Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-1028 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on October 28, 1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a setback variance for a bedroom addition and a garage addition, located at 2704 Larkspur Court/Lot 5, Block 3, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Craig McCully Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request to amend Section 18.26.040 of the Vail Municipal Code to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time share license units" as a conditional use in Commercial Core 11, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc, represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther A request for a common area variance and a site coverage variance to allow for the conversion of one interior parking space to common area, located at 200 Vail Road/Part of Lots A, B and C, Block 50, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Lodge Tower Condominium Association, represented by Stan Cope Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vail Religious Foundation, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a sign variance to allow for a frQestanding sign for a business in a multi-tenant building, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive/Mountain Haus. Applicant: Leslie and James Glendining Planner: Dirk Mason A request for a sign variance to allow for a window sign greater than 25 feet above grade and to allow 0.94 square feet of sign area beyond what is allowed, located at Crossroads Shopping Center, 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot R, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Linda Fried Planner: Dirk Mason A request for a minor amendment to SDD # 5 and a conditional use permit to allow for the addition of conference space, located at 1100 N. Frontage Road/SDD #5, Simba Run Building. Applicant: Simba Run Condominium Assoc., represented by Lynn Fritzlen Planner: Dominic Mauriello 11 A request for a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi-family, and a request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the development of 17 EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # 1 Applicants: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, the U.S. Forest Service and the Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding a 3rd floor, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 802B Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome Planner: Dominic Mauriello A discussion item regarding vehicle storage/transportation related businesses in Commercial Zone Districts. Planner: Dominic Mauriello The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published October 11, 1996 in the Vail Trail. • 0 Agenda last revised 10/21/96 3pm PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, October 28, 1996 AGENDA Prolect Orientation / Lunch - Communitv Development Deoartment 11:00 am QUORUM - (November 11, 1996) Site Visits 12:30 pm 1. Simba Run Building - 1100 N. Frontage Road 2. McCully - 2704 Larkspur Court 3. Lodge Tower - 200 Vail Road 4. Mountain Haus - 292 E. Meadow Drive 5. Red Sandstone - a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing #1 Driver: George Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding a 3rd floor, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 802B Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. • Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome Planner: Dominic Mauriello 2. A request for a sign variance to allow for a freestanding sign for an individual business in a multi-tenant building, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive/Mountain Haus. Applicant: Leslie and James Glendining Planner: Dirk Mason 3. A request for a common area variance and a site coverage variance to allow for the conversion of one interior parking space to common area, located at 200 Vail Road/Part of Lots A, B and C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Lodge Tower Condominium Association, represented by Stan Cope Planner: Dominic Mauriello 4. A request for a minor amendment to SDD # 5 and a conditional use permit to allow for the addition of conference space, located at 1100 N. Frontage Road/SDD #5, Simba Run Building. Applicant: Simba Run Condominium Assoc., represented by Lynn Fritzlen Planner: Dominic Mauriello 5. A request for a setback variance for a garage addition, located at 2704 Larkspur Court/Lot 5, Block 3, Vail Intermountain. • Applicant: Craig McCully Planner: Dominic Mauriello Agenda last revised 10/21/96 3pm 6. A request to amend Section 18.26.040 of the Vail Municipal Code to add "time-share estate • units, fractional fee units and time share license units" as a conditional use in Commercial Core II. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc, represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther 7. A request for a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi-family, and a request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the development of 17 EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # 1. Applicants: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, the U.S. Forest Service & the Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen 8. A discussion item regarding vehicle storage/transportation related businesses in commercial zone districts. Planner: Dominic Mauriello 9. A request for a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vail Religious Foundation, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 11, 1996 • 10. A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for a modification to Savoy Villas, of SDD #5, located at 1230 Lionsridge Loop/Savoy Villas, Phase II and III. The site is generally located east of Timber Ridge Apartments, west of Simba Run, north of the North Frontage Road and south of Lionsridge Loop. A full legal description is available in the Community Development Department. Applicant: SWAB, Inc., represented by Chris Klein Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 11, 1996 11. A request for a major exterior alteration in the CCII zone district, to add common area, located at 710 West Lionshead Circle/Part of Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Vail Spa Condominium Association Planner: Dirk Mason WITHDRAWN 12. A request for a sign variance to allow for a window sign greater than 25 feet above grade and to allow 0.94 square feet of sign area beyond what is allowed, located at Crossroads Shopping Center, 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot R, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Linda Fried Planner: Dirk Mason • WITHDRAWN Agenda last revised 10/21/96 3pm 013. A request for a residential addition to allow for the addition of two gas fireplaces, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 332 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 6, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: Bruce and Marcy Benson Planner: Dirk Mason WITHDRAWN 14. Information Update: /////////// Vail Tomorrow - see letter in packet. 15. Approval of October 14, 1999 minutes The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published October 25, 1996 in the Vail Trail. • 0 Agenda last revised 10/29/96 9am PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, October 28, 1996 FINAL AGENDA Proiect Orientation / Lunch - Communitv Development Deoartment QUORUM - (November 11, 1996) Site Visits 1. Simba Run Building - 1100 N. Frontage Road 2. McCully - 2704 Larkspur Court 3. Lodge Tower - 200 Vail Road 4. Mountain Haus - 292 E. Meadow Drive 5. Red Sandstone - a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing #1 Driver: George Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 11:00 am 12:30 pm 2:00 p.m. A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding a 3rd floor, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 802B Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. • Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH NO CONDITIONS 2. A request for a sign variance to allow for a freestanding sign for an individual business in a multi-tenant building, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive/Mountain Haus. Applicant: Leslie and James Glendining Planner: Dirk Mason MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH FOUR CONDITIONS 3. A request for a common area variance and a site coverage variance to allow for the conversion of one interior parking space to common area, located at 200 Vail Road/Part of Lots A, B and C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Lodge Tower Condominium Association, represented by Stan Cope Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION 0 Agenda last revised 10/29/96 gam 4. A request for a minor amendment to SDD # 5 and a conditional use permit to allow for the addition of conference space, located at 1100 N. Frontage Road/SDD #5, Simba Run Building • 5 6. Applicant: Simba Run Condominium Assoc., represented by Lynn Fritzlen Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-C TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 11, 1996 A request for a setback variance for a garage addition, located at 2704 Larkspur Court/Lot 5, Block 3, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Craig McCully Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH SIX CONDITIONS A request to amend Section 18.26.040 of the Vail Municipal Code to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time share license units" as a conditional use in Commercial Core II. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc, represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 7. A request for a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi-family, and a request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the development of 17 EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # 1. Applicants: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, the U.S. Forest Service & the Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 4-2 (Galen Aasland, Greg Amsden voted against) APPROVED WITH TWO CONDITIONS 8 9 A discussion item regarding vehicle storage/transportation related businesses in commercial zone districts. Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vail Religious Foundation, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 11, 1996 • 0 Agenda last revised 10/29/96 gam 10. A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for a modification to Savoy Villas, of SDD #5, located at 1230 Lionsridge Loop/Savoy Villas, Phase II and 111. The site is generally located east of Timber Ridge Apartments, west of Simba Run, north of the North Frontage Road and south of Lionsridge Loop. A full legal description is available in the Community Development Department. Applicant: BWAB, Inc., represented by Chris Klein Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 11, 1996 11. A request for a major exterior alteration in the CCh zone district, to add common area, located at 710 West Lionshead Circle/Part of Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Vail Spa Condominium Association Planner: Dirk Mason WITHDRAWN 12. A request for a sign variance to allow for a window sign greater than 25 feet above grade and to allow 0.94 square feet of sign area beyond what is allowed, located at Crossroads Shopping Center, 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot R, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Linda Fried Planner: Dirk Mason 0 WITHDRAWN 13. A request for a residential addition to allow for the addition of two gas fireplaces, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 332 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 6, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: Bruce and Marcy Benson Planner: Dirk Mason WITHDRAWN 14. Information Update: Vail Tomorrow - see letter in packet. 15. Approval of October 14, 1999 minutes The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published October 25, 1996 in the Vail Trail. 0 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 28, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding a 3rd floor, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 802B Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Padriac Deighan and Birgit Toome, represented by Steve Riden Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created Chapter (18.71) of the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." This Chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to be added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. The purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwellings units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by permitting up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit. In August 1995, the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995 which amended • Chapter 18.71, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling unit is "demo/rebuilt." This Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. With this proposal, the applicant is requesting to add 218 sq. ft. of GRFA to an existing secondary unit in a primary/secondary structure, located at 802 B Potato Patch Drive. The proposal utilizes 150.2 sq. ft. of the 250 sq. ft. GRFA allowance to enlarge an existing living room and add a pantry on the main living level, and to add a third floor level. The third floor level will be comprised of a master bedroom suite and a study. The applicant is also proposing to add a third story deck which would be accessed from the third level study. The previously proposed roof-top deck is no longer proposed. The proposed deck is at the same elevation as the third story of the home and is visible only from the east and partially from the south. The building height for this proposal was based on topographic information provided on a 1980 site plan. During the construction of this duplex up to 4.7' of fill was added to the site which raised the height of the structure. The increase in fill added 2.5' to the building height on Unit B (Deighan unit) and 4.7' to Unit A. The existing building height for Unit B is 27.2' based on a 1996 survey and the original topographic information. At the September 9, 1996 meeting, the PEC reviewed this proposal. The item was tabled so that the applicant could address concerns raised by the PEC members. These concerns included the issue of landscaping on-site and the appropriateness and compatibility of the roof deck with the neighborhood. The applicant has provided a landscape plan and has removed the roof deck. 0 1 The landscape plan provides 25 new Aspens and 5 new Ponderosa Pines along the west side of this structure as well as additional annuals and ground cover. Staff believes the proposed revisions adequately address the concerns raised by the PEC. • II. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 15,996 square feet Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Hazards: None Rowed/Required Existna Rgoosed Remaininq GRFA: 4,699.6 sq. ft. 3,359.9 sq.ft. 3,939.8 sq. ft. 759.8 sq. ft. (primary use only) Primary: N/A 1,975 sq. ft. N/A 759.8 sq. ft. Secondary: 1,964.8 sq. ft. w/250: 2,214.8 sq. ft. 1,384.9 sq. ft. 2,115 sq. ft. 99.8 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 3,199 sq. ft. 3,310 sq.ft. 3,300 sq.ft. None (20%) (20.69%) (20.63%) Height: 33' 27.2'" 32' N/A Landscaping: 9,598 sq. ft. 10,715 sq.ft. No change N/A (600% min.) (67%) Parking: 5 spaces 6 spaces 6 spaces N/A Notes: 1) The existing roof overhang is nonconforming since it extends 6' into the side setback (4' is allowed). • 2) The property is currently nonconforming with regards to site coverage, and the applicant is proposing a 10 sq.ft. reduction in site coverage. 3) 'Per survey dated 6/4/96. 111. CRITERIA AND FINDING$ Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect upon the existing tocogmphhv. vegetation. drainage and existt structures. The proposal will have minimal impact upon existing topography and vegetation as the bulk of the improvements are within the existing building envelope. Portions of a deck protrude outside the building envelope but will have only minor impacts upon the site. The proposal includes a landscape plan which improves the overall quality of the area. • 2 A 2. IMpapt on adiacent procerties. • The additional height should not adversely affect views, light or air enjoyed by adjacent structures. Staff believes that the proposed addition will not have a significant impact on adjacent properties. 3. Compliance with the Town's zonina requirements and applicable development standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, requires that any dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to meet the minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 18.71, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing single family or two family dwelling and site, including landscaping, to determine whether they comply with the Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. Upon inspection of the site by staff, we find that the property is generally in compliance with the applicable development standards listed above. However, a portion of the landscaping located on the west side of the structure exhibits a lower level of maintenance than the remainder of the site. The proposed landscape plan should correct this situation. Additionally, all exterior lights are fully cut-off and conform to the current limit on the number of fixtures allowed. The driveway is paved and all • utilities are below ground. B. Findinos: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. 3 t IV. RTAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for • 150.2 square feet of additional GRFA under the 250 ordinance subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. F.%everyone\peclrnemoskleighan.o28 • • 4 Lfl. ?.ala?r w N•la ? tillr y , ---PCTAtc-PALM 1 CRIVS w? / .. ',, u LAW tLo SAW -- ?r LAXWCAFI LIOEND ,?„?? G *to Ia e w• / N10 ?5 flew 5 new P?naa-o5? P,?es -0a IORr ALL MOM UfLI711111. •IAf>/1.AI• IWJllW a7L 10 Ir111L ALL L 70 FORM Il1.N INN -46 - ALL Aalr OOIiAfflO N fAY11 IM AR i on . „ bA NM LIF NO a11. -A• IOar LIO IWa11R M ?IANI. / N YMAM w W.fla M M WLT WAM. NO IAfal 77gwa NYIOI? fOAI W on fall APRIL Mmm un .' PIM 7a . A171f,M. /fII 7.a Well as 7! fa•IImCf1N fT 7NN -mm W na At1AA AA! AlIiM1t. L N • ?? \ p M frwr Irrw. Ir._ y .? \ Q Tr• _A IYnY stall r rrlr 11 row t IA aw U. m, ./ M. MIL Irlru rA NiN. . w tl n 1 N , - 11 . 1.If.l.W.r...O.A..aA. MI 6- al"s .r111... -to . rll /A ..w Wei rl. 1..Irr/r0I.IM.ffr " Ilk I Y Y? a ? if . w Irr f1N.? ? l lr A 1 JA • W _ .r11 ...rr .lYmlw lira /Y. .IIrW w.Mlr / fm a AI/ .Iwi 1 d. .l.If r , IrA rl1 r.l I..a as I.f Rlr r ? / Mr 6 YI far _tb ri, Hial, 1.r ralr i rI1. rr? r r r a.? - / ha.am fl/ lr r . A.Mf M Iwr ?Nr.Arrwla iall ?Vrl/IrW rw r_u r fair WI. w.Irlr r. f &.41. rr ._.., / X Rr..d..w_kb m?./?1.. a1... All rl_.r f r / a . r . YI rf? *all r W r A w PIw 11.1 rar.l. r W ._A1p M../ w11rf1_ r 11.41•. M119- .W I L N..A.w wlr r rur r f1. / ?•A IM M 7 Ir.Ar...f. All ~law r.r r.ll r _IW] / J ra MR..rw N. r ra Al rIrNw.1.11N We". _ .f.....A -1...rNlr M fr .M M !• ? N NI .\.. Mrar uaw aril Iwl_ ol. 1..1..11_ . alww.IY..?.N_ w? Ylr N_a_I.f1.I. WIIr A // V A w al 1.rr fir Mw nM _A wA .ItY U...11. W. la.1,01 _ .Ir.. A-1 aftw f..fu ® W r 11r w _Irl.. ® -1. 1 Prr.l.l. pIMI.s id. .w .L. t >T rl. Lrf.,. J_4. -. rl. A_IAw.YrW aw 1.1_/ rI. M A ?M .yam ^ t M F W M (h fll A? S W H . lT?lr --a-I :71-L aw 1? w fL Iw A. 4 a Iw " Al SITE DEVELOPMENT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN .,.... ?\ J% w rr e? V ; w'Ri ! ? I slue 13 t OW -12 L . ?o - i r I i ?-? ? - Ilt [ ?•-?r - I -7 ? p I + mms I I II i ? I I t .nsi ? ? a ;flum J 9 rae . Lr• w i? M r rr mr. • rw or. 4 LOVER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (EXISTING) MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN M •w 1 .40 A ? i w h A i0 04 W ? Q $ W F !Rnnnvr Tm sa r w. idea a. a .r w rw ? A2 • • t ?M 3 t ? `i • • •rsl.rrr• rl no - ASSM na? •. a rw •. r • r • m • wna• a SSW aR • u r •'r a • ¦m • •r ? a *or Pow .? .. wst rw • w n • r a•e w x w ? r Lr r -rw rip 0 0 M a ••?• • aw•• aw, rAr .• e•`s?.sw •? A r.7.17 r•.ra M • Asw +ry ?• D r w ..^4 • .r• i • err+ w o r?w+r ruw uMjt ? r ?T rasss ?~ Ar?-0 ar ? • aa>_ • •w . m ar rfr-0 i??a i i w A rrrw ? r o rws• u wr ao r•w? omwAgr •rw o rips' a I ? S •? •Is IY Ma•ar. aR }- ? ¦r ora'.rar rrwwN n i r ? ? w+y' s sr Is Par arlin w low Mr dmjw ? I rj M7 0 -91" em.w , I'Lips v •r MAIN urn P-MR em it 1 S @am I i/ a" CILM 1 0. --mew ? 1 I / a - - r- ria ? ae ar ae r 1 rl,al x_ Ism ® ? , 1 r•• M711 O ? . j l/riR rOlm1 ® I ? ? °? i ' • $ e. r ? I s_ sAu _ ? .•{yip 1 ??? ?------ - n M M ?•? • e-s• •? w T./ rhA mMUw uw wo am GAIG-4 wa. w UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN S/41. 1--&' 114• . V -0. ?IINr rAl :wm Moro" "UK 11 e W O M A$ W H PAW" MWIllcir a•-?1-.1f i4? j art JN Ml IA N• 1 of w M of no a. A3 u I .m.. . ? . rum F . - ---- ` man t.a Me - - 1?--- k ' I BUILDING SECTION A If*-. V b- u t t L II i L rim ua Raw 1 BUILDING SECTION B in• . P-6. .r . m,r.a ?. n.asr ? t MW LIM Rom fir' M O "S+ M h a Q 0 Q o W x H LEMMA, mr,w ? e r ,w s BUILDING SECTION C BUILDING SECTION D A vv . Pe• A ip• . r d r? -.Rim &"--W -+------ i ------ - ------ --- --- ©------ ---------- -_-IWLWA1 ---- Now. • - M u ° ca a A WAM-, T WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION- .Mar ow Au. odn"s m 084M 'li n 0 - 14 ® C _ Q Mum LIOL NORTH ELEVATION 11.• . 1, -0• O Q o W x H ??Tir av a.r ?aia•w s ?a•w a . a n. s L? LAWN. Us NU16" ?i .row or= EAST ELEVATION ?.?' A5 ?? 1 va• . P -a' Greg Moffet agreed with John's comments. Greg Amsden made a motion for approval per the staff recommendation, as stated in the staff • memo. The motion was seconded by Henry Pratt. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 2. A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and to add a 3rd floor, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 8026 Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the request. He stated that the applicant wished to bring portions of the roof up to 30' and the sloping portions up to 32'. A concern with the neighbors regarding this application was the general maintenance of the property and the architectural compatibility with the neighborhood. Staff was recommending approval with one additional condition. The applicant did not have the consent from the other owner for improvements on the common parcel. The applicant had requested that the PEC not consider the deck over the common parcel and approve the request without that portion of the deck. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. The applicant's representative, Steve Riden, had nothing to add. Greg then asked for any public comments. Luc Meyer had lived across from the applicant's property since 1977. He was the first permanent resident of Potato Patch and he had never met the owner, Mr. Deighan. He received • a notice from the Town of Vail. Luc was concerned about the height of the house and the proposed roof deck. When it was originally built, it was built on fill and was higher than approved. Luc was also concerned about the exterior look and the deck. Dominic Mauriello said the deck on the common parcel was located on the back side of the house. Luc Meyer said his house was looking right onto the applicant's roof deck. Luc Meyer had a letter from Mr. Velasquez and Mr. Davidson. All were opposed to the deck. The other concern was that the applicant had never done anything about his landscaping. Luc wanted to make sure that a provision (upon approval) would require that the landscaping be done. The house was for sale, and Luc felt that this request was to gain more of a profit. Greg Moffet asked for any additional public comment. Mrs. Boyer of 804 Potato Patch, stated that the applicant's property was located to the east of her property. She realized that the request was within the regulations to add another floor, but she felt it would look topsy turvy; tall on one side of the house and flat on the other side. She was also concerned about the landscaping. The property is left in a mess all the time. Mr. Velasquez had done so much landscaping on his side of the duplex lot. She just wanted the Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 2 PEC to take this lack of maintenance and incompatible architecture into consideration. She was not in favor of another floor going up. She objected to a roof deck, which was unsuitable for other neighbors to look down onto it. The applicant could have dogs locked out on the deck. There are a lot of local full time residents that live in Potato Patch. Steve Riden, representing Mr. Deighan, submitted a letter concerning the landscaping proposal, detailing similar features to the other building on the site. He will be proposing landscape improvements and expected to see this review at the DRB level. He explained that technically he was only adding 5' to an eave of the house. Steve stated that he was lowering ceilings inside the structure and just wanted to reassure the neighbors with this information. The roof deck will be cut into the roof, so we will not be adding it onto the top of the house. Greg Moffet asked what direction the roof will face? Steve Riden said it will follow the ridge line and face west. Dominic Mauriello said it was on the west side of the structure. Greg Amsden questioned whether it was a solid wall or railing on the deck. The treatment`was mixed up on the site plan. ' Steve Riden explained that it was not a solid wall, but rather a roof that rose from the deck on the site plan. Luc Meyer asked how the applicant planned on getting to the deck? Steve Riden said from the interior of the house, as there was no more site coverage available to have stairs to the deck. • Galen Aasland asked Dominic about the zoning in relation to it being enclosed on 4 sides and why was it not considered GRFA? Dominic Mauriello explained that there was no roof on it. Galen Aasland said it looks like it was all enclosed. Mike Mollica reiterated that if it does not have a roof, it was not considered GRFA. Galen Aasland stated he felt that the landscaping was deficient. Diane Golden asked what was under the stairwell and questioned where the snow will go? Steve Riden said living space was under the deck. Greg Moff et asked Steve if drains and gutters were set up? Steve Riden said, yes. Diane Golden asked if this application needed to be agreed on by the co-owner? Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 3 0 Dominic Mauriello said there were two owners of record and it was a courtesy to inform them so that there is not a problem down the road. The other owner must consent if the improvements are on the common parcel. Greg Moff et stated that we are not a party to the private covenants. • Diane Golden had no further comments. Henry Pratt said he had no problem with the GRFA, but he did have a problem with the landscaping. Henry didn't know if a Geologic Hazard Study was necessary. Henry had a problem with the roof deck . With railings and it being popped on top of the roof, he felt it was not appropriate for the neighborhood and as it was now, he couldn't approve it. John Schofield echoed Henry's comments regarding the landscaping. John questioned the distance from the floor of the deck to the pitch of the roof? Steve Riden said about half. John Schofield said the deck looked like it was set on top of the house. John stated that'if it was totally enclosed, he would be more in favor of it, Gene Uselton said roof decks were allowed according to the code. However, Gene felt that it was undesirable in this neighborhood. The landscaping should be left up to the DRB. Greg Amsden agreed with Gene's comments. The sides of the deck need to be enclosed. He foresees some abuses with what can happen on a deck; such as storing things (i.e., patio furniture) on top of the deck. The applicant must bring the landscaping up to DRB standards. Luc Meyer said he can't understand how, in such a small neighborhood, the applicant submitted • this plan without contacting the neighbors. Mr. Deighan did not have the courtesy to call Mr. Valasquez. Greg Amsden stated that that was a civil matter. Greg Moffet asked Dominic if this would receive full treatment by the DRB. Dominic Mauriello stated that this proposal would be reviewed by the DRB. Mrs. Boyer said that a few times the property was red tagged. Matthews and Associates submitted a beautiful landscape plan and she would like to know what happened to that plan. Everything there has died without the maintenance and irrigation. Greg Moffet said we can recommend to DRB to require the applicant to bond for landscaping. I would vote in favor of the DRB looking strongly at the landscaping. The roof deck does not violate any of the standards. The application meets all three of the findings. Greg was not in favor of telling the applicant that he can't do this. Diane Golden questioned the criteria regarding the negative impact on adjacent properties. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 4 0 Henry Pratt questioned mass and bulk. Greg Moffet read through the criteria in the staff memo. Dominic Mauriello said the flat roof deck was 30' high and was allowed. Greg Moffet asked for any more public or applicant comments. There was none. Henry Pratt made a motion to table this request to give the applicant time to rework the roof deck, so that it was more compatible with the neighborhood. The alternative to giving the applicant more time to redesign it, was to turn down the request. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. Dominic Mauriello stated that it should be tabled to a definite time. Mrs. Boyer asked if a roof deck was allowed, would we then be setting a precedent in the neighborhood? Henry Pratt responded to Mrs. Boyer's question by saying that a roof deck was allowed, but this roof deck was not consistent with this neighborhood. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Greg Moffet opposed. 3. A request for an exterior addition to expand the existing dining room, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2415 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 22, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing Applicants: Paul Baker and Robert Ruder Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the request per the staff memo. John Schofield stated that he had a business relationship with this applicant and he wanted it on the record that he doesn't feel it presents a conflict of interest. Greg Moffet asked for any applicant or public comments. There was none. The Board had no comments. Henry Pratt made a motion for approval with no conditions, referencing the findings in the staff memo. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 4. A request for a wall height variance to allow for a six-foot retaining wall, located in the front setback, located at 1239 Westhaven Circle/Lot 37, Glen Lyon Applicant: Daryl Brown Planner: George Ruther Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 28, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a sign variance to allow for a freestanding sign, located at the west entrance to the Mountain Haus, a portion of Block 5, Vail Village First Filing/292 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: James and Leslie Glendining Planner: Dirk Mason 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST James and Leslie Glendining are requesting a sign variance to allow for a freestanding sign designating a single business use located within the Mountain Haus. According to Section 16.20.020 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the applicants are allowed one 3 square foot sign on the building wall or hanging from a structural component of the building. In addition, the applicant is allowed one Display Box (menu box) and one Daily Special Board by right. The proposed freestanding sign will be located on Town of Vail property, therefore, requiring a Revocable Right-of-Way Permit. II. BACKGROUND The p.. ,.posed location of the freestanding sign has been host to previously approved signs. In July of 1988, the Corona Cafe received approval to erect a sign on the end of the awning. The sign was allowed to be a maximum of 3 square feet. In November of 1991, the Shogun received approval to attach a sign to the awning pole. The sign was limited to a maximum size of 3 square feet and was located directly above a Display Box. Most recently, The Salad Garden obtained approval, in September of 1993, for a 3 square foot sign on the west awning. Staff, at the time, approved the sign because it was considered to be a continuance of a pre-existing non-conforming sign. III. f Ri i j&RIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Sections 16.36.050 and 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community DevelvYjjL.ent Department recommends approval of the requested sign variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: 0 A. !Con ail r . n of fUlQ.r-. 1. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question: provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all business or enterprises. The entrance to this business (The George) is unique because of the existing landscaping. Many large aspen trees are located on the site, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of a wall mounted sign. For the applicants to utilize the allowed wall sign would require the removal of the existing aspens. The landscaping located adjacent to the entrance is a unique situation at the west entrance of the Mountain Haus. 2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant. The applicant was not responsible for planting the aspens, therefore, the applicant was not responsible for creating the special circumstances on this particular property. However, the applicant chose to locate their business in the Mountain Haus and place themselves in this situation. • 3. That granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this title, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. Staff believes the granting of the variance is in harmony with the purpose of the Chapter 16.20 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant is requesting an alternative to the allowable signs for their business location. The allowed sign size will remain within the required limits of the Code. 4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business use. The applicant is not requesting a variation in the amount of sign area allowed on the site. Although the applicant is requesting a freestanding sign, the sign area will not exceed the allowable 3 square feet. The ? 2 applicant is allowed an additional 0.5 square foot of sign area on a Display Box, however, the applicant has agreed to eliminate the potential 0.5 • square foot of signage. This agreement will eliminate the possibility of having a multitude of signs on the site. Thus, reducing the likelihood of visually detracting fi.,.,. the location. Overall, staff believes the requested variance to install a freestanding sign for this business will enhance the site. 5. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes the requested variance is reasonable and will not have negatives impacts on other uses or structures in the area. The applicant is not requesting a variance to the allowed sign area, therefore, the outcome is not producing an advantage for The George, over other businesses in the area. 6. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The applicant has requested the minimum amount of relief necessary • fluu, Section 16.20 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to obtain the objectives of this title without resulting in a grant of special privilege. Staff believes the proposed freestanding sign is in compliance with the intent of Chapter 16.20 and additionally, that there are extraordinary conditions which exists with this particular location. 7. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed freestanding sign will be in the Town of Vail's right-of-way, however, the sign will not be located within the pedestrian corridor. Consequently, the variance will not have any impact on the above concerns. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shgll make the following find* nts before Qranting a variance: 1. That special circumstances or conditions apply to the land, building, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or 3 • within the right-of-way, which would substannally restrict the effectiveness of the sign. 2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. • 3. That granting the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this title and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The variance applied for does not depart fi.,... the provisions of Chapter 16.20. 5. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict and literal int?,.Y.etation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives if this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other j,.vFerties in the same zone district. C. The strict int,,.r.etation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Develur...ent Department staff recommends approval of the applicants' request for a sign variance from Chapter 16.20, to allow for the construction of a freestanding sign to be located on the site. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the requested variance, staff would suggest that the PEC find: That special circumstances or conditions apply to the land, building, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the right-of-way, which substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign. 2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. 3. That granting the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of ? 4 this title and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • 4. That the variance applied for does not depart fiv... the provisions of Chapter 16.20. 5. That the variance is warranted since the strict literal enforcement of the sign code would result in an unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Chapter 16 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, staff would recommend that the apy.,.,val carry with it the following conditions: The sign can not exceed 3 square feet in size, due to the insufficient frontages of the business as required by Section 16.20.020 (Wall Signs - Individual business within a multi-tenant building). 2. If the applicant chooses to have a display box, the allowed 0.5 square foot of sign area will not be allowed. 3. That a Revocable Right-of-Way Permit be executed by the Mountain Haus and owners of The George. The permit is for the Mountain Haus awning and the freestanding sign associated with The George. • 0 f.\everyone\pec\memos\glendini.o28 a P r r ?r • ?Ro4osID? ?svri#J6 000oz .I l i l l l ( I( I I I I I I I I I I I? I I I I I I f l l I ?!! ill 11111 IIIII I I I i i j I I S I[ C? N a 3'? x IZ?1"?,? i t Illliii lijllll!Ij a t i I ? I ? i i i i l l j? i i l l i( l l( l l I i i+ I!? I ? l i j l l l i l ? l i= I? I i ? l l I. 1 1 I! i l l l? ? l i( l l l ? ! i f? l ? l I i ' ,`I ! I I i (J I i , T I - - - - - RESTAtIRA`I - -- & PCB LLI- i , • i _.. __..-.