Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-05-19 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1987 2:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Ramshorn Condominium Restrictions 2. RETT Projects for 1987 3. Information Update 4. Other 5. Adjourn VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1987 2:00 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 2:00 1. Ramshorn Condominium Restrictions Kristan Pritz Action Requested of Council: Review and make recommendations on the applicants request to modify the use restrictions concerning condominium conversions. Review will not require a final decision as a change to the condo conversion requirements will require an amendment to the subdivision regulations (PEC & Council Review). Background Rationale: The applicants, Mr. David Garton and Mr. Tim Garton request to remove the two week use restrictions during high seasons for all condominiumized lodges with the conditions that the units are placed in the short-term rental pool when not being used by the owners and that the units are not used as primary residences. They also propose to furnish the unsold condominiums and place _ the units into the short term rental pool until the condos are sold. The applicants are also willing to propose the amendment as a sunset law which means that the amendment would be reviewed in 1 to 2 years for its appropriateness to the community. Staff Recommendation: Change the winter high season from (December 15th to April 15th) to (December 18th to March 20th) and summer high season from (June 15th to September 15th) to (June 19th to September llth). The use restriction is changed from 2 weeks to 4 weeks per high season. 2:30 2. RETT Projects for 1987 Charlie Wick Kristan Pritz Action Requested of Council: Staff needs direction on which projects the Council would like to proceed with and their priority order. Background Rationale: RETT Capital Projects: Follow-up with Council on RETT Capital Projects to be funded through the Real Estate Transfer Tax. At the last Council meeting in March, Council directed staff to put together cost estimates on a number of high priority RETT capital projects. These are outlined on the enclosed memo. Staff Recommendation: Proceed with all plan development and , final designs as outlined and selected/prioritized construction projects. 3:00 3. Information Update Ron Phillips 3:05 4. Other 3:10 5. Adjourn TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 19, 1987 SUBJECT: Request to modify the use restriction on the Ramshorn Condominiums which limits owner useage to two weeks in the winter and two weeks in the summer high - seasons. Applicants: Mr. David Garton and Mr. Tim Garton I. THE REQUEST The applicants are requesting to modify the use restriction on an owner's useage of Ramshorn condominiums. Presently, Section 17.26.075 A.1 of the Subdivision Regulations concerning condominium conversion states: "An owner's personal use of his unit shall be restricted to 14 days during the seasonal periods of December 15 through April 15 and 14 days during June 15 through September 15. This seasonal period is hereinafter referred to as "high season." "Owner's personal use" shall be defined as owner occupancy of a unit or a nonpaying guest of the owner or taking the unit off the rental market during the seasonal periods referred to herein for any reason other than necessary repairs which cannot be postponed or which make the unit unrentable..." This ordinance was adopted in August 1982. The applicants are requesting that: 1. The owner's personal use restriction be removed completely from the condominium conversion section of the Subdivision Regulations. 2. A restriction be placed on the lodge units that are converted to condominiums so that the units may not be used as permanent residences. 3. Unsold condominiums would be required to be furnished and placed in the open market rental program until sold. 4. Condominium owners would be required to place their units into a rental pool when not being used by the owner. This requirement is already addressed in the code through Section 17.26.075C: The converted condominium units shall remain available to the general tourist market. This condition may_ be met by inclusion of the units c of the condominium project at comparable rates in any local reservation system for the rental of lodge or condominium units in the Town. 5. This change to the use restriction could be considered as a"sunset amendment." As an example, the change in the ordinance could be reviewed in one to two years to determine if the amendment is still appropriate. If the amendment is deemed - inappropriate to the Town's economy, the ordinance would be revised. The applicants have provided the following reasons as to why the request is warranted: 1. It appears to be accepted that condominiums in the core areas are desirable if: a. They are rented out when the owner is not using them b. They are rented or lived in short term (not used as a primary residence) 2. It is very unlikely that anyone would live full time in a core area condominium because it is economically unfeasible. The Lifthouse Lodge has 45 studio condominiums. The units have sold at prices between $20,000 and $100,000. No owners have ever lived there. No one has ever rented long term through the winter. 