was viewed by 1 to 5 prospects. There were 6 to 10 visitors at 45.5 percent of the airpark properties sold and over 18 percent of those completing the survey as a seller said they had more than 10 visits to study their property.

When the property was sold, there were four equal segments of reductions from the asking price. A quarter of the respondents said they cut the price less than $10,000; a second quarter had to reduce their asking price between $10,000 and $25,000 while a third quarter took a $25,000 – $50,000 markdown. The final group reported slashing the price by more than $100,000 to make the sale.

Although we have no way of knowing one way or another, we assume this larger price cut was related to a home sale at the upper end of the price schedule.

Finally, 45 percent of transactions were made utilizing a real estate professional and 55 percent claimed they did not use a real estate salesperson.

The responses came from Arizona. California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

One Florida individual said it was his opinion that seller prices in his area had dropped about 20 percent. “However, most sellers are not panicking or dropping prices and seem confident things will be moving after the election in November.”

As a result of the survey responses, it appears to us that residential airpark properties – homes with integrated hangars, stand-alone home and free standing hangars – all continue to sell at about the same rate they have been for the last few years. The amount of time on the market and the number of folks checking the properties out also seems to be about the same as previosuly reported. It doesn’t appear that the sub-prime market meltdown has had any effect on the fly-in community.

The number of properties sold and the length of time they stay on the market seems to be more a condition of the number of possible buyers in any particular section of the country rather than anything else. There just aren’t as many individuals looking to buy a home on a residential airpark as they are folks interested in living on a golf course, as a comparison.

For years, Craig Draves and his wife, Becky, flew around the U.S. in their Piper Turbo Lance II. They enjoyed the traveling and flying but not the petty details needing attention to ensure smooth trips.

“Every time we went somewhere there were issues with packing personal belongings, hauling recreational gear, renting ground transportation at the destination, and finding living accommodations while there,” says Draves.

The hassles of traveling once the plane landed, coupled with the frustration of arriving at airports to discover there was no hangar space available for his pride and joy, set Draves to thinking there had to be a better way.

After talking with many pilots — some of whom flew to the same destinations over and over again for business or pleasure — he came up with the idea of condominiums for airplane owners, but with a twist: A hangar with living quarters above, while planes are parked on a floor that moves like a carousel. A company called BCD Development Inc. was created to develop and market the new hangar brand Carousel Condos.

While initially aimed at pilots who want to build a new home on an airpark, or need a home away from home near favorite activities such as skiing or hunting, Draves points out that the condo concept also is a solution to a problem that pilots across the nation are facing: No hangar space.

“In all of our travels, one problem that seemed to be prevalent at every airport we visited was that there were no hangar spaces available, either for transient flyers or for local residents and, in fact, most had a list of local pilots who had been waiting years for a hangar to become available,” he says.

Carousel condominiums can be scaled to fit owners’ precise needs, from hangars that can house four Piper Cubs to massive structures that can hold four Gulfstream GVs, along with 14 other twins and mid-size jets, Draves notes.

The size of the living quarters varies according to the size of the hangar, of course. In the smallest model, 70 feet X 70 feet, the four Cub owners would each get living quarters of about 1,225 square feet. Those Gulfstream owners would get living quarters to match their planes — more than 13,000 square feet each. “That’s a world-class chalet for the most discriminating jet owner/ski buff,” Draves says.

The upper level suites also could be used as offices for an FBO, airport owner, flight school or any other business on an airport, he adds.

ROUND HERE

A key selling point of the condominiums is the rotating carousel floor.

The carousel is moved by a computer-controlled rotational device that places an aircraft or an empty parking spot in front of the main hangar door just by pressing a button on the wall, Draves explains.

“Because a computer controls all aircraft movements within the building, and each movement done by a person is either a straight-line pull out of the hangar or a straight-line push back into the hangar, there is no possibility for hangar rash,” he says. “There also is no need for anyone to touch, move or handle anyone else’s aircraft.”

The hangars require the least amount of land per aircraft stored, require only one hangar door, and need just a small amount of apron for a large number of aircraft, he continues.