- / ._1. -E _ i Vdal" (don 410101 8 ..8gx 010 87+? Mg6710F=4n5 tf2e eolz!9 e ZESTACIRAI`IT &PUB r 2 ? ?, K 2? . !. MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 28, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a common area variance and a site coverage variance to allow for the conversion of one interior parking space to common area, located at 200 Vail Road/Part of Lots A, B and C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Lodge Tower Condominium Association, represented by Stan Cope, Managing Agent Planner: Dominic Mauriello • I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicant is requesting a common area variance in order to add additional common area to accommodate a luggage/bag storage area (162 sq. ft.) in the parking garage (first level of building). This would be the first phase of a two phase remodel. This phase of the addition will eliminate one existing parking space. Since this site is nonconforming with respect to parking, the applicant is required to pay into the parking fund for the loss of one parking space (currently $16,333.38). Phase 2 of the proposal creates a common hallway (86 sq. ft.) along the front of the building adjacent to the building entrance. The area being enclosed is behind an existing wall and below an existing second floor deck. The area being enclosed will not increase the perceived bulk and mass of the building as the space is currently substantially enclosed. The request is to allow an additional 248 sq. ft. of common area and 86 sq. ft. of additional site coverage. This building was constructed in the early 1970's. The building was constructed as part of the Lodge at Vail property. The Lodge Tower (a.k.a. Lodge South) was divided from the property after construction in October of 1973 when the building was condominium ized. The subdivision of this lot incorporated only the building envelope and provided an easement for access and parking adjacent to the building. Therefore, as a separate parcel of land, the site is nonconforming with respect to site coverage, GRFA, common area, landscaping, density, and parking. This existing site constraint is the reason that these variances are necessary. On October 13, 1986, the PEC granted a site coverage variance to allow the existing entrance and lobby area to be constructed. A minor CC1 exterior alteration was also approved to allow this addition. The PEC, at that time, found that a physical hardship existed on the property to warrant the variance. Staff believes that a physical hardship continues to exist on the property. 0 11. ZONING ANALYSIIi Zoning: CC1 Use: Multiple-Family Lot Size: 14,554 sq. ft. Standard Site Coverage: Common area: Floor 1: Floors 2, 7, & 8: Floors 3 - 6: Total Units: Parking: Allowed 11,643.2 sq. ft. (60%) n/a n/a n/a 4,075 sq. ft. (35%) 8 dwelling units per code Note: per variance approved on 10/13/86. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS .Existina 13,052 sq. ft. (89.7%)' 2,006 sq. ft. 5,220 sq. ft. 6.480 so_ ft. 13,706 sq. ft. (117.7%) 42 dwelling units 55 spaces (31 enclosed) Proposed 13,138 sq. ft. (90.3%) 2,254 sq. ft. n/c n/c 13,954 sq. ft. (119.8%) n/c 54 (30 enclosed) Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested common area and site coverage variances. The recommendation is based on the following factors: A. Q" ideraAon of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed variances and associated development on this site will have little, if any, impact to adjacent properties. The conversion of the one parking space is mostly within the first level parking area by adding a new luggage storage area and providing a new hallway. The proposed improvements will not be visible to the public. The reduction of parking is mitigated by the requirement of paying-in-lieu for the loss of one parking space. The proposed addition will not impact the perceived bulk and mass of the structure. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The property was originally part of the Lodge at Vail property, but was subsequently subdivided and therefore causing the nonconformities on- site. Therefore, a physical hardship exists on-site. Historically, common area variances have been granted for "full-service" properties and hotels when there are no impacts to neighboring properties. • C. f:\everyone\peclmemosUodtower.oct • 2 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and • utilities, and public safety. The proposal will have minimal impacts to the stated criteria. Little impact to transportation will be made, according to the manager of the Lodge Tower, due to the use of van transportation to the site during peak times of the year and due to the mitigation of the loss of one parking space. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findings before arantina a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions • applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. r f:\everyone\pec\memosUodtower.oct 3 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's . variance requests subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. There are exceptions and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the CC1 zone. 4. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. The recommendation of approval is also subject to the following condition: The applicant shall pay $16,333.38 into the Town's parking fund for the elimination of one parking space on-site, prior to obtaining a building permit for the building addition. If the fee is paid after January 1, 1997, the fee shall be increased in accordance with Chapter 18.52 of the Zoning Code. • f:\everyone\pecunemoslodtower.oct 0 4 0 0 0 f \W O, L L , j `/ l :Tir G EXr - G )O ST. t_ ,, e v F G a 1-\& u O--?_ Lo V 6-E y-? o ?vo`R ? ?Ji?.AvCG ilLt 1, =I 0 1 I?lg6 J MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: October 28, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a minor amendment to SDD # 5 and a conditional use permit to allow for the addition of conference space, located at 1100 N. Frontage Road/SDD #5, Simba Run Building. Applicant: Simba Run Condominium Association, represented by Lynn Fritzlen Planner: Dominic Mauriello • 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUE,9T The Simba Run Condominium Association is proposing a minor SDD amendment to SDD #5 and a conditional use to convert two existing racquetball courts into an exercise room, sauna, and locker room on the ground level and conference/meeting rooms (1,680 sq. ft.) on the second level. An existing linen storage area will be converted to a food preparation area. The conference rooms will have access from existing common corridors on the second level. Exterior building improvements include providing a new skylighttlight monitor for each conference room. The skylights will stand approximately 10' above the racquetball court roof, but below the roof to the east of the racquetball court. The applicant is also providing a dumpster enclosure for the existing dumpster located along Lions Ridge Loop, which is currently unscreened and not in conformance with the Town's design guidelines. This enclosure will have 4 sides and a roof constructed with 6" wood siding to match the Simba Run buildings. The parking requirement for this conference space is 7 additional parking spaces. The applicant is providing 3 additional surface parking spaces by re-striping an area which is currently paved at the entrance to the parking structure. The applicant is proposing two options for providing the additional 4 parking spaces required. The first option is to re-stripe two rows of parking in the parking structure for compact spaces, thereby providing four additional spaces. The second option proposed is to re-stripe one row in the parking structure to provide 2 additional spaces and expand the driveway at the entrance to the Simba Run building along the North Frontage Road to provide 2 additional surface spaces. The original approval for Simba Run included 128 parking spaces within the parking structure and 6 surface parking spaces, for a total of 134 parking spaces on-site. In the review of this request and upon site inspection, it has come to our attention that 8 of these 128 structured parking spaces have been converted (without approval) for wood storage (2 spaces) and general storage (6 spaces). In accordance with SDD #5, conference facilities require a conditional use permit. The proposal is also considered a "minor amendment" due to the fact that it involves changes of less than 5% of all floor area, excluding GRFA, in the Simba Run project. The proposal adds 1,680 sq. ft. of common area which is a 2.3% increase. 9 II. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: SDD #5 (with no underlying zoning) Allowable/Reaulred Existina Proposed • Parking: 188 spaces' 134 spaces 141 spaces Enclosed parking: 114 spaces (85%) 128 spaces 132 or 130 spaces (based on option pursued) Common Area: As designated on dev. plan 31,254 sq. ft. 32,934 sq. ft. Notes: *The development plan for Simba Run was approved with 134 parking spaces. If this development was not located in an SDD, then the site would have been required to have 188 parking spaces. Ill. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL The following are the criteria that must be considered when approving a conditional use permit: A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The proposal provides facilities for conference space. Additional conference space is a needed use in Vail. The proposed space will complement the existing condominiums and accommodation units on this site. The proposal will increase the opportunities for bringing visitors to Vail, especially during the off-seasons. . 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposal adds conference space with minimal impacts to the site. It is anticipated that the majority of users of this conference space will find accommodations at Simba Run and therefore the need for additional parking (7 parking spaces) or the generation of additional traffic will be minimal. Staff believes that the proposal has no negative impacts on any of the above criteria. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposal has minimal impacts on these items. The proposal will not change the existing loading and delivery requirements for this site. As stated above, the additional parking needs and traffic generated by this additional conference space is minimal and will not have a negative effect upon these criteria. 2 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to • surrounding uses. The proposal has a minimal increase to the bulk and scale of the structure. Skylights and windows are being added which fit into the existing architecture. The perceived bulk and mass of the structure will not be greatly altered. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinas before orantino a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . The staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 5 and a conditional use permit for the conference space, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of SDD #5. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. The recommendation of approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. That the 8 parking spaces in the parking structure currently being used for storage shall be returned to parking spaces, as per the original approval for Simba Run prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the construction of the conference space. 2. That a dumpster enclosure shall be provided for the existing dumpster located along Lions Ridge Loop. The enclosure shall include four sides and a roof and shall be architecturally compatible with the Simba Run buildings. 3 I That the applicant provide a restriping plan for the parking spaces in the parking garage and/or a complete design and grading plan for any new paved surface parking in conjunction with a design review application. • Weveryone/pedmemos/simba.o28 E • 4 PROJECT DIRECTORY WWE OWNER SMDA RUN CONOOMINUM ASSSOCIATION DON HANCOCK. GENERAL MANAGER 1100 N. PRNTAGE RD. VAIL. CO. 01451 PH! 110-114-0311 PAX: 110-1116-0006 ARCMTECT FRITZLEN PIERCE BRNER USO E. VAIL VALLEY DR. PALLRIDG! BLDG. SUITE C-1 VAIL. CO. 01460 PH, 910-416-4312 PAX, 414-1101 ARCHRECT LYNN PRITZLE. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER REM SOYLE ENGINEERING. SIC, N7 E. MEADOW OR. SUITE 710 CR006ROADS SHOPPING CENTER VAIL, CO. 0451 PH. 110-11,-2110 MECHANICAL ENGINESR YODER ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. 46 !. SEAVER CREED BLVD. SUITE 701 AVON, CO. 61,20 PM. 110-111-IMI PAX. 110-111-1161 a'11 CW0eG?06?pT[ CWt6 q r_ ?Nai110a• R ?ApG O. Y /- biI•l-11 .AND,• aD 7N.NG ?IOR 6 PLAN VIEW ' - n'anYWNav rRTU conNc SIMBA RUN CONDOMINIUMS CONFERENCE FACILITY & COMMON AREA IMPROVEMENTS REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION REFUSE ENCLOSURE .-- In • r-a ?- _ •? ioMnATa aKN1ND euLdNG 6•oOP ?"vu ;R"RLwD :a SIDE ELEVAITON n n Q N -- RN. LO!!Y ?!?! ITM. !W ?fMT I E; Y.1 i V, fA?, Lvel I DEMC 6= • w • s ISSUE Q Q Cl! 17 '? a C frXioit 6"k 2 ID IIEVOOM M z ~ 0 O i LL? zw a W< m {? O N U Ec ii isit ?Q U N a a? N FTl N m O y w r z z z z a J u. w m r U w r_ x U rt a A20ax l d r T ?o M ' ?lpTOR T • f-K v \ ?to ?d X. Left 0 1 qtr ra o.o I.a+ 1 ?in a. ?T v PROPOSED PLAN -EAST BLDG. EL. 8120 x.lw yr • .-o- • • 0 N 2 o ? 0 o sQ ? ? 4 W m U N ?a s? t 4 Cll o W Z Z U Z ? a . r+ c a? a 7 ? n_ EL. 813 0 .7 0 0 0 cwse.ce ,.. a cwoo? 4 SECTION ro0 CONF sZ/ WOMEN'S LOCKER RM. IT f sl -= L f- I I I ? ? I 1 :1!,T r ELpVATION 1 cowea.ce .?.. p p4 ¢ u??a« wu ` ca«o« SECTION CONF.aI/ EXERCISE RM. I ScEC VION v LOBBY CLERESTORY L:.Yi N Z j I Z y M U 7 b p F? gg o all @ d U <S z ?d e 41 U r-- fit 0 ieeee s~ Q N w W ? N U N J J a Q. Q w ai U ILI N Ij-+ 2 ? U < A301 r 10/23/96 15:30 FAX 9704764901 FRITZLEN PIERCE IZ 002 Pp. al " _._ .. , ,. OCT-23-96 LJE33..%4 :Xt-W Girnha Burn. Vail CvoLdominiams Vail, Colorado 87657 r1t]MSTM8A RUN '9711-47f.CtiA4 &,-.x q711.. ?F-nM4R roit»ha?3?r'dii.IWk To, The Town of Vail Rlc: Extra Parking Spttco Convtrtaxl to SronW Late: l OIZ196 Tha Aasoc}aticn has 311ocaa" ctrtaia parks jj6 apacm to be used as storage and .w._ parking for owners. In the pule sgara&, there are t%-O spaces fGr wood stage on the bottom Ia wl and five sl a+:m oil Aw Lop lnvcl for storm. 3irwx the garage is never full at any tame during ft winter, the aasoc iadw elected to Utilize these spa= for ste ag t. They also can be c mvened back to paddag- a[ amy time it naa&d. We ciilnwdy Nava extra puking sMaA too. If you have any quastiow, please oall Ate at 476-0344. Dan Hancock A. smlaticn Manager 10/23/96 lAtU Tx/RX NO.5653 P.001 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 28, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance for a garage addition, located at 2704 Larkspur Court/Lot 5, Block 3, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Craig McCully Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a side setback variance of approximately 6.5' to allow for a 8.5' side setback in order to construct an attached 456 sq. ft., two-car garage. This site is currently improved with a duplex structure without a garage. The existing structure was constructed in 1971 and the area was under Eagle County jurisdiction, at that time. As constructed, the duplex encroaches 37 into the required 15' side setback and therefore is a pre-existing nonconforming structure. The duplex is oriented on the lot in such a way that the garage addition encroaches further into the side setback. There is an existing unimproved driveway on the site which approaches the house in the same • area where the garage is proposed. Other constraints which exist on the site include many trees to the south of the proposed addition and an existing drainage or stream. The site plan shows one tree being impacted by the addition. The site plan does not accurately show the total number of trees located in this area. The site is also nonconforming with respect to lighting and driveway paving. There are several floodlights on the property which are not fully cutoff and therefore do not comply with the lighting ordinance. The driveway is currently unpaved and therefore must be paved if this addition is constructed. The site is also littered with trash, trash cans and other items stored outside of the existing structure which are unsightly and are not in compliance with the Municipal Code. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Use: Duplex residence Lot Size: 11,629 sq. ft. 0 Standard Allowed Fxistinq Prooosed Site Coverage: 2,325.8 sq. ft. (20%) 1,190 sq. ft. (100%) 1,646 sq. ft. (140/*) Landscape area: 6,977.4 sq. ft. (60%) 8,963 sq. ft. (77%) n/c' • Setbacks: Front: 20' 78' 55' Sides: 15' 11.3' (north) & 22' (south) 8.5' (north) & n/c (south) Rear: 15' 25.5' n/c Parking: 5 spaces required 6 spaces (none enclosed) 6 spaces (2 enclosed) 'The proposed garage is on the existing driveway and th.: ;...: does not count as existing landscape area 111. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested side setback variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Many duplexes in this area were constructed without garages. Staff believes that providing garages is a benefit to the neighborhood by removing cars and other items from public view. The proposal is compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Such variances (for garages), where a physical hardship exists and there are no is negative impacts to adjacent properties, have been historically approved by the PEC. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the layout and orientation of the existing structure make this site unique. The existing stream, vegetation, and trees located to the south of the proposed addition constitute a physical hardship warranting protection and therefore prevent the addition from being moved to the south. The applicant has proposed a modest two-car garage of 456 sq. ft., which staff believes to be the minimum necessary for adequate access and use of the garage. Staff believes the proposal is not a grant of special privilege due to the site constraints. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes that the requested variance will not negatively affect these issues. 2 is .1 B. The Plannina and Environmental Commi55ion shall make the followina findincM before arantina a variance: • 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege- inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • • 3 L IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's side setback variance request subject to the following findings: • 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone. 3. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. The recommendation for approval is also subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to design review of this project, the applicant shall provide, and have approved by the Public Works Department, a grading plan which fully details the proposed grading of the site (including retaining walls). 2. The applicant shall limit the removal of existing trees to one Aspen tree (as indicated on the site plan). The applicant shall mitigate for the removal of this tree with the addition of three 2" caliper Aspen trees (or 3 six foot tall Evergreens), to be planted along the north elevation of the garage. 3. The existing floodlights shall be modified to comply with the Zoning Code • requirements for lighting. 4. The driveway shall be paved. 5. The site shall be maintained in a neat condition, free of litter and free of other items stored outside of the existing structure, such as trash cans. These items shall be stored within the structure. f:leveryone\pec\memos\rnccully.o28 4 • 1. It 1 i , !e i I r- o It My to I w ,n?,? . I ?._ a ""•,?;?, ,,?• caws i 1 i anpr ? ! t i 10 I O..Iww I ' , ,ar+ae 4L ! 4kAww ----- fs efr?s+foc wi-_---- -----1 ?i ' --------------------- 1 -------------------- ! ORAM?Of! It?111i.IfT? ??MT ? . ---------------- I_ r .? w ?. ? r? ? r w ? .w CL !L_ i ¦ OM"""`1-O OWN •r fi 2 M r+v"°ft ??p aKaK GRAO9 Tfr t„ v i' f N N t t0 t1t ' N N., .O MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 28, 1996 SUBJECT: A worksession to discuss a request to amend Section 18.26.040, Conditional Uses, of the Vail Municipal Code to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units" as a conditional use the Commercial Core 2 Zone District. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce, is requesting a worksession to discuss amending the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant is proposing that Section 18.26.040 of the Municipal Code be amended to allow time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units as conditional uses in the Commercial Core 2 Zone District. In general, the areas of Town most affected by the proposed amendment . include Lionshead and the Village Center Building, as each of these areas is zoned Commercial core 2. The time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units would be allowed subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Municipal Code. II. BACKGROUND The applicant's request relates to a future proposal to redevelop the Austria Haus property. The Austria Haus is located at 242 East Meadow Drive. The Austria Haus was originally constructed in the mid-1960's as an inn to accommodate destination skiers. In 1979, the Austria Haus was purchased by the Faessler family who planned to redevelop the property into the Sonnenalp Hotel. In 1984, Ordinance #8 was approved by the Vail Town Council establishing Special Development District #12. Special Development District #12 adopted an approved development plan for the redevelopment of the Austria Haus. The approved development plan was never implemented, and instead, the Austria Haus underwent a remodel. Since the completion of the remodel, the Austria Haus has served as an annex to the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus located at 20 Vail Road. The Austria Haus has 37 hotel rooms (accommodation units) with approximately 75 pillows" and is operated approximately eight months each year by the Sonnenalp Hotel. There is a small restaurant and bar in the Austria Haus that serves its guests and a retail outlet on the east end of the building. The hotel rooms are marginal in size ( 300 sq. ft. average) and lack certain amenities, by today's accommodation standards. • 1 The current proposal to redevelop the property intends to provide considerably more "pillows" over a twelve month period, as well as create approximately 10,000 square feet of new • commercial space. The applicant has proposed that a percentage of the project be offered as timeshare interval ownership units. The applicant has also proposed to accommodate a portion of the required parking and loading/delivery in an underground parking structure. According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the applicant's property is currently zoned Public Accommodation. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi- public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodging units to densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The Public Accommodation Zone District does not permit time-share interval units. Interval ownership is currently allowed only in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District pursuant to Ordinance #8, Series of 1981. There is no vacant property in the High Density Multi- Family Zone District. All properties currently zoned High Density Multi-Family are developed. In order for a time-sharing project to be constructed in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District, a developer would either have to convert an existing condominium or hotel project, or undergo an entire redevelopment of the property. A third possible alternative for the construction of a time- sharing project in the Town of Vail, would be to rezone an existing parcel of property from its current zoning to High Density Multi-Family Chapter 18.04 of the municipal code provides definitions of time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units. According to Sections 18.04.420, 18.04.430 and 18.04.440, time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units are defined as follows: Time-share estate units: Means either an interval estate or a timespan estate. A timespan 40 estate is a combination of an undivided interest in a present estate in fee simple in a unit, the magnitude of the interest having been established by the time of the creation of the timespan estate either by the project instruments or by the deed conveying the timespan estate; and an exclusive right to possession and occupancy of the unit during an annually recurring period of time defined and established by a recorded schedule set forth or referred to in the deed conveying the timespan estate. Additionally, an interval estate is an estate for four years terminating on a date certain, during which years titled to a timeshare unit circulates among the interval owners in accordance with a fixed schedule, vesting in each such interval owner in turn for a period of time established by the said schedule, with the series thus established recurring annually until the arrival of the date certain. Fractional fee units: Is defined as a tenancy in common interest in improved real property, including condominiums, created or held by persons, partnerships, corporations, or joint ventures or similar entities, wherein the tenants in common have formerly arranged by oral or written agreement or understanding, either recorded or unrecorded allowing for the use and occupancy of the property by one or more co-tenants to the exclusion of one or more co-tenants during any period, whether annually reoccurring or not which is binding upon any assignee or future owner of a fractional fee interest or if said agreement continues to be in any way binding or affective upon any co-tenant for the sale of any interest in the property. 2 • Time-share license units: Shall be defined as a contractual right to exclusive occupancy of specified premises. Provided that the occupancy of the premise is divided into five or • more separate time periods extending over a term of more than two years. The premises may consist of one parcel, unit or dwelling, or any of several parcels, units or dwellings identified at the time the license is created to be identified later. No timeshare is a timeshare license if it meets the definition of interval estate, timeshare or timespan estate. 111. HISTORY OF TIME-SHARING IN VAIL, The State of Colorado has adopted regulations regulating the sale of time-shares. For the most part, the regulations adopted by the State of Colorado are concerned with financial disclosures, regulation of sales practices and disclosures, regulation of sales practices and classification of time-sharing as a subdivision of property. The regulations adopted by the State of Colorado are intended more to protect the consumer, than as regulations designed to have impacts on the community level. The State has granted the authority for local governments to adopt ordinances intended to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, which includes time- share projects. On July 15, 1980, the Vail Town Council adopted five ordinances to regulate time-sharing projects in the Town of Vail. A summary of each of the ordinances is listed below: • Ordinance # 25, Series of 1980, an ordinance amending Chapter 17 (Subdivision Regulations) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, providing a new definition for the term subdivision; and setting forth prohibited and unlawful acts and remedies for violations of this ordinance, and amending the procedure for appealing a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission to the Town Council. In the opinion of the then Vail Town • Council, the present subdivision regulations were not sufficient to deal with the problem presented by time-sharing projects and therefore, the procedure for subdividing property associated with time-sharing projects should be amended. Ordinance #25 further went on to require that time-sharing projects go through the subdivision review process. Prior to the adoption of Ordinance #25, Series of 1980, the Town of Vail did not have any regulations requiring that time-sharing projects be reviewed through the subdivision process. Ordinance # 26, Series of 1980, providing for the addition of new conditional uses in certain zone districts. Ordinance #26 was established to protect the balance between accommodations for visitors to the Town, Vail residents and seasonal employees from the unregulated development of time-sharing projects. It was the opinion of the then Vail Town Council that the zoning regulations in place in 1980 did not sufficiently address the problems presented by time-sharing. The ordinance amended Title 18 of the Municipal Code allowing time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units in the High Density Multi-Family, Public Accommodation, Commercial Core 1 and Commercial Core 2 Zone Districts, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Ordinance # 27, Series of 1980, an ordinance providing for certain disclosure requirements for time-sharing projects; providing for public offering statements and setting forth requirements for such offering statements: for the escrowing of deposits or reservations of a time-share unit; and setting forth remedies for violations of said ordinance. According to the minutes of the July 15, 1980 Vail Town Council meeting, the Council had determined that the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail would best be served by requiring the disclosure of certain facts and information relating to time-sharing projects, and to the perspective purchasers of time-share units. The amendment established disclosure requirements when offering time-share project sales and established a minimum amount of information that the developer must disclose in a public offering statement. Ordinance # 28, Series of 1980, an ordinance providing for registration of time-share projects with the Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail; the requirements for applications for registration of said units; remedies for violation of this ordinance and standards for the revocation of such registration. The Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance # 28 resolving that the Council had determined that the existing ordinances and regulations of the Town were insufficient to cope with the problems presented by time-sharing and that the registration of time-sharing units is necessary to protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the community. Ordinance # 29, Series of 1980, an ordinance defining time-share broker and time-share salesman: providing that any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation that engages in the business or capacity of time-share broker or time-share salesman, must obtain a license from the Town Clerk; setting forth the requirements for the application for such license; providing for the display of such license, license fees and setting forth standards and procedures for the suspension or revocation of such license. Similar to the other ordinances relating to time-sharing projects in the Town of Vail, the then Town Council found that these additional regulations were deemed necessary to protect and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail and that time-share brokers and time-share salesman be licensed by the Town of Vail. On February 3, 1981, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance #8, Series of 1981, amending Ordinance #26, Series of 1980, providing for the removal of time-sharing from the conditional use section of the Public Accommodation, Commercial Core 1 and Commercial Core 2 Zone Districts. It was the then Vail Town Council's opinion that permitting the conversion and development of time-sharing projects in said zone districts would upset the balance between accommodations for visitors, Vail residents and seasonal employees and that the amendment was necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the community. IV. CONFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS In considering the proposed text amendment to the Zoning Code, to allow time-share in Commercial Core 2 as a conditional use, staff reviewed several relevant planning documents. Specifically, staff reviewed the Municipal Code, the Goals and Objectives stated in the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE Section 18.26.010 of the Vail Municipal Code, identifies the purpose of the Commercial Core 2 Zone District. According to the purpose statement, "The Commercial Core 2 Zone District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to insure . 4 adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district • by establishing appropriate site development standards. (Ordinance 21(1980) (2) (part).)" VAIL LAND USE PLAN Chapter II of the Vail Land Use Plan identifies goals and policies for land use within the Town of Vail. The goals articulated by the Vail Land Use Plan reflect the desires of the citizenry. The goals are to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. Staff has identified the following goals (listed below), as being relevant to the applicant's proposal: General Growth / Development 1__1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 11.33 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village core should be carried into new development in the Village core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. • 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2. Skier / Tourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day skiers. 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. 224 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. 3. Commercial 3.1 The hotel bedbase should be preserved and used more efficiently. 33.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of destination skiers. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. c: 5 4. Village Core / Lionshead 4;2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through the • implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 5. Residential 5.2 Quality time-share units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 6. Additional goals related to other elements of the comprehensive plan. Economic Development The Town of Vail should consider developing some type of mechanism to control tenant mix, so that a balance between tourist and convenient type of commercial uses is maintained. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN: On January 16, 1990, the Vail Town Council adopted the Vail Village Master Plan. The plan is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in the Vail Village area and in implementing community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly, the Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal • with such development. For the citizens and guests of Vail, the Master Plan provides a clearly defined set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and along with the Guide Plan it underscores the importance of the relationship between the built environment and public spaces. The Vail Village Master Plan has been adopted as an element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of objectives outlines specific steps that can be taken towards achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision making in achieving each of the stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in implementing capital improvement projects. Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 6 0 1.2.1 Policy: Additional development maybe allowed as identified by the action plan as is consistent • with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub- areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. 2.1.1 Policy: The Zoning Code and development review criteria shall be consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short- term, overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short-term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short-term overnight rental. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and • maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. V. PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES As stated previously, the applicant is proposing to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units" as conditional uses to Section 18.26.040, Conditional Uses- Generally. These uses would be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The proposed changes are shown as shaded below: Chapter 18.26 Commercial Core 2 18.26.040 Conditional uses-Generally The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: A. Ski lifts and tows; B. Public utility and public service uses; C. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities; D. Public park and recreation facilities; E. Theaters, meeting rooms and convention facilities; F. Coin-operated laundries; 0 7 G. Commercial storage-as long as it is at basement level and does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area; H. Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58.310. • 1. Television stations-as long as the production room/studio is visible from the street or pedestrian mall and that the television station be "cable-cast" only, requiring no additional antennas'. J: Time-share estates units, fractional fee units and time-share license units. (Ord.23(1990) § 1: Ord. 31(1989) § 9: Ord. 21(1983) § 1: Ord. 8(1981) § 2(part): Ord. 50(1978) § 8: Ord. 8(1973) § 9.400.) VI. DISCUSSION ISSUES As this a worksession to discuss the applicant's proposal, staff will not evaluate the proposal at this time. Staff has, however, identified issues which we would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant. Each of the issues is described below. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ISSUES. The cost of maintenance may be higher on a time-sharing project than on wholly-owned units in a condominium building. It has been reported that furniture, carpeting, appliances and other furnishings must be replaced more often in time-sharing units. This is especially applicable to time-share units which are sold on shorter intervals. The implication is that a higher level of maintenance and management services must be available on an on-going basis for time-sharing projects to insure a high level of quality. In addition to the additional needs for maintenance on time-sharing projects, there is also a need to reserve adequate time when maintenance can occur. Problems potentially occur, when time- . share intervals are sold on a one week basis. By selling fifty-two (52), one week intervals during the year, there is little or no time for the proper maintenance of a time-share project. Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant, how time-shares in the Town of Vail could be regulated to insure adequate and proper maintenance of the project. 2. AVAILABILITY OF LOCK-OFF UNITS IN A MANAGED RENTAL PROGRAM. Time-share units can be designed to accommodate lock-off units. Staff would recommend that lock-off units be required as a part of every individual time-share unit. Additionally, staff recommends that each lock-off unit be managed through a rental program when not in use. Staff feels that by providing lock-off units, and managing the availability of the lock-off units in a rental program when not in use, can significantly increase the availability of accommodation units in the Town of Vail. While lock-off units provide the community benefit of additional "pillows," they also provide an additional return on an investment opportunity for time-share owners. If a time-share owner purchases an interest in a multiple bedroom unit, and does not desire to utilize all the bedrooms, they can then have the opportunity of returning the unused bedrooms (lock-offs) to a rental program. 8 0 3. MINIMUM NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AND SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL LOCK-OFF UNITS ASSOCIATED WITH TIME-SHARE UNITS. In discussing the development of time-share units, staff thought it was important that any time- share unit proposed in the Town of Vail be a multiple bedroom unit with a minimum square footage requirement. Staff's desire to see multiple bedroom time-share units with a minimum square footage requirement increases the availability of lock-off accommodation-type units, thus increasing the Town's bed base. 4. RATIO OF TIME-SHARE UNITS TO ACCOMMODATION UNITS / LOCK-OFFS. The availability of accommodation units has always been a goal of the community. The Commercial Core 2 Zone District encourages either, by right, or subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, the construction of accommodation units. Accommodation units are allowed uses on all floor levels in the Commercial Core 2 Zone District, with the exception of the garden level. Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission the merits of requiring a ratio of accommodation units/lock-off units to time-share units. Specifically, staff is recommending that there be a ratio of accommodation units/lock-off units to time-share units established. This would insure that accommodation-type units would remain available to visitors of the Town of Vail and not become only time-share units. 5. REQUIREMENT THAT ALL TIME-SHARE UNITS BE OFFERED THROUGH A RENTAL PROGRAM WHEN NOT IN USE. Like unused lock-off units, staff believes that unused time-share units should be offered and made available through a rental program. Specifically, staff would like to discuss the merits of requiring that all time-share units, when not in use, be made available to the general public. Again, this requirement helps attain the goal of maintaining a strong bed base whenever possible. A true community benefit can be realized through the additional availability of units, and again, the developer or managing agent of a time-share project realizes additional profits through the rental of time-share units as overnight accommodations. 6. THE CONVERSION OF THE 37 EXISTING ACCOMMODATION UNITS AT THE AUSTRIA HAUS TO 20 TIME-SHARE UNITS / LOCK-OFF UNITS AND 23 ACCOMMODATION UNITS. There are currently 37 accommodation units within the Austria Haus. At this time, the developer is proposing to redevelop the Austria Haus to possibly include 20 time-share units sold on an interval basis, with 20 attached one-bedroom lock-off units and an additional 23 hotel-type accommodation units. Staff would like to discuss the impacts associated with the reduction in accommodation units currently existing on the Austria Haus property. While it is possible that 43 of the units in the new Austria Haus could be utilized as accommodation units (includes lock-off units), it is very unlikely that all 20 lock-off units would be made available. The staff is concerned as to whether this results in a negative impact that should be mitigated by the developer of the time-share project. is 9 7. THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING WHOLLY-OWNED CONDOMINIUMS TO TIMESHARE OWNERSHIP. Other resort communities in the country have experienced the conversion of wholly-owned • condominium projects to time-share ownership. For example, in the state of Hawaii, numerous wholly-owned condominium projects have been converted into interval ownership. In Hawaii, as a result of the conversion of wholly-owned condominium projects into time-share ownership, local ordinances have been adopted requiring 100% of the condominium owners approve of the proposed conversion to time-share units. This does two things. First, it insures that 100% of the condominium ownership agrees to the conversion of any or all of the condominium units to time- share units. Numerous examples of conflicts arising between wholly-owned and time-share interval ownership have been documented. Specifically, the more intensive vacationing-type of use of time-share ownership may conflict with the more residential condominium uses. Conflicts arise out of complaints concerning long hours of "partying, noise and disregard for the quality of the premises." Secondly, conflicts have arisen over the management and maintenance of the property. While time-share owners have a sense of ownership and pride in the property they purchased, they may not be as heavily tied to their investment as a condominium owner. Therefore, conflicts resulting from management and quality upkeep of property result. 8. INTEGRATION OF TIMESHARE OWNERSHIP WITH WHOLLY-OWNED CONDOMINIUMS. As discussed above, the integration of time-share ownership with wholly-owned condominiums can result in conflicts of use. As mentioned earlier, the type of use associated with time-share combined in close proximity with less intensively used, wholly-owned condominiums, may not be desirable and could possibly pose problems. Again, time-sharing is a vacation-type of use, whereas condominiums are usually a residential use, or at least, less intensive vacation-type of use. Again, staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the . applicant, the potential negative impacts associated with the integration of time-share ownership and wholly-owned condominiums. 9. MANAGEMENT OF TIMESHARE PROJECTS. The management of a quality time-share project is closely related to the high level of maintenance required for time share. It is in the best interest of the community to insure that time-share projects are maintained at a high level and in a professional manner. In staff's opinion, this is most easily accomplished through quality, long-term management of the entire project. A high quality management program is necessary as the large number of interval owners involved in a single, time-share project can be extensive. Without proper management, the overwhelming number of owners of the property could result in future conflicts. Discussions with a branch broker of a local time-share project, indicate that the most common form of management of interval ownership projects is a form of Board of Directors. The Board of Directors functions very similar to a Homeowner's Association or Condominium Association. The Board, in most instances, is aided by a management company to help in the maintenance and management of day-to-day operations. As with any association governed by a Board of Directors, the Directors are elected or appointed by the ownership and represent and are responsible to the ownership as a whole. The Board of Directors would be responsible for the overall maintenance and management decisions of the time-share project. 10 0 Staff recommends that in the case of the Austria Haus specifically, the applicant discuss their proposed management scheme for the project. In the case of a project like the proposed Austria . Haus, there would be a mixture of accommodation units and time-share units. A Board of Directors or management agency needs to be responsible for the management of both the accommodation units and the time-share units. Staff believes that conflicts arise when the management of the time-share units differ from the management of the accommodation units. 11. POSSIBLE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF TIME SHARE OWNERSHIP IN THE TOWN OF VAIL. Positive Impacts of Time-Sharing: • Activity during the "shoulder seasons" tends to increase due to an increase in year-round occupancy. • The attraction of revenue-generating tourists. • Efficient utilization of resources. This is the "warm beds" concept. • More pride of ownership with timeshare units than with accommodation units. • Increased levels of occupancy. • Increased resort exposure due to the extensive number of interval owners. Negative Impacts of Time-Sharing: • Some resort areas have experienced poor, distasteful sales practices of sales agents trying to sell time-share weeks. Because of the number of buyers needed to sell out a project, an intensive and costly sales program must be developed. The problems associated with sales generally comes in the area of solicitation of sales on streets, at the ski base areas, shopping malls, and the use of high-pressure sales tactics. • Possible conflicts between wholly-owned condominium owners and time-share interval owners. • Possible loss of true accommodation units. • Possible difficulty in collection of property taxes due to the extensive number of owners. Sources: Report: Results of Research on Time-Sharina Reaulations. P. Patten, Comm. Dev. Dept., 1980 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Time-Share Industry Time-Share Ownership Benefits: Results from a Nationwide Survev of Time-Share Owners. 1995 VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed text amendments to Section 18.26.040 of the Municipal Code, and not a request for a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Town Council, staff will not be providing a recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a recommendation on the applicant's proposal at the time of final review. Currently, the applicant is scheduled to reappear before the Planning and Environmental Commission for final review on Monday, November 11, 1996. 11 APPENDIX A The information in Appendix A is derived from timeshare industry materials submitted by the • applicant to the Community Development Department. The information is intended to provide a basic understanding of the socio-economic impacts of the timeshare industry as reported by the American Resort Development Association (ARDA). Complete copies of the source materials have been attached for reference. A recent study which examined industry performance from 1980-1994 revealed that sales in 1994 reflected an increase of 870% over the $490 million in world-wide sales reported in 1980. In addition, the 560,000 vacation intervals sold in 1994, reflected a jump of 460% over the interval sales reported in 1980, which were approximately 100,000. At year end 1994, roughly 4.9 million vacation intervals had been purchased since 1980, resulting in sales volume of over $36 billion during the 15-year period. The U.S. is the leader in the worldwide vacation ownership resort market, with 1,546, or 37.3%, of the resorts, 1,538,000 or 48.9%, of the "owners owning in the area," and 1,648,000, or 52.4% of the owners of the "owners residing in the area." A recent study revealed that 75.3% of the U.S. vacation owners are satisfied with their vacation purchases, with 76.6% of study participants responding that their expectations at the time of purchase have been "matched or exceeded," and 75.4% reporting that they recommend vacation ownership to others. Of the more than 2,000 owners surveyed, 67.5% responded that vacation ownership has had a positive impact on their lives. Most important among the motivation factors sited by the owners surveyed in their decision to purchase vacations were the high standards of the resorts at which they own is and exchange, followed by the flexibility offered through vacation exchange opportunities, and the value of vacation ownership. Of those surveyed, 83.1 % responded that the "certainty of quality accommodations" was a "very important" factor in their vacation ownership purchase. Other motivational factors included good value, location of the resort, company credibility and savings of dollars on vacation costs. • According to a February, 1995 telephone survey of 1,000 U.S. households not owning recreational property, 60.3% of the Americans believed they have a chance of purchasing recreational property of some type during the next 10 years. The survey results revealed that over 1/3 of Americans rate their chance of purchasing during the next 10 years as "about 50/50 or better," compared to 15.5% in 1990 and 25.5% in 1993. • Americans interested in purchasing recreational property prefer the standard 2-bedroom unit, sleeping 6, over any other single unit size, by more than a 2:1 margin (45.7%). • The average vacation owner has purchased 1.7 weeks of vacation ownership. Although nearly 2/3 (58.8%) of vacation owners own a single week of time-share, the number of weeks owned increases the longer the average respondent is involved with vacation ownership. • The vast majority of vacation owners (73.9%) initially purchase just one interval. However, more than 1 /4 (26.1 %) of those who first purchase between 1992 and 1994, now own more than one time-share interval, indicating that many first time purchasers are purchasing more than one interval at the time of initial purchase. • f:\everyone\pec\memos\cc2exta.o28 12 • While in the local resort area, the average time-share visitor party spends considerably more than the traditional traveler, averaging expenditures of $1,130.00 during the course • of the entire stay. • According to more than 2,000 U.S. vacation owners surveyed in 1995, the largest single category of expenditure while in the resort area is for food and drink consumed in restaurants, bars and other hospitality establishments. • Vacation owners surveyed in 1995 average 6.9 nights in the resort area during their most recent time-share vacation. • Vacation owners often extend their stay in the local resort area, by spending additional nights in another form of accommodation. Of those surveyed in 1995, the average owner spends an additional 4.7 nights in the local resort area during his/her most recent time- share vacation by staying in a hotel, with friends or relatives, or elsewhere. • U.S. owners surveyed in 1994 reported that they anticipate returning to the resort where their time-share interval is located an average of.6.4 times during the next 10 years. By contrast, those same owners responded that, had they not purchased a time-share in the resort area, they would have returned to the resort area an average of only 3.2 times. • Compared to all households in the United States, vacation owners have higher incomes, are older, and have higher levels of formal education than those of the average American consumer. As an aggregate profile, the typical vacation owner is an upper middle- income, middle-age, well educated couple. • A recent study revealed that the average household income of vacation owners is over • $63,000, having risen dramatically from 1978 when the average income was $23,000. Over 1/2 of all vacation owners have household incomes between $15,000 and $100,000. • 86.5% of all vacation owners are couples, and 13.5% are single individuals. • As of December 31, 1994, 1,648,000 U.S. households owned a vacation. The top three states in terms of total number of vacation owners are California, New York and Florida. Sources: The 1995 Worldwide Resort Time-Share Industrv Time-Share Purchasers: Who Thev Are. Whv Thev Buv, 1995 Edition. Time-Share Ownership Benefits: Resrilts from a Nationwide Survey of Time-Share Owner, 1995 The American Recreational Property Survey: 1995 • f:\everyone\pec\memos\cc2exta.o28 13 March 28, 1996 ARDA Dear ARDA Leader: We are pleased to present to you the new ARDA vacation ownership information kit. Included in the kit are a variety of statistical and descriptive background pieces which illustrate the current impressive state of the vacation ownership industry and highlight the many positive characteristics and benefits of our products. Information presented in the kit draws from industry data collected through the numerous industry studies which ARDA and the Alliance for Timeshare Excellence (ATE) have sponsored over the last few years. The kit can be used for a variety of purposes, including outreach efforts to the media as well as financial and regulatory audiences. As you work to positively position your company and its resorts amongst your critical target groups, please avail yourself of the ARDA information kit. It will help to place your company in the context of the fastest-growing sector of the worldwide travel and tourism industry. Additional kits are available to ARDA members for $2.50 per copy. Sincerely, Peter N. Brown Chairman William J. Hoag ATE Chairman President ARDA • Contact: Chris Larsen or Ellen Yui ARDA YUI+COMPANY 202/371-6700 301/585-0298 VACATION OWNERSttlr: A GLOBAL EXPLOSION With annual gross sales approaching $5 billion and the number of households around the world owning a vacation surpassing 3 million, the worldwide vacation ownership industry has experienced close to 900 pe: cent growth since 1980, positioning it as the fastest-growing segment of the travel and tourism industry. Based on 1994 reports, there are 4,145 vacation ownership resorts located in 81 countries and vacation owners residing in 174 countries. With 384,000 new owners purchasing 560,000 vacation intervals and worldwide gross sales of $4.76 billion, 1994 proved a record year for the industry. Sales Increased Nine-fold Since 1980; 75% Industry Growth Since 1990 A recent study which examined industry performance from 1980 through 1994 revealed that sales in 1994 reflected an increase of 870 percent over the $490 million in worldwide sales reported in 1980. In addition, the 560,000 vacation intervals sold in 1994 reflected a jump of 460 percent over the interval sales reported in 1980, which were approximately 100,000. At year-end 1994, roughly 4.9 million vacation intervals had been purchased since 1980, resulting in a sales volume of over $36 billion during the 15-year period. The rapid acceleration of growth in the vacation ownership industry has been most dramatic in recent years. From 1992 to 1994, over 780,000 households purchased a total of almost 1.2 million vacation intervals, producing a sales volume of over $9 billion in just two yea-- Since 1990, the industry has grown 75 percent in terms of both vacation ownership resorts developed, w- 1,788 new resorts, and households purchasing a vacation interval, with 1,344,000 additional households aom 1990 to 1994. Vacation Ownership. Industry Global Sales Volume 1980 to 1994 $5,000 $4,500 $4,000 $3,500 3 Millions $3,000 32500 $2.000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 $1.735c. =mei R1n" ` . $1 165 ?,r+u • 4Q7 $4,760 $4;,250 - 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Source: The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry, • C 1995 by the American Resort Development Association 2 Trends in the Worldwide Vacation Ownership Industry • 1980 to 1994 Year Resort Vacation Intervals Sales (Dec. 31) Projects Owners Sold Volume 1980 506 155,000 100,000 $490 mil 1981 631 220,000 175,000 $965 mil 1982 950 335,000 205,000 $1.165 bil 1983 1,200 470,000 225,000 $1.340 bil 1984 1,550 620,000 275,000 $1.735 bil 1985 1,774 805,000 245,000 $1.580 bil 1986 1,779 970,000 240,000 $1.610 bil 1987 1,822 1,125,000 280,000 $1.940 bil 1988 1,899 1,310,000 300,000 $2.390 bil 1989 2,132 1,530,000 395,000 $2.970 bil 1990 2,357 1,800,000 405,000 $3.240 bil 1991 2,687 2,0701000 440,000 $3.740 bil 1992 3,050 2,363,000 500,000 $4.250 bil 1993 3,653 2,760,000 530,000 $4.505 bil 1994 4,145 3,144,000 560,000 $4.760 bil 0 Industry Resort Development Escalating Worldwide There are 4,145 vacation ownership resorts around the world. The number of industry resorts has risen rapidly, having climbed from only 500 in 1980. Vacation Ownership resorts are located in 81 countries, with 64.6 percent of them found in six countries. 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 950 1000 506 .,,,, 500 0 •. 1980 198, 1982 • Source: The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry, ®1995 by the American Resort Development Association 3 Over 3 Million Households Enjoy Vacation Ownership At year-end 1994, approximately 3,144,000 households in 174 countries owned a vacation interval, having risen from 155,000 households in 1980. The industry demonstrated relatively consistent annual worldwide growth in vacation owners over the eight-year period from 1986 to 1994, averaging 15.8 percent, with a narrow range from 13.9 to 17.6 percent. The widespread and rising popularity of vacation ownership amongst consumers has been underscored by the rapid escalation of owners in recent years; from 1990 to 1994, the absolute increases in owners were the highest in the history of the industry. 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 United States Europe Mexico South America Caribbean SE Asia/Japan South Africa Australia Canada Elsewhere TOTAL Vacation Owners Worldwide 1980 to 1994 zc 1,530,000 1,125,000 970,000 e 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 U.S. is Global Leader with Nearly 40% of Resorts and 50% of Owners • Vacation Ownership The U.S. is the leader in the worldwide vacation ownership Resort Projects resort market, with 1,546, or 37.3 percent, of the resorts, Number % of Total 1,538,000, or 48.9 percent, of the "owners owning in the 1,546 37.3 area," and 1,648,000, or 52.4 percent, of the "owners 1,188 28.7 residing in the area." 291 28.7 The second most dominant area for vacation ownership is 291 7.0 Europe, which contains. 29.7 percent of the resorts, 20.9 276 6.7 percent of the owners owning in the area, and 21.6 percent 160 3.9 of the owners residing in the area. Collectively, the U.S. 142 3.4 and Europe contain 67.0 percent of the resorts, 69.8 percent 117 2.8 of the owners owning in the area, and 74.0 percent of the 93 2.2 owners residing in the area. 130 3.1 • 4,145 100.0 Source: The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry, C 1995 by the American Resort Development Association 3,144,000 4 Some 52.4 percent of all vacation owners in the world reside in the U.S., although this number is decreasing as the market takes firmer hold in other countries. The second-ranked country is the United Kingdom, with 286,259 owners, or 9.1 percent of the world total. Three other countries have over • 100,000 owners, including Mexico, with 171,905, South Africa, with 162,339, and Canada, with 127,050. Industry Growth Is Accelerating in Europe and South America Recent growth in the United States has been complemented by a boom in the vacation ownership market elsewhere in the world, especially in Europe, Mexico and South America. Between 1992 and 1994, on an area-wide basis, greatest absolute growth was in the U.S., Europe and South America. These three areas accounted for 66.4 percent of the new resorts, reported at 727, 75.5 percent of new owners owning in the area, : eported at 590,000, and 75.7 percent of the new owners residing in the area, reported at 591,000. Over one-third (36 percent) of the new resorts were in Europe, with 394. Europe also realized a 47 percent increase in its number of vacation ownership resorts. The greatest relative in...: ase was in South America, where the number of resorts grew 100.9 percent, from 115 in 1992 to 231 in 1994. The U.S. gained 217 resorts during the period. Europe surpassed the U.S. as the leader with respect to e,.. wth of new owners residing in the area. From 1992 to 1994, an additional 245,000 households residing in Europe purchased vacations, compared to 237,000 in the U.S. Collectively, these two areas accounted for 61.7 percent of all new owners residing in any given area. The penetration rate is over 50 owners per 10,000 in only two countries: New Zealand, at 79.4 to 10,000, and the U.S., at 63.2. The overall average figure for all countries is 8.9 vacation owners per 1,000 tourists from abroad. This ratio is significantly higher in countries with warmer climaxes, such as Mexico, the • Caribbean and southern Europe. Number of Vacation Ownership Resorts Per Country 'The Top 15) # of Projects % of Global Cumulative % Industry of Indu.,w, 1 United States 1,546 37.3 37.3 2 Spain 407 9.8 47.1 3 Mexico 291 7.0 54.1 4 Italy 152 3.7 57.8 5 France 143 3.4 61.2 6 South Africa 142 3.4 64.6 7 Portugal 118 2.8 67.4 8 Argentina 116 2.8 70.2 9 U.K. 105 2.5 72.7 10 Canada 93 2.2 74.9 11 Australia 76 1.8 76.7 12 Japan 72 1.7 78.4 13 Venezuela 66 1.6 80.0 14 Austria 52 1.3 81.3 15 Brazil 45 1.1 82.4 Elsewhere 721 17.4 100.0 Total 414.5 100.0 Source: The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry, C 1995 by the American Resort Development Association ARDA CONTACT: Chris Larsen or Ellen Yui ARDA YUI+COMPANY 202-371-6700 301-585-0298 VACATION OWNERSnw: SCORING A 75% SAiizrALiLiON RATING BY OWNERS With over 1.7 million resort vacation owners in the U.S. and nearly 120,000 new buyers each year, the vacation ownership industry is enjoying skyrocketing approval ratings from its owners and achieving levels of satisfaction unequaled in the hospitality industry. Owner Satisfaction Ratings 17% So- W% Very so satisfied is- 8% satisfied '.. :;. 36% Satisfied A recent study revealed that 75.3 percent of U.S. vacation owners are satisfied with their vacation purchases, with 76.6 percent of study participants responding that their expectations at the time of purchase have been "matched or exceeded," and 75.4 percent reporting that they recommend vacation ownership to others. Of the more than 2,000 owners surveyed, 67.5 percent responded that vacation ownership has had a positive impact on their lives. Of the vacation owners surveyed, 30.9 percent had Vacation Owner Satisfaction Indicators Expectations Matched ,,,,,,,+,,,,, 4s% Recommend to Others j1j 75.49(, Satisified with Purchase " 1111j""I""I 75.3% Positive Impact on We 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pa.of Positive Responses purchased additional time beyond that which they obtained through their original purchase. This proportion jumps to 41.2 percent among long-time owners, or those who first purchased at least eight years ago. In addition, 22.8 percent expressed interest in purchasing additional weeks. Most Multl4Veek Owners Purchased Additional Time After Ex, : ".ncing Vacation Ownership 28% Purchased all at once 72% Purchased more time later Number of intervals Owned increases with Length of Ownership Y 2 3 •8 1.S ?rvF:{: 20 Q OUnder5 t75to7 1118ormorel Years Since Purchased First Interval Source: Timeshare Ownership Benefits: Results From a Nationwide Survey of Timeshare Owners 1995, ®1995 by the American Resort Development Association • • • 2 Why They Buy: High Standards of Resorts, Flexibility and Value Most important among the motivational factors cited by the owners surveyed in their decision to purchase vacations were the high standards of the resorts at which they own and exchange, followed by the flexibility offered through vacation exchange opportunities, and the value of vacation ownership. Of those surveyed, 83.1 percent responded that the "certainty of quality accommodations" was a "very important" factor in their vacation ownership purchase. /?? Motivations for Vacation Ownership Purchase Quality Accommoda{? tions ^iililll?lililllilAiYlililB?lililililililililililllilililil5ililililililililili11i0dd'lililililllililililililililil liflhlililllihlililililililil ilililililllilllilililllillh?IYliLblililllilllilllililili?tlilililillLlililililil?lilll'4ililiGlililiblilililllilii' IililililililiYYYYYii 99% Exchange Opportunity . Y ? Yi'7.9% Good Value • N ?ilildfull?iililililM1fillill?Ilili1111illltlllill?flll{IIJilllilildlltllli6lilililtlili .8% Resort, Amenities, Unit . ! ilildJddililllililihli hililihYliliYhhnYllfi 'ilitllldiYiihYliWl h??JYYlili181idY1JiYltl iYlililild IilililidihYY IiYLIihldlilitldiYliiii $IiilYliYltlihYlilihYl 9lildddiilii6 8 3.7% c...? (.Company credibility 95y2% Save 3 on Vacation Costs • JilillilililldlldhjQlj I rr. 93.: Y Location of the resort • 1i111aiYl iii i6lihlilililililildildilJi Iilililill Jil lilildiliNii IilililiiYYildAdliSYO 93.1 4 0 10 20 30 40 s0 60 70 80 90 100 P ,.-, a of Positive Rs., ... ss The exchange option, which allows owners to trade a week at their home resort for any of thousands of resorts worldwide, was ranked second by owners as a perceived benefit at the time of purchase. Of those surveyed, 80.6 percent rated the exchange opportunity as a "very important factor in their satisfaction level." Survey participants also cited the value of vacation ownership as a motivation to purchase and a reason for satisfaction with vacation ownership products. Some 77.2 percent indicated that they felt it "very important" that vacation ownership offered "good value for the money." Owners Claim Improved Vacation Experiences, Emotion:., and Lifestyle Advantages Vacation owners overwhelmingly agree that they have enjoyed enhanced vacation experiences as well as emotional and lifestyle advantages as a direct result of vacation ownership. Of those surveyed, 77.1 percent believe the vacation ownership experience has had a positive impact on their "looking forward to vacations," and 69.2 percent attest they have "enjoyed vacations more" since becoming vacation owners. Positive Lifestyle Impact of Vacation Ownership Looking forward to vacations ',mud Y n Y ,d a Y a , d n n ,uliali dill inoulllYri I Y a I,YrlladrYar Cn auaduu,mm lfipr a,IolililYllYili ro i Yr a nna ul, aan ml . rlio d, % r.1% Le ....... experiences II 5.29 ".WAM=. . 6 General lifestyle m mueml innnn'Ym l u in ineineem 51.1% Metal health ' IililililiYYlildilildiYliliY YliYlililihldiliYYYliIihL IYYYIiI?iYYlililYiYYYhu'ii 51.1% Family cornmurq.....,.'., lldddildil?lild?I?liLl?l?l? 38.9% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8o 90 100 Percentages of Postive Responses • Source: Timeshare Ownership Benefits : Results From a Nationwide Survey of f Timeshare Owners 1995, 01995 by the American Resort Development Association 3 In addition, 67.8 percent of owners have enjoyed a guider range of vacation experiences" as a result of vacation ownership, and 67.1 percent have "experienced more vacation destinations" than were available to them as non-owners. Owners also derive positive emotional and lifestyle advantages through vacation ownership, as indicated by the study's findings. Of those surveyed, 66.3 percent responded that their vacations are now "more restful and revitalizing" than was true prior to ownership; 64.8 percent believe that their lives have been "generally positively impacted" by vacation ownership; and 64.6 percent reported having obtained "greater peace of mind in planning vacations" as c,,...rared with before purchasing a vacation. Personal Benefits of Vacation Ownership Stayed in higher-quality resorts Enjoyed vacations more Wider range of N..' -On experiences Experienced more destinations More restful & revitalizing vacations Saved $ on accommodations Certainty of good experience More vacations away from home Confidence of worry-free travel Experienced more fin & excitement More individualized treatment P.? ;age of F e R_,. .,es s0 90 100 The statistics presented above are based on a survey of more than 2,000 vacation owners which was sponsored by the American Resort Development Association (ARDA) and conducted by Ragatz Associates of Eugene, Oregon. Half of the respondents to the survey have owned one or more vacations for at least seven years. The study participants were drawn from a random sample of vacation owners residing in the U.S. who belong to at least one of the two major U.S. vacation ownership exchange companies. Source: Timeshare Ownership Benefits. Results From a Nationwide Survey of Timeshare Owners 1995, ®1995 by the American Resort Development Association 70% 69.2% 7.8% 7.1% .3% 6 n LJ r 1 LJ 4 C] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 • ARDA CONTACT: Chris Larsen or Ellen Yui ARDA YUI+COMPANY 202-371-6700 301-585-0298 VACATION OWNv xSnw: FLEXIBILITY AND CHOICE IN TRAVEL One of the most popular features of vacation ownership is the flexibility offered through the exchange opportunity. Exchange allows the purchaser of a vacation interest at one resort to exchange it for another week owned by someone else at another time or place. Vacation ownership resorts are affiliated with an exchange company, which administers the exchange service for owners at the resort. Owners individually elect to become members of the exchange service company. At many resorts, the developer pays for each new owner's first-year membership in the exchange company; thereafter, the exchange company directly solicits renewals of its consumer memberships. Dominating the vacation exchange business are two major companies: Interval International (II), based in Miami, Florida, and Resort Condominiums International (RCI), ba-Sed in Indianapolis, Indiana. Worldwide, II and RCI together have approximately 4,000 affiliated resorts a -pore than 2.2 million consumer members. To date, over eight million exchanges have been confir...ed worldwide. Both RCI and II have U.S. and overseas offices and sophisticated computer systems with databases that store information and match members' desires with available exchange weeks. Each exchange company publishes an annual directory of resorts complete with full-color illustrations from which members can make exchange selections. Vacation Exchange Company Members Worldwide Source: Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Edition, • ®1995 by the American Resort Develup,.ent Association, and data supplied by Interval International (11) and Resort Condominiums International (RCI) 2 How the vacation exchange works. The vacation owner places his/her unit into the exchange company's pool of weeks available for exchange, and in turn takes another week from that pool. The exchange companies charge a small transaction fee, in addition to an annual membership fee, for performing a • computer search to complete an exchange. Two types of exchanges exist: internal and external. An internal exchange takes place when an owner exchanges a week at his/her home resort for another at the same resort, or at a different resort developed and/or managed by the same company. An external exchange occurs when an owner gives up his/her week at the home resort in return for a week at a dill;.. ;...t resort with which the owner has no connection. External exchanges make up the vast majority of the thousands of exchanges which occur each year worldwide. Number of Exchange Vacations Steady Rise in Use of Vacation Exchange Taken by U.S. Owners (as of 1994) According to a recent survey, the average vacation ( s?i.) PW.) owner has made 4.8 exchange requests and has taken 4.0 s exch. ex?ga exchange vacations. These figures indicate a > . " confirmation rate of 85 percent for all exchange requests. Over three-quarters (81.0 percent) of all cu..,;...L U.S. (ae u 4 k timeshare owners have taken an exchange vacation, having risen from 50.3 percent in 1989 and 44.5 percent (1•) in 1982. 3 exch. A (t•) Of the more than 2,000 U.S. vacation owners surveyed, no exch. <<< 73.5 percent responded that they have belonged to an exchange company since they purchased and that they z exch. .:u plan to maintain th _ membership. 0V/0) I exch. As of year-end 1994, 25.2 percent of U. S. vacation owners had taken six or more exchange vacations. Approximately 31.6 percent of U.S. owners have taken five or more exchange vacations. Source: Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Edition, ®1995 by the American Resort Develxt.,..ent Association, and data supplied by Interval International (II) and Resort Condominiums International (RCI) E L J ? ARDA CONTACT: Chris Larsen or Ellen Yui ARDA YUI+COMPANY 202-371-6700 301-585-0298 VACATION OWNERStue: DIVERSE PRODUCTS, QUALITY ACCOMMODATIONS AND FLEXIBILITY Consumer demand for the vacation ownership product has never been higher, as evidenced by the more than 3 million households worldwide who have joined the ranks of vacation owners, with customer satisfaction ratings that surpass 75 percent, according to a 1995 survey of owners. As the fastest-growing segment of the global travel and tourism industry, vacation ownership is redefining consumer travel by setting higher standards in hospitality, revitalizing travel and leisure through new products and services, and elevating consumer expectations of the vacation experience. When asked during a 1995 survey to rank motivational factors in their purchase decision and reasons for their satisfaction with the product, more than 2,000 U.S. vacation owners cited the high standards of the resorts at which they own and exchange, the flexibility offered through vacation exchange opportunities, • and the value of vacation ownership as the top three. Of those surveyed, 83.1 percent responded that the "certainty of quality accommodations" was a "very important" factor in their vacation ownership purchase; 80.6 percent rated the exchange opportunity, which allows owners to trade a week at their home resorts for any of thousands of resorts worldwide, as a "very important factor in their satisfaction level;" and 77.2 percent indicated that they felt it "very important" that vacation ownership offered "good value for the money." Diverse Products. Commonly referred to as vacation ownership, timeshares, interval ownership, and vacation clubs, today's vacation ownership product equals, and in many cases surpasses, accommodations at traditional luxury resorts and puts consumers in the driver's seat when they vacation. Timesharing is a term used to describe a method of use and ownership of real estate where purchasers get title to specific periods of time in units of real property in common interest subdivisions. On the other hand, the vacation club is a travel and use product only. Consumers do not buy a fixed week, unit, unit size, season, resort or number of days to vacation each year. Instead, they purchase points which represent the "currency" used to access the various benefits in the club. An important advantage is the tremendous flexibility of the product, especially when tied to a point system. A vacation club is not tied to real estate ownership in any way. It is truly a depreciating asset, just as is an automobile, because its value declines with each year of use, as there are fewer years left to go in the membership. 0 2 A vacation club usually has the following attributes: • It has a finite term and often no fee interest. • It provides the use of accommodations in various locations. • • It is highly flexible and may be based on the use of "points" to get accommodations or other benefits. • It offers benefits other than lodging such as travel services, hotel discounts, golf packages, health or city club memberships. • It may offer different types of lodging such as condominiums, timeshares, hotels, campgrounds or cruiseships. The Vacation Ownership Resort. The purpose-built vacation ownership resort is a product of architectural engineering and interior design talents operating in synergy to create an envir.:.....ent designed specifically for a rewarding leisure lifestyle. This synergy expresses itself in the spatial organization of the individual units, choice of finnishings, fixtures and equipment and resort am;.. Les. Individual characteristics of the vacation ownership product can be found through the more traditional hospitality products; what sets the vacation ownership product apart is the combination of quality accommodations, the spaciousness, comfort and luxury features of suites, full-service resort a=..--:.