43 of the 45 owners voluntarily rent short term. (Please see the letter from the applicants for further information on Ramshorn condominium prices. II. BACKGROUND ON THE REQUEST March 24, 1987 Town Council Work Session The Council first reviewed this request on March 24, 1987. The original request was to change the use restriction for the Ramshorn Condominiums from two weeks during the winter and summer high seasons to eight weeks. The applicants proposed that owners be obligated to put their units on the open rental market when the units were not being used. It was also proposed that unsold condominiunms would be furnished and put into the rental pool. The staff's position was that a four week owner use restriction be used during the winter and summer high seasons along with the rental obligation and furnishing of unsold condominiums for the rental pool. -2- The Council requested that the staff provide information on numbers of accommodation units and amenities associated with Vail lodges. The Council's opinion was that perhaps it might be feasible to remove the use restriction for only small lodges. April 21, 1987 Town Council Work Session At the April 21st meeting, the staff presented the research results which listed 20 lodges throughout the Village and Lionshead. The numbers of accommodation units per lodge ranged from the Plaza Lodge having 10 accomoda- - tion units to the Marriott Mark with 284 accommodation units. There was a natural division between small and large lodges so that lodges having 10 to 37 accommodation units were considered to be small, and lodges having 38 or more accommodation units were considered to be large. 45% of the total number of lodges fell into the category of a small lodge (10 - 37 units). 18% of,the total number of accommodation units are in small lodges (261 accommodation units out of 1,419 total units). Please see the attached chart. The applicants presented a revised proposal which called for removing the owner use restriction entirely, with the conditions that the units not be used as primary residences, units not being used by the owner would be placed in a short term rental program, and unsold units would be furnished and put into the short term rental pool. This amendment would apply to all lodge conversions. The staff position remained the same and allowed for 4 weeks for each of the winter and summer seasons. Also, it was recommended that the use restriction change be applied to all properties. The Town Council made the following general comments on the use restriction: 1. The short term rental rates of the units should be at market rates when they are not used by the owner. 2. The furnishing and renting of unsold units is important. 3. No owner use restriction is probably reasonable as long as the owner would not be allowed to use the unit as a primary residence. 4. It was mentioned that the upgrading of the lodge is more feasible if there are not separate ownerships. -3- Aspen was cited as a community that had previously ' had some difficulty in upgrading lodge units and that we should not try to discourage a lodge owner from upgrading the property. 5. In general, it seemed that the Council felt that lifting the use restriction was reasonable as long as the units would be short termed when not used by the owner and that the owner would not use the owner as a primary residence. - III. STAFF RESEARCH The staff contacted several planning offices in ski towns to find out what type of restrictions these communities had on lodges being converted to condominium projects. Below is a list of the communities that were contacted: l. Steamboat Springs: Planner Mr. Jim Ferro Steamboat Springs has no similar use restriction. Basically, the market decides how the units will be managed. Their biggest concern is with parking when lodges convert to condo projects. Their opinion is that short term use requires less parking than long term occupancy. Recently, a lodge was condominiumized with the condition that a deed restriction be included that limited long term occupancy to 30 days. This use restriction was due to the concern that long term occupancy tends to increase parking requirements. 2. Telluride: Planner Mr. Bob Matatall Telluride has no restrictions on coverting lodges to condominiums. Most of their units are condominiums and are short term. He stated that out of 3,300 "pillows," 2500 "pillows" are located in condominium projects. Telluride has only two hotels and several bed and breakfasts that are completely short term development. Telluride appears to have a problem with not enough lodges and a glut of condominiums. 3. Aspen: Planner Mr. Steve Burstyn Aspen has the use restriction of 14 days during the period of December 18 to March 20. They do not have any restriction during the summertime. In order to amend the use restriction, Aspen requires an amendment to the ordinance so that the change is for all lodges. One time share owner requested that the -4- regulations be relaxed concerning restrictions on marketing and the composition of the use packages offered to potential owners. This request was granted, as Aspen felt that it was better to loosen up the restrictions than to have the project fail. 4. Crested Butte: Town Mana er Mr. Bill Crank Crested Butte has no special use regulations. 5. Breckenridge: Director of Plannin Mr. John Hum hreys - Breckenrige has no use restrictions. 6. Park City, Utah: Planner Ms. Suzanne Macintyre Park City has no special requirements governing the conversion of lodges to condominiums. 