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