`es and unparalleled flexibility available to consumers in one resort. Driven by escalating consumer demand and competition within the industry, the design, construction and quality of vacation ownership resorts has improved dramatically since the industry's inception. In the 1970s, vacation ownership resorts were mostly developed as conversion projects of old hotels, apartments and especially condominiums that had not sold as whole ownership units. Present conversions include all of the above in addition to the recent participation of large hotel chains in the vacation ownership industry. In the years since, product design has become more expansive and sophisticated. • The Units. Most vacation ownership units have two bedrooms and two full baths, and can sleep up to six people. One-bedroom units are famished to sleep up to four people. Studio units typically sleep no more than two people. A recent development is the "lockoff' or "lockout" unit. Such units may consist of two bedrooms and two bathrooms, or three bedrooms and three bathrooms. They are designed so the owner can occupy the living room and one or two bedrooms, and offer the .... ring space for rental. Units usually include full kitchens outfitted with a variety of amenities, including large refrigerators, dishwashers, Mi.,. v *4ave ovens, blenders, juicers and informal breakfast nooks or counters. Many also have washers and dryers in the units. Many units include a variety of luxury features, including: • double-volume ceilings • tQ.,, aces • balconies • wood-burning fireplaces • hot tubs • whirlpool baths • saunas • sumptuous master bathrooms • home entertainment centers with large-screen TV sets • VCRs • stereos • premium cable TV service r1 LJ 3 is • The Public Spaces. Similar to traditional hospitality resorts, the variety of public spaces found in vacation ownership resorts include hospitality areas such as the lobby, game rooms, restaurants, and convenience shops. In fee-simple resorts organized as condominiums, these public spaces are the "common elements" in which each owner may have an undivided interest. Resort Amenities. The amenities offered at vacation ownership resorts rival those of many of the top- rated traditional resort properties in the world, and include: • fully-equipped exercise facilities • indoor and outdoor swimming pools • private beach access • golf courses • tennis and racquetball courts • ski lifts • bicycles and paths on property • equestrian facilities • boats and marina facilities • fishing piers and tackle • on-site shopping centers • gourmet dining • theaters • nightclubs • shuttle to off site attractions The Owners' Association. A benefit of vacation ownership is that those who buy into a recreational environment also purchase the privilege of ownership of that environment. Specifically, the owners of vacation weeks sold on a fee-simple condominium basis or as shares in a not-for-profit corporation become members of their resort's owners association, often called the Condominium Owners' Association (COA) or Homeowners' Association (HOA). At the time of purchase, every buyer receives project documents which set forth the organizational requirements of the resort's owners association. These documents generally include a declaration of condominium bylaws, and, for incorporated associations, articles of incorporation and bylaws as required under their state's laws. When a stipulated percentage of the unit-weeks in the resort -- usuall' about 75 percent -- has been sold, control of the association passes to the owners who elect a board of ._.: ectors to oversee the resort's operations. The board in turn may form committees to focus on specific operational aspects. The owners association of a vacation ownership resort operates in exactly the same manner as any typical whole ownership residential condominium association. The Exchange Opportunity. One of the most popular features of vacation ownership is the flexibility offered through the exchange opportunity. Exchange allows the purchaser of a vacation interest at one vacation ownership resort to exchange it for another week owned by someone else at another time or place. Resorts are affiliated with an exchange company, which administers the exchange service for owners at the resort. Owners individually elect to become members of the exchange service company. At many resorts, the developer pays for each new owner's first-year membership in the exchange company, thereafter, the exchange comparry directly solicits renewals of its memberships. • 4 The vacation owner places his/her unit into the exchange company's pool of weeks available for exchange and in turn takes another week from that pool. The exchange companies charge a small transaction fee, in addition to an annual membership fee, for performing a computer search to complete an exchange. Two types of exchanges exist: internal and external. An internal exchange takes place when an owner exchanges a week at his/her home resort for another at the same resort, or at a different resort developed and/or managed by the same company. An external exchange occurs when an owner gives up his/her week at the home resort in return for a week at a different resort with which the owner has no connection. External exchanges make up the vast majority of the thousands of exchanges which occur worldwide each year. • C: A'--IDA • CONTACT: Chris Larsen or Ellen Yui ARDA YUI+COMPANY 202-371-6700 301-585-0298 lnr, AMERICAN RESORT DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION The American Resort Development Association (ARDA) is a not-for-profit trade association representing the segment of the leisure industry that deals with ownership of resort and vacation products. Based in WaOington, D.C., ARDA is the only international trade association representing all facets of the resort industry. ARDA serves more than 800 member companies from around the world and ??.. esents more than 1,600 resorts, including timeshare and second-home resorts, community development properties, vacation ownership resorts and fractional interests. ARDA Mission Statement. It is the mission of ARDA to foster and promote the growth of the industry and to serve its members through: • Ethics Enforcement • Education • Legislative Advocacy • Membership Development • Public Relations ARDA Code of Standards & Ethics. ARDA and its members are co•.....Ued to the highest standards and ethics in resort, vacation, recreational, residential, and community development for the benefit of the public. As an example of that co..,.?tment, ARDA adopted a Code of Standards & Ethics and strictly enforces it amongst its membership. The strongest of any found in the housing or hospitality industries, ARDA's Code outlines detailed professional guidelines for all facets of industry practices, from real estate development to marketing to hospitality management. It consists of general requirements, solicitation requi. ?....ents and sales requirements. ARDA Resort Owners Coalition (ARDA-ROC). Established in 1989, the Resort Owners Coalition directly .,,?-esents the needs and concerns of vacation owners. ARDA-ROC is funded tl vagh the voluntary contributions of individual owners and, while affiliated with ARDA, is a separate legal entity. Through legislative and regulatory advocacy and research, ARDA-ROC serves the unique role of placing the concerns of owners at the top of the vacation ownership industry agenda. The ARDA Education Institute (AEI). The ARDA Education Institute (AEI) creates learning and professional advancement opportunities for professionals who cu......dy work in the vacation ownership industry, and professionals who seek to enter it. AEI offc.. ., publications, study courses, and tests which assess an individual's knowledge of industry standards and practices. 2 Once industry professionals have passed the AEI Qualification Test, ARDA offers them the opportunity to earn the certification of Registered Resort Professional (RRP). The RRP certification is awarded to individual members of ARDA who have earned a total of 10 AEI Credits and who have demonstrated long-term professionalism and a commitment to excellence and ethics in the vacation ownership industry. • Through AEI's Seal of Achievement program for company designation and the individual resort professional designations, ARDA awards the dedication of its membership to the highest standards of resort development and hospitality management. Legislative Advocacy. Established in 1969 as the American Land Development Association, ARDA began as a lobbying organization and has continued throughout its history to .,,.I hasize government relations. ARDA continues to voice industry concerns at the Federal and state levels through an integrated program of proactive and reactive legislative initiatives. ARDA's national network of ..;q,. esentatives speak for developers and vacation owners across the country on such diverse issues as tax policy, labor and employment law, and environmental policy. Cr.....,d elements of ARDA's legislative advocacy are its efforts to protect the ownership rights of industry consumers and enhance the growth of the vacation ownership industry. Communications. Communicating the many aspects of the vacation ownership industry is a core function of ARDA. Through annual studies of industry performance and consumer satisfaction with the vacation ownership experience, ARDA provides up-to-date information to consumers, the media, financiers, legislators, regulators and others. With the help of the Alliance for Timeshare Excellence (ATE), a self- supporting group of industry leaders dedicated to the advancement of the industry, ARDA works to communicate the growth of the vacation ownership industry and its value to and benefits for the consumer. • Meetings and Membership. ARDA plays an integral role in fostering interaction between resort developers and industry professionals. Through its three annual meetings and symposia, ARDA brings together leaders and young professionals in the vacation ownership industry to share information and experiences. Through these meetings, both veterans of and newcomers to the industry learn of the many elements that c.,..".bute to success in the vacation ownership industry. At the core of each ARDA meeting is its volunteer leadership. In addition to the extensive public workshops, roundtables and informal discussions, ARDA's leaders participate on more than twenty specialized committees which address common issues among the membership. F..,... education and legislation to sales and marketing to ethics, ARDA's leaders work together to build the industry-and to provide consumers enjoyable experiences, quality products, and good value. 0 • AREA CONTACT: Chris Larsen ARDA 202-371-6700 or Ellen Yui YUI+COMPANY 301-585-0298 RECREATIONAL PROPERTY IN i= Ulrttr.D STATES • Chances of Purchasing Recreational Propery During Next 10 Years 100', Certain (3X) No chance (39X) American interest in ownership of recreational property is on the rise. According to a February, 1995 telephone survey of 1,000 U.S. households not owning recreational property, 60.3 percent of Americans believe they have a chance of purchasing recreational property of some type during the next ten years. The survey results revealed that over one-third (34.6 percent) of Americans rate their chances of About purchasing during the next ten years as "about 50-50 50150 or better," compared to 15.5 percent in 1990 and 25.5 percent in 1993. Among those optimistic respondents, strongest interest was found among residents of the West region, where 40.0 percent responded their chances were high during the next 10 years, as compared to 33.7 percent in the South region, 33.7 percent in the North C,,...U d region, and 31.4 percent in :e Northeast region. Age is Strongest Factor of Estimated Chance of Purchasing Age is the most significant factor in establishing rates of optimism regarding the possible purchase of recreational property during the next 10 years. Survey .,,q ondents under age 40 were by far the most likely to believe they will purchase, with 47.4 percent of positive responses. Interest drops in the 40-to-54 age bracket to 41.8 percent, and declines still further in the 55-and-over bracket to 13.3 percent. Household income ranks second as a factor. For example, 48.6 percent of households with incomes of $75,000 or more believe they have at least a 50-50 chance of purchasing recreational property within the next 10 years, as compared to 26.3 percent of households with incomes under $20,000. Better than -0/50 9%) • Source: The American Recreational Property Survey: 1995, ®1995 by The International Timeshare Foundation Less than soi50 (Z6%) 2 Marital status and gender represent the final demographic variables which affect optimistic attitudes toward purchasing recreational property. Surprisingly, single males voiced the strongest belief in an ability to purchase recreational property, with 43.1 percent of those surveyed responding they had a 50-50 or better chance of such a purchase. By contrast, this indicator was lowest among single females, at only 24.5 percent. It is 34.6 percent among married couples. Correspondingly, it is much higher among all (married • and single) male respondents than among all female respondents, at 45.2 percent and 28.9 percent, respectively. Preferred Type of Location Beach ,' 30.8% Lake Mountains Tropics 9.3% Go" course • 5.6% arm Attraction 5.4% area ski arm 4.7% Desert 1.5% Other 8.6% Florida and Beaches Rank First as Preferred Site and Location Americans cite Florida (15.4 percent) more than any other state or foreign country as the location of choice for a recreational property purchase. The next five most frequently cited locations are: California, at 8.5 percent; Colorado, at 5.5 percent; North Carolina, at 4.9 percent; Texas, at 4.2 percent; and Arizona, at 3.4 percent. Florida and California ranked first and second in similar phone surveys conducted in 1993 and 1990. A total of 5.6 percent of survey participants cited a foreign location, with the Caribbean ranking first among them at 2.6 percent. 30.1% 26.2% The beach is the most preferred type of location for recreational property, selected by almost one-third (30.8 percent) of respondents. It narrowly edges out lake locations (30.1 percent) and mountain areas (26.2 percent).. These top three are far preferred over other options, such as the tropics (9.3 percent); golf courses (5.6 percent), attraction areas (5.4 -vent), ski areas (4.7 percent), or the desert (1.5 percent). zh type of location tends to be most popular where iE is available: beach areas are most popular among Americans who live in the West or Northeast; lakes among those who live in the North Central region; and mountains among those who live in the West. Demographics also have an impact on preferred locations for recreational property ownership. Beach areas tend to be most popular among married couples, younger persons, and the more affluent. Mountains and ski areas tend to attract those who are younger. Golf locations are most attractive to the more affluent. Two-bedroom Unit Outranks Others as Preference by Two-to-One Americans interested in purchasing recreational property prefer the standard two-bedroom unit, sleeping six, over any other single unit size by more than a two-to-one margin (45.7 percent). Other preferences break out as follows: one-bedroom with 22.6 percent; three-bedroom with 15.5 percent; studio or efficiency with 8.9 percent; and 7.3 percent with more than three bedrooms. • Source: The American Recreational Property Survey: 1995, C 1995 by The International Timeshare Foundation 3 Married couples and more affluent Americans are more interested than their counterparts in the largest units, particularly units with three or more bedrooms. Over one-third (35.8 percent) of respondents with incomes over $20,000 would prefer a studio or one-bedroom unit as compared to only 21.1 percent of • those with incomes over $75,000. These proportions were 64.2 percent and 79.0 percent, respectively, for two-bedroom or larger units. Among respondents over 55 years of age, 41.6 percent would prefer a studio or one-bedroom unit as compared to only 28.2 percent of those under 40. These proportions are 58.4 percent and 71.7 percent, respectively, for two-bedroom or larger units. An American Dream: The Single-family Vacation Home or Cabin A single-family vacation home or cabin is the dream of more Americans than any other type of recreational property. Well over half (61.7 percent) of responding households expressed some level of interest in this option, including 23.1 percent who were "very interested." Ranldng second in popularity was a vacant parcel of land for construction of a second home, cited by 48.9 percent, with 18.0 percent "very interested." Third in popularity were resort condominiums, which were cited by 34.7 percent of survey participants, with 5.0 percent "very interested." The majority of Americans (51.7 percent) believe that an attractive and realistic price for recreational property is in the $25,000 to $100,000 range. The median desired price is about $48,000. Given actual prices for recreational property, this finding suggests that most Americans will need to adjust their expectations. Recreational properties are certainly available in this price range, however they tend not to be the most popular options, such as a cabin or detached vacation home. More often, they are homesites, older or smaller condominiums, timeshares, or camping facilities. 0 • Source: The American Recreational Property Survey: 1995, ®1995 by The International Timeshare Foundation ARDA 0 CONTACT: Chris Larsen or Ellen Yui ARDA YUI+CON PANY 202-371-6700 301-585-0298 VACATION OWNERS: PURCHASE TRENDS AND PRODUCT CHARAL L.LRISTICS The average vacation owner has purchased 1.7 weeks. Although nearly two-thirds (58.8 percent) of vacation owners own a single week of timeshare, the number of weeks owned increases the longer the average respondent is involved with vacation ownership. According to a recent survey of U.S. timeshare owners, those who first purchased from 1991 to 1994 reported an average of just 1.2 weeks apiece. Average weeks owned climbed steadily to 1.8 weeks for those first purchasing between 1985 and 1990, and to 2.2 weeks for those first purchasing prior to 1985. Industry studies indicate that, as timeshare owners use their purchase and/or exchange it, they are sufficiently satisfied w-h the product to purchase a multiple of weeks at different locations. Ownership of two or three weeks of timeshare in multiple locations allows consumers to own just the amount of time they can financially afford and have vacation time to use, instead of spending a much larger amount on whole ownership of resort property that sits idle the majority of the year or has to depend on often unreliable rental programs for a return on investment (and, in most cases, even to cover mortgage • payments). Experienced Owners Purchase Multiple Intervals Over Time The vast majority of owners (73.9 percent) initially purchase just or aterval. However, more than one- quarter (26.1 percent) of those who first purchased between 1992 to 1994 now own more. than one timeshare interval, indicating that many first-time purchasers are purchasing more than one interval at the time of initial purchase. There is a strong tendency to purchase more intervals over time: more than half (50.9 percent) of owners who initially purchased prior to 1985 cu«.;,udy own more than one interval, and 22.9 percent own three or more intervals. Overall, 58.8 percent of vacation owners have purchased one interval; 41.2 percent have.purchased two or more intervals; 14.8 percent have purchased three or more intervals; and 8.6 percent have purchased four or more intervals. Multiple-Location Ownership Increases with Length of Ownership One-quarter (24.2 percent) of all current owners own intervals in more than one location. As with the total number of intervals owned, the proportion of multiple-location ownership increases with length of ownership: 6.1 percent for those purchasing from 1991 to 1994; 26.8 percent for those purchasing from Source: Timeshare Purchasers. Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Edition, • ®1995 by the American Resort Development Association 2 1985 to 1990; and 36.2 percent for those first purchasing prior to 1985. In the latter group, the average owner owns 2.2 weeks of timeshare in 1.5 locations. Some 10.7 percent own in three or more locations. 0 Legal Forms of Vacation Ownership Breakout of Vacation Owners by Type of Ownership Othei 1.5% Fee- npie &5% Coop. 1-We Right-to- use 21.6'/. Fee simple ownership is the most common legal form of vacation ownership. It is held by 78.5 percent of all current owners and by 77.1 percent of those who purchased in 1993 or 1994. The right-to-use interest, reported in 1995 as the type of ownership in 21.6 percent of cases, is increasing anew, having previously dipped to 19.7 percent of owners in 1989 from a 1978 level of 38.2 percent. The cooperative concept is relatively unc.,....,.on, .:.t,, senting only 1.9 percent of owners at year-end 1994, having risen slightly fi.... 1.3 percent in 1989. Two-Bedroom Units Dominate Timeshare Market An increase in the size distribution of units represents one of the most noticeable trends in the industry, with two-bedroom units dominating the timeshare market. For example, in 1978, 26.9 percent of owners had a studio/efficiency unit; this figure dropped to 17.8 percent by year-end 1994. Growth has occurred • primarily in two-bedroom units, which are cu..:...dy owned by more than half (55.8 percent) of U.S. owners, having risen from 35.1 percent of owners in 1978. As of 1994, 33.7 percent of owners purchased a one-bedroom unit, and 11.1 percent own a three-bedroom or larger unit. Single individuals and households without children living at home are more likely to purchase smaller units. For example, 18.5 percent of the studio/efficiency units are owned by single individuals as compared to 12.6 percent of the two-bedroom units. Furthermore, 60.1 percent of the studio/efficiency units are owned by households without children under 18 years of age living at home compared to only 53.9 percent of the two-bedroom units. The smaller units also are more frequently owned by younger households. Some 15.9 percent of the studio/efficiency units are owned by households with a household head under 35 as compared to only 6.6 percent of the two-bedroom units. About an equal proportion of the two sizes of units are owned by older (60 years or over) respondents - 24.4 percent of the studio/efficiency units and 27.4 percent of the two- bedroom units. There is little variation between household income and the size of the unit owned. However, 31.7 percent of the studio/efficiency units are owned by households with incomes over $75,000 as compared to 36.5 percent of the two-bedroom units. • Source: Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Edition, ®1995 by the American Resort Development Association 3 Product Flexibility Increasing with Floating Weeks and Split-Week Use Options Floating weeks are growing in popularity as a form of access arrangement. Of owners surveyed in 1994, 41.4 percent owned floating weeks, including 18.0 percent who own an interval that floats within a specific season and 23.4 percent who own an interval that floats on a year-round basis. Some 5.1 percent of respondents reported they own intervals with various other access arrangements. As a type of access arrangement, floating weeks have risen dramatically in recent years; in 1982, only 7.1 percent owned floating weeks. Breakout of Vacation Owners by Interval Access Arrangement other (41%) Rotating Time (1%) Floating Time Within Season 011%) The increasing emphasis on floating time is particularly evident in recent years: 48.8 percent of the 1993 and 1994 purchasers bought this type of access arrangement. Only one-half (53.1 percent) of the 1993-94 purchasers bought fixed time, as compared to 68.9 percent of all current owners and 92.9 percent of owners in 1982. • The split-week use option, although relatively uncommon, is gaining in popularity as a form of ownership. Only 18.6 percent of current owners own at least one timeshare interval in a resort that allows them to split their week of time into two or more shorter stays. However, the split-week use concept is gaining in popularity, as demonstrated by recent purchases: 21 percent of owners who purchased from 1993 to 1994 is own in a resort offering this concept. Source: Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Edition, ®1995 by the American Resort Development Association Time Year. Round (200%) • ARDA CONTACT: Chris Larsen ARDA 202-371-6700 or Ellen Yui YUI+COMPANY 301-585-0298 VACATION OWNERSnur: BENv viiS FOR LOCAL ECONOMIES • The benefits which vacation ownership resorts accrue to the local economy are significant and surpass those offered by more traditional types of resorts. For instance, vacation ownership resorts bring more visitors to the resort area on a per-unit basis than the typical resort hotel. Vacation owners also spend a considerable sum both in reaching the resort area and while staying there. In addition, the return visitation patterns of vacation owners are high, and their lengths of stay are extensive. According to a 1995 survey of U. S. owners, the average timeshare visitor parry spends $1,157 simply for lodging and transportation, en route to the resort. This amount represents a 151 percent increase over figures reported in 1989, and a 304.5 percent increase over 1978 figures. The bulk of the $1,157 is spent on airfares, with an average of $753 per party. The next largest category is for automobile travel, at $175 per parry. Significant Consumer Expenditures While in the local resort area, the average timeshare visitor party spends considerably more than the traditional traveler, averaging expenditures of $1,130 during the course of the entire sta .? This amounts to an average of approximately $165 per day, based on the average stay = 6.9 days. This average weekly expenditure has risen 69.2 percent since 1989 and 122.9 percent sinc. ?78. Restaurants, bars Groceries, sundries, liquor Car rental, gasoline Entertainment, sports Shopping Movies, attractions, tours Other Total Avg. $ % of Expenditure Total According to the more than 2,000 U.S. vacation $316 28.0 owners surveyed in 1995, the largest single 129 11.4 category of expenditure while in the resort area is 142 12.6 for food and drink consumed in, restaurants, bars 163 14.4 and other hospitality establishments, representing 211 18.7 an average of $316 per party. Shopping for 119 10.5 clothing, souvenirs, art, handicrafts, and similar 50 4.4 items represents an additional $211. $1,130 0 C Source: Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Edition, 1995 by the American Resort DeveAgw..ent Association 2 Other expenditures include: groceries, sundries and liquor purchased in stores and bars, at $129; entertainment and sports, at $163; ..,...al automobiles and gasoline, at $142; admissions to museums, rides, tours, movies and other attractions, at $119; and other items, at $50. The proportion of the total amount • of expenditures allocated to the various individual items has ......wined relatively constant since 1989. Longer Lengths of Stay and Larger Visitor Party Size Vacation owners surveyed in 1995 averaged 6.9 nights in the resort area during their most recent timeshare vacation. Over one-half (56.2 percent) stay exactly seven nights, and 78.3 percent stay between five and seven nights. Of those surveyed, 10.6 percent stay more than seven nights. In addition, vacation owners often extend their stay in the local resort area by spending additional nights in another form of accommodation. Of those surveyed in 1995, the average owner spent an addition 4.7 nights in the local resort area during his/her most recent timeshare vacation by staying in a hotel, with friends or relatives, or elsewhere. The greatest proportion of this additional time (an average of 1.9 nights of the 4.7 nights) was spent in a hotel or motel. The average timeshare visitor party contains 3.6 people. Two sizes of visitor parties dominate, including two people, at 34.1 percent, and four people, at 28.0 percent. Approximately one-quarter of the parties (24.1 percent) are five or more people, 11.4 percent are three persons, and 2.3 percent are single individuals. Travel to Resort Area Increases After Vacation Purchase • The significant and positive economic impact which vacation ownership has on the surrounding area is underscored by the change in travel patterns in the resort area by vacation owners after their purchase of a vacation interval. U. S. owners surveyed in 1994 reported that they anticipate returning to the resort area where their timeshare interval is located an average of 6.4 times during the next 10 years. By contrast, those same owners responded that, had they not purchased a timeshare in the area, they would have returned to the resort area an average of only 3.2 times. (Note: vacation owners will exchange several times during a 10-year period; the average anticipated return rate noted above does not include owners exchanging out into other areas or other owners exchanging into the area.) Owners also reported that, on average, they spend 9.5 days in the area where the timeshare interval is located, as compared to the average of 5.7 days they spent in the area prior to their vacation purchase. Source: Timeshare Purchasers. Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Edition, C 1995 by the American Resort Development Association 0 0 ARDA CONTACT: Chris Larsen or Ellen Yui ARDA YUI+COMPANY 202-371-6700 301-585-0298 VACATION OWNERSnw: A GLOSSARY OF TERMS Camping Site. A space designated and promoted for the purpose of locating a trailer, tent, tent trailer, pickup camper or other similar device used for camping. (See also RV C,.,..pground) Common Interest Realty Association (,.inA). An association of real property owners that is generally responsible for providing maintenance services and tea; a;ning, repairing and replacing property that the real property owners share or own in common. Examples of CIltAs include condominium, cooperative, timeshare and planned unit development associations. Membership in a CIRA is generally mandatory for owners and is a condition of purchase of a condominium unit, single family home, or share in a cooperative at the particular development. CIRA members have defined ownership that can be transferred to buyers of their shares or units. Common Interest Subdivision. Increasingly used to describe a variety of ownership interest subdivisions where there is a commonality of interest between purchasers. Such subdivisions include planned unit • developments, condominiums, timeshares, townhouse r.V?ects, undivided interest subdivisions and others. Condominium. A common interest subdivision project in which individual owners get fee title to the air space located within the walls of their individual units as well as a percentage ownership interest in the balance of the project which may include recreational facilities. Many timeshare projects are developed as part of condominium regimes. Condominiums may be either fee interest or leasehold. In the fee interest condominium, an owner has absolute title in perpetuity to his unit and undivided interest in the common area facilities. In a leasehold condominium, the ownership interests end when the leasehold is terminated, often for a term of 40 to 58 years. Contract for Deed or Real Estate Purchase Agreement. A purchase co..?.act by which the seller agrees at some future point in time, when the purchaser has paid the full price of the real estate, -to convey title to the purchaser. Co..u acts for deed or real estate purchase agreements may be coupled with escrow arrangements where title is held by an escrow agent to assure conveyance to the purchaser at the end of the term, notwithstanding the status of the original seller. Escrow arrangements are especially recommended in long-term purchase agreements. Deed. The instrument used to convey interest in real property. The three types of common deeds in use today are general warranty or grant deed, special warranty deed and quitclaim deed. E 2 Fee Simple. Ownership is tied to a particular unit and is owned in perpetuity or until sold by the owner. Owner receives a fee-simple deed with title insurance. Close to 90 percent of U.S. timeshare resorts currently sell on a fee-simple basis. Fee Simple Camp Resort Purchaser receives a deed to a specific campsite and has the exclusive right to use this campsite at any time. Most fee simple projects include such common area amenities as swimming pools, showers and recreational centers that are managed by an owners' association. Fee Title. A common law term used to describe the status of absolute title as opposed to leasehold or other interest less than a full ownership interest in real estate. It is commonly used in reference to "fee simple title" or "fee simple absolute," • Fixed Week Shared Int:,..4L A type of fractional ownership in which the owner knows the specific weeks within a given year that he/she will have access to the accommodations year after year. Also known as "fixed time." Floating Weeks Based on Fixed Week Rotation. A kind of fractional ownership approach that gives greater flexibility than a Fixed Week Shared Interest because key weeks rotate among the various owners each year. Floating Weeks Based on Ownership Rotation. An approach to fractional ownership that offers total flexibility for the owners. Here, the owner actually purchases the fraction for which the accommodation is offered and works out appropriate usage with the other owners on a rotating basis each year. Fractional Ownership Interest. Intervals longer than a traditional timeshare unit-week. Typically one- • quarter, one-eighth, or one-tenth share in the accommodation. Generally, fee title ownership is conveyed. Leasehold Product. All ownership rights in the real property are a., ned for a specified number of years. Membership Camp Resort The type of camp resort in which owners have rights of use based on membership certificates that are generally effective as long as the member pays the dues and assessments required. The developer retains ownership of the real property and improvements. Owners' Association (OA). A body of owners created by statute or by filing of articles of non-profit corporation that administers the rules and regulations of a project. Membership in the owners' association is generally mandatory in projects where multiple interests are involved. Such associations are also sometimes known as Homeowners' Association (HOA), a Condominiums Association (COA), a Property Owners' Association (POA), or a Common Interest Realty Association (CIRA). E 3 Planned Unit Development kr till). A common interest subdivision in which the individual home sites and dwellings are owned by purchasers but common areas are included that embrace the road systems and the shared recreational facilities available to residents of the PUD. Most PUDs have an owners' • association that holds title to the common areas and administers them. Such associations may have broad powers, including the right to require exterior maintenance of individual units in the planned unit development. Private Camp Resort. A camp resort which typically provides a broader range of amenities and activities for campers, more stringent security measures and a more wholesome, family-oriented environment than public campgrounds. Many of these camp resorts offer on-site camping trailers and/or cabins. Prop.. ly Report. The legal disclosure document, issued by the state in which a project is located or sold, which r... +iides information to the buyer regarding the purchase as required by state law. It is also known as the Public Offering Statement or Public Report, depending upon the jurisdiction. The information contained in the report has been decreed by the legislature of the particular state to be important for a purchaser to know before making a decision to participate in a resort development. Such a report generally sets forth the rights of purchaser with respect to rescission and information regarding the background experience of the developer as well as detailed information regarding the project itself. Rescission. The period of time guaranteed under federal or state law during which a purchaser can cancel the purchase contract without penalty and receive a complete and full refund. Right to Use or Timeshare Use. A license or contractual or membership right of occupancy in a • timeshare or other common interest subdivision which confers no ownership of the underlying real estate. This form gives buyers access to the r...rerty for a specified amount of time. RV Campground. An area reserved and developed for camping of recreational vehicles, campers, tents, tent trailers and other devices. (See also Membership Cw.,t. Resort.) Split time. Allows owners to split their weeks, generally into three-night weekends and four-night weekdays. Three-Day Cooling-Off Rule. A Federal Trade Commission ruling that applies to non-fee timesharing (right-to-use) and camping membership sales made at a place other than the "place of business of the seller." In these instances, the sales contract must include a three-day right of rescission, and the seller must furnish the buyer with duplicate copies of the "Notice of Cancellation" with the appropriate information correctly filled in on the form. This rule does not apply to sales made at the seller's place of business, made totally by mail or phone, or the sale _of real estate, insurance or securities. Nor does the rule apply to fee timesharing and other sales of interests in real estate. Timesharing. Used to describe a method of use and ownership of real estate where purchasers get title to specific periods of time in units of real property in common interest subdivisions. Timeshare Estate and Timeshare Interval. A real property concept that allows an owner of real 41property to convey intervals of time in a specific real estate project. 4 Timeshare Project. A project in which a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity for life or for a term of years to the recurrent exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel unit or segment of real property, annually. or on some other periodic basis. Such a timeshare project covers a specified period of time allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided. Truth-in-Lending. Used to describe federal and state programs that require sellers in a consumer credit transaction to reveal to purchasers the total cost of credit. Undivided Interest. The conveyance of undivided interests in a common interest subdivision. Usually, such subdivisions deed an undivided interest as tenant in common to a large parcel of recreation property and the utilization of that property is pursuant to the covenants, conditions and restrictions in place. Sometimes referred to as a fractional fee. The bylaws spell out the rights and obligations of the owners, including usage limitations, reservation requirements and payments of dues. A property owners' association collects dues for common area maintenance and manages the project. Vacation Club. A travel and use product only which offers members great flexibility. The buyer receives a single ownership interest which carries with it the right to use an accommodation at all projects in the club's system. Other typical a; u.butes of vacation clubs include: finite term and no fee interest; common use of "points" to get accommodations or other benefits; benefits other than lodging such as travel services, hotel discounts, golf packages, health or city club memberships; and dill;:. ,..L types of lodging such as condominiums, timeshares, hotels, campgrounds or crniseships. Vacation Ownership. Used to describe all forms of vacation property ownership, including resort timesharing, second homes, timeshares, fractional interests, membership camping interests and recreational subdivision lots. 0 ARDA CONTACT: Chris Larsen or Ellen Yui ARDA YUI+COMPANY 202-371-6700 301-585-0298 i im ALLIANCE FOR TIMESHARE EXCELLENCE The Alliance for Timeshare Excellence (ATE) is a coalition of industry leaders formed to foster the highest standards of professionalism and further the r,,,, .Nth of the vacation ownership industry. Members of the Alliance are listed below: All Seasons Development Sedona, Arizona Costamex International Associates Lafayette, Colorado Disney Vacation Development, Inc. Orlando, Florida Fairfield Communities, Inc. Little Rock, Arkansas • FINOVA Scottsdale, Arizona Four Seasons Lakesites, Inc. Lake Ozark, Missouri Gold Point Lodging & Realty, Inc. Breckenridge, Colorado Heller Financial New York, New York Hilton Grand Vacations Company Orlando, Florida Interval International, Inc. Miami, Florida Island One, Inc. Orlando, Florida La Cabana Resort & Casino Oranjestad, Aruba is Marriott Vacation Club International Lakeland, Florida Orange Lake Country Club Kissimmee, Florida Polo Towers Las Vegas, Nevada Preferred Equities/Ramada Vacation Suites Las Vegas, Nevada RCI Indianapolis, Indiana Resort Development International Fort Myers, Florida The Shell Group, Inc. Northbrook, Illinois Silver Lake Resort, Ltd. Kissimmee, Florida Silverleaf Resorts, Ltd. Dallas, Texas The Success Companies, Inc. Genoa, Nevada Vacation Break, USA Ft Lauderdale, Florida Vistana Development, Ltd. Orlando, Florida ARDA CONTACT: Chris Larsen or ARDA 202-371-6700 Ellen Yui YUI+CM"ANY 301-585-0298 VACATION OWNERSmu r: A DEMOGRAY j3uC PROFILE OF U.S. OWNERS Household Income of U.S. Owners >s-fuu,a (971/.1 >$75,000 (18%) au,uuu 309%) $50,000 (M) Age of Household Head Under4 (I9ye) 1 to 49 30%) 60 or ow (z6•i.) So to 59 (25%) Compared to all households in the United States, vacation owners have higher incomes, are older, and have higher levels of formal education than those of the average American consumer. As an aggregate profile, the typical vacation owner is an upper-middle-income, middle-aged, well-educated couple. Increasingly important segments of the market include high-income households, singles, older consumers, and those with higher educational attainment. • As products have improved, interval prices have increased, and the vacation ownership concept has • gained credibility and stature, there has been a tendency for the consumer profile to move up the socio-economic ladder. Of U.S. vacation owners, 69.5 percent have incomes over $50,000, compared to the 31.1 percent reported nationally; 67.5 percent are 45 years of age or older, compared to 51.3 percent of all Americans; and 55.7 percent have at least a bachelor's degree, while only 23.7 percent of the general population has attained that level of education. All U.S. 1993-1994 All U.S. Owners Purchasers Owners Household Income Household Type Under $50,000 30.4% 27.2% Single Male 3.9% $50,000 to $74,999 34.7 38.4 Single Female 9.6 $75,000 to $99,000 18.0 17.4 Couple 86.5 $100,000 or more 16.8 16.9 Median Income $63,400 $66,250 Children at Home 44.2% Source: Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Edition, ®1995 by the American Resort Developif.ent Association 1993-1994 Purchasers 3.3% 8.6 88.1 48.7% • 2 All U.S. 1993-1994 All U.S. 1993-1994 Owners Purchasers Owners Purchasers . Age of Household Head Under 40 18.5% 32.2% Education level 40 to 49 30.2 32.8 High school or less 23.5% 21.1% 50 to 59 25.2 20.9 Bachelor's d.,b." 55.7 52.5 60 or over 26.0 14.1 Graduate degree 26.8 23.0 Average 51 vears 46 vears Average Income of Owners On the Rise A recent study revealed that the average household income of vacation owners is over $63,000, having risen dramatically from 1978 when the average income was $23,000. Over one-half (52.7 percent) of all current vacation owners have household incomes between $50,000 and $100,000. Dramatically above the national average, 69.5 percent of vacation owners have incomes over $50,000, compared to the national average of 31 percent. Only 5.8 percent of U. S. vacation owners have incomes under $30,000, while 16.8 percent have incomes over $100,000. Percentage of Consumers by Year of Survev 1978 1982 1989 1993 1995 1993-94 Purchasers Household Income Under $20,000 22.2% 9.0% 2.8% 2.4% 1.4% 1.0% • $20,000-$29,999 39.4 21.3 10.7 6.0 4.4 4.3 $30,000-$39,999 20.1 24.1 17.6 14.3 10.5 8.9 $40,000449,999 9.0 20.5 19.4 15.6 14.1 13.0 $50,000-$59,999 8.4 22.0 31.7 16.9 15.2 15.9 $60,000-$74,999 inc. inc. inc. 18.3 19.5 22.5 $75,000-$99,999 inc. inc. 10.6 14.7 18.0 17.4 $100,000 or more 0.9 3.1 7.1 11.9 16.8 16.9 Approximate median $23,000 $37,500 $49,700 $56,900 $63,400 $65,250 Median Income of Owners • The average age of vacation owners (i.e.; the household head) is 51 years. However, it is only 46 years for those who purchased in 1993 or 1994. Some 4.5.9 percent of these most recent buyers are between 40 and 54 years of age. Some 86.5 percent of all vacation owners are couples, and 13.5 percent are single individuals. The percentage of singles has increased from only 7.4 percent in 1978. Only 44.2 percent of owners have children under 18 years of age living at home. Source: Timeshare Purchasers. Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Edition, C 1995 by the American Resort Development Association 3 Vacation Ownership Attracts Consumers From Across the Country As of December 31, 1994, 1,648,000 U.S. households owned a vacation. Vacation owners reside in all 50 states and the District of U.S. Owners by State Columbia. The ten leading states in vacation ownership are the California 243,900 only states with more than 50,000 owners. Together, those ten New York 126,000 states represent 57.8 percent of owners nationwide. Florida 116,900 New Jersey 751800 Three states contain more than 100,000 owners, including: Massachusetts 72,900 California, with 243,900, or 14.8 percent of owners nationwide, Virginia 69,900 New York, with 126,000, or 7.6 percent of owners nationwide; and Pennsylvania 68,200 Florida, with 116,900, or 7.1 percent of owners nationwide. Texas 67,600 Collectively, these three states contain 29.5 percent of all vacation Illinois 60,100 owners in the country. North Carolina 51,400 New England and Southeast Regions Have Highest Concentrations of Owners Penetration rates achieved by the industry, i.e., the proportion of all households that own a vacation in a given state, differ dramatically by region of the country. There are interesting c.....rarisons between the percentage of all U.S. households with all vacation-owning U.S. households. For instance, regions with proportionately more vacation- owning households than total households represented in the region include: the New England region (8.7 percent of vacation-owning households compared to 5.2 percent of total U. S. households); the Southeast region (23.4 percent compared to 19.2 percent); the Mountain region (5.8 percent compared to 5.2 percent); and the Western region (19.7 percent compared to 15.9 percent). The national penetration rate is 1.72 percent (1,648,000 vacation-owning households divided by 95,891,900 total households). It is 2.0 percent or higher in the New England region (2.88 percent), the Southeast region (2.09 percent), and the Western region (2.13 percent). It is under 1.0 percent only in the South Central region (0.95 percent). Highest State Penetration Rates Massachusetts 3.23 • Rhode Island 3.20 10 New Hampshire 3.16 Virginia 2.89 Maryland 2.72 New Jersey 2.66 Arizona Connecticut California Maine Washington Delaware Florida Colorado South Carolina 2.52 2.49 2.24 2.24 2.21 2.15 2.13 2.09 2.09 Source: Timeshare Purchasers. Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Edition, C 1995 by the American Resort Development Association • LJ • • 4 Region All Vacation- Penetration All Households Vacation-Owning Households Owning Rate (US) Households (US) Households (%) (%) (%) New England 4,969,200 143,000 2.88 5.2 8.7 Mid-Atlantic 14,123,400 270,000 1.91 14.7 16.4 Southeast 18,447,700 385,000 2.09 19.2 23.4 South CQLL"' d 15,138,100 143,100 0.95 15.8 8.7 North C:..."d 22,991,700 285,700 1.24 24.0 17.3 Mountain 4,994,400 96,900 1.94 5.2 5.8 West 15,227,400 324,300 2.13 15.9 19.7 U.S. 95,891,900 1,648,000 1.72 Comparison of All U.S. Households with Vacation-Owning Households By Region, 1995 Industry penetration rates vary according to household income, as follows: 4.41 percent for households with incomes of $100,000 and over, 37.0 percent for households with incomes between $50,000 and $99,999; 1.73 percent for households with incomes between $35,000 and $49,999; and only 0.39 percent for households with incomes under $35,000. Source: Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Edition, C 1995 by the American Resort Development Association 5 Vacation Owners by State and Income Category = Total Vacation- Income of Vacation-Owning Households Owning Households State Over 535,000 ! Over 550,000 Alabama 12,000 10,700 8,400 Alaska 3,900 3,500 • 2,700 Arizona 37,900 33,700 26,400 Arkansas 3,100 2,800 2,200 California 243,900 216,800 169,700 Colorado 29,700 26,400 20,600 Connecticut 30,500 27,100 21,200 Delaware 5,600 5,000 3,900 Florida 116,900 103,900 81,400 Georgia 49,400 43,900 34,400 Hawaii 3,700 3,300 2,600 Idaho 5,800 5,200 4,100 Illinois 60,100 53,400 41,800 Indiana 26,100 23,200 18,100 Iowa 9,400 8,300 6,500 Kansas 9,200 8,200 6,400 Kentucky 14,900 13,200 10,300 Louisiana 11,900 10,600 8,300 Maine 10,600 9,400 7,400 Maryland 49,800 44,300 34,700 Massachusetts 72,900 64,800 50,700 Michigan 42,700 38,000 29,700 Minnesota 25,900 23,100 18,000 Mississippi 4,700 4,200 3,300 Missouri 25,700 22,900 17,900 Montana 5,000 4,500 3,500 • Nebraska 3,300 2,900 2,300 Nevada 9,400 8,300 6,500 New Hampshire 13,200 11,800 9,200 New Jersey 75,800 67,400 52,800 New Mexico 7,200 6,400 5,000 New York 126,000 112,000 87,700 North Carolina 51,400 45,700 35,800 North Dakota 1,800 1,600 1,200 Ohio 49,400 43,900 34,400 Oklahoma 7,900 7,100 5,500 Oregon 18,400 16,400 12,800 Pennsylvania 68,200 60,700 47,500 Rhode Island 12,200 10,800 8,500 South Carolina 27,800 24,700 19,300 South Dakota 1,600 1,400 1,100 Tennessee 25,700 22,800 17,900 Texas 67,600 60,100 47,000 Utah 9,500 8,500 6,600 Vermont 3,700 3,300 2,500 Virginia 69,900 62,100 48,600 Washington 45,000 40,000 31,300 West Virginia 5,800 5,200 4,000 Wisconsin 30,500 27,100 21,200 Wvoming 1,800 1,600 1,200 District of Columbia 3,800 3.300 2.600 • Total / Average 1.648.200 1 1.465.500 1,146,700 Source: Timeshare Purchasers. Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Edition, ®1995 by the American Resort Development Association K Y IA 'b` spy b S ??w`t T f .• Z . s IMW 4 -'"ter „yam R • 4% .. r n, I W.- Acknowledgements 4 ARDA would like to extend a special recognition and thanks to the dedicated companies who comprise the Alliance For Timeshare Excellence. All Seasons Development Costamex International Associates Disney Vacation Development, Inc. Fairfield Communities, Inc. FINOVA Four Seasons Lakesites, Inc. Heller Financial Hilton Grand Vacations Company Interval International, Inc. Island One, Inc. La Cabana All Suite Beach Resort & Casino 40 Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc. Orange Lake Country Club Peppertree Resorts, Ltd. Polo Towers Preferred Equities Corp./Ramada Vacation Suites Resort Condominiums International, Inc. Resort Development International The Shell Group, Inc. Silver Lake Resort, Ltd. Silverleaf Resorts, Ltd. The Success Companies, Inc. Vistana Development, Ltd. Welk Vacation C:, r oration 0 TnE 1995 WORLDWWE REsoRT 1 MESHARE IPrepared by: Ragatz Associates . 767 Willamette St. • Suite 307 Eugene, Oregon 97401 • (503) 686-9335 Sponsored by: ALLIANCE FOR TIMESHARE EXCELLENCE m American Resort . Development Association 1220 L Street, NW Suite 510 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 371-6700 Acknowledgements On behalf of the resort industry, the American Resort Development Association thanks Ragatz Associates for its preparation of this research study. This study was made possible by the generous contributions of the members of the ATE. Special recognition and thanks also go to: Interval International Miami, Florida Resort Condominiums International Indianapolis, Indiana These two exchange companies graciously provided much of the information found in this report. Their continuing support is greatly appreciated. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher • is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Copyright C 1995 by the American Resort Development Association. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be .,.F.oduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher. Inquiries should be addressed to ARDA, 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 510, Washington, D.C. 20005 1995 Printed in the United States of America 0 SORT THE T?ESFIAgE INwUSC6Y • 9 Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 8 II. Current Size of the Industry ......................................................................... 9 III. Location of the Resort Timeshare Market .................................................. 15 IV. Trends Between 1990 & 1995 ................................................................... 18 V. Some Detailed Comparisons ..................................................................... 22 VI. Some Supply Characteristics ..................................................................... 24 VII. Some Market Indicators ............................................................................. 26 VIII. Comparison of Timeshare Owners ............................................................ 35 0 List of Tables Table A. Resort Timeshare Market by Area of World, December 31, 1994 ...................................................... 7 Table I. Trends in the Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry, 1980 to 1994 ................................................... 9 Viable 2. Resort Timeshare Market by Area of World, December 31, 1994 .................................................... 15 Table 3. The Top 15 Resort Timeshare Countries, December 31, 1994 .......................................................... 16 Table 4. Trends in the Resort Timeshare Market by Area of the World, 1990 to 1994 .................................. 19 Table 5. Trends in the Resort Timeshare Industry for Selected Countries, 1992 to 1994 ............................... 20 Table 6. Examples of Resort Timeshare Ownership Penetration Rates As Measured by Resort Timeshare Owners Per 10,000 Population (Major Countries Only), December 31, 1994 ................ 23 Table 7. The Top 15 Countries in Regard to Resort Timeshare Owners Per 1,000 Tourists From Abroad, December 31, 1994 ..................................................................................................... 24 Table 8. Summary of Size of Resort Timeshare Units by Area of World, 1990 ............................................. 24 Table 9. Average Prices for Resort Timeshare Intervals ................................................................................. 25 Table 10. Characteristics of Resort Timeshare Industry .................................................................................... 26 Table 11. Characteristics of Resort Timeshare Industry .................................................................................... 27 Table 12. Potential Problems Facing Resort Timeshare Industry ...................................................................... 29 Table 13. Potential Opportunities for the Resort Timesharing Industry ............................................................ 32 Table 14. Opinions Concerning the Future of the Resort Timeshare Industry .................................................. 34 Table 15. Demographic Characteristics of Resort Timeshare Owners in North America ................................. 36 .Table 16. Satisfaction Among Resort Timeshare Owners in North America .................................................... 37 Table 17. Purchase Decision of Resort Timeshare Owners in North America .................................................. 38 Table 18. Exchange Use Among Resort Timeshare Owners in North America ................................................ 40 J Table 19. Use of Purchase and Consumer Expenditures by Resort Timeshare Owners in North America ................................................................................ 40 Appendix A Location of Resort Timeshare Projects and Resort Timeshare Owners, 12/31/1994 ........................ 42 Appendix B Rankings of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country and Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, December 31, 1994 ........................................ 44 Appendix C. Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Projects, 1990 to 1994 ........................................................ 47 Appendix D. Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country, 1990 to 1994 ........................ 49 Appendix E. Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, 1990 to 1994 ....................... 51 Appendix F. Comparison of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country and Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, December 31, 1994 ............................................... 55 Appendix G. Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Per 10,000 Population, December 31, 1994 ..................................................... .................................................................... 59 Appendix H. Ranking of Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Per 10,000 Population Compared With Gross National Product Per Capita, December 31, 1994 ........................................ 63 Oppendix I. Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country Per 1,000 Tourists From Abroad, December 31, 1994 ..................................................................................................... 67 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Executive Summary The resort timeshare concept is less than 30 years old. As late as 1980, only about 155,000 households throughout the world owned a timeshare interval in about 500 resorts. In 1980, it is estimated that roughly 100,000 intervals were purchased for a worldwide sales volume of about $500 million. Recent growth in the United States has been complemented by a boom in the timeshare market elsewhere in the world, especially in Europe, Mexico and South America. When looked at in a worldwide perspective, recent overall growth has been tremendous. The following facts place the size of the worldwide resort timeshare industry in proper perspective: • About 4,145 timeshare resorts now exist. • About 3,144,000 households now own a timeshare interval. • About 560,000 timeshare intervals were sold in 1994, about 460 percent more than in 1980 (about 100,000). • Gross sales volume in 1994 was about $4.76 billion, over 870 percent more than in 1980 ($490 million). • Roughly 4.9 million timeshare intervals have been purchased since 1980 for a sales volume of over $36 billion. • Over 780,000 households have purchased a total of almost 1.2 million timeshare intervals in justthe past two years, representing a sales volume of over $9 billion. • 1994 was a record year in the timeshare industry, with 384,000 new owners purchasing 560,000 intervals for a sales volume of about $4.76 billion. An important finding from recent trends is the relative consistency in annual worldwide growth in timeshare owners in the past eight years. This has averaged 15.8 percent, with a narrow range from only 13.9 percent to 17.6 percent. This obviously suggests a stable and maturing industry. It is important to note that the absolute increases in the past four years have been the highest in the history of the industry. Timeshare resorts are located in 81 countries and timeshare owners reside in 174 countries. As shown in Table A, the United States is the leader in the worldwide resort timesharing market, containing 37.3 percent (1,546) of the resorts, 48.9 percent (1,538,000) of the "owners owning in the area" and 52.4 percent (1,648,000 of Lh: "owners residing in the a- -a." The second most dominant area for timeshare is Europe, containing 28.7 percent of the resorts, 20.9 percent of the owners owning in the area and 21.3 percent of the owners residing in the area. Collectively, the United States and Europe contain 66.0 percent of the resorts, 69.8 percent of the owners owning in the area, and 73.7 percent of tfV owners residing in the area. Such distributions obviously relate to population size, gross national product and household income. Some areas of the world have almost exactly the same number of timeshare owners owning in the area and living in the area. This is especially true for the United States, Europe, South Africa, Australasia, Japan/Southeast Asia and South America. These areas are more or less isolated unto themselves, thereby forming rather closed supply and demand situations. On the other hand, this situation is quite different in Mexico, the Caribbean and Canada. As noted previously, 37.3 percent of all timeshare resorts in the world are located in the United States (1,546 of 4,145). Two other specific countries (not areas) contain more than five percent of the total: Spain (407 and 9.8 percent) and Mexico (291 and 7.0 percent). When including Italy (152 resorts), France (143 resorts) and South Africa (142 resorts), it is found that 64.6 percent of all timeshare resorts are found in six countries. The United States contains 48.9 percent of all timeshare owners owning in the area. Only Spain (327,064 and 10.4 percent), Mexico (319,346 and 10.2 percent) and Sou Africa (161,372 and 5.1 percent) are other countries wh over 100,000/five percent of all owners own. Collectively, 74.6 percent of all timeshare owners own in these four countries. There are seven other countries where over 50,000 owners own: Portugal (75,043), Germany (68,735), Netherlands Antilles (68,308), Venezuela (65,480), the United Kingdom (62,169), Canada (56,853) and Australia (56,105). The other four countries in the top 15 are Italy (41,884), the Bahamas (28,726), New Zealand (27,574) and Japan (19,175). The remaining 60 countries are ones where 227,974 additional owners own. Some 52.4 percent of all timeshare owners in the world reside in the United States, although this proportion is decreasing as the market takes firmer hold around the world. The next ranking country is the United Kingdom with 286,259 owners or 9.1 percent of the total. Three other countries contain over 100,000 owners: Mexico (171,905), South Africa (162,339) and Canada (127,050). Other countries in the top 15 are Germany (80,024), VeAic G :xla (70,671), Japan (59,05), Italy (56,9?0), Australia (56,967), France (54,259), Spain (51,214), Argentina (46,049), Portugal (28,481) and New Zealand (26,894). The remaining 159 countries contain 216,922 (6.9 percent) of the owners residing in the area. • 6 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Table A Resort Timeshare Market by Area of World, December 31, 1994 Resort Timeshare Resort Timeshare Owners Resort Timeshare Owners Projects Owning in Area Residing in Area Area Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total United States 1,546 37.3 1,538,000 48.9 1,648,000 52.4 Europe 1,888 28.7 658,000 20.9 669,000 21.3 Mexico 291 7.0 319,000 10.1 172,000 5.5 South America 276 6.7 104,000 3.3 138,000 4.4 Caribbean 202 4.9 139,000 4.4 9,000 0.3 SE Asia/Japan 160 3.9 39,000 1.2 82,000 2.7 South Africa 142 3.4 161,000 5.1 162,000 5.2 Australasia 117 2.8 84,000 2.7 84,000 2.7 Canada 93 2.2 57,000 1.8 127,000 4.0 Elsewhere 130 3.1 45.000 1.4 53,000 1.7 Total 4,145 100.0 3,144,000 100.0 3,144,000 100.0 Growth in the resort timeshare industry has been tremendous since the first worldwide study was completed in 1990. During this brief period: 1. 1,788 new timeshare resorts were developed (plus 75.9 percent); 2. 1,344,000 more households purchased a timeshare interval (plus 74.7 percent); and 3. two million more intervals were sold for a sales volume of over $17 billion. When analyzing trends just between 1992 and 1994, on an area-wide basis, the greatest absolute growth was in the United States, Europe and South America. These three areas accounted for 70.0 percent (767) of the new resorts, 75.5 percent (590,000) of the new owners owning in the area and 76.2 percent (595,000) of the new owners residing in the area. Over one-third (35.7 percent) of the 1,095 new resorts were in Europe, with 391. This area realized a 47.1 percent increase in its number of timeshare resorts. However, the greatest relative increase was in South America at 135.9 percent (from 117 to 276 resorts). The United States gained 217 new resorts, while other areas gaining over 50 were Mexico (90), the Caribbean (71) and Japan/Southern Asia (68). At the other end of the growth spectrum were Canada and Australasia, with only nine and seven new resorts, respectively. When looking at the increase of new owners owning in the area, by far the two leading areas were the United States (plus 280,000) and Europe (plus 230,000). Growth rates in these two areas were 22.3 percent and a very high 54.2 percent. While absolute gains were considerably less, large relative dens were realized in South America (336.9 percent) and Canada (50.5 percent). Due to a continuing recession, growth was slowest in Australasia at only 9.1 percent and 7,000 new owners owning in the area. 0 When looking at the growth of new owners residing in the area, Europe surpasses the United States as the leader. During the last two years, an additional 249,000 households residing in Europe have purchased timeshare compared to 237,000 in the United States. Collectively, these two areas accounted for 62.2 percent of all new owners residing in any given area. In absolute terms, the third greatest gain was realized in South America, with 109,000 new resident owners, followed by Mexico at 48,000 and South Africa at 42,000. South America again realized by far the highest relative gain at a huge 3 80.2 percent. Two other areas also saw more than a 50 percent gain, including Europe at 59.3 percent and the Caribbean at 80.0 percent. On the other hand, growth in Australasia was only 7.7 percent. The penetration rate is over 50 owners per 10,000 population in two countries New Zealand at 79.4:10,000 and the United States at 63.2. It is higher than 35:10,000 in four other countries: United Kingdom (49.2), Canada (45.2), South Africa (37.0) and Finland (35.2). The other countries in the top 15 are Venezuela, Israel, Australia, Portugal, Norway, Argentina, Singapore, Spain and Belgium. For the most part, these 15 countries are highly industrialized. Several are in cold northern climates; most timeshare owners in these countries have purchased their timeshare intervals elsewhere. Countries with lowest penetration rates have few income-eligible households and/ or past or-present political restrictions. The overall average figure for all countries is 8.9 timeshare owners per 1,000 tourists from abroad. However, this ratio is significantly higher ir. b? : -ral countries. As might be Pxpected, these z:,vntries tend to be sun and surf locations sucn as Mexico, the Caribbean and southern Europe. The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 7 Introduction This report provides an overview ofthe worldwide resort timeshare industry as it exists in 1995. It updates two earlier such reports prepared in 1990 and 1992 by Ragatz Associates for the International Foundation for Timeshar- ing (The 1990 Worldwide Timeshare Industry) and The Alliance for Timeshare Excellence (An Annual Report of the Worldwide Resort Timesharing Industry. 1992). None of the reports are detailed in content due to the unavailability of consistent and thorough information on a country-by-country basis. For the same reasons, they do not contain extensive trend data from past years or projections for the future. However, they do describe in as much detail as possible an industry that has become a vital component in our global society's basket of leisure-time products. As noted, this report represents the third published effort at describing the extent of this important and exciting industry on a worldwide basis. Several national consumer surveys previously have been conducted by Ragatz Associates for the United States timeshare market, as well as for Canada, Australia, the Caribbean, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. These surveys concentrate on consumer characteristics, purchase motivations, expenditure pat- terns, etc. A few journal articles have partially described certav aspects of the industry on either a national (e.g. Timesharing in the USA, Travel and Tourism Analyst. August 1987, Ragatz Associates) or global basis (e.g. Developments in Worldwide Timeshare, Travel and TourismAnalyst, No. 2,1988, Ron Haylock of RCI Europe Ltd.). Also, numerous newspaper articles and books have been written on timesharing, but with emphasis on individual resorts and/or marketing and sales practices. The American Resort Development Association a list of available publications. The following information on the numbers of timeshare resorts and owners was graciously provided by Interval International (II) and Resort Condominiums International (RCI). Information on consumer characteristics and economic impacts was obtained by generalizing results from past studies conducted by Ragatz Associates. • 8 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Current Size of the Industry The resort timeshare concept is less than 30 years old. Observers generally credit the concept with having originated in 1964 at Superdevolvy in the French Alps. The industry was relatively slow to expand, especially on a global basis. As late as 1980 only about 155,000 households throughout the world owned a timeshare interval in about 500 resorts (Table 1). In 1980 it is estimated that roughly 100,000 intervals were purchased for a worldwide sales volume of about $500 million. However, the industry expanded tremendously during the 1980s as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1(number of resorts), Figure 2 (number of owners) and Figure 3 (sales volume). In relative terms, the most significant growth in number of resorts and owners occurred in the first three years of the 1980s due primarily to the conversion of hundreds of unsuccessful wholly-owned resort condominium projects in the United States to resort timeshare projects and the accompanying extensive public awareness and marketing campaigns. During this three-year period the number of timeshare resorts throughout the world increased from 506 to 1,200 for an average annual relative increase of 33.8 percent. The number of new owners increased from about 155,000 to 470,000 for an average annual relative increase of 44.4 percent. The next few years saw a slower growth in the industry due to the recovery from the United States recession and considerable fallout in that country of mediocre resorts and under-funded developers. From 1984 to 1986, the number of new resorts only increased from 1,550 to 1,779 for an average annual relative increase of 13.0 percent. The number of new owners increased by 3 50,000 for an average annual relative increase of 27.4 percent. Since 1987, the number of new resorts coming onto the market in the United States has been less than in the first three years of that decade. However, the average size of the new resorts has increased tremendously, and they are being developed by more experienced and better-funded companies. Thus, timeshare sales volume in the United States has been continually increasing although fewer new resorts have been initiated and the vast majority of earlier resorts no longer are in sales. Recent growth in the United States has been complemented by a boom in the timeshare market elsewhere in the world, especially in Europe, Mexico and South America. When looked at in a world-wide perspective, recent overall growth has been tremendous. Table 1 Trends in the World-Wide Resort Timeshare Industry, 1980 to 1994' Resort Resort Year Timeshare Timeshare Intervals Sales (December 31) Projects Owners Sold Volume .1980 506 155,000 100,000 $490 mil 1981 631 220,000 175,000 $965 mil 1982 950 335,000 205,000 $1.165 bit 1983 1,200 470,000 225,000 $1.340 bit 1984 1,550 620,000 275,000 $1.735 bit 1985 1,774 805,000 245,000 $1.580 bit 1986 1,779 970,000 240,000 $1.610 bit 1987 1,822 1,125,000 280,000 $1.940 bit 1988 1,899 1,310,000 330,000 $2.390 bit 1989 2,132 1,530,000 395,000 $2.970 bit 1990 2,357 1,800,000 405,000 $3.240 bit 1991 2,687 2,070,000 440,000 $3.740 bit 1992 3,050 2,363,000 500,000 $4.250 bit 1993 3,653 2,760,000 530,000 $4.505 bit 1994 4,145 3,144,000 560,000 $4.760 bit ' Actual dr.; of year for whicn U-ata obtained from II and RCI vary from year-to-yea-, thus creating in,.znistencies in annual comparisons. Especially notable for 1990 to 1994 period. Source: Appendix A, calculations explained in text, The 1990 Worldwide Resort Timesharing Industry, and An Annual Report of the Worldwide Resort Timesharing Industry, 1992. The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 9 Some important findings from Table 1 place the size of the worldwide resort timeshare industry in proper perspective: • About 4,145 timeshare resorts now exist. • About 3,144,000 households now own a timeshare interval. • About 560,000 timeshare intervals were sold in 1994, about 460 percent more than in 1980 (about 100,000). • Gross sales volume in 1994 was about $4.76 billion, over 870 percent more than in 1980 ($490 million). • Roughly 4.9 million timeshare intervals have been purchased since 1980 for a sales volume of over $36 billion. • Over 780,000 households have purchased a total of almost 1.2 million timeshare intervals in justthe past two years, .?;,j..asenting a sales volume of over $9 billion. • 1994 was a record year in the timeshare industry, with 384,000 new owners purchasing 560,000 intervals for a sales volume of about $4.76 billion. Absolute trends since 1980 are shown for resorts, owners and sales volume in Figures 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Figure 4 shows annual relative change for resorts and owners. At first glance, Figure 4 may appear negative since the lines slope downward. However, they simply describe a maturing industry that has settled down after the initial boom period (1980 to 1983) and slow-down period (1984 to 1986). Therefore, while the absolute numbers of resorts and owners have continually increased, the relative changes have not (due to the previously-noted boom and slow-down periods and also to having a larger absolute base from which to start each year). Perhaps the most important finding in Figure 4 is the relative consistency in annual worldwide growth in timeshare owners in the past eight years. This has averaged 15.8 percent, with a narrow range only from 13.9 percent to 17.6 percent. This obviously suggests a stable and maturing industry. It is important to note that the absolute increases in the past four years have been the highest in the history of the industry, even though each year has started with a muc1 larger absolute base (thus making a relative increase more difficult). The preceding "size of industry" findings were derived as follows. The procedures are not scientific but they provide good ballpark estimates. 1. Number of resorts: II and RCI provided current figure for the 1990, 1992 and 1995 reports. Figures for other years were obtained from published II and RCI audits. Numbers assume that all timeshare resorts are affiliated with one of these two exchange companies, so the true total is perhaps under-estimated by five percent or so. 2. Number of owners: II and RCI provided figures for the 1990, 1992 and 1995 reports. Figures for other years were obtained from published II and RCI audits. Aggregated totals were increased by 25 percent to account for timeshare owners not belonging to one of the two exchange companies. This estimate was based on dozens of consumer surveys conducted by Ragatz Associates for individual timeshare resorts throughout the world in the past several years. 3. Intervals sold: This assumes an average of 1.5 weeks per sale and is based upon studies conducted by Ragatz Associates and upon interviews with II and RCI field . ;,.,. esentatives. 4. Sales volume: This assumes an annual average interval price increase of $500 between 1980 and 1992. This average was held constant for 1993 and 1994 estimates due to the large number of new resorts coming onto' market in countries where prices are still lower than countries with more established markets. These estimates are based upon industry publications, dozens of market analyses conducted by Ragatz Associates and general knowledge of the industry. The worldwide estimate for 1994 was $8,500, up from $5,000 in 1980. is 10 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 0 0 4 Figure 1 Resort Timeshare Projects 4,500 4,000 3,500 N 3,000 0 L- 2,500 0 2,000 E 1,500 z 1,000 500 0 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1980 1961 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 M N C .r Y L. Y N Y E f- t 0 N Y a Y ;o 3 o 0 3 Y r H Ragatz Associates, Inc. V,gute 2 _ nvuners 3 s5p01000 31000,000 2,5000Q, t9 'QQQlQC 2o SQO,c .a Z -? pOQ, 50( r s E it C 0 r- v f w +• - T•' C CD ASS0 tales s Inc. Ragatz 0 0 Figure 3 Resort Timeshare Sales Volume $5.0 bii - $4.5 bil $4.0 bil $3.5 bil $3.0 bil $2.5 bil c? $2.0 bil $1.5 bil $1.0 bil $0.5 bil $0.0 bil , I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 M yrT i. w C rr V U1 a v 0 3 M v s Ragatz Associates, Inc. Figure 4 Trends in Owners & Resorts % Change from Prior Years 60% L. 50% c? w O 40% a O 30% m M C 20% U ° 10% 0% 1981 Ragatz Associates, Inc. s IOU E 1992 1993 1994 H r 0 N d ?i d 3 v 0 3 kn o% H 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Location of the Resort Timeshare Market Timeshare resorts are located in 81 countries and timeshare owners reside in 174 countries. Before describing the distribution of resorts and owners on a ,untry-by-country basis, let us look at the distribution on area (not specific country) basis as shown in Table 2. Currently, the United States is the leader in the worldwide resort timeshare market, containing 37.3 percent (1,546) of the resorts, 48.9 percent (1,538,000) of the "owners owning in the area," and 52.4 percent (1,648,000) of the "owners residing in the area." The latter two figures are due further explanation. The first figure ("owners owning in the area") represents owners who have actually purchased a timeshare interval in the area in question, regardless of where they live. The second figure ("owners residing in the area") represents owners who live in the area in question, regardless of where they own their timeshare interval. Thus, 1,538,000 households throughout the world own timeshare intervals in the United States and 1,648,000 households residing in the United States own timeshare intervals throughout the world. The second most dominant area for timeshare is Europe, containing 28.7 percent of the resorts, 20.9 percent of the owners owning in the area and 21.3 percent of the owners residing in the area. Collectively, the United States and Europe contain 66.0 percent of the resorts, 69.8 percent of the owners owning in the area and 73.7 percent of the vners residing in the area. Such distributions obviously late to population size, gross national product and household income as discussed in following sections. Some areas of the world have almost exactly the same number of timeshare owners owning in the area and living in the area. This is especially true for the United States, Europe, South Africa, Australasia, Japan/Southeast Asia and South America. These areas are more or less isolated unto themselves, thereby forming rather closed supply and demand situations. On the other hand, this situation is quite different in Mexico, the Caribbean and Canada. For example, 319,000 households own timeshare intervals in Mexico and 139,000 own in the Caribbean. However, only 172,000 Mexican households own timeshare and only 9,000 Caribbean households do so. These situations obviously relate to the relatively low number of income-eligible households in the two areas and the fact that both are excellent sun and surf resort locations. The situation in Canada is reversed, perhaps due to the lack of demand for timeshare in the long, cold winter months. There, some 127,000 Canadians own timeshare, but only 57,000 households throughout the world (including Canadians) own timeshare in Canada. Table 3 ranks the top 15 countries in regard to the number of timeshare resorts (3-A), timeshare owners owning in the country (3-B) and timeshare owners residing in the country (3-C). Appendix A shows in alphabetical order all 81 countries in which timeshare resorts are found according to the number of owners that own in each country and all 174 countries in which timeshare owners reside according to the number of resident-owners. The same information is found in Appendix B where the countries are ranked for both items. Table 2 Resort Timeshare Market by Area of World, December 31, 1994 Resort Timeshare Resort Timeshare Owners Resort Timeshare Owners Projects Ownin g in Area Residing in Area Area Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total United States _ 1,546 37.3 1,538,000 48.9 1,648,000 52.4 Europe 1,188 28.7 658,000 20.9 669,000 21.3 Mexico 291 7.0 319,000 10.1 172,000 5.5 South America 276 6.7 104,000 3.3 138,000 4:4 Caribbean 202 4.9 139,000 4.4 9,000 0.3 SE Asia/Japan 160 3.9 39,000 1.2 82,000 2.7 South Africa 142 3.4 161,000 5.1 162,000 5.2 Australasia 117 2.8 84,000 2.7 84,000 2.7 Canada 93 2.2 57,000 1.8 127.000 4.0 Elsewh _-e 130 3.1 45,000 1.4 53,00() 1.7 Total 4,145 100.0 3,144,0 v? 100.0 3,144,000 100.0 Source: Appendix A. 0 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 15 Table 3 The Top 15 Resort Timeshare Countries, December 31, 1994 Percent Cumulative Percent Cumulative Country Number of Total Percent Country Number of Total A. Resort Timeshare Projects 1. United States 1,546 37.3 37.3 9. United Kingdom 105 2.5 2. Spain 407 9.8 47.1 10. Canada 93 2.2 3. Mexico 291 7.0 54.1 It. Australia 76 1.8 4. Italy 152 3.7 57.8 12. Japan 72 1.7 5. France 143 3.4 61.2 13. Venezuela 66 1.6 6. South Africa 142 3.4 64.6 14. Austria 52 1.3 7. Portugal 118 2.8 67.4 15. Brazil 45 1.1 8. Argentina 116 2.8 70.2 Elsewhere 721 17.4 Total 4,145 100.0 B. Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country 1. United States 1,537,786 48.9 48.9 9. United Kingdom 62,169 2.0 2. Spain 327,064 10.4 59.3 10. Canada 56,853 1.8 3. Mexico 319,346 10.2 69.5 11. Australia 56,105 1.8 4. South Africa 161,372 5.1 74.6 12. Italy 41,884 1.3 5. Portugal 75,043 2.4 77.0 13. Bahamas 28,726 0.9 6. Germany 68,735 2.2 79.2 14. New Zealand 27,574 0.9 7. Netherlands Antilles 68,308 2.2 81.4 15. Japan 19,175 0.6 8. Venezuela 65,480 2.1 83.5 Elsewhere '7.974 7.3 Total 3,143,594 100.0 C. Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country 1. United States 1,648,139 52.4 52.4 9. Italy 56,986 1.8 2. United Kingdom 286,259 9.1 61.5 10. Australia 56,967 1.8 3. Mexico 171,905 5.5 67.0 It. France 54,259 1.7 4. South Africa 162,339 5.2 72.2 12. Spain 51,214 1.6 5. Canada 127,050 4.0 76.2 13. Argentina 46,049 1.5 6. Germany 80,024 2.5 78.7 14. Portugal 28,481 0.9 7. Venezuela 70,671 2.2 80.9 15. New Zealand 26,894 0.9 8. Japan 59,435 1.9 82.8 Elsewhere 216.922 Total 3,143,594 100.0 Source: Appendices A and D. 16 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry • As nuLuu previvusiy, -) i..) percent or au timeshare resorts in the world are located in the United States (1,546 of 4,145). The two other countries that contain more than five percent of the total are Spain (407 and 9.8 percent) and Mexico (291 and 7.0 percent). When including Italy (152 resorts), France (143 resorts) and South Africa (142 resorts), it is found that 64.6 percent of all timeshare resorts are found in six countries. The United States' leading position in the industry is again shown in Table 3-B as this country contains 48.9 percent of all timeshare owners owning in the area. Only Spain (327,064 and 10.4 percent), Mexico (319,346 and 10.2 percent) and South Africa (161,372 and 5.1 percent) are other countries where over 100,000/five percent of all owners own. Collectively, 74.6 percent of all timeshare owners own in these four countries. There are seven other countries where over 50,000 owners own: Portugal (75,043), Germany (68,735), Netherlands Antilles (68,308), Venezuela (65,480), the United Kingdom (62,169), Canada (56,853) and Australia (56, 105). The other four countries in the top 15 include Italy (41,884), the Bahamas (28,726), New Zealand (27,574), and Japan (19,175). The remaining 60 countries are ones where 227,974 additional owners own. Some caveats should be noted in regard to the above ranking (as well as to the ranking in Table 3-C): 1. Several "clubs" in Europe are not included in this report. Since they are not affiliated with II or RCI, accurate data are not available in regard to number and location of resorts and members. Some reports place the number of memoers in tnese ciuos at over -,w,vvv. 2. Similarly, it is reported that over 300,000 households in Japan also belong to some form of club. Again, these numbers are not included in this report. 3. If the club members in (1) and (2) above were included, the total number of owners in the world would be close to 3.75 million and the total number of resorts would be close to 4,500. 4. The United Kingdom includes England, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but not Ireland. 5. The Netherlands Antilles includes Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten, even though Aruba recently became a separate entity. 6. Spain includes the Canary Islands. In Table 3-C, we find that 52.4 percent of all timeshare owners in the world reside in the United States, although this proportion is decreasing as the market takes firmer hold in other countries around the world. The next ranking country is the United Kingdom with 286,259 owners or 9.1 percent of the total. Three other countries contain over 100,000 owners, including Mexico (171,905), South Africa (162,339) and Canada (127,050). The other top 15 countries are: Germany (80,024), Venezuela (70,671), Japan (59,435), Italy (56,980), Australia (56,967), France (54,259), Spain (51,214), Argentina (46,049), Portugal (28,481) and New Zealand (26,894). The remaining 159 countries contain 216,922 (6.9 percent) of the owners residing in the area. The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 17 - Trends Between 1990 and 1994 Growth in the resort timeshare industry has been tremendous since the first worldwide study was completed in 1990. During this brief five-year period: 1. 1,788 new timeshare resorts were developed (plus 75.9 percent); 2. 1,344,000 more households purchased a timeshare interval (plus 74.7 percent); and 3. two million more intervals were sold for a sales volume of over $17 billion. When analyzing trends just between 1992 and 1994, we find that on an area-wide basis the greatest absolute growth was in the United States, Europe and South America. These three areas accounted for 70.0 percent (767) of the new resorts (Table 4-A), 75.5 percent (590,000) of the new owners owning in the area (Table 4-B) and 76.2 percent (595,000) of the new owners residing in the area (Table 4- C). Over one-third (35.7 percent) of the 1,095 new resorts were in Europe. This area realized a 49.1 percent increase in its number of timeshare resorts. However, the greatest relative increase was in South America at 135.9 percent (from 117 to 276 resorts). The United States gained 217 new resorts, while the other areas gaining over 50 were Mexico (90), the Caribbean (71) and Japan/Southeast Asia (68). At the other end of the growth spectrum were Canada and Australasia, with only nine and seven new resorts, respectively. When looking at the increase of new owners owning in the area, by far the two leading areas were the United States (plus 280,000) and Europe (plus 23 1,000). Growth rates . these two areas were 22.3 percent and a very high 540 percent. While absolute gains were considerably less, large relative gains were realized in South America (336.9 percent) and Canada (50.5 percent). Due to a continuing recession, growth was slowest in Australasia at only 9.1 percent and 7,000 new owners owning in the area. (It should be noted that the loss of 25,000 in Japan/Southeast Asia is due to an anomaly in the data presentation process by one of the exchange companies during the past two years for this item.) When looking at the growth of new owners residing in the area, Europe surpasses the United States as the leader. During the last two years, an additional 249,000 households residing in Europe have purchased timeshare compared to 237,000 in the United States. Collectively, these two areas account for 62.2 percent for all new owners residing in any given area. In absolute terms, the third greatest gain was realized in South America with 109,000 new resident-owners, followed by Mexico at 48,000 and South Africa at 42,000. South America again realized by far the highest relative gain at a huge 380.2 percent. The two other areas that r more than a 50 percent gainwere Europe at 59.0 percent S Major Increases in Owners Owning in Country Absolute Increases Relative Increases Country Increase Country Increase Spain 101,758 Israel 1,512.1 Mexico 76,888 Germany 448.6 Germany 56,199 Venezuela 424.9 Venezuela 53,005 Greece 185.1 South Africa 43,324 Argentina 130.5 ..Major Increases in Owners Residing in Country Absolute Increases Relative Increases Country Increase Country Increase Venezuela 55,151 Israel 1.965.3 Mexico 47,512 Brazil 919.2 United Kingdom 43,934 Greece 604.0 Germany 43,275 Venezuela 355.4 South Africa 42,636 Argentina 324.4 OL 18 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Table 4 Trends in the Resort Timeshare Market by Area of the World, 1990 to 1994 LJ Number Change: 1992 to 1994 Area 1990 1992 1994 Number Percent United States 1,200 1,329 Europe 490 797 Mexico 149 201 South America 62 117 Caribbean 118 131 SE Asia/Japan 69 92 South Africa 96 135 Australasia 94 106 Canada 48 84 Elsewhere 31 58 A. Resort Timeshare Projects 1,546 217 1,188 391 291 90 276 159 202 71 160 68 142 7 117 11 93 9 130 72 16.3 49.1 44.8 135.9 54.2 73.9 5.2 10.4 10.7 124.1 Percent of Total Growth 19.8 35.7 8.2 14.5 6.5 6.2 0.6 1.0 0.8 6.6 Total 2,357 3,050 4,145 1,095 35.9 100.0 B. Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Area United States 1,082,000 1,258,000 1,538,000 280,000 22.3 35.9 Europe 257,000 428,000 658,000 231,000 54.2 29.4 Mexico 134,000 242,000 319,000 77,000 31.8 9.9 South Africa 83,000 118,000 161,000 43,000 36.4 5.5 Caribbean 84,000 103,000 139,000 36,000 35.0 4.6 South America 6,000 24,000 104,000 80,000 333.3 10.2 Australasia 71,000 77,000 84,000 7,000 9.1 0.9 Canada 21,000 38,000 57,000 19,000 50.5 2.4 SE Asia/Japan 51,000 64,000 39,000 -25,000 -39.1 -3.2 Elsewhere 11,000 11,000 45,000 34,000 309.1 4.4 Total 1,800,000 2,363,000 3,144,000 781,000 33.1 100.0 C. Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Area United States 1,198,000 1,411,000 1,648,000 237,000 16.8 30.3 Europe 259,000 420,000 669,000 249,000 59.3 31.9 Mexico 60,000 124,000 172,000 48,000 38.7 6.1 South Africa 82,000 120,000 162,000 42,000 35.0 5.4 South America 5,000 29,000 138,000 109,000 375.9 14.0 Canada 57,000 94,000 127,000 33,000 35.1 4.2 Australasia 70,000 78,000 84,000 6,000 7.7 0.8 SE Asia/Japan 52,000 66,000 82,000 16,000 24.2 2.0 Caribbean 4,000 5,000 9,000 4,000 80.0 0.5 Elsewhere 9,000 16,000 53,000 37,000 231.3 4.7 Total 1,800,000 2,363,000 3,144,000 781,000 33.1 100.0 Source: Appendices B, C and D, The 1990 Worldwide Resort Timesharing Industry, and An Annual Report of the Worldwide Resort Timesharing Industry: 1992. s ,--? The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 19 the Caribbean at 80.0-percent. On the other hand, the growth in Australia was only 7.7 percent. Comparable information is found in Table 5 for specific countries. Table 5-A ranks the top 15 countries in regard to number of new resorts; Table 5-13 does the same for new owners owning in the country; and Table 5-C does the same for new owners residing in the country. This information is detailed in Appendix C (resorts), Appendix D (owners owning in) and Appendix E (owners residing in). The three Appendices also show data for 1990. In terms of new resorts, six individual countries accounted for 60.2 percent of the total: the United States (217, for 19.8 percent), Spain (162, for 14.8 percent). Mexico (90, for 8.2 percent), Italy (67, for 6.1 percent). Argentina (64, for 5.8 percent) and France (60, for 5.5 percent). As noted in an earlier section, Spain includes the Canary Islands, where extensive growth has occurred in the past two years. Due to its size and past extensive history with timeshAdft the United States was the leading individual growth coun in terms of new owners owning in and residing in, w previously noted. However, some radical increases were made in several other countries, as summarized below. Table 5 Trends in the Resort Timeshare Industry for Selected Countries, 1992 to 1994 Number Change: 1992 to 1994 Percent of Cumulative Country 1992 1994 Number Percent Total Percent A. Resort Timeshare Projects 1. United States 1,329 1,546 217 - 19.8 19.8 2. Spain 245 407 162 - 14.8 34.6 3. Mexico 201 291 90 - 8.2 42.8 4. Italy 85 152 67 - 6.1 48.9 5. Argentina 52 116 64 - 5.8 54.7 6. France 83 143 60 - 5.5 60.2 7. Brazil 13 45 32 - 2.9 63.1 8. Venezuela 34 66 32 - 2.9 66.0 9. India 4 26 22 - 2.0 68.0 10. Japan 52 72 20 - 1.8 69.8 11. United Kingdom 89 108 19 - 1.7 71.5 12. Indonesia 3 20 17 - 1.6 73.1 13. Malaysia 10 27 17 - 1.6 74.7 14. Turkey 9 25 16 - 1.5 76.2 15. Switzerland 12 27 15 - 1.4 77.6 Elsewhere 829 1,074 245 - 22.4 100.0 Total 3,d50 4,145 1,095 - 100.0 16 20 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Table 5 (continued) Trends in the Resort Timeshare In dustry for Selected Countries, 1992 to 1994 Number Change: 1992 to 1994 Percent of Cumulative Country I?_ z 1992 1994 Number Percent Total Percent B. Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country 1. United States 1,257,525 1,537,786 280,261 22.3 35.9 35.9 2. Spain 225,306 327,064 101,758 45.2 13.0 48.9 3. Mexico 242,458 319,346 76,888 31.7 9.8 58.7 4. Germany 12,536 68,735 56,199 448.3 7.2 65.9 5. Venezuela 12,475 65,480 53,005 424.9 6.8 72.7 6. South Africa 118,048 161,372 43,324 36.7 5.5 78.2 7. Canada 38,194 56,853 18,659 48.9 2.3 80.5 8. Italy 24,498 41,884 17,386 71.0 2.2 82.7 9. United Kingdom 46,725 62,169 15,444 33.1 2.0 84.7 10. Netherlands Antilles 55,590 68,308 12,718 22.9 1.6 86.3 11. Israel 834 13,445 12,611 1,512.1 1.6 87.9 12. Portugal 63,103 75,043 11,940 18.9 1.5 89.4 13. Argentina 7,903 18,219 10,316 130.5 1.3 90.7 14. Greece 4,776 13,620 8,844 185.1 1.1 91.8 15. Malaysia 5,775 13,618 7,393 128.0 0.9 92.7 Elsewhere 246,955 301,105 54,150 18.0 7.2 100.0 Total 2,362,698 3,143,594 780,896 33.1 100.0 C. Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country 1. United States 1,410,973 1,648,139 237,166 16.8 30.4 30.4 2. Venezuela 15,520 70,671 55,151 355.4 7.1 37.5 3. Mexico 124,393 171,905 47,512 38.2 6.1 43.6. 4. United Kingdom 242,325 286,259 43,934 18.1 5.6 49.2 • 5. Germany 36,749 80,024 43,275 117.8 5.5 54.7 6. South Africa 119,703 162,339 42,636 35.6 5.5 60.2 7. Spain . 13,935 51,214 37,279 267.5 4.8 65.0 8. Argentina 10,850 46,049 35,199 324.4 4.5 69.5 9. France 19,921 54,259 34,338 172.4 4.4 73.9 10. Italy 23,616 56,986 33,370 141.3 4.3 78.2 11. Canada 94,198 127,050 32,852 34.9 4.2 82.4 12. Israel 805 16,626 15,821 1,965.3 2.0 84.4 13. Greece 1,508 10,616 9,108 604.0 1.2 85.6 14. Portugal 19,684 28,481 8,797 44.7 1.1 86.7 15. Brazil 825 8,408 7,583 919.2 1.0 87.7 Elsewhere 227,693 324,568 96,875 42.5 12.3 100.0 Total 2,362,698 3,143,594 780,896 33.1 100.0 Source: Appendices B, C, and D, The 1990 Worldwide Resort Timesharing Industry, and An Annual Report of the Worldw:..e .::Vert Timesharing Industry: _'09Z. The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 21 Some Detailed Comparisons As noted in Table 2, some discrepancies exist in regard to the number of timeshare owners owning in a country and the number living in that country. Such discrepancies are detailed in Appendix F on a country-by-country basis. The "destination-of-owners" countries are basically small, sun and surf countries with a limited number of income-eligible households. They mostly are in the Caribbean (plus Mexico) and southern Europe. The "origin-of-owners" countries are basically colder, densely population countries with large numbers of income-eligible households. They mostly are in northern Europe (plus Canada). Table 6 analyzes how the top 15 countries rank according to timeshare ownership per 10,000 population (it only includes the larger countries having the most reliable information). AppendixG contains such information for all 174 countries in which timeshare owners reside. As shown in Table 6, the penetration rate is over 50 owners per 10,000 population in two countries: New Zealand at 79.4:10,000 and the United States at 63.2. It is higher than 35:10,000 in the United Kingdom (49.2), Canada (45.2), South Africa (37.0) and Finland (35.2). The other top 15 countries are Venezuela, Israel, Australia, Portugal, Norway, Argentina, Singapore, Spain and Belgium. For the most part, these 15 countries are highly industrialized. Several also are in cold northern climates. Most timeshare owners in these latter countries have purchased their timeshare intervals elsewhere. Countries with the lowest penetration rates have few income-eligible households and/or past or present political restrictions. These issues are enhanced upon in Appendix H which lists the 174 countries according to penetration rates per 10,000 population in the first column. The second column shows gross national product per capita for countries for which the information is available. One of the most interesting findings in Table 6 and Appendix H is the high penetration rate in South Africa despite this country's low gross national product per capita (36.9:10,000 and only $4,000). The penetration rate among only income-eligible households in South Africa is probably higher than in any other large country in the world. Other large countries with a relatively high penetration rate and relatively low gross national product per capita include Venezuela (34.4 and $8,000), Portugal (27.1 and $8,700), Mexico (18.6 and $8,200) and Argentina (13.6 and $5,500). These countries contain numerous timeshare resorts marketed to tourists from other countries. The widespread recognition of the opportunity to purchase a timeshare interval and the presence of a sizeable number of upper-middle income households have combined to create relatively high penetration rates among local residents. Another approach to looking at penetration rates is to analyze the ratio of timeshare owners owning in a country per 1,000 tourists to that country from abroad. Such information is contained in Table 7 and Appendix I. (The reliability of the tourism figures is somewhat suspect due to inconsistencies in reporting procedures on a country-by- country basis.) The overall average figure for all countries in Appendix I is 8.9 timeshare owners per 1,000 tourists from abroad However, this ratio is significantly higher in sever countries, as shown in Table 7. As might be expected, these countries tend to be sun and surf locations such as Mexico, the Caribbean and southern Europe. (Due to the simplistic approach in designing this ratio, the list in Table 7 also includes countries in which penetration is high among the residents themselves, such as Australia, the United States, South Africa, etc.) • 22 The 1995 worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Table 6 Examples of Resort Timeshare Ownership Penetration Rates As Measured by Resort Timeshare Owners Per 10,000 Population (Major Countries Only), December 31, 1994 Resort Timeshare Owners Per Gross National Product Country 10,000 Population Per Capita 1. New Zealand 79.3629 $15,700 2. United States 6-` _2165 $24,700 3. United Kingdom 49.1794 $16,900 4. Canada 45.1910 $22,200 5. South Africa 36.9535 $4,000 6. Finland 35.2126 $16,100 7. Venezuela 34.3690 $8,000 8. Israel 32.9172 $13,350 9. Australia 31.5108 $19,100 10. Portugal 27.0624 $8,700 11. Mexico 18.6442 $8,200 12. Norway 17.4130 $20,800 13. Argentina 13.5786 $5,500 14. Singapore 13.0389 $15,000 15. Spain 13.0307 $12,700 Source: Appendices G and H. • The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 23 Some Supply Characteristics In the 1990 Worldwide Timeshare industry study, about 120,850 units were contained in the 2,357 timeshare resorts around the world, including units that were completed, under construction and planned in the affiliated resorts. This resulted in an average resort size of 51 units. This information was not updated in the 1992 or 1995 study. But if we assume that since 1990 the number of units increased at about the same rate as the number of resorts (78.9 percent) and the number of timeshare owners (74.7 percent), it would mean that about 211,400 timeshare units now exist on a worldwide basis. Based on the 1990 study, the United States average of 50 units was almost exactly the worldwide average. Some significant discrepancies on the high side include Japan at 154, Puerto Rico at 125, Dominican Republic at 81, Italy at 81 and Netherlands Antilles at 79. Conversely, some significant discrepancies on the low side include the United Kingdom at 32, Canada at 29 and New Zealand at 16. On a worldwide basis, about one-third (33.5 percent) of all timeshare units were rooms/studios/suites. Another one-third (33.5 percent) contained one bedroom; the remaining one-third (33.0 percent) contained either two bedrooms (29.5 percent) or three or more bedrooms (3.5 percent). It is unknown how this mix has changed since 1990. Table 8 shows unit sizes in several areas of the world from the 1990 study. Some major discrepancies existed. For instance, only 18.1 percent of all timeshare units in the United States were rooms/studios/suites, whereas this proportion was 50.1 percent in Europe and 81.0 percent in Table 7 The Top 15 Countries in Regard to Resort Timeshare Owners Per 1,000 Tourists From Abroad, December 31,1994 Country Resort Timeshare OwnersPer 1,000 Tourists From Abroad 1. Venezuela 150.9 2. Netherlands Antilles 77.3 3. South Africa 55.8 4. United States 34.4 5. New Zealand 26.1 6. Cayman Islands 25.2 7. Australia 21.6 8. Bahamas 20.5 9. Mexico 18.5 10. Antigua and Barbuda 16.2 11. Malaysia 13.3 12. Barbados 12.7 13. Finland 11.5 14. French Polynesia 113 15. Virgin Islands (US and UK) 10.5 Source: Appendix H. Japan/Southeast Asia. Conversely, 48.8 percent of alib timeshare units in the United States contained two or more bedrooms. This proportion was only 15.9 percent in Europe and 5.6 percent in Japan/Southeast Asia. Table 8 r .? Summary of Siz e of Resort Timeshare Units by Area of World, 1990 Percent of Units by Size Area Units R/S/S 1 BED 2 BED 3+ BED Total United States 60,380 18.1 33.1 43.2 5.6 100.0 Mexico 9,710 47.6 40.3 • 10.7 1.4 100.0 Caribbean 6,050 32.5 41.2 25.4 0.9 100.0 South America 2,110 54.5 23.6 20.6 1.3 100.0 Europe 25,980- 50.1 34.0 15.0 0.9 100.0 South Africa 4,070 37.0 31.9 25.7 5.4 100.0 Aus.; -alasia 2,980 15.3 34.1 A'?1 2.9 100.0 SE Asia/Japan 7.170 81.0 13.4 5.4 0.2 100.0 Overall 120,850 33.5 33.5 29.5 3.5 100.0 Source: The 1990 Worldwide Resort Timesharing Industry, International Timeshare Foundation, 1990- 24 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Table 9 Average Prices for Resort Timesha re Intervals i Size of Unit Averages Season Averages Overall i Area' Studio One Bedroo m Two Bedroom Low Shoulder High Average Arabic Nations (1) - $3,200 $4,400 $2,100 53,800 $5,300 $3,800 Argentina (2) $4,900 $7,000 $10,000 $3,800 $6,700 $11,000 $7,200 Australia/New Zealand (3) $3,700 $4,900 $6,200 $2.200 53,300 $4,500 $5,300 Benelux (1) $3,800 $5,700 $8,500 $3,800 $5,700 $7,300 $5,700 Brazil (2) $3,700 $5,200 $7,000 $3,300 $5,500 $8,400 $5,100 Canada Eastern (2) $5,300 $6,900 $8,300 $4,800 $6,700 $9,500 $7,000 Canada Western (I) $7,000 $8,400 $9,800 $6,300 $9,100 $11,200 $8,400 Canary Islands (2) $5,300 $6,800 $9,800 - $6,500 $8,000 $7,300 Finland (2) $5,800 $7,500 $11,700 $6,000 $8,300 $10,700 -.17,300 France (2) $6,900 $9,400 $11,000 56,100 $9,200 $11,300 $8,700 Germany/Austria/Switzerland (2) $5,300 $7,600 $10,100 $5,200 $7,100 $10,100 $7,600 Greece (I) $4,300 $5,700 $6,700 $3,900 $5,000 $7,700 $5,600 India (1) $1,300 $2,000 $2,300 $1,600 $1,900 $2,200 $1,900 Indonesia (1) $4,600 $7,300 $14,000 $5,200 $6,000 $9,200 $6,800 Israel (1) $2,600 $3,600 $5,300 52,800 $3,600 $4,800 $3,700 Italy (2) $6,900 $8,500 $11,400 $4,500 $7,300 515,000 $8,900 Japan (2) - - - - - - $9,500 Korea (1) $3,500 $4,200 $11,700 - - - $4,700 Mexico (3) $6,000 $8,700 $12,100 $8,000 $9,700 $11,600 $9,100 Portugal (2) $8,500 $6,200 $8,600 $4,300 $6,300 $8,600 $6,500 Scandinavia (1) $3,000 $5,800 $7,000 $3,800 $5,100 $10,100 56,400 South Africa (1) $2,800 $3,700 $5,000 $2,700 $5,000 $6,800 54,500 Southeast Asia (2) $6,800 $8,600 $9,900 - $8,500 $8,700 $7,900 Spain (3) $4,000 $5,600 57,500 $3,800 $5,200 $8,000 $5,700 Thailand (1) $4,500 $6,500 $9,000 - - - $6,700 United Kingdom (1) $5,000 $6,800 $8,000 $5,300 $6,800 $9,900 $6,800 United States 55,900 $7,500 $9,500 $5,500 $7,500 $10,000 $9,500 Venezuela/Colombia (2) $3,600 $5,000 $7,200 $4,200 55,200 $6,400 $5,300 Average 54,800 $6,200 $8,;x00 54,300 56,200 $8,700 S6,500 Numbers in parentheses refer to num ber of respondents from that area. Source: Survey of offices of Interval International and Resort Condominiums International by Ragatz Associates, January 1995. 1 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 25 Some Market Indicators In order to obtain insights into local market conditions, a questionnaire was sent to 55 field representatives of II and RCI throughout the world (excluding the United States). Completed questionnaires were received from 45 representatives representing 27 different countries or areas of the world. While exchange company field representa- tives are not direct participants in the development and marketing of timeshare, they probably have a better overview understanding of the industry in their local areas than any other single individuals. Responses to the questionnaires are found in Tables 9 through 14. When representatives from both exchange companies in the same area responded, the tables contain both answers. With a few exceptions, dual responses were very similar. The information is not statistically valid, b = n does provide some good insights on an area-by-area bl The unweighted average price of timeshare intervals to the 27 areas was reported to be about $6,500 (Table 9). However, since the average in the dominant United States market is roughly $9,500, it is suspected that the true average of all timeshare intervals being sold throughout the world is about $8,500. These averages reportedly are $4,000 or lower in several areas, including the Arabic Nations, India, Israel, Korea and South Africa. The average Table 10 Characteristics of Resort Timeshare Industry Percent of Percent of Percent of Floating Projects Offering Buyers Area' Intervals Deeded Ownership Paying Cash Arabic Nations (1) 5% 80% 20% Argentina (2) 63% 64% 6% Australia/New Zealand (3) 85% 85% 55% Benelux (1) 50% 100% 30% Brazil (2) 33% 38% 20% Canada Eastern (2) 30% 40% 20% Canada Western (1) 80% 60% 10% Canary Islands (2) 15% 23% 78% Finland (2) 0 100% 39% France (2) 13% 45% 55% Germany/Austria/Switzerland (2) 20% 7% 33% Greece (1) 0 5% 3% India (1) 0 0 100% Indonesia (1) 70% 0 40% Israel (1) 20% 0 15% Italy (2) 5% 95% 2% Japan (2) 94% 38% 82% Korea (1) 100% 60% 100% Mexico (3) 77% 2% 18% Portugal (2) 20% 73% 23% Scandinavia (1) 10% 90% 50% South Africa (1) 40% 5% 20% Southeast Asia (2) 93% 3% 18% Spain (3) 37% 50% 20% Thailand (1) 90% 0 20% United Kingdom (1) 30% 0 20% United States 25% 90% 25% Venezuela/Colombia (2) 44% 78% 38% Average 4111/o 44% 34% 'Numbers in parentheses refer to number of respondents from that area. Source: Survey of Offices of Interval International and Resort Condominiums International by Ragatz Associates, January 1995. • 1 26 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry reportedly is over $8,000 in western Canada, France, Italy, Mexico and the United States. The percentage of intervals sold on a floating/flex time basis ranges widely (Table 10). For example. almost all timeshare intervals float in Japan, Korea, New Zealand and 4Mutheast Asia. On the other hand, the vast majority sold in ost European countries are fixed. The overall average proportion of floating weeks in Austria/Switzerland, the Canary Islands, France, Spain, Germany, Greece, Italy, portugal and Scandinavia was reported to be about 15 percent. This proportion was 30 percent in the most recent national consumer survey in the United States, although much higher among new resorts. Table 10 also shows that on the average, respondents reported that ownership in about 44 percent of timeshare intervals is conveyed via a deed in perpetuity. The other 56 percent are conveyed as some form of right-to-use for a specific number of years. Countries/areas with the highest proportion of deeded ownership include the Arabic Nations, Australasia, Scandinavia, Italy and the United States. According to respondents, about one-third (34 percent) of resort timeshare purchasers pay cash, while the other 66 percent finance their purchase. Consumer financing appears least available in India and Southeast Asia. The traditional average net close rate of 10 percent was stated by about one-half of the respondents (Table 11). However, due to different marketing and sales practices and/or government participation, this average was reported to be considerably higher in several areas. For example, it was reported to be 50 percent or more in Brazil, Indonesia and Scandinavia. Cancellation rates also reportedly vary Table 11 Characteristics of Resort Timeshare Industry Net Close Cancellation Marketing and Area' Rate Rate Sales Costs Arabic Nations (1) 15% 20/0 25% Argentina (2) 13% 7% 35% Australia/New Zealand (3) 10% 28% 43% Benelux (1) 10% 5% 45% Brazil (2) 51% 15% 38% Canada Eastern (2) 11% 7% 49% Canada Western (1) 8% 10% 47% Canary Islands (2) 10% 20% 58% Finland (2) 10% 13% 45% France (2) 13% 50% 48% Germany/Austria/Switzerland (2) 7% 23% 40% Greece (1) 10% 25% 43% India (1) 25% 2% 28% Indonesia (1) 60% 30% 30% Israel (1) 10% 12% 35% Italy (2) 19% 2% 38% Japan (1) n/a n/a 10% Korea (1) 5% 15% 15% Mexico (3) 24% 17% 40% Portugal (2) 20% 48% 45% Scandinavia (1) 60% 20% 35% South Africa (1) 12% 5% 45% Southeast Asia (2) 12% 10% 25% Spain (3) 9% 25% 52% Thailand (1) 12% 10% 30% United Kingdom (1) 18% 40% 48% United States 10% 20% 45% `Ve,ic:.uela/Colombia (2) 25% 13% 38% Average 18% 38% 'Numbers in parentheses refer to number of respondents from that area. Source: Survey of offices of Interval International and Resort Condominiums International by Ragatz Associates, January 1995. The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 27 widely, from five percent or less in Italy, India, South Africa and Southeast Asia to 20 percent or more in Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavia, Spain, and other countries in western Europe (Table 11). The overall unweighted average net close rate was reported to be about 18 percent, and the overall unweighted average cancellation rate also was reported to be about 18 percent. Marketing and sales costs were stated to be 45 percent or more by about half the respondents (Table 11). Lowest estimates were given by respondents representing Japan, Korea and Southeast Asia. Here, the average was only about 20 percent. In Mexico and the European and South American countries/areas, the average was about 35 percent. The overall unweighted average was roughly 35 to 40 percent. Respondents also were asked to identify potential problems (Table 12) and potential opportunities (Table 13) facing the future of the timeshare industry in their areas. For the most part, stated problems centered on resales, inappropriate sales practices leading to a poor public image, and lack of consumer awareness. Opportunities centered on an improving public image, the entry of major companies into the industry, and a large remaining untapped market. Finally, field representatives were asked their opini s about future timeshare demand in their areas. Answer shown in Table 14. When asked the percentage of remaining untapped market demand in their area, the average response was about 65 percent. It was highest in most European and Southeast Asian countries. All but one of the respondents checked "very positive" or "positive" when asked, "How positive are you about the future of the timeshare market in your region?" In summary, it appears that both similarities and variations exist in timeshare practices throughout the world. A common thread, at least among the exchange companies' field. q-esentatives, is a positive anticipation about the industry's future. Q • 28 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Table 12 Potential Problems Facing Resort Timeshare Industry rabic Nations (1) Lack of professional marketers (1) 2. No trust between marketers and developers (1) 4, gentina (2) 1. Lack of diversity in marketing. Old sales methods are running out. telemarketing is causing a bad image and low conversion. Every citizen in Buenos Aires has been called. No market segmentation, just random cold calling (2) 2. Cancellation rates are going up due to a lack of professional sales teams, poor product image, high marketing costs and no long-term strategies (1) 3. No product positioning. Services are not being taken into account as a way to consolidate sales. (1) 4. Lack of real commitment of product under construction (1) 5. Lack of timeshare legislation (1) Australia/New Zealand (3) 1. Lack of marketing expertise in general (1) 2. Lack of consumer and developer financing (2) 3. Bad image (1) 4. Over-regulated (1) Or Lack of resale market (2) 6. No new projects being developed (1) 7. No more developers entering industry (1) 8. Very mature market (high ownership ratio) (1) Benelux (1) 1. Negative press (1) Brazil (2) 1. Reaching a critical mass of resort owners in 1994-95, now number of owners and resorts is much more comfortable (1) 2. Some aggressive and wrong sales and marketing tactics resulting in some bad press. Counteracted the effect by doing some press work, and the crisis helped to betterthe industry (2) 3. An important problem is that timeshares are often confused with the older and very large "vacation clubs." They sell inexpensive memberships and have about one million members worldwide, but have little inventory. They are only able to satit :;- the demands of 30 percent to 40 percent of their members, leaving over 600,000 unsatisfied consumers complaining to the consumer protection agencies. (1) .4. Lack of specific legislation (1) Canada Eastern (2) 1. Lack of legislation in Ontario attracts unethical marketers (2) 2. Industry has a poor image. Press is very negative against industry (1) 3. Difficulty in obtaining consumer and developer financing (1) 4. Many consumers are being ripped off by marketers who sell thin air (1) 5. More and more marketers are selling vacation pack- ages (mostly exit programs) (1) Canada Western (1) 1. Club and other product configurations that skirt the regulatory environment (1) Canary Islands (2) 1. Maintenance fees not being paid, resulting in problems for management companies (2) 2. Legislation to prohibit deposits and mandatory cooling off periods. (2) Finland (2) 1. Ban on deposits (1) 2. VAT on commissions (1) 3. Legislation (1) France (2) 1. E.C. Directive about timeshares (1) 2. Lack of professional, serious, efficient marketing companies(1) 3. Hard sell marketing methods (1) Germany/Austria/Switzerland (2) 1. Quality of UPs (1) 2. Excessive consumer protection (1) 3. Hard to find big projects (from 130 units) because of environmental concerns and zoning laws (1) 4. Quality and integrity of marketers and developers (2) 5. Bad press and poor media image (2) 6. Low product recognition (1) 7. Tighter legislation (EC guidelines) (1) Greece (1) 1. EC legislation (1) 2. Bad marketing practices (1 3. Political instability (1) The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 29 Table 12 (continued) Potential Problems Facing Resort Timeshare Industry India (1) 1. Hard selling techniques (1) 2. Spurt of possible fly-by-night operators (1) 3. No self regulatory body firmly established (1) Indonesia (1) 1. No proper legislation or guidelines (1) 2. No real consumer protection (1) 3. Impossible marketers, misrepresentation, lack of education on timeshares (1) Israel (1) 1. Many hotels wish to sell rooms as timeshares which reduces the exchange value (1) Italy (2) 1. The success of the big operators is attracting many less professional/serious people (1) 2. The new trends toward flexibility in an industry without specific legislation hold potential for dubious schemes and thereby for damage to the relatively good image that timeshare has (1) 3. EC Directive (1) 4. No deposits can be made until after cooling off period (1) Japan (2) 1. Lack of knowledge and information in local language among both industry and consumers (1) 2. Resales (1) 3. Intensified sales competition (1) Portugal (2) 1. 