7. Snowmass: Planner Sally Vecchio; Town Mana er 5nowmass has no regulations governing use restrictions. From this research, Aspen and Vail are the only ski towns that have restrictions on the owner's use of lodge units that are converted to condominiums. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff's recommendation is that the use restriction be 4 weeks during the period of December 18th to March 20th and 4 weeks during the period of June 19 to September 11. This slight change in the high season periods frees up an additional four unrestricted weeks in the winter and one additional week of unrestricted use in the summer time. Staff agrees with the applicant that when the units are not being used by the owner, they should be available through a short term rental program. However, this issue is already addressed through the existing conversion ordinance. Staff also agrees with the applicant that the ordinance should require that units are furnished and rented even before the units are sold so that units do not remain vacant and unused. Our recommendation has remained essentially the same, due to the following reasons: l. The Vail Resort Association is primarily-responsible for the short term booking of units for guests who visit Vail. According to their figures, 1,470 accommodation rentals are available for short term rental. 1,764 condominium units are available for short term rentals. In other words, 45% of the units - 5- available for short term rentals are accommodation units. To eliminate the use restrictions entirely could have negative impacts on the short term booking ability of Vail Resort Association, particularly during Vail's high seasons. Staff would like to discuss the use change with Mr. David Kanally to understand VRA's position on the request. 2. The Town is initiating a study on the potential of a - Congress Hall. Recently, the consulting firm of Economics Research Associates (ERA) was chosen to do the market analysis for the project. Staff discussed the proposed use restriction change with the consultant. ERA,stated that the study would be evaluating Vail's assets and liabilities in respect to a Congress Hall. In determining whether a Congress Hall is feasible for a community, it is important to know the amount of commitable short term accommodation units available in the community. In general, the consultant stated that the more traditional stable short term lodge bed base was an attractive asset for a Congress Hall facility. However, the consultant is only beginning research on the Congress Hall project, and it is clearly too early to make any absolute statements as to how the change in the use restriction would affect the feasibility of a Congress Hall. The consultant plans on presenting a preliminary report to the Council within approximately six weeks. It is felt that this report may be able to shed some light on the issue of how important short term accommodation units are to Vail's tourist economy as well as the feasibility of the Congress Hall project. It is staff's opinion that it would be prudent to review this preliminary report before making any final decision on this issue. 3. Several policy planning documents have indicated that preserving the short term bed base is an important goal for our community. The adopted Land Use Plan states that: 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionhead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. - 6- r:. . , . „ , . F Although the Vail Village Master Plan has not received final approval, the draft policy statements indicate the same concern for preserving the short term bed base. The draft document has received support at public meetings and several Town Council and Planning Commission review sessions. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and to - promote year-around economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. Objective #3. To increase the number of residential units throughout the Village area available for short-term overnight accommodations. Policy: The development of accommodation units are strongly encouraged. Any residential units that are developed above existing density levels shall be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short-term rental. 4. The applicants have stated that, "It is very unlikely that anyone would live full time in a core area condominium--because it is economically unfeasible." Staff's opinion is that it is important to look at all the lodges throughout the community and not just focus on lodges immediately in the core areas. The Vail Resort Association lists many accommodation units that are available for short term rentals which are located in projects outside of the core areas. The Raintree Inn (97 a.u.'s) and Best Western Vail Glo (34 a.u.'s) are examples of projects that are perhaps feasible to convert to con- dominiums. It is also questionable as to what the future market conditions will be which could affect whether or not people live full time in converted condominiums regardless of where the units are located. 