Once their planes are parked, condominium owners just need to walk upstairs to “be home.”

“There is no substitute for being able to fly in to a destination, place your aircraft inside your hangar, safe and secure, and go to your own home, with your own furnishings, sleep in your own bed, use your own bathroom and kitchen, without having to unpack the aircraft, carry the stuff to a rented car, and then transfer the belongings to rented living quarters,” Draves says.

Each upper level suite is customized to meet each owner’s preferences, from floor plans and layouts down to what kind of flooring they want.

Draves’ young company recently completed its first proof-of-concept Carousel Condos hangar, at the Mason City Municipal Airport (MCW) in Iowa. One suite is used as a model, while another has been sold to a King Air owner. The other two suites are up for sale.

Building a Carousel Condo involves myriad professional tradesmen, architects, engineers and decorators, according to Draves.

“All of our hangars are built to the building codes and requirements associated with the locale where they are constructed,” he says. “This can range from very strict building codes at municipal airports to not-so-strict building requirements in a rural area where only a county board might have jurisdiction over a private airpark development.”

Construction typically takes about five months, with costs starting around $55 a square foot. Those costs, obviously, vary depending on local building requirements, local labor costs, the size of the structure, and the amenities chosen by the owners, he says.

Draves sees several markets for the condos. The first is people who want to live with their planes at airparks and privately owned airports, especially those close to recreational venues such as skiing, hunting, fishing and golf, where people often have vacation homes. Another target market is snowbirds, who need a second home in Arizona, Florida, Texas or other warm places.

The condos also would be a good fit for commercial operations at publicly funded airports, such as FBOs, corporate flight operations offices, training facilities, avionics repair, etc., he says.

Obviously, he’d like to see Carousel Condos across the country, both at airparks and at airports.

“There are more than 5,000 airports and more than 500 airparks in the U.S. alone,” he said. “It is estimated that over 70% of these airports do not have adequate hangar space to meet the current demand.”

This will only get worse, he says, pointing to the new Light Sport Aircraft and Very Light Jets taking off these days. Owners of those aircraft are going to want “new, innovative aircraft hangars complimentary to these new and innovative aircraft,” he says.

While not everyone is interested in every question raised all issues are of interest to some folks. As I speak at various functions around the country, I hear about the issues and try to answer them at the time.

Recently I started printing these questions in General Aviation News together with my response. I plan to provide these question and answer articles on this blog now as a means of spreading the information further. And, of course, I’m also hoping you will join in the general discussion from your personal perspective.

Here’s the first of the articles:

Question: One of our airpark property owners has his property for sale and the lookers aren’t particularly airplane people, from what I’ve learned. Is this going to be a problem and if so, what do we do about it?

Answer: The sale of residential airpark property to people who don’t fly can certainly become a problem for the association. Even if the deed restrictions point out that the property is part of a fly-in community, non aviation people buying in often ignore the rules about runway access, complain about airplane noise, and ultimately, some refuse to pay the homeowner association assessments to maintain and upgrade the runway and taxiway facilities.

There have been a number of lawsuits over this issue and to our knowledge, most have been decided in favor of the airpark operations. Unfortunately, even when the fly-in community wins the lawsuit, the legal fees and court costs can be considerable.

Having rules and regulations forbidding an individual from selling to a non-aviation oriented person probably wouldn’t stand a legal challenge. It seems like that’s discrimination against the prospective buyer as well as hindering a property owner from the free exercise of his property rights.

So, with few really good solutions I suggest:

• Make sure the CC&Rs clearly spell out the requirements for property owners to be part of any airpark homeowners association and be required to pay their share of dues and assessments approved by the association under its existing rules.
• Encourage property owners to search for aviation oriented buyers when they decide to sell.
• Enforce the CC&Rs in all aspects and be sure they are done so in an equal and impartial manner
• If it comes down to a disagreement, make sure you have good legal counsel. This isn’t an area where you want to try getting by without legal advice.

Do have issues that you’d like me to address? E-mail your question. Please don’t call with a question. I can only take them by e-mail. Be sure to include your e-mail and phone number in case I need clarification on your question.