1993 legislation allows only 60 percent of resort's inventory to be sold in timeshare (1) 2. European legislation banning deposits (1) 3. The new law in Portugal (one of the most difficult in the world) makes it difficult for developers who want to go into timeshare -- so difficult that they are looking for other alternatives to sell their product (1) Scandinavia (1) 1. Poor timeshare image due to aggressive sales methods (1) South Africa (1) 1. Telephone lead generation offering prizes (1) 2. Imbalance of stock in areas of low demand in points clubs' portfolios placing undue pressure on the exchange system to deliver (1) 3. Major clubs with different rules and currencies (1) 4. Bad image of timeshare industry (1) Southeast Asia (2) 1. The imbalance between maturity of industry in Asia and Western markets (1) 2. Consumers are getting more sophisticated in taste than developers (1) • 3. Unethical marketing practices (1) 4. Legislation requiring recision periods (1) 5. Undercapitalized developers seeking industry involve- ment (2) Korea (1) 1. Quality improvement is slow due to the regulated sales prices (1) 2. Relative high price due to fractional system (slowly changing to a week-based system) (1) 3. Inability to use the space due to all-floating system (1) Mexico (3) 1. High cost of project and buyer financing. Cash flow problems (2) 2. Competition/lack of product differentiation (1) 3. The economic situation makes the timeshare purchase for nationals difficult (3) 4. roreigic. tourists found destination areas too expensive prior to devaluation (1) 5. Government promotion of Mexico as a tourist destination is poor (1) Spain (3) 1. Approval of the European Directive that does not allow deposits and how the Directive will be implemented in the Spanish legislation (3) 2. Aggressive sales techniques that create bad press (2) 3. Difficult situation for club, trustees in new draft of Spanish legislation and taxes (1) Thailand (1) 1. Public knowledge and understanding of timeshare industry (1) 2. Lack of marketers (1) 3. Resort quality (1) 4. Timeshare reputation, bad image (1) C] 30 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Table 12 (continued) Potential Problems Facing Resort Timeshare Industry United Kingdom (1) 1. New European legislation (1) Onezuela/Colombia (2) 1. Some developments have stopped due to financial problems (1) 2. Aggressive marketing techniques (1) ;. Bad experiences from unscrupulous, foreign dealers in the past (1) 4. Low sales mainly due to highly inflated rates (1) 5. Fierce competition (1) ' Numbers in parentheses refer to number of respondents from that area. Source: Survey of offices of Interval International and Resort Condominiums International by Ragatz Associates, January 1995. • • The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 31 Table 13 Potential Opportunities for the Resort Timesharing Industry Arabic Nations (1) 1. The peace agreement has encouraged development in Egypt, Jordan and Israel (1) Argentina (2) 1. Virgin markets of many millions of prospects (1) 2. Loose credit and consumerism avalanche (1) Australia/New Zealand (3) 1. Mixed use opportunities (1) 2. Foreign (Asian) investment in Australia and New Zealand (1) 3. Establishment of a national industry body aiming for self regulation, positive media, and code of ethics (1) 4. Flexi-point system (1) 5. Emergence of effective resale operations (1) 6. No negative publicity for several years (1) Benelux (1) 1. High local resort potential (1) Brazil (2) 1. Brazil is still a virgin market and a very large one (1) 2. Authorities look positively upon timeshare (1) 3. Opportunity to create a positive legislation that will protect the consumer and stimulate the industry (1) 4. New developers getting interested (1) 5. New marketers coming into the arena (1) 6. Creation of a Brazilian timesharing association (1) Canada Eastern (2) 1. Excellent dialogue with the government (1) 2. CDRA is getting stronger which might help police the industry (2) 3. Weakness of the Canadian dollar is attracting U.S. purchasers (1) Canada Western (1) 1. Growing demand for the area and growing interest among developers in timesharing (1) Canary Islands (2) 1. Credibility once legislation is in place (1) Finland (2) 1. Legislation has increased the credibility of the industry (1) France (2) 1. Entry of banks in the market as developers (1) 2. Interest from major hotel chains (2) 3. New distribution channels for timeshare product y 4. European Directive will change marketing methods (1) Germany/Austria/Switzerland (2) 1. EC Directive first a downturn to business then strong growth (1) 2. Tighter legislation (1) 3. Entry of major players (1) 4. Growing professionalism across the board (1) Greece (1) 1. Greeks enjoy travel (1) 2. Possible improvement of Greek economy in the near future (1) 3. Positive public image, so far (1) India (1) 1. Overall increased awareness about timesharing (1) 2. Timeshare federation being set up (1) 3. Well-known companies interested to diversify into timeshare (1) Indonesia (1) 1. Timeshare association to be established in a months (1) 2. Recognition from the Ministry of Tourism in the form of legislation will be out very soon (1) Israel (1) 1. Timeshare industry is booming and strong companies are joining it (1) Italy (2) 1. The big players are new more experienced and better economically funded than in the past (1) 2. The concept is now sold more as "tourism" and less as investment in real estate (1) 3. EC Directive could be an opportunity for the industry to improve its image particularly if steps are taken in this direction before the Directive becomes law (2) Japan (2) 1. Time is perfect consumers are more price conscious consumers have longer isoliday time and family travel isup(1) 32 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv Table 13 (continued) Potential Opportunities for the Resort Timesharing Industry Korea (1) i _ Korea's globalization drive (WTO, Korea's joining OECD in 1995) will force the industry to compete ?. with the high-quality, low-priced foreign products, thus pushing their quality up (1) Southeast Asia (2) 1. Greater awareness of need for quality service and resorts (1) 2. Industry self-regulation curbing system abuses (1) 3. Much of Asia rapidly becoming affluent (1) 4. Regional exchange opportunities growing rapidly (1) Mexico (3) 1. Expected major recovery in non-Mexican market (1) 2. Specific destinations poised for market growth with reduced timeshare supply (1) 3. Los Cabos will be considered one of the top 10 destinations on the continent (1) 4. Golf development has finally arrived (1) 5. Tourist industry is modernizing (1) 6. Prior to devaluation, the opening of the country's markets stimulated foreign investment it will return with stabilization (1) 7. Government is making foreign participation and outright ownership more accessible (1) Portugal (2) 1. Credibility is higher (1) 2. Only very good resorts and financially strong developers can get into the industry (1 3. New ways of selling are increasing (1) Scandinavia (1) A possible change of the current Danish law prohibiting foreigners from purchasing timeshares in Denmark (1) South Africa (1) 1. Five day cooling off period (1) 2. Re-entry, of large players in the form of clubs (1) 3. Consolidation of the industry with France, stronger developers (1) Spain (3) 1. Image changing with incorporation of big banks into the business (1) 2. The long-term consolidation of the industry by the legislation (1) 3. Timeshare legislation has increased credibility (1) 4. Well-known "brand names" coming into the industry which will also auQ„gthen credibility (1) 5. Sales methods are less aggressive due to the new law to be implemented (2) Thailand (1) 1. Interest in region from overseas marketers (1) 2. Local resort groups are looking into industry (1) United Kingdom (1) 1. Brand U.S. companies entering the U.K. market will increase legislation (1) Venezuela/Colombia (2) 1. Still have significant timeshare demand, product knowledge is fair (1) 2. Timeshare advantages have been accentuated due to the restrictions imposed on the Venezuela population by the economic crisis (1) 3. In Colombia, possible timeshare legislation and a solid industry association (1) 4. Colombia's economic situation is prosperous and tourist activity is in the middle of expansion (1) 5. High costs of "conventional" vacations (1) 6. Better products (1) 7. Higher professional level marketing and sales (1) 'Numbers in parentheses refer to number of respondents from that area. Source: Survey of offices of Interval International and Resort Condominiums International by Ragatz Associates, January 1995. 0 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 33 Table 14 Opinions Concerning the Future of the Resort Timeshare Industry Percent of Degree of Positiveness Percent of Degree of Positiveness Market About Future of Resort Market About Future of R? Untapped Timeshare Industry Untapped Timeshare Indus Area' in Area in Area Area' in Area in Area Arabic Nations (1) 70% Very positive Israel (1) 40% Positive Argentina (2) 90% Positive/very positive Italy (2) 50% Positive Australia/New Zealand (3) 28% Positive Japan (2) 70% Positive Benelux (1) 90% Very positive South Korea (1) 40% Positive Brazil (2) 99% Positiveivery positive Mexico (3) 53% Positivelvery positive Canada Eastern (2) 60% Positive Portugal (2) 60% Somewhat positive/positive Canada Western (1) 70% Positive/very positive Scandinavia (1) 30% Positive Canary Islands (2) 50% Very positive South Africa (1) 20% Positive Finland (2) 80% Positive/very positive Southeast Asia (2) 88% Very positive France (2) n/a Positive/very positive Spain (3) 73% Positive Germany/Austria/ Thailand (1) 80% Positive Switzerland (2) 93% Somewhat positive/positive United Kingdom (1) 50% Positive Greece (1) 85% Positive Venezuela/Colombia (2) 43% Positive India (1) 99% Positive Indonesia (1) 98% Positive AveragelMode 66% Positive ' Numbers in parentheses refer to number of respondents from that area. Source: Survey of offices of lnterval International and Resort Condominiums International by Ragatz Associates, January 1995. • 34 The 095 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Comparison of Timeshare Owners While the primary purpose of this report is simply to Odustry, ument the extent of the worldwide resort timeshare it is also possible to offer a few insights on the types of households who purchase timeshare and for what reasons. Table 15 contains some brief summary results from several consumer survevs conducted by Ragatz Associates over the past 12 years in seven different countries or regions. Even though dates are different, some very close similarities exist. Typical timeshare owners have high socio-economic profiles. Most are middle and upper-middle income, married households in their 40s and 50s. Most are college graduates without children still living at home. Integrated results of the seven recent timeshare consumer surveys in North America are shown in Table 15. On the average, about one-half (51.2 percent) of timeshare owners in this part of the world have incomes between $50,000 and $100,000, with the median being about $66,000. Only 29.0 percent have incomes under $50,000, and 19.7 percent have incomes over $100,000. Incomes of owners in the Caribbean are especially high, with 49.5 percent having incomes in excess of $100,000. Over one-half (52.8 percent) of the heads-of-household of timeshare owners are between 35 and 55 years of age. Another 22.2 percent are between 55 and 65. At the two Qd s of the age range, we find that only 11.9 percent are er 35, while 13.5 percent are over 65. The average age is 49 years, with the range being from 46 in Canada to 53 in California and Hawaii. The vast majority (85.2 percent) of owners represent married households. Some 6.9 percent are single males and 8.2 percent are single females. Only in California (17.6 percent) and Puerto Vallarta (19.6 percent) are more than 15 percent of the owners single individuals. Since most timeshare owners are over 45 years of age, only 33.2 percent still have children under 18 years of age living at home. When compared to all households in the United States, timeshare owners: 1. have higher incomes, e.g., 62 percent have incomes over $50,000 compared to only 25 percent of all households; 2. are more in the middle-age category, e.g., 74 percent of the household heads are between 35 and 65 compared to only 52 percent of all household heads; 3. are more highly educated, e.g., 3.: rPrcent of the heads of households have b-ariuated from college compared to only 24 ?,;;rcent of all heads of households; and 4. are more in married households, e.g., 86 percent compared to 58 percent of all households. IOsummary, seven recent surveys of timeshare owners ughout North American indicate the majority of consumers have relatively high incomes, are married households, middle age and highly educated. Based on other timeshare consumer surveys conducted by Ragatz Associates in Europe, Asia and Australia, it is evident that this high socio-economic profile holds true around the world. Among demographic trends, probably the most important affecting future timeshare demand is the aging of the post-war "baby boom" generation, such that the number of households headed by someone aged 35 to 54 will jump 50 percent in the 1990s. The economic impact of this baby boom generation is enhanced by a dramatic increase in the proportion of working women in this age group: a near doubling of work force participation in 20 years. This generation, through higher education levels and general awareness, also spends more on vacation travel and outdoor recreation than any previous generation. And, as previously shown, the 35 to 55 year age group has the highest propensity to own timeshare. Thus, demand is increasing rapidly, and should continue to do so through the 1990s and beyond. Since 1978, Ragatz Associates has conducted 18 timeshare consumer surveys on a national level throughout the world. During this time, responses have been received from almost 100,000 timeshare owners. When integrating results from these 18 surveys, it is found that typically: 1. between 75 and 85 percent of owners are either very satisfied or satisfied with their purchase; 2. between 80 and 85 percent say that their purchase has either matched or exceeded their expectations; 3. between 65 and 75 percent say timeshare has had a positive impact on their lives; and 4. between 55 and 65 percent say timeshare has saved them money while on vacations. Some of the preceeding information is summarized in Table 16 from the seven recent surveys in North America. People buy timeshare for a wide variety of reasons. However, the most frequently stated reason is the opportunity to exchange one's own timeshare with other timeshare resorts throughout the world. This finding dates back to the first national survey ever conducted of timeshare owners in the United States in 1978 (Timeshare Owners: Who TheyAre, Why They Buy, Ragatz Associates and the CHB Company). It has held true in all 18 national surveys conducted by Ragatz Associates around the world. We find in Table 17, when integrating results from the seven recent surveys in North America, that on the average, about 72.0 percent of owners say that exchange was one of their most important reasons for purchasing timeshare. Other frequently stated reasons include the certainty of having quality vacation accommodations (62.3 percent), liking the resort, the unit and/or the amenities (58.3 The !90 Worldwide Rcsnrr Time-hare Table 15 Demographic Characteristics of Resort Timeshare Owners in North America United Characteristic States Canada' Household Income Under $30,000 8.4 6.5 $30,000 to $39,999 14.3 8.9 $40,000 to $49,999 15.6 15.0 $50,000 to $74,999 35.2 32.7 $75,000 to $99,999 14.7 19.4 $100,000 or more 11.2 1715 Total 100.0 100.0 Median 556,900 565,000 Age of Household Under 35 11.7 15.2 35 to 44 26.1 28.6 45 to 54 26.7 29.7 55 to 64 21.2 19.0 65 or over 14i -Lfi Total 100.0 100.0 Average 50 46 Household Type Single male 5.4 4.6 Single female 8.3 6.9 Couple iff43 88.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Children at Home 0 61.9 57.6 1 or 2 30.6 34.3 3 or more 7.5 _U Total 100.0 100.0 Average 0.7 0.8 Education Attainment of Household Head High school or less 26.1 27.1 Technical school 20.1 33.8 Bachelor degree 28.3 20.6 Graduate degree 21i 18.5 Total 100.0 100.0 ' Converted to U.S. S. 2 Only for U.S. owners. Source: See listing of various reports in text Percent of Resort Timeshare Owners Puerto Mexico= Caribbean Hawaii California Vallarta2 Aver 5.5 3.7 5.5 4.5 5.6 5.6 7.6 7.6 10.0 10.1 11.4 10.0 10.8 9.8 13.1 15.1 14.2 13.4 31.4 29.1 32.8 33.5 31.0 32.2 20.0 21.3 19.0 18.7 20.2 19.0 24.2 lu 1L6 1$= 1I& -19-2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 570,000 574,500 S66,000 565,000 565,000 S66,000 12.7 12.7 7.4 8.4 15.3 11.9 23.2 24.1 24.1 21.3 23.1 24.8 28.7 32.9 26.4 23.3 28.6 28.0 21.1 21.2 26.1 25.3 21.3 22.2 JAI 21 jb-1 Z.U JI& 1311 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 49 49 53 53 48 49 13.5 4.9 4.9 5.9 9.2 6.9 (inc) 9.9 8.1 11.6 10.4 8.2 86.8 g5.3 _MQ 22..6 80.5 -U-1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 10 61.5 69.3 74.1 72.5 70.8 66.8 32.1 26.2 21.7 22.7 25.2 27.5 6„_4 4.6 4.2 4.8 4.0 _U 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 27.7 21.0 18.4 16.6 17.3 22.0 :3.8 17.2 20.7 20.3 19.7 20.8 36.8 32.1 30.6 30.2 33.9 30.4 212 21M 3k3 13,.Q 221 25.$ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 L J 36 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry percent) and saving money on future vacation costs (55.7 percent). In concluding comments of the exchange opportunity, it is shown in Table 18 that the vast majority of timeshare owners are satisfied both with their exchange company and with their most recent exchange vacation. When integrating esults from the seven recent surveys in North America, it is Wound that 80.3 percent of owners are very satisfied or satisfied with their exchange company and 73.2 percent are very satisfied or satisfied with their most recent exchange vacation. Results are remarkably consistent from survey to survey, lending further credibility to the findings. Table 17 shows reasons why timeshare owners perhaps hesitate before purchasing. On the average, most frequently stated reasons in the seven recent surveys in North America include: having to pay an annual maintenance fee (39.4 percent); not sure if would use it enough (36.0 percent); the concept was new or unfamiliar (35.3 percent); and had heard or read something negative about the timeshare concept (34.9 percent). The resort timeshare industry generates tremendous economic impacts for communities in which they are located. Such impacts are especially important for resort communities, since most depend heavily on the tourism industry, having limited manufacturing and other industries to support them. It is revealing to look at a fe«- Table 16 Satisfaction Among Resort Timeshare Owners in North America Percent of Resort Timeshare Owners United Puerto Characteristic States Canada Mexico' Caribbean Hawaii California Vallarta' Average General Satisfaction Very satisfied 26.6 - 32.4 45.6 41.8 29.4 30.2 29.4 Satisfied 40.6 71.0 38.4 36.4 35.8 37.4 36.7 42.3 Neutral 22.0 18.6 19.5 12.4 16.6 20.7 20.6 18.6 Dissatisfied 5.2 10.4 5.3 2.8 3.5 6.5 5.8 5.6 Very dissatisfied 5.6 = 4 44 -M _Z_4 6.0 6.7 4.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Dow Experiences Have Matched Expectations (on scale of 1 "not matched" to 10 "exceeded") 1 to 3 16.8 13.3 17.7 10.5 10.9 18.9 16.5 14.9 4 to 6 40.6 45.7 39.1 41.6 41.9 44.9 48.3 43.2 7 to 9 415 41.3 43.1 47.9 47.3 36.2 35.3 41.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Average 5.7 5.7 5.7 n.a. 6.0 5.4 5.4 5.7 How Timeshare Has Impacted Lives Very positive 12.6 12.5 n.a. 15.6 14.9 9.0 8.7 12.2 Positive 53.6 53.8 57.7 57.3 50.4 51.9 54.1 No impact 22.0 23.7 20.1 20.3 24.7 23.5 22.4 Negative 9.2 7.5 5.2 6.1 11.9 11.2 8.5 Very negative -L2 _Z1 y3 _U 4.0 4.7 j.$ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Has Owning Timeshare Saved Money on Vacations Yes, a great deal 14.8 12.3 n.a. 14.7 13.6 9.6 8.4 12.2 Yes, somewhat 42.9 41.8 48.8 45.8 37.0 40.8 42.9 No effect 17.6 19.0 17.6 15.7 23.3 19.4 18.7 Cost more 19.8 17.5 13.9 1y.4 25.3 24.6 20.0 L. ^.^t know 5 9 4 ?.: -5-a 4,2 71 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ::.:..? 'Only for U.S. owners. Source: See listing of various reports in text The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv 37 findings from the seven recent studies in North America. 1. Employment. When including full-time and part-time and direct and indirect (from the multiplier effect) employment, it is estimated that the timeshare industry is responsible for: 35,000 jobs in the United States; 9,350 jobs in the Caribbean; and 16,000 jobs in Mexico. In the small resort town of Puerto Vallarta, where unemploy- ment is high and the poverty level is even higher, the timeshare industry is responsible for more than 3,000 jobs and more than $32 million of payroll. 2. Consumer expenditures. When comparing results of the seven studies with tourism studies in the same areas, it is estimated that timeshare owners spend about 20 percent more while on their timeshare vacations than do hotel guests and other types of tourists. This is perhaps because once they already have their lodging paid for, they can spend more on other discretionary items such as shopping, taking tours, eating in restaurants, etc. Annual consumer expenditures, including both direct and indirect (from the multiplier effect) are estimated to be more than $3 billion in Mexico and almost $6 billion in the United States. In the Caribbean, while on a timeshare vacation, the average visitor parry spends about $2,100 on consumer expenditures, excluding the timeshare price. About one- half (46 percent) of this amount is spent on restaurants (26 percent) and shopping (20 percent). This totals to over $575 million of direct consumer expenditures alone. About another $290 million is annually spent on travel expenditures. It is estimated that times vacationers on Aruba and St. Maarten generate over percent of all consumer expenditures made by all tourists on these two islands. 3. Total economic contributions. When including indirect expenditures created by the multiplier effect, marketing and sales expenditures, property taxes and other taxes, it is estimated that the resort timeshare industry annually contributes almost $8.6 billion to the economy of the United States. This represents an annual contribution of over $180,000 by every existing timeshare unit in the country. Such figures are even more dramatic when analyzed on a community-specific basis. For example, every timeshare unit in Puerto Vallarta annually contributes Table 17 Purchase Decision of Resort Timeshare Owners in North America Percent of Resort Timeshare Owners United Puerto Characteristic States Canada Mexico' Caribbean Hawaii California Vallarta' Average Reasons for Purchasing Exchange opportunity 81.6 77.3 61.1 67.0 70.5 75.9 70.7 Save money on future vacation costs 64.9 54.6 - 55.9 51.0 54.6 53.3 5 .7 Liked resort, am mities, and/or unit 49.4 54.8 - 69.7 57.9 59.4 58.4 583 Certainty of qua.ity accommodations 32.7 68.3 - 72.2 64.1 71.9 64.7 623 Opportunity to own at an affordable price 21.7 35.1 - 45.6 45.2 42.0 38.8 38.1 Investment or resale potential 18.2 29.6 - 25.4 31.4 35.2 32.3 28.7 Reasons for Hesitating Disliked idea of maintenance fee 40.3 n.a. - 41.7 39.3 39.9 36.0 39.4 Concept was new or unfamiliar 37.7 21.5 38.7 35.1 38.3 40.6 353 Was not sure would use it enough 34.6 18.0 29.1 40.8 48.3 45.4 36.0 Had heard or read something negative 33.9 - 34.8 32.0 35.8 38.1 34.9 about timesharing Cost too much 28.9 18.0 18.2 25.7 32.0 27.3 25.0 Wondered if "too good to be true" 28.4 16.8 34.5 29.3 30.0 37.4 29.4 Sales presentation too high pressured 27.3 - IS? 20.6 33.5 44.7 283 Did not want to be tied down to fixed annual 23.5 23.6 21.9 14.2 24.2 27.3 22.5 use period Travel to unit too expensive or inconvenient 11.8 - 39.0 41.0 8.4 33.6 26.8 Did not want to be tied down to one 12.0 23.6 13.7 11.9 17.0 20.4 16.4 resort location Concept too complicated to understand 6.1 13.8 7.9 7.0 10.8 20.4 10.5 Having to share with others 3.5 - 3.1 2.9 3.5 3.7 3.1 'Only for U.S. owners. Source: See listing of various reports in text. 38 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry about $240,000 to the local and national economy. This means that annual contributions from a 100-unit timeshare project in Puerto Vallarta are about $24 million. 4. • • Stability of expenditures. Timeshare resorts on the average experience about 85 percent year-round occupancy rates. Such rates in the resort hotel industry are usually only about 55 to 60 percent, or lower. Higher year-round occupancy rates mean more stability for the work force and for local service industries such as restaurants, shops, etc. Repeat visitation patterns. It also is important to note that local economic impacts generated by the timeshare industry are not short-term. For example, in the United States during the next 10 years, the average timeshare owner expects to return 4.5 times to the resort area where they purchased a timeshare. This average would have been only 1.8 times if they had not owned a timeshare in the area. In the Caribbean, these averages are 7.2 times and 3.6 times, respectively. When multiplied by the average length-of-stay, average visitor-party size and average consumer expenditures, it means that in the one community of Puerto Vallarta, such incremental visitation patterns by timeshare owners over the next 10 years will result in about $465 million more of consumer expenditures than if they did not own in the area. Such expenditures do not include those made by exchangers or renters or indirect expenditures caused by the multiplier effect. These • patterns of frequent-return also mean that: a. timeshare vacationers bring along friends and relatives, thus introducing more people to the local community; b. they recommend the area to others back home; and c. local tourist authorities can spend less money in an attempt to attract new people to the area every year due to the allegiance of frequently-returning timeshare vacationers. 6. Total visitors. In the U.S., the average timeshare- vacationing party spends 8.1 nights while on their timeshare vacation, including occupancy of their timeshare unit and other forms of overnight accommo- dations before and after their stay in a timeshare unit. Their average visitor party size is 3.6 persons. These figures mean the timeshare industry generates about 60 million visitor-days in the U.S. every year. The total is about six million in the Caribbean, 25 million in Mexico, 2.5 million in the one state of Hawaii, and 2.6 million in the one community of Puerto Vallarta. The preceding information documents the significant economic impacts made by timeshare resorts to their local communities, states, regions and countries. Consumer expenditures are extensive and are more so than by hotel guests and other tourists; numerous jobs are created; and high year-round occupancy rates assist in stabilizing local employment, taxes and retail and other service industries. Further, such extensive impacts are long-term. The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 39 Table 18 Exchange Use Among Resort Timeshare Owners in North America " Percen t of Resort Timeshare Owners United Puerto Characteristic States Canada Mexico' Caribbean Hawaii California Vallarta' Aver* Satisfaction With Most Recent Exchange Very satisfied 43.3 50.2 40.5 50.0 50.5 48.7 47.5 47.2 Satisfied 35.2 30.6 46.3 31.6 32.1 28.6 27.3 33.1 Neutral 11.8 10.5 - 10.5 10.4 12.4 11.7 9.6 Dissatisfied 5.8 4.4 13.2 3.1 3.5 5.1 4.8 5.7 Very dissatisfied -3.2 4.4 = 4.7 -11 -Lfi 8.7 4.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Satisfaction With Exchange Company Very satisfied 30.9 36.3 28.2 37.8 36.9 33.4 31.0 33.5 Satisfied 41.4 36.8 51.8 38.1 38.1 37.1 34.9 39.7 Neutral 16.4 16.7 - 15.2 17.2 19.4 19.7 14.9 Dissatisfied 5.7 5.6 19.9 5.0 4.0 4.6 6.9 7.4 Very dissatisfied -15 -1fi _ -12 -M -1& 7.6 4.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ' Only for U.S. owners. Source: See listing of various reports in text Table 19 Use of Purchase and Consumer Expenditures by Resort Timeshare Owners in North America Percent of Resort Timeshare Owners United Puerto Characteristic States Canada Mexico' Caribbean Hawaii California Vallartat Average Average Length of Stay 6.9 6.9 9.0 6.9 10.4 6.1 8.8 7.9 Average Visitor Party Size 3.6 3.5 3.2 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2 Number of Times To Return in Next 10 Years Now that own timeshare 4.5 If did not own timeshare 1.8 Average Vacation Days in Area Now that own timeshare 5.8 Before purchasing timeshare 2.8 'Only for U.S. owners: Source: See listing ofvarious reports in text. 5.3 5.4 7.2 4.3 5.4 4.7 5.3 1.4 - 3.6 1.5 2.7 1.7 2.3 5.9 - 9.3 4.3 14.0 7.3 7.8 3.1 - 5.6 2.3 11.5 3.2 4.8 C7 40 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrc 0 Appendices 0 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 41 Appendix A Location of Resort Timeshare Projects and Resort Timeshare Owners, December 31, 1994 Resort Resort Resort Resort Timeshare Timeshare Timeshare Timesh Resort Owners Owners Resort Owners Own Timeshare Owning in Residing in Timeshare Owning in Residing in Country Projects (1) Country(2) Country (3) Country Projects (1) Country(2) Country (3) Afghanistan 0 0 1 Falkland Islands 0 0 5 Albania 0 0 1 Faroe Islands 0 0 10 Algeria 0 0 71 Fiji 4 431 5 American Samoa 0 0 3 Finland 30 9,075 17,849 Andorra 2 214 19 France 143 15,971 54,259 Angola 0 0 2 French Guiana 0 0 7 Antigua & Barbuda 1 3,403 36 French Polynesia 2 1,395 39 Argentina 116 18,219 46,049 Gabon 0 0 45 Armenia 0 0 6 Gambia 1 663 2 Australia 76 56,105 56,967 Georgia 0 0 10 Austria 52 15,959 6,070 Germany 43 68,735 80,024 Azerbaijan 0 0 4 Ghana 0 0 5 Bahamas 40 28,726 1,223 Gibraltar 0 0 75 Bahrain 0 0 115 Greece 32 13,620 10,616 Bangladesh 0 0 3 Greenland 0 0 30 Barbados 13 4,871 146 Grenada 0 0 5 Belarus 0 0 28 Guadeloupe 9 1,501 251 Belgium 5 607 11,817 Guam 0 0 49 Belize 0 0 31 Guatemala 5 3,496 4,457 Benin 0 0 3 Guinea 0 0 2 Bermuda 2 1,918 1,826 Guyana 0 0 13 Bolivia 0 0 263 Haiti 0 0 8 Botswana 0 0 26 Honduras 0 0 Brazil 45 8,007 8,408 Hong Kong 0 0 Brunei 0 0 199 Hungary 8 4,118 5, 0 Burkina 0 0 2 Iceland 0 0 165 Cambodia 1 0 1 India 26 7,678 8,248 Cameroon 0 0 2 Indonesia 20 3,133 3,116 Canada 93 56,853 127,050 Iran 0 0 7 Cayman Islands 5 6,100 170 Ireland 7 853 2,115 Chad 0 0 2 Israel 16 13,445 16,626 Channel Islands 1 288 602 Italy 152 41,884 56,986 Chile 4 64 2,161 Jamaica 1' 1,850 128 China 1 168 30 Japan 72 19,175 59,435 Colombia 11 1,961 5,665 Jordan 0 0 56 Congo 0 0 1 Kazakhstan 0 0 21 Cook Islands 0 0 1 Kenya 3 116 39 Costa Rica 10 2.298 2,735 Korea (South) 11 864 965 C6te d'Ivorie 0 0 42 Kuwait 0 0 567 Croatia 0 0 1,087 Latvia 0 0 404 Cyprus 7 2,630 306 Lebanon 0 0 16 Czech Republic 0 0 2,022 Libya 0 0 16 Demark 15 1,905 5,935 Liechtenstein 0 0 33 Djibouti 0 0 3 Lithuania 0 0 204 Dominica 0 3 4 Luxembourg 0 n 815 Dominican Republic 41 8,594 1,098 Macau 0 0 23 Ecuador 7 273 1,232 Madagascar 0 0 1 Egypt 26 9,023 6,081 Malawi 0 0 12 El Salvador 0 0 402 Malaysia 27 13,168 12,176 Equatorial Guinea 0 0 1 Mali 0 0 5 Estonia 0 0 381 Malta 14 13,300 ?4 Ethiopia 0 0 6 Martinique 6 453 42 42 The 1995 NVorldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv Appendix A (continued) Location of Resort Timeshare Projects and Resort Timeshare Owners, December 31, 1994 Resort Resort Resort Resort Timeshare Timeshare Timeshare Timeshare Resort Owners Owners Resort Owners Owners Timeshare Owning in Residing in Timeshare Owning in Residing in Country Projec ts (1) Country(2) Country (3) Country Projects (1) Country(2) Country (3) Mauritania 0 0 2 Singapore 2 1,076 3,728 Mauritius 1 0 10 Slovakia 0 0 434 Mexico 291 319,346 171,905 Slovenia 0 0 599 Monaco 0 0 35 South Africa 142 161,372 162,339 Morocco 5 1,189 1,436 Spain (6) 407 327,064 51,214 Mozambique 0 0 6 Sri Lanka 0 0 3 Namibia 2 0 8 Sudan 0 0 2 Nepal 0 0 2 Suriname 0 0 44 Netherlands 2 233 6.393 Swaziland 0 0 4 Netherlands Antilles (4) 42 68,308 2,541 Sweden 11 1,974 10,458 New Caledonia 0 0 25 Switzerland 27 1,694 8,586 New Zealand 37 27,574 26,894 Syria 0 0 11 Nicaragua 0 0 25 Taiwan 5 624 796 Niger 0 0 1 Tanzania 0 0 4 Nigeria 0 0 23 Thailand 13 1,054 526 Northern Mariana Islands 0 0 4 Trinidad and Tobago 2 586 598 Norway 4 255 7,513 Tunisia 3 512 753 Oman 0 0 73 Turkey 25 4,631 5,215 Pakistan 0 0 23 Turks and Caicos Islands 1 0 1 Panama 0 0 438 Uganda 0 0 3 Papua New Guinea 0 0 10 Ukraine 0 0 494 Paraguay 3 4 199 United Arab Emirates 0 0 1,567 ru 2 316 905 United Kingdom (7) 108 62,169 286,259 ilippines 4 189 335 United States 1,546 1,537,786 1,648,139 'Poland 0 0 2,589 Uruguay 22 9,574 2,302 Portugal 118 75,043 28,481 Uzbekistan 0 0 15 Puerto Rico 3 5,475 n.a.(5) Vanuatu 0 0 10 Qatar 0 0 79 Venezuela 66 65,480 70,671 Rdunion 2 24 21 Vietnam 0 0 4 Romania 0 0 632 Virgin Islands (US and UK) 13 6,359 377 Russia 0 0 6,889 Yemen 0 0 10 St. Lucia 5 441 85 Zaire 0 0 1 St. Vincent/Grenadines 2 16 4 Zambia 0 0 8 Saudi Arabia 0 0 2,102 Zimbabwe 3 79 22 Senegal 2 35 25 Serbia and Montenegro 0 0 992 Total 4,145 3,143,594 3,143,594 Sevchelles 1 0 0 Number of Countries 81 75 174 Sierra Leone 1 0 2 (1) From II and RCI. (2) Derived by increasing number of timeshare owners affiliated with II and RCI by 25 percent. (3) Derived by increasing number of timeshare owners affiliated with II and RCI by 25 percent. (4) Includes Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten. (5) Included with United States. (6) Includes the Canary Islands. (7) Includ,-; °nsland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wright, Northern Ireland, Scotland and )k :'-s. Source: Unpublished information obtained from Interval International and Resort Condominiums International. The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 43 Appendix B Rankings of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country and Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, December 31, 1994 Resort Timeshare Resort Timeshare Owners Owning Owners Owning Country in Country Country in Country United States 1,537,786 Costa Rica 2,298 Spain (3) 327,064 Sweden 1,974 Mexico 319,346 Colombia 1,961 South Africa 161,372 Bermuda 1,918 Portugal 75,043 Denmark 1,905 Germany 68,735 Jamaica 1,850 Netherlands Antilles (1) 68,308 Switzerland 1,694 Venezuela 65.480 Guadeloupe 1,501 United Kingdom (4) 62,169 French Polynesia 1,395 Canada 56,853 Morocco 1,189 Australia 56,105 Singapore 1,076 Italy 41,884 Thailand 1,054 Bahamas 28,726 Korea (South) 864 New Zealand 27,574 Ireland 853 Japan 19,175 Gambia 663 Argentina 18,219 Taiwan 624 France 15,971 Belgium 607 Austria 15,959 Trinidad and Tobago 586 Greece 13,620 Tunisia 512 Israel 13,445 Martinique 453 Malta 13,300 St. Lucia 441 Malaysia 13,168 Fiji 431 Uruguay 9,574 Peru 316 Finland 9,075 Channel Islands 28 Egypt 9,023 Ecuador 1 27 Dominican Republic 8,594 Norway 255 Brazil 8,007 Netherlands 233 India 7,678 Andorra 214 Virgin Islands (US and UK) 6,359 Philippines 189 Cayman Islands 6,100 China 168 Puerto Rico 5,475 Kenya 116 Barbados 4,871 Zimbabwe 79 Turkey 4,631 Chile 64 Hungary 4,118 Senegal 35 Guatemala 3,496 Reunion 24 Antigua and Barbuda 3,403 St. Vincent/Grenadines 16 Indonesia 3,133 Paraguay 4 Cyprus 2,630 Total 3,143,594 (1) Includes Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten. (2) Included in the United S--tes. (3) Includes the Canary Islands. (4) Includes England, Isle of Man, Isle of Wright, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Source: Appendix A. • 44 The 1995 tb•orldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Appendix B (continued) Rankings of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country and Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, December 31, 1994 • Resort Timeshare Resort Timeshare Owners Residing Owners Residing Country in Country Country in Country United States 1,648,139 Peru 905 United Kingdom (4) 286,259 Luxembourg 815 Mexico 171,905 Taiwan 796 South Africa 162,339 Tunisia 753 Canada 127,050 Romania 632 Germany 80,024 Hong Kong 620 Venezuela 70,671 Channel Islands 602 Japan 59,435 Slovenia 599 Italy 56,986 Trinidad and Tobago 598 Australia 56,967 Kuwait 567 France 54,259 Thailand 526 Spain (3) 51,214 Martinique 522 Argentina 46,049 Ukraine 494 Portugal 28,481 Panama 438 New Zealand 26,894 Slovakia 434 Finland 17,849 Latvia 404 Israel 16,626 El Salvador 402 Malaysia 12,176 Estonia 381 Belgium 11,817 Virgin Islands (US and UK) 377 Greece 10,616 Philippines 335 Sweden 10,458 Cyprus 306 Switzerland 8,586 Bolivia 263 Brazil 8,408 Guadeloupe 251 India 8,248 Lithuania 204 Norway 7,513 Brunei 199 Russia 6,889 Paraguay 199 Netherlands 6,393 Cayman Islands 170 Egypt 6,081 Honduras 167 Austria 6,070 Iceland 165 Hungary 5,960 Barbados 146 Denmark 5,935 Malta 134 Colombia 5,665 Jamaica 128 Turkey 5,215 Bahrain 115 Guatemala 4,457 St. Lt.cia 85 Singapore 3,728 Qatar 79 Indones;a 3,116 Gibraltar 75 Costa Rica 2,735 Oman 73 Poland 2,589 Algeria 71 Netherlands Antilles (1) 2,541 Jordan 56 Uruguay 2,302 Guam 49 Chile 2,161 Gabon 45 Ireland 2,115 Suriname 44 Saudi Arabia 2,102 C6te d'lvorie 42 Czech Republic 2,022 Kenya 39 Bermuda 1,826 French Polynesia 39 United Arab Emirates 1,567 Antigua and Barbuda 36 Morocco 1,436 Monaco 35 Ecuador 1,232 t ;Pc-htenstein 33 Bahamas 1,223 Belize 31 Dominican Republic 1,098 Greenland 30 Croatia 1,087 China 30 Serbia and Montenegro 992 Belarus 28 Korea (South) 965 Botswana 26 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 45 Appendix B (continued) Rankings of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country and Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, December 31, 1994 Resort Timeshare Resort Timeshare Owners Residing Owners ResId' Country in Country Country in Countr Senegal 25 St. Vincent/Grenadines 4 New Caledonia 25 Swaziland 4 Nicaragua 25 Tanzania 4 Macau 23 Vietnam 4 Nigeria 23 Dominica 4 Pakistan 23 Azerbaijan 4 Zimbabwe 22 Northern Mariana Islands 4 Reunion 21 American Samoa 3 Kazakhstan 21 SriLanka 3 Andorra 19 Uganda 3 Lebanon 16 Benin 3 Libya 16 Djibouti 3 Uzbekistan 15 Bangladesh 3 Guyana 13 Sierra Leone 2 Malawi 12 Guinea 2 Syria 11 Sudan 2 Vanuatu 10 Mauritania 2 Yemen 10 Burkina 2 Mauritius 10 Angola 2 Faroe Islands 10 Nepal 2 Papua New Guinea 10 Cameroon 2 Georgia 10 Gambia 2 Haiti 8 Chad 2 Zambia 8 Albania I Namibia 8 Congo Iran 7 Cook Islands French Guiana 7 Afghanistan I Armenia 6 Turks and Caicos Islands I Ethiopia 6 Zaire 1 Mozambique 6 Madagascar 1 Ghana 5 Equatorial Guinea I Grenada 5 Cambodia I Mali 5 Niger l Falkland Islands 5 Puerto Rico n.a.(2) Fiji 5 Total 3,143,594 (1) Includes Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten. (2) Included in the United States. (3) Includes the Canary Islands. (4) Includes England, Isle of Man, Isle of Wright, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Source: Appendix A. u 46 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Appendix C Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Projects, 1990 to 1994 is Country Resort Timeshare Projects 1990 1992 1994 Change 1992 to 1994: Andorra 0 0 2 2 Antigua and Barbuda 6 3 1 64 Amentina 29 52 116 5 Australia 63 71 76 15 Austria 26 37 52 Bahamas 31 35 40 5 Barbados 5 7 13 6 Belgium 0 4 5 1 Bermuda 2 2 2 0 Brazil 11 13 45 32 Cambodia 0 0 1 1 Canada 48 84 93 9 Cayman Islands 6 5 5 0 Channel Islands 1 I 1 0 Chile 1 1 4 3 China 2 2 1 -1 Colombia 3 2 11 9 Costa Rica 3 6 10 4 Cyprus 1 5 7 2 Denmark 7 9 15 6 Dominican Republic 16 26 41 15 Ecuador 1 2 7 5 Egypt 7 15 26 11 Fiji 2 3 4 1 11 Finland 3 19 30 France 50 83 143 60 French Polynesia 2 2 2 0 Gambia 0 1 1 0 Germany 22 33 43 10 Greece 11 21 32 11 Guadeloupe 1 1 9 8 Guatemala 3 2 5 3 Hungary 0 0 8 8 India 4 4 26 22 Indonesia 2 3 20 17 Ireland 6 5 7 2 Israel 3 3 16 13 Italy 40 85 152 67 Jamaica 11 8 17 9 Japan 36 52 72 20 Kenya 0 1 3 2 Korea (South) 6 8 11 3 Malaysia 10 10 27 17 Malta 11 13 14 1 Martinique 0 0 6 6 Mauritius 0 0 1 1 14exico 149 201 291 90 Morocco 1 1 5 4 Namibia 0 2 2 0 Netherlands 0 2 2 0 Netherlands Antilles (1) 25 35 42 7 New Zealand 31 35 37 2 Norway 3 5 4 -1 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare industry 47 Appendix: C (continued) Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Projects, 1990 to 1994 Country Resort Timeshare Projects 1990 1992 1994 Change 1992 to 1994: Paraguay 1 2 3 1 Peru 1 2 2 0 Philippines 3 3 4 1 Portugal 60 120 118 -2 Puerto Rico 2 2 3 1 Rdunion 0 0 2 2 St. Lucia 2 2 5 3 St. Vincent/Grenadines 1 1 2 1 Senegal 0 1 2 1 Seychelles 0 0 1 I Sierra Leone 0 0 1 1 Singapore 3 4 2 -2 South Africa 96 135 142 7 Spain (2) 161 245 407 162 Sweden 7 9 11 2 Switzerland 11 12 27 15 Taiwan 1 3 5 2 Thailand 7 8 13 5 Trinidad and Tobago 1 1 2 1 Tunisia 1 1 3 2 Turkey 2 9 25 16 Turks and Caicos Islands 0 1 1 0 United Kingdom (3) 70 89 108 19 United States 1,200 1,329 1,546 217 Uruguay 11 9 22 13 Venezuela 4 34 66 32 Virgin Islands (US and UK) 9 3 13 10 Zimbabwe 0 2 3 1 Total 2,357 3,050 4,145 1,095 Number of Countries 67 75 81 (1) Includes Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten. (2) Includes the Canary Islands. (3) Includes England, Isle and Man, Isle of Wright, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Source: Appendix A, unpublished information obtainedfi am Interval International and Resort Condominiums International, The 1990 Worldwide Resort Timesharing Industry, and An Annual Report of the Worldwide Resort Timesharing Industry: 1992 • • • 48 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Appendix D Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country, 1990 to 1994 Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country Change: 1992 to 1994 • Countrv 1990 1992 1994 Number Percent Andorra 0 0 214 214 - Antigua and Barbuda 900 909 3,403 2,494 274.4 Argentina 4,850 7,903 18,219 10,316 130.5 Australia 56,200 51,236 56,105 4,869 9.5 Austria 5,630 18,661 15,959 -2,702 -14.5 Bahamas 24,480 26,880 28,726 1,846 6.9 Barbados 1,940 3,299 4,871 1,572 47.7 Belgium 0 263 607 344 130.8 Bermuda 1,920 1,941 1,918 -23 -1.2 Brazil 1,040 1,210 8,007 6,797 561.7 Canada 21,190 38,194 56,853 18,659 48.9 Cavman Islands 760 2,446 6,100 3,654 149.4 Channel Islands 160 244 288 44 18.0 Chile 0 1 64 63 6,300.0 China 380 376 168 -208 -55.3 Colombia 700 314 1,961 1,647 524.5 Costa Rica 1,300 1,488 2,298 810 54.4 Cyprus 130 1,034 2,630 1,596 154.4 Denmark 1,190 1,161 1,905 744 64.1 Dominican Republic 1,980 3,378 8,594 5,216 154.4 Ecuador 110 106 273 167 157.5 Egypt 1,000 3,536 9,023 5,487 155.2 Fiji 50 330 431 101 30.6 Finland 530 2,724 9,075 6,351 233.1 France 9,840 10,943 15,971 5,028 45.9 French Polynesia 1,110 1,295 1,395 100 7.7 Gambia 0 344 663 319 92.7 Germany 6,820 12,536 68,735 56,199 448.3 Greece 3,000 4,776 13,620 8,844 185.2 Guadeloupe 20 99 1,501 1,402 1,416.2 Guatemala 2,110 2,235 3,496 1,261 56.4 Hungary 0 0 4,118 4,118 - India 10 1,260 7,678 6,418 509.4 Indonesia 30 327 3,133 2,806 858.1 Ireland 620 835 853 18 2.2 Israel 150 834 13,445 12,611 1,512.1 Italy 11,220 24,498 41,884 17,386 71.0 Jamaica 2,720 1,880 1,850 -30 -1.6 Japan 44,820 51,599 19,175 -32,424 -62.8 Kenya 0 0 116 116 - Korea (South) 1,360 1,863 864 -999 -53.6 Malaysia 2,600 5,775 13,168 7,393 128.0 Malta 8,510 11,988 13,300 1,312 10.9 Martinique 0 0 453 453 - Mexico 133,540 242,458 319,346 76,888 31.7 Morocco 30 0 1,189 1,189 - Netherlands 0 228 233 5 2.2 Netherlands Antilles (1) 32,250 55.590 68,308 12,718 22.9 New Zealand 15,000 25,298 27,574 2,276 9.0 Norway 200 225 255 30 13.3 Paraguay 0 12 4 -8 -66.7 Peru 1 0 316 316 - Philippines 30 304 189 -115 -37.8 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 49 Appendix D (continued) Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country, 1990 to 1994 Resort Timeshare Owners Owning i n Country Change: 1992 to 1994 Country 1990 1992 1994 Number Percent Portugal 32,650 63,103 75,043 11,940 18.9 Puerto Rico 5,000 5,238 5,475 237 4.5 Reunion 0 0 24 24 - St. Lucia 60 98 441 343 350.0 St. Vincent/Grenadines 30 29 16 -13 -44.8 Senegal 10 0 35 35 - Singapore 100 1,237 1,076 -161 -13.0 South Africa 82,700 118,048 161,372 43,324 36.7 Spain (2) 139,900 225,306 327,064 101,758 45.2 Sweden 370 543 1,974 1,431 263.5 Switzerland 310 523 1,694 1,171 223.9 Taiwan 560 979 624 -355 -36.3 Thailand 950 1,355 1,054 -301 -22.2 Trinidad and Tobago 310 390 586 196 50.3 Tunisia 310 603 512 -91 -15.1 Turkey 300 1,067 4,631 3,564 334.0 United Kingdom (3) 36,680 46,725 62,169 15,444 33.1 United States 1,081,700 1,257,525 1,537,786 280,261 22.3 Uruguay 0 1,758 9,574 7,816 444.6 Venezuela 200 12,475 65,480 53,005 424.9 Virgin Islands (US and UK) 6,590 6,160 6,359 199 3.2 Zimbabwe 0 . 