5. Staff research investigated a variety of ski economies. Aspen is the closest comparison to Vail as far as being an economy that is very tourism oriented. Even though Aspen does not have the summer use restriction, staff recommends that the use restriction be applied to the summer season, as our community has been trying to improve Vail as a year- around resort. The summer season is important to achieving a year-around resort. -7- 6. As was stated in a previous memo, this ordinance does make it somewhat difficult to convert lodge rooms to condominiums. Staff agrees with the applicant that the use patterns have changed in resort communities today as far as how long condominium owners wish to use their units. Some of this change is due to the fact that resort communities no longer have such a speculative market. Those people who actually buy - condominiums tend to want to use them more frequently, as they are not buying them solely for investment purposes. Due to this change, staff feels that it is reasonable to increase the use from two weeks to four weeks per high season. Given these reasons, staff prefers to maintain our previous position which advocated the four week use restriction. The slight changes to the high season periods also provide some additional flexibiilty to the ordinance. V. DECISION MAKING PROCESS Under the condominium conversion ordinance, the Council has the responsibility for reviewing any requests to modify the conditions of the conversion of the lodge. The Community Development Department and the Town Attorney recommend that an overall change be made to the entire ordinance that would apply to all properties rather than modifying the conversion conditions for a specific lodge.. If the applicants wish to proceed with an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations, the request would be reviewed by the Planning Commission which would make a recommendation to the Town Council on the amendment. The Town Council would review the proposed amendment as an ordinance at a first and second reading. -8- %r Luubt nuun iNVtniuHr . Condo conversion research March 26,1981 . ~ AMENITIES LOOGE LOCATION A.U.'S conf. pools rest. 6ar retail spas tennis ~.i flaza lodge Village 10 X X X X Gasthof 6ramshammer Village 22 X X X Christiania Village 2b X X X X , Park Meadows Cascade ?B ' Athletic Cluh Village 31 X X X X , 1( Vail Glo Lionshead 34 x X 5itzmark Village 34 X X X X X Tivoli Village 38 X 1! X - `;,r 5annanalp(Austrian) Village 38 X X X Jf X ni~a n ionSfieaa" 52 ,t µail Village Inn Village 52 % 1l X X l{ X Sonnanalp(5Hiss) Village 59 X % X X X % Lodge at Vail Village 52 X N X X X X ~ The Roost West Vail 14 X X g Sonnanalp(6avarian) Village 80 X 1( X X X X r Raintree West Vail 94 X % X X X X . Holiday 1nn Village 120 X % X X X , ~ Doubletree Village 128 % % X X X X ' O1 Westin Cascade 153 X X X X X X X ~j.hlarriatt Mark lionshead 284 X X X X X X X 1419 > APPRDVED BUT UWBUILT PFDJECTS Vai] Village Inn Village 123 Westin Cascade 142 V Doubletree Village 92 ~ ---1776 : SOURCE: Town of Vail Development Statistics, the Vail Village Plan, Community Development files, and intervieNS Mith lodge operator5 NOTES: A1 Inventory includes lodge rooms(a.u.'s) only. Dwelling units and condominiums managed by a facilituy are not included B) Condominiumization of the Enzian Lodge has 6een approved by the Planning CoamiSSion ~ , 1 s~ i ' ~ ~ towoo ofi uai ~ 75 south frontage road MEMORANDUM vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 TO: Ron Phillips FROM: Charlie Wick, Kristan Pritz DATE: May 13, 1987 RE: Project Update: Unfinished Projects to be Funded Through -the Real Estate Transfer Tax 'At the last Council meeting in March, Council directed staff to put together formal cost estimates on the following unfinished RETT Capital projects. These costs are conservative (high side). PHASE/PROJECT COSTS Plan Development: Path/Trails System Plan $ 38,036 Landscaping Plan 20,829 Total $ 58,865 Final Designs Buffehr Creek Park $ 3,760 Sandstone Park 2,900 Bighorn Park 7,920 Ford Park 1(excl. skating design 30,000 1b 12,200 lc 7,000 TOTAL $ 63,780 Construction Ford Park - Three Phases 1-Playfield, Picnic, Site Imp. $370,277 1b-Children's Play Area 103,536 lc-Nature Area 60,000 Total Ford $533,813 Buffehr Park $ 51,216 Bighorn Park (excludes dredging) 55,860 Sandstone Park 57,450 Total $164,526 GRAND TOTAL $820,984 (PHASE/PROJECT SUMMARY on reverse side) PHASE/PROJECT SUMMARY PLAN DEVELOPMENT Path/Trails S_ystem includes trail inventory and analysis, construction feasibility, preliminary design and construction cost estimate, trail prioritization and trail guidelines. Landscaping includes public meetings, design development and graphics, construction cost estimates and optional landscape guidelines. FINAL DESIGN Buffehr Creek Park includes conceptual design, grading and irrigation plans. Sandstone Park includes restroom location/site design and landscape/play equipment plans. Bighorn Park includes restroom design, restroom construction drawings, restroom location/site design and landscape/re- vegetation plans. Ford Park includes conceptual design, grading, landscaping/ re-vegetation and play equipment plans. CONSTRUCTION Ford Park Phase 1 includes grading of entire lower bench, rock placement, asphalt service road, picnic area, utilities, retaining walls, landscaping, revegetation, path, informal playfield. Skating pond omitted ($150,000). Ford Park Phase 1b includes complete play area facility. Ford Park Phase 1c Nature Center includes pedestrian bridge, deck improvements and path completion. Buffehr Park includes grading, adding topsoil, finish grading, landscaping, irrigation system ($28,536). No restrooms. Bighorn Park includes restrooms ($28,800 plus $10,950 tap fees), children's wading pond, picnic tables/grills, pond inlet/outlet, playground and equipment, stream improvements, drinking fountain, landscaping. Sandstone Park includes restrooms ($28,800 plus $10,950 tap fees), new playground equipment, landscaping. CRW/ds