115 79 -36 -31.3 Total (4) 1,796,340 2,362,698 3,143,594 780,896 33.1 Number of Countries 67 75 75 (1) Includes Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten. (2) Includes the Canary Islands. (3) Includes England, Isle and Man, Isle of Wright, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. (4) Totals do not add correctly because change in listing of several countries between the 1990, 1992 and 1995 studies. Source: Appendix A. unpublished information obtained from Interval International and Resort Condominiums Interna- tional, The 1990 Worldwide Resort Timesharing Industry, and An Annual Report of the Worldwide Resort Tunesharing Industry: 1992. E 50 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Appendix E Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, 1990 to 1994 0 Country Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Change: 1992 to 1994 1990 1992 1994 Number Percent Afghanistan 0 0 1 1 Albania 0 0 1 1 Algeria 10 9 71 62 American Samoa 0 0 3 3 Andorra 10 8 19 11 Ana ola 0 0 2 2 Antigua and Barbuda 10 33 36 3 Argentina 3,260 10,850 46,049 35,199 Armenia n/a 0 6 6 Australia 52,700 52,779 56,967 4,188 Austria 1,440 4,711 6,070 1,359 Azerbaijan n/a 0 4 4 Bahamas 210 476 1,223 747 Bahrain 20 40 115 75 Bangladesh 3 3 3 0 Barbados 30 60 146 86 Belarus nia 0 28 28 Belgium 4,700 9,656 11,817 2,161 Belize 10 13 31 18 Benin 0 0 3 3 Bermuda 1,080 1,588 1,826 238 Bolivia 10 50 263 213 Botswana 10 6 26 20 Brazil 40 825 8,408 7,583 Brunei 10 13 199 186 Burkina 0 1 2 1 Cambodia 0 0 1 1 Cameroon 20 4 2 -2 Canada 57,450 94,198 127,050 32,852 Cavman Islands 60 111 170 59 Chad 0 0 2 2 Channel Islands 330 483 602 119 Chile 20 139 2,161 2,022 China 10 14 30 16 Colombia 900 864 5,665 4,801 Congo 1 2 1 -1 Cook Islands 0 0 1 1 Costa Rica 1,20 1,726 2,735 1,009 Cote d'lvorie 30 42 42 0 Croatia n/a 0 1,087 1,087 Cyprus 20 43 306 263 Czech Republic n/a 9 2,022 2,013 Denmark 3,740 5,906 5,935 29 Djibouti 2 3 3 0 Dominica 5 6 4 -2 Dominican Republic 220 213 1,098 885 Ecuador 100 191 1,232 1,041 Egypt 780 2,817 6,081 3,264 E1 Salvador 180 106 402 296 Equatorial Guinea 1 3 1 -2 Estonia 0 0 381 381 Ethiopia 0 0 6 6 Falkland Islands 1 5 5 0 • Faroe Islands 10 14 10 -4 Fiji 2 2 5 3 688.9 137.5 9.1 324.4 7.9 28.8 156.9 187.5 0.0 143.3 22.4 138.5 15.0 426.0 333.3 919.2 1,430.8 100.0 -50.0 34.9 53.2 24.6 1,454.7 114.3 555.7 -50.0 58.5 0.0 611.6 22,366.7 0.5 0.0 -33.3 415.5 545.0 115.9 279.2 -66.7 0.0 -28.6 150.0 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 51 Appendix E (continued) Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, 199 0 to 1994 Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Change: 1992 to 1994 Country 1990 1992 1994 Number Percent • Finland 3,520 10,364 17,849 7,485 722 France 10,856 19,921 54,259 34,338 172.4 French Guiana 1 7 7 0 0.0 French Polynesia 30 28 39 11 39.3 Gabon 20 48 45 -3 -6.3 Gambia 1 1 2 1 100.0 Georgia n/a 0 10 10 - Germany 18,030 36,749 80,024 43,275 117.8 Ghana 0 1 5 4 400.0 Gibraltar 30 49 75 26 53.1 Greece 480 1,508 10,616 9,108 604.0 Greenland 30 26 30 4 15.4 Grenada 2 2 5 3 150.0 Guadeloupe 20 30 251 221 736.7 Guam 0 45 49 4 8.9 Guatemala 1,560 2,871 4,457 1,586 55.2 Guinea 2 0 2 2 - Guyana 3 1 13 12 1,200.0 Haiti 10 5 8 3 60.0 Honduras 20 29 167 138 475.9 Hong Kong 380 604 620 16 2.6 Hungary 3 113 5,960 5,847 5,174.3 Iceland 40 49 165 116 236.7 India 10 1,269 8,248 6,979 550.0 Indonesia 20 328 3,116 2,788 850.0 Iran 1 1 7 6 600.0 Ireland 2,150 1,473 2,115 642 43.6 • Israel 3,870 805 16,626 15,821 1,965.3 Italy 11,560 23,616 56,986 33,370 141.3 Jamaica 40 65 128 63 96.9 Japan 45,300 52,216 59,435 7,219 13.8 Jordan 10 13 56 43 330.8 Kazakhstan n/a 0 21 21 - Kenya 20 31 39 8 25.8 Korea (South) 1,400 2,770 965 -1,805 -65.2 Kuwait 70 567 567 0 0.0 Latvia n/a 0 404 404 - Lebanon 0 16 16 0 0.0 Libya 4 5 16 11 220.0 Liechtenstein 3 10 33 23 230.0 Lithuania n/a 0 204 204 - Luxembourg 100 399 815 416 104.3 Macau 0 5 23 18 360.0 Madagascar 0 0 1 1 - Malawi 3 5 12 7 140.0 Malaysia 2,890 5,209 12,176 6,967 133.7 Mali 1 5 5 0 0.0 Malta 40 68 134 66 97.1 Martinique 5 119 522 343 191.6 Mauritar' - 0 0 2 2 - Mauritius 1 2 10 8 400.0 Mexico 59,850 124,393 171,905 47,512 38.2 Monaco 20 15 35 20 133.3 Morocco 10 28 1,436 1,408 5,028.6 • Mozambique 0 6 6 0 0.0 52 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Appendix E (continued) Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, 1990 to 1994 Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Change: 1992 to 1994 . Country 1990 1992 1994 Number Percent Namibia 1 8 8 0 0.0 Nepal 0 1 2 1 100.0 Netherlands 3,010 4,558 6,393 1,835 40.3 Netherlands Antilles (I) 430 1,976 2,541 565 28.6 New Caledonia 5 10 25 15 150.0 New Zealand 17,600 24,894 26,894 2,000 8.0 Nicaragua 3 3 25 22 733.3 Niger 4 2 1 -1 -50.0 Nigeria 10 16 23 7 43.8 Northern Mariana Islands 2 7 4 -3 -42.9 Norway 6,080 7,694 7,513 -181 -2.4 Oman 20 30 73 43 143.3 Pakistan 3 0 23 23 - Panama 60 438 438 0 0.0 Papua New Guinea 4 5 10 5 100.0 Paraguay t0 26 199 173 665.4 Peru 20 129 905 776 601.6 Philippines 50 236 335 99 41.9 Poland 1 34 2,589 2,555 7,514.7 Portugal 5,521 19,685 28,481 8,796 44.7 Qatar 10 23 79 56 243.5 Rdunion 2 2 21 19 950.0 Romania 0 1 632 631 63,100.0 Russia n/a 0 6,889 6,889 - St. Lucia 1 6 85 79 1,316.7 St. Vincent/Grenadines 2 2 4 2 100.0 Saudi Arabia 340 810 2,102 1,292 159.5 Senegal 10 11 25 14 127.3 Serbia and Montenegro n/a 0 992 992 - Sierra Leone 2 1 2 1 100.0 Singapore 640 2,816 3,728 912 32.4 Slovakia n/a 0 434 434 - Slovenia n/a 0 599 599 - South Africa 82,100 119,703 162,339 42,636 35.6 Spain (2) 720 13,935 51,214 37,279 267.5 Sri Lanka 0 0 3 3 - Sudan 0 3 2 -1 -33.3 Suriname 10 43 44 1 2.3 Swaziland 10 1 4 3 300.0 Sweden 6,120 14,411 10,458 -3,953 -27.4 Switzerland 1,080 3,158 8,586 5,428 171.9 Svria 1 1 11 10 1,000.0 Taiwan 600 1,148 796 -352 -30.7 Tanzania 0 1 4 3 300.0 Thailand 670 1,273 526 -747 -58.7 Trinidad and Tobago 370 463 598 135 29.2 Tunisia 300 575 753 178 31.0 Turkey ZL 850 5,215 4,365 513.5 Turks and Caicos Is:•nd,; 2 3 1 -2 -66.7 Ugo..'- 0 0 3 3 - Ukraine n/a 0 494 494 - United Arab Emirates 70 166 1,567 1,401 844.0 • United Kingdom (3) United States 179,400 1,198,390 242,325 1,410,973 286,259 1,648,139 43,934 237,166 18.1 16.8 Uruguay 146 75 2,302 2.227 2,969.3 The 1995 worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 53 Appendix E (continued) Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Owners Residin g in Country, 1990 to 1994 Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Change: 1992 to 1994 Country 1990 1992 1994 Number Percent • Uzbekistan Na 0 15 15 - Vanuatu 1 10 10 0 0.0 Venezuela 350 15,520 70,671 55,151 355.4 Vietnam 0 0 4 4 - Virgin Islands (US and UK) 1 191 377 186 97.4 Yemen n/a 2 10 8 400.0 Zaire 2 0 1 1 - Zambia 10 8 8 0 0.0 Zimbabwe 30 22 22 0 0.0 Total (4) 1,796,340 2,362,698 3,143,594 780,896 33.1 Number of Countries 143 157 174 (1) Includes Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten. (2) Includes the Canary Islands. (3) Includes England, Isle and Man, Isle of Wright, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. (4) Totals do not add correctly because of changes in listings of several countries between the 1990, 1992 and 1995 studies. Source: Appendix A, unpublished information obtainedfrom Interval International and Resort Condominiums International, The 1990 Worldwide Resort Timesharing Industry, and An Annual Report of the Worldwide Resort Timesharing Industry: 1992. C: E 54 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Appendix F Comparison of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country and Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, December 31, 1994 Percentage of Resort • Timeshare Owners Resort Timeshare Resort Timeshare Owning in Country Per Owners Owning Owners Residing Resort Timeshare Owners Country in Country in Country Residing in Country Afghanistan 0 1 0.000 Albania 0 1 0.000 Algeria 0 71 0.000 American Samoa 0 3 0.000 Andorra 214 19 11.263 Angola 0 2 0.000 Antigua and Barbuda 3,403 36 94.528 Argentina 18,219 46,049 0.396 Armenia 0 6 0.000 Australia 56,105 56,967 0.985 Austria 15,959 6,070 2.629 Azerbaijan 0 4 0.000 Bahamas 28,726 1,223 23.488 Bahrain 0 115 0.000 Bangladesh 0 3 0.000 Barbados 4,871 146 33.363 - Belarus 0 28 0.000 Belgium 607 11,817 0.051 Belize 0 31 0.000 Benin 0 3 0.000 Bermuda 1,918 1,826 1.050 Bolivia 0 263 0.000 • Botswana 0 26 0.000 Brazil 8,007 8,408 0.952 Brunei 0 199 0.000 Burkina 0 2 0.000 Cambodia 0 1 0.000 Cameroon 0 2 0.000 Canada 56,853 127,050 0.447 Cayman Islands 6,100 170 35.882 Chad 0 2 0.000 Channel Islands 288 602 0.478 Chile 64 2,161 0.030 China 168 30 5.600 Colombia 1,961 5,665 0.346 Congo 0 1 0.000 Cook Islands 0 1 0.000 Costa Rica 2,298 2,735 0.840 Cote d'Ivorie 0 42 0.000 Croatia 0 1,087 0.000 Cyprus 2,630 306 8.595 Czech Republic 0 2,022 0.000 Denmark 1,905 5,935 0.321 Djibouti 0 3 0.000 Dominica 0 4 0.000 Dominican Republic 8,594 1,098 7.827 Ecuador 273 1,232 0.222 Egypt 9,023 6,081 1.484 El Salvador 0 402 0.000 Equatorial Guinea 0 1 0.000 Estonia 0 381 0.000 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 55 Appendix F (continued) Comparison of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country and Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, December 31, 1994 • Percentage of Resort Timeshare Owners Resort Timeshare Resort Timeshare Owning in Country Per Owners Owning Owners Residing Resort Timeshare Owners Country in Country in Country Residing in Country Ethiopia 0 6 0.000 Falkland Islands 0 5 0.000 Faroe Islands 0 10 0.000 Fiji 431 5 86.200 Finland 9,075 17,849 0.508 France 15,971 54,259 0.294 French Guiana 0 7 0.000 French Polynesia 1,395 39 35.769 Gabon 0 45 0.000 Gambia 663 2 331.500 Georgia 0 10 0.000 Germany 68,735 80,024 0.859 Ghana 0 5 0.000 Gibraltar 0 75 0.000 Greece 13,620 10,616 1.283 Greenland 0 30 0.000 Grenada 0 5 0.000 Guadeloupe 1,501 251 5.980 Guam 0 49 0.000 Guatemala 3,496 4,457 0.784 Guinea 0 2 0.000 Guyana 0 13 0.000 • Haiti 0 8 0.000 Honduras 0 167 0.000 Hong Kong 0 620 0.000 Hungary 4,118 5,960 0.691 Iceland 0 165 0.000 India 7,678 8,248 0.931 Indonesia 3,133 3,116 1.005 Iran 0 7 0.000 Ireland 853 2,115 0.403 Israel 13,445 16,626 0.809 Italy 41,884 56,986 0.735 Jamaica 1,850 128 14.453 Japan 19,175 59,435 0.323 Jordan 0 56 0.000 Kazakhstan 0 21 0.000 Kenya 116 39 2.974 Korea (South) 864 965 0.895 Kuwait 0 567 0.000 Latvia 0 404 0.000 Lebanon 0 16 0.000 Libya 0 16 0.000 Liechtenstein 0 33 0.00(1 Lithuania 0 144 0.000 Luxembourg 0 81:) 0.000 Macau 0 23 0.000 Madagascar 0 1 0.000 Malawi 0 12 0.000 Malaysia 13,168 12,176 1.081 Mali 0 5 0.000 56 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv Appendix F (continued) Comparison of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country and Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, December 31, 1994 Percentage of Resort • Timeshare Owners Resort Timeshare Resort Timeshare Owning in Country Per Owners Owning Owners Residing Resort Timeshare Owners Country in Country in Country Residing in Country Malta 13,300 134 99.254 Martinique 453 522 0.868 Mauritania 0 2 0.000 Mauritius 0 10 0.000 Mexico 319,346 171,905 1.858 Monaco 0 35 0.000 Morocco 1,189 1,436 0.828 Mozambique 0 6 0.000 Namibia 0 8 0.000 Nepal 0 2 0.000 Netherlands 233 6,393 0.036 Netherlands Antilles (1) 68,308 2,541 26.882 New Caledonia 0 25 0.000 New Zealand 27,574 26,894 1.025 Nicaragua 0 25 0.000 Niger 0 1 0.000 Nigeria 0 23 0.000 Northern Mariana Islands 0 4 0.000 Norway 255 7,513 0.034 Oman 0 73 0.000 Pakistan Panama 0 0 23 438 0.000 0.000 Papua New Guinea 0 10 0.000 Paraguay 4 199 0.020 Peru 316 905 0.349 Philippines 189 335 0.564 Poland 0 2,589 0.000 Portugal 75,043 28,481 2.635 Puerto Rico 5,475 n.a. (2) - Qatar 0 79 0.000 Rdunion 24 21 1.143 Romania 0 632 0.000 Russia 0 6,889 0.000 St. Lucia 441 85 5.188 St. Vincent/Grenadines 16 4 4.000 Saudi Arabia 0 2,102 0.000 Senegal 35 25 1.400 Serbia and Montenegro 0 992 0.000 Seychelles 0 0 - Sierra Leone 0 2 0.000 Singapore 1,076 3,t8 0.289 Slovakia 0 434 0.000 Slovenia 0 599 0.000 South Africa 161,372 162,339 1.9"54 Sp..: (3) 327,064 51,214 6.386 Sri Lanka 0 3 0.000 Sudan 0 2 0.000 Suriname 0 44 0.000 Swaziland 0 4 0.000 • Sweden 1,974 10,458 0.189 Switzerland 1,694 8,586 0.197 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 57 Comparison of Rr,.,rt Appendix F (continued) 'timeshare Owners Owning in Country and Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, December 31, 1994 Percentage of Resort • Timeshare Owners Resort Timeshare Resort Timeshare Owning in Country Per Owners Owning Owners Residing Resort Timeshare Owners Country in Country in Country Residing in Country Syria 0 11 0.000 Taiwan 624 796 0.784 Tanzania 0 4 0.000 Thailand 1,054 526 2.004 Trinidad and •,.,,?,? 586 598 0.980 Tunisia 512 753 0.680 Turkey 4,631 5,215 0.888 Turks and C?..•, , l;lands 0 1 0.000 Uganda 0 3 0.000 Ukraine 0 494 0.000 United Arab 1 rr,ir:?tes 0 1,567 0:000 United Kinga,,r„ (41 62,169 286,259 0.217 United States 1,537,786 1,648,139 0.933 Uruguay 9,574 2,302 4.159 Uzbekistan 0 15 0.000 Vanuatu 0 10 0.000 Venezuela 65,480 70,671 0.927 Vietnam 0 4 0.000 Virgin Island: and U K) 6,359 377 16.867 Yemen 0 10 0.000 Zaire 0 1 0.000 Zambia 0 g • 0.000 Zimbabwe 79 22 3.591 Total 3,143,594 3,143,594 5.198 (1) Include: q,,,l,a Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten. (2) Included .„ IIle United States. (3) Include t•anary Islands. (4) Include: I-.,,y,land, Isle of Man, Isle of Wright, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Source: Appemir, I • 58 The 1995 Worldwide Reso„ 1•,,11eShare industrv Appendix G Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Per 10,000 Population, December 31, 1994 Resort Timeshare Owners • Resort Timeshare Owners Countr in Countr Residin Population Residing in Country Per 10,000 Population y g y Afghanistan 1 16,903,400 0.0006 Albania 1 3,374,085 0.0030 Algeria 71 27,895,068 0.0255 American Samoa 3 55,223 0.5433 Andorra 19 63,930 2.9720 Angola 2 9,803,576 0.0020 Antigua and Barbuda 36 64,762 5.5588 Argentina 46,049 33,912,994 13.5786 Armenia 6 3,521,517 0.0170 Australia 56,967 18,077,419 31.5128 Austria 6,070 7,954,974 7.6304 Azerbaijan 4 7,684,456 0.0052 Bahamas 1,223 273,055 44.7895 Bahrain 115 585,683 1.9635 Bangladesh 3 125,149,469 0.0002 Barbados 146 255,827 5.7070 Belarus 28 10,404,862 0.0269 Belgium 11,817 10,062,836 11.7432 Belize 31 208,949 1.4836 Benin 3 5,341,710 0.0056 Bermuda 1,826 61,158 298.5709 Bolivia 263 7,719,445 0.3407 Botswana 26 1,359,352 0.1913 Brazil 8,408 158,739,257 0.5297 Brunei 199 284,653 6.9910 Burkina 2 10,134,661 0.0020 Cambodia 1 10,264,628 0.0010 Cameroon 2 13,132,191 0.0015 Canada 127,050 28,113,997 45.1910 Cayman Islands 170 31,790 53.4759 Chad 2 5,466,771 0.0037 Channel Islands 602 149,767 40.1958 Chile 2,161 13,950,557 1.5490 China 30 1,190,431,106 0.0003 Colombia 5,665 35,577,556 1.5923 Congo 1 2,446,902 0.0041 Cook Islands 1 19,124 0.5229 Costa Rica 2,735 3,342,154 8.1833 Cote d1vorie 42 14,295,501 0.0294 Croatia 1,087 4,697,614 2.3139 Cyprus 306 7309084 4.1913 Czech Republic 2,022 10,408,280 1.9427 Denmark 5,935 5,187,821 11.4403 Djibouti 3 412,599 0.0727 Dominica 4 87,696 0.4561 Dominican Republic 1,098 7,826,075 1.4030 Ecuador 1,232 10,677,067 1.1539 Egyp' 6,081 60,765,028 1.0007 El Salvador 402 j,732,511 0.6988 Equatorial Guinea 1 409,550 0.0244 Estonia 381 1,616,882 2.3564 Ethiopia 6 54,927,108 0.0011 Falkland Islands 5 2,261 22.1141 • Faroe Islands 10 48,427 2.0650 Fiji 5 764,382 0.0654 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 59 Appendix G (continued) Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Per 10,000 Population, December 31, 1994 15 Resort Timeshare Owners Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Country Residing in Country Population Per 10,000 Population Finland 17,849 5,068,931 35.2126 France 54,259 57,840,445 9.3808 French Guiana 7 139,299 0.5025 French Polynesia 39 215,129 1.8129 Gabon 45 1,139,006 0.3951 Gambia 2 959,300 0.0208 Georgia 10 5,681,025 0.0176 Germany 80,024 81,087,506 9.8688 Ghana 5 17,225,185 0.0029 Gibraltar 75 31,684 23.6713 Greece 10,616 10,564,630 10.0486 Greenland 30 57,040 5.2595 Grenada 5 94,109 0.5313 Guadeloupe 251 428,947 5.8515 Guam 49 149,620 3.2750 Guatemala 4,457 10,721,387 4.1571 Guinea 2 6,391,536 0.0031 Guyana 13 729,425 0.1782 Haiti 8 6,491,450 0.0123 Honduras 167 5,314,794 0.3142 Hong Kong 620 5,548,754 1.1174 Hungary 5,960 10,319,113 5.7757 Iceland 165 263,599 6.2595 India 8,248 919,903,056 0.0897 Indonesia 3,116 200,409,741 0.1555 Iran 7 65,615,474 0.0011 Ireland 2,115 3,539,296 5.9758 Israel 16,626 5,050,850 32.9172 Italy 56,986 58,138,394 9.8018 Jamaica 128 255,064 5.0183 Japan 59,435 125,106,937 4.7507 Jordan 56 3,961,194 0.1414 Kazakhstan 21 17,267,554 0.0122 Kenya 39 28,240,658 0.0138 Korea (South) 965 45,082,880 0.2141 Kuwait 567 1,819,322 3.1165 Latvia 404 2,749,211 1.4695 Lebanon 16 3,620,395 0.0442 Libya 16 5,057,392 0.0316 Liechtenstein 33 30,281 10.8979 Lithuania 204 3,848,389 0.5301 Luxembourg 815 401,900 20.2787 Macau 23 484,557 0.4747 Madagascar 1 13,427,758 0.0007 Malawi 12 9,732,409 0.0123 Malaysia 12,176 19,283,157 6.3143 Mali 5 9,112,950 0.0055 Malta 134 366,767 3.6535 Martinique 522 392,362 13.3040 Mauritania 2 2,192,777 0.0091 Mauritius 10 1,116,923 0.0895 Mexico 171,905 92,202,199 18.6443 Monaco 35 31,278 11.1900 Morocco 1,436 28.558,635 0.5028 Mozambique 6 17,346,280 0.0035 • C • 60 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Appendix G (continued) Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Per 10,000 Population, December 31,1994 to E • Resort Timeshare Owners Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Country Residing in Country Population Per 10,000 Population Namibia 8 1,595,567 0.0501 Nepal 2 21,041,527 0.0010 Netherlands 6,393 15,367,928 4.1600 Netherlands Antilles (1) 2,541 251,335 101.1001 New Caledonia 25 181,309 1.3789 New Zealand 26,894 3,388,737 79.3629 Nicaragua 25 4,096,689 0.0610 Niger 1 8,971,605 0.0011 Nigeria 23 98,091,097 0.0023 Northern Mariana Islands 4 49,799 0.8032 Norway 7,513 4,314,604 17.4130 Oman 73 1,701,470 0.4290 Pakistan 23 128,855,965 0.0018 Panama 438 2,630,000 1.6654 Papua New Guinea 10 4,196,806 0.0238 Paraguay 199 5,213,772 0.3817 Peru 905 23,650,671 0.3827 Philippines 335 69,808,930 0.0480 Poland 2,589 38,654,561 0.6698 Portugal 28,481 10,524,210 27.0624 Qatar 79 512,779 1.5406 Reunion 21 652,857 0.3217 Romania 632 23,181,415 0.2726 Russia 6,889 149,608,953 0.4605 St. Lucia 85 145,090 5.8584 St. Vincent/Grenadines 4 115,437 0.3465 Saudi Arabia 2,102 18,196,783 1.1551 Senegal 25 8,730,508 0.0286 Serbia and Montenegro 992 10,759,897 0.9219 Sierra Leone 2 4,630,037 0.0043 Singapore 3,728 2,859,142 13.0389 Slovakia 434 5,403,505 0.8032 Slovenia 599 1,972,227 3.0372 South Africa 162,339 43,930,631 36.9535 Spain (2) 51,214 39,302,665 13.0307 Sri Lanka 3 18,129,850 0.0017 Sudan 2 29,419,798 0.0007 Suriname 44 422,840 1.0406 Swaziland 4 936,369 0.0427 Sweden 10,458 8,778,461 11.9132 Switzerland 8,586 7,040,119 12.1958 Syria 11 14,886,672 0.0074 Taiwan 796 21,298,930 0.3737 Tanzania 4 27,985,660 0.0014 Thailand 526 59,510,471 0.0884 Trinidad and Tobago 598 1,328,282 4.5021 Tunisia 753 8,726,562 0.8629 Turkey 5,215 62,153,898 0.8390 Turks and Caicos Islands 1 13,552 0.7379 Uganda 3 19,121,934 0.0016 Ukraine 494 51,846,958 0.0953 United Arab Emirates 1,567 2,791,141 5.6142 United Kingdom (3) 286,259 58,207,127 49.1794 United States 1,648,139 260,713,585 63.2165 Uruguay 2,302 3,198,910 7.1962 The 1130: Wnrlri%%id{ T --c T mr F, Appendix G (continued) Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Per 10,000 Population, December 31, 1994 Resort Timeshare Owners Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Country Residing in Country Population Per 10,000 Population Uzbekistan 15 22,608,866 0.0066 Vanuatu 10 169,776 0.5890 Venezuela 70,671 20,562,405 34.3690 Vietnam 4 73,103,898 0.0005 Virgin Islands (US and UK) 377 110,428 34.1399 Yemen 10 11,105,202 0.0090 Zaire 1 42,684,091 0.0002 Zambia 8 9,188,190 0.0087 Zimbabwe 22 10,975,078 0.0200 Total 3,143,594 5,451,843,265 83299 (1) Includes Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten. (2) Includes the Canary Islands. (3) Includes England, Isle of Man, Isle of Wright, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Source: Appendix A and The World Factbook, 1994. r • • 62 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Appendix H Ranking of Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Per 10,000 Population Compared With Gross National Product Per Capita, December 31, 1994 Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Gross NationalProduct Country Per 10,000 Population Per Capita Afghanistan 0.0006 n/a Albania 0.0030 $1,100 Algeria 0.0255 $3,300 American Samoa 0.5433 $2,600 Andorra 2.9720 $14,000 Angola 0.0020 $600 Antigua and Barbuda 5.5588 $5,800 Argentina 13.5786 $5,500 Armenia 0.0170 $2,040 Australia 31.5128 $19,100 Austria 7.6304 $17,000 Azerbaijan 0.0052 $2,040 Bahamas 44.7895 $16,500 Bahrain 1.9635 $12,000 Bangladesh 0.0002 $1,000 Barbados 5.7070 $8,700 Belarus 0.0269 $5,890 Belgium 11.7432 $17,700 Belize 1.4836 $2,700 Benin 0.0056 $1,200 Bermuda 298.5709 $27,100 Bolivia 0.3407 $2,100 Botswana 0.1913 $4,500 Brazil 0.5297 $5,000 Brunei 6.9910 $9,000 Burkina 0.0020 $700 Cambodia 0.0010 $600 Cameroon 0.0015 $1,500 Canada 45.1910 $22,200 Cayman Islands 53.4759 $23,000 Chad 0.0037 $500 Channel Islands 40.1958 n/a Chile 1.5490 $7,000 China 0.0003 $2,200 Colombia 1.5923 $5,500 Congo 0.0041 $2,900 Cook Islands 0.5229 $3,000 Costa Rica 8.1833 $5,900 C6te d1vorie 0.0294 $1,500 Croatia 2.3139 $4,500 Cyprus 4.1913 $7,260 Czech Republic 1.9427 $7,200 Denmark 11.4403 $18,500 Djibouti 0.0727 $1,200 Dominica $2,100 Dominican Republic 1.4030 $3,000 Ecuador 1.1539 $4,C. Egypt 1.0007 $2,400 El Salvador 0.6988 $2,500 Equatorial Guinea 0.0244 $700 • Estonia 2.3564 $5,480 Ethiopia 0.0011 $400 Falkland Islands 22.1141 n/a The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare industry 63 Appendix H (continued) Ranking of Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Per 10,000 Population Compared With Gross National Product Per Capita, December 31, 1994 Resort Timeshare Owners Gross Residing in Country NationalProduct Country Per 10,000 Population Per Capita Faroe Islands 2.0650 - $14,000 Fiji 0.0654 $4,000 Finland 35.2126 S16,100 France 9.3808 $18,200 French Guiana 0.5025 $4,390 French Polynesia 1.8129 57,000 Gabon 0.3951 $4,800 Gambia 0.0208 $800 Georgia 0.0176 $1,390 Germany 9.8688 S16,500 Ghana 0.0029 S I,500 Gibraltar 23.6713 54,600 Greece 10.0486 58,900 Greenland 5.2595 $9,000 Grenada 0.5313 53,000 Guadeloupe 5.8515 $8,400 Guam 3.2750 S14,000 Guatemala 4.1571 53,000 Guinea 0.0031 5500 Guyana 0.1782 S1,900 Haiti 0.0123 5800 Honduras 0.3142 S I,950 Hong Kong 1.1174 521,500 Hungary 5.7757 55,500 Iceland 6.2595 S16,000 India 0.0897 $1,300 Indonesia 0.1555 52,900 Iran 0.0011 54,780 Ireland 5.9758 S13,100 Israel 32.9172 $13,350 Italy 9.8018 S16,700 Jamaica 5.0183 53,200 Japan 4.7507 520,400 Jordan 0.1414 53,000 Kazakhstan 0.0122 S3,510 Kenya 0.0138 S I,200 Korea (South) 0.2141 $9,500 Kuwait 3.1165 S15,100 Latvia 1.4695 54,810 Lebanon 0.0442 S I,720 Libya 0.0316 56,600 Liechtenstein 10.8979 $22,300 Lithuania 0.5301 53,240 Luxembourg 20.2787 522,600 Macau 0.4747 57,300 Madagascar 0.0007 5800 Malawi 0.0123 5600 Malaysia 6.3143 ,7,500 Mali 0.0055 5650 Malta 3.6535 56,600 Martinique 13.3040 $9,500 . Mauritania 0.0091 $1,050 Mauritius 0.0895 57,800 64 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv . Appendix H (continued) Ranking of Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Per 10,000 Population Compared With Gross National Product Per Capita, December 31, 1994 Resort Timeshare Owners Gross Residing in Country NationalProduct Country Per 10,000 Population Per Capita Mexico 18.6443 $8,200 Monaco 11.1900 $16,000 Morocco 0.5028 $2,500 Mozambique 0.0035 $600 Namibia 0.0501 $2,500 Nepal 0.0010 $1,000 Netherlands 4.1600 $17,200 Netherlands Antilles (1) 101.1001 $13,550 New Caledonia 1.3789 $6,000 New Zealand 79.3629 $15,700 Nicaragua 0.0610 $1,600 Niger 0.0011 $650 Nigeria 0.0023 $1,000 Northern Mariana Islands 0.8032 $11,500 Norway 17.4130 $20,800 Oman 0.4290 $10,000 Pakistan 0.0018 $1,900 Panama 1.6654 $4,500 Papua New Guinea 0.0238 $2,000 Paraguay 0.3817 $3,000 Peru 0.3827 $3,000 Philippines 0.0480 $2,500 Poland 0.6698 $4,680 • Portugal 27.0624 $8,700 Puerto Rico n.a.(2) $7,100 Qatar 1.5406 $17,500 Reunion 0.3217 $3,900 Romania 0.2726 $2,700 Russia 0.4605 $5,190 St. Lucia 5.8584 $3,000 St. Vincent/Grenadines 0.3465 $2,000 Saudi Arabia 1.1551 $11,000 Senegal 0.0286 $1,400 Serbia and Montenegro 0.9219 $1,000 Sierra Leone 0.0043 $1,000 Singapore 13.0389 $15,000 Slovakia 0.8032 $5,800 Slovenia 3.0372 $7,600 South Africa 36.9535 $4,000 Spain (3) 13.0307 $12,700 Sri Lanka 0.0017 $3,000 Sudan 0.0007 $750 Suriname 1.0406 $2,800 Swaziland 0.0427 $2,500 Sweden 11.9132 $17,600 Switzerland 12.1958 $21,300 Syria 0.0074 $5,700 Taiwan 0.3737 $10,600 Tanzania 0.0014 $600 Thailand 0.0884 $5,500 Trinidad and Tobago 4.5021 $8,000 Tunisia 0.8629 $4,000 Turkey 0.8390 $5,100 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 65 Appendix H (continued) Ranking of Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Per 10,000 Population Compared With Gross National Product Per Capita, December 31, 1994 Resort Timeshare Owners Gross Residing in Country NationalProduct Country Per 10,000 Population Per Capita Turks and Caicos islands 0.7379 $6,000 Uganda 0.0016 $1,200 Ukraine 0.0953 $3,960 United Arab Emirates 5.6142 $24,000 United Kingdom (4) 49.1794 $16,900 United States 63.2165 $24,700 Uruguay, 7.1962 $6,000 Uzbekistan 0.0066 $2,430 Vanuatu 0.5890 $1,050 Venezuela 34.3690 $81000 Vietnam 0.0005 $1,000 Virgin Islands (US and UK) 34.1399 $10,800 Yemen 0.0090 $800 Zaire 0.0002 $500 Zambia 0.0087 $800 Zimbabwe 0.0200 $1,400 Total/Average 83299 $6,847 (1) Includes Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten. (2) Included in the United States. (3) Includes the Canary Islands. (4) Includes England, Isle of Man , Isle of Wright, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Source: Appendix G and The World Factbook, 1994. C, E • 66 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry Appendix I Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country Per 1,000 Tourists From Abroad, December 31, 1994 Resort Timeshare • Owners Owning in Resort Timeshare Owners Tourists Country Per 1,000 Country Owning in Country From Abroad Tourists From Abroad Andorra 214 n/a n/a Antigua and Barbuda 3,403 210,000 16.20 Argentina 18.219 3,031,000 6.01 Australia 56,105 2,603,000 21.55 Austria 15,959 19,098,000 0.84 Bahamas 28,726 1,399,000 20.53 Barbados 4,871 385,000 12.65 Belgium 607 3,220,000 0.19 Bermuda 1,918 375,000 5.11 Brazil 8,007 1,475,000 5.43 Canada 56,853 14,741,000 3.86 Cayman Islands 6,100 242,000 25.21 Channel Islands 288 n/a n/a Chile 64 1,283,000 0.05 China 168 16,512,000 0.01 Colombia 1,961 1,076,000 1.82 Costa Rica 2,298 610,000 3.77 Cyprus 2,630 1,991,000 1.32 Denmark 1,905 1,543,000 1.23 Dominican Republic 8,594 1,524,000 5.64 Ecuador 273 403,000 0.68 Egypt 9,023 2,944,000 3.06 Fiji 431 279,000 1.54 Finland 9,075 790,000 11.49 France 15,971 59,590,000 0.27 French Polynesia 1,395 124,000, 11.25 Gambia 663 95,000 6.98 Germany 68,735 15,147,000 4.54 Greece 13,620 9,331,000 1.46 Guadeloupe 1,501 300,000 5.00 Guatemala 3,496 541,000 6.46 Hungary 4,118 20,188,000 0.20 India 7,678 1,868,000 4.11 Indonesia 3,133 3,064,000 1.02 Ireland 853 3,666,000 0.23 Israel 13,445 1,502,000 8.95 Italy 41,884 26,113,000 1.60 Jamaica 1,850 909,000 2.04 Japan 19,175 2.103.000 9.12 Kenya 116 699,000 0.17 Korea (South) 864 3,231,000 0.27 Malaysia 13,168 6,016,000 2.19 Malta 13,300 •1,002,000 13.27 Martinique 453 321,000 1.41 Mexico 319,346 17,271,000 18.49 Morocco 1,189 4,390,000 C.?7 Netherlands 233 6,049,000 0.04 ..::herlands Antilles (1) 68,308 291.000 77.36 New Zealand 27,574 1,056,000 26.11 Norway 255 2,375,000 0.11 Paraguay 4 334,000 0.01 • Peru 316 217,000 1.46 Philippines 189 1,043,000 0.18 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 67 Appendix I (continued) ' Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country Per 1,000 Tou rists From Abroad, December 31, 1994 Resort Timeshare • Owners Owning in Resort Timeshare Owners Tourists Country Per 1,000 Country Owning in Country From Abroad Tourists From Abroad Portugal 75,043 8,884,000 8.45 Puerto Rico 5,475 2,640,000 2.07 Reunion 24 217,000 0.11 St. Lucia 441 177,000 2.49 St. Vincent/Grenadines 16 53,000 0.30 Senegal 35 246,000 0.14 Singapore 1,076 5,446,000 0.20 South Africa 161,372 2,892,000 55.80 Spain (2) 327,064 39,638,000 8.25 Sweden 1,974 650,000 3.04 Switzerland 1,694 12,800,000 0.13 Taiwan 624 n/a n/a Thailand 1,054 5,136,000 0.21 Trinidad and Tobago 586 235,000 2.49 Tunisia 512 3,540,000 0.14 Turkey 4,631 6,549,000 0.71 United Kingdom (3) 62,169 18,535,000 3.35 United States 1,537,786 44,647,000 34.44 Uruguay 9,574 1,802,000 5.31 Venezuela 65,480 434,000 150.88 Virgin Islands (US and UK) 6,359 604,000 10.53 Zimbabwe 79 738,000 0.11 Total 3,143,594 421,025,000 8.92 (1) Includes Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten. (2) Includes the Canary Islands. (3) Includes England, Isle and M an, Isle of Wright, Northern Ireland. Scotland an d Wales. Source: Appendix A and The 1992 Statistical Yearbook, 1994. 68 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry FROM : CONNIE KNIGHT C970) 476 3615 PHONE NO. : 970 476 3615 Oct. 28 1996 03:20PM P01 Connie Knight • Professional Writer . 5197 Black Gore Drive • Vail, Colorado 81657 • Telephone/Fax 9-M/476-3615 October 28, 1996 . Fax 479-2452 to SUSAN CONNELLY, Director Town of Vail C,? -.. xAy Development TOV Planning and Envi,.,,,.,,..,,,antal Commissioners, GREG Mr,rrru, Chairman JAMES LAMONT, Administrator East Village Homeowners Assn. From Connie Knight RE: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. request to amend Section 18.26.040 of the Vail Municipal Code to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time share license units" as a conditional use in Commercial Core 11. At a time when the Town of Vail sorely needs more hotel rooms not less, I would hope that you would deny this request for such a prime, cruicial location. Despite the fact that the Sonwalp is involved, such may not always be the case. Public Ac,. -. , -odation zoning has been withering in Vail Village. I urge to to stick to the Master Alan. Thank you for your consideration. • Member Society of Professional Journalists 9 North American Ski Journalists AUSTRIA HAUS CLUB OVERVIEW • 1. What is the Austria Haus Club? The Austria Haus Club is a member-owned resort club comprised of spacious two and three bedroom residences and associated club facilities. These Club facilities are planned to include lobby, front desk and concierge areas, library/lounge room, exercise and function rooms, ski equipment storage facilities, outdoor sitting area with Jacuzzi, and on-site underground parking. Additionally, access to the Sonnenalp Country Club and Spa facilities will be included along with other membership benefits. II. How is ownership of the Club evidenced? Title is evidenced by a real estate deed which is recorded and is guaranteed by a title insurance policy. Each member owns an undivided interest (UDI) in one of the Club's residence units and the associated club facilities and common areas. III. How manv members will be allowed to ioin? An undivided deeded interest to a portion of the Club units and a commensurate portion of the common areas will be conveyed to approximately 180 qualified buyers, • for a total of nine memberships for each Club residence (dependent on the number of permitted units). Each membership will carry with it the right to priority use of lodging times. In total, 45 weeks of the year will be dedicated to priority use by Club members; the remaining weeks will be available for maintenance of the residences and for rental. Priority lodging nights not used by members will also be available for rental to the general public. IV. How often can owners use their Club? Each member will have full access throughout the year to all Club facilities and all residences of their type category, subject to established reservation policies. V. How does an owner reserve usage? Members reserve their winter vacations in the fall and their summer vacations in the spring. Short-notice stays can be reserved on a "space-available" basis. VI. Will an owner alwavs occuov the same unit? No. Members have equal access to all Club residences of their membership type. Members may request a specific residence unit and this request will be granted if possible, based on established reservation policies and priorities. AUSTRIA HAUS CLUB OVERVIEW • VII.How will the rental proizram work? All residence units not reserved by a member will be made available for nightly rental to the general public. This includes full residence units as well as non-utilized lock-off portions of member reserved residences. VIII.How will the memberships be sold? The Club resort marketing programs will be similar in content and character to those utilized in selling high end condominiums in Vail. IX. Is the Austria Haus Club a timeshare development? No, resort club membership is very similar to membership in a prestigious equity golf country club, except members reserve lodging rather than tee times. Resort club membership differs markedly from traditional timeshare or interval ownership where large numbers of prospective buyers must be generated to produce the sale of specific weeks of vacation time in specific lodging units, or rights to use specific lodging units for a set number of years. High-end resort clubs represent a separate and distinct market segment from what are commonly known as vacation timeshare properties. Although both represent a form of interval ownership, resort clubs merge the benefits of second home ownership with traditional membership club benefits. A limited number of members are invited to make a substantially larger investment in a facility that includes all the features, amenities, services, and benefits of a resort club. They are owners in a single club property in which they have a vested interest in the value, the upkeep, and the financial health and viability. X. Are there UDI clubs at other resort areas? Yes. Club resorts are becoming an increasingly popular form of resort hotel structure. Existing club resorts include the highly acclaimed Deer Valley Club at Deer Valley Resort, Franz Klammer Lodge in Telluride, Ships Watch in Kittyhawk, NC, The Melrose Club near Hilton Head, SC, as well as a growing number of new properties throughout the United States. Each of these clubs is organized somewhat differently and their bylaws permit varying types of usage. 2 AUSTRIA HAUS CLUB OVERVIEW XI. Whv was the concept developed? Club resorts are one of the few economically viable methods currently available to finance, construct, and, over time, maintain a high-quality new mountain hotel property. Membership club services and amenities combined with first class resort accommodations are also a logical product for the luxury resort market: the blended product meets the demands of the sophisticated leisure traveler/second home owner and at the same time addresses the needs and concerns of the community in which it operates. The Austria Haus Club concept is designed to: • Provide more convenience, services, and amenities than are provided by an equally luxurious condominium development • Provide an economically feasible means of financing the rejuvenation and maintenance of the guest accommodation inventory on the East Meadow Drive property; 0 • Make available significantly more accommodations in the heart of Vail by replacing 37 existing guest accommodation units with a new total of 63; • Ensure the highest year-round occupancy by providing room rental opportunities during times when owners are not making full use of the Club; • Add quality commercial property, aesthetic public space, and underground parking in the Vail village core; • 3 r? U 5unbird Lodge i . -Y } hn'.y I?l .An,, .. fi, I l ?. 4 The Rolling Stones in the early sixties wrote a song, "Time Is On My Side;" lamenting a lost love and projecting a hope that time would heal all wounds. Today a handful of developers are singing the same song; but this time it's more of a celebration than a lament. The song is about timesharing, a real estate concept that triples conventional profits. Timesharing is on the developers' side; and, perhaps it's on the buyers' side: but is timesharing on Vail's side? Ti*meshanng in Vai*1 by Brett Heckman It is a European concept just recently adopted by the American market and its popularity is likely to surpass that of its predecessor, condominium ownership. 58 „Timesharing is condominium ownership taken one step further. Whereas condo- minium owners divide ownership of a build- ing, timeshare buyers divide ownership of a condominium. Sold in weekly time slots, a condominium could have as many as fifty owners (allowing two weeks for mainte- nance) and the sum of those fifty payments is Likely to be three times the cost value of the condominium. Time slot costs vary with seasonal de- mand but they generally range from $1,000 to $13,000. For this the buyers receive ownership or use of a condominium for one week per year for the liftime of the building or for a contractually specified number of years. The concept provides those who could not afford second homes or rising vacation costs the opportunity to visit places that they could not normally afford. Timesharing is seen by many as a "hedge against inflation:' The Re- sort Timesharing Council suggests that"pur- chasing a timeshare now will help provide you tomorrow's vacation at today's prices." And with resort costs increasing about twenty percent per year, it's a very effective selling point As with any new marketing concept only time will tell if timesharing is a passing fad or a viable and enduring marketing approach. The story of timesharing is just beginning to unfold, and as with most involved stories. it could be a long while before the plot thickens. But for untried subject matter, timesharing is fast becoming a bestseller here in Vail i where there are already four timeshare de- veiopments with three more planned for 1979. Only seven developments, yes! But that breaks down to 20.000 timeshare slots, with potentially that many buyers. And. an influx of 60,000 people (using an average three ..,c„,bers per family) into a community is bound to have some sort of an impact For the developers, timesharing is synony- mous with profit For Vail, we cannot yet de- termine what timesharing will mean. Some Vail merchants are concerned that 'economy minded timeshare buyers" will not support local businesses because "dining out and shop items do not fall within their budget.- Some are also worried that timeshare buyers " will not fit in" or that they will lower Vail's standards." But the developers and sales agents dis- agree claiming the majority of their buyers are "in upper and middle class income brackets." And they are 100 percent behind their pro- duct. Timeshare proponents trace the concept as a necessity evolving from drastic in- creases in the prices of real estate. Dennis N,ager of Vail Run Realty, Vail's largest time- snaring sales operation, sees timesharing as the only vacation alternative left for many, ny people Anyone could have bought a place in Vail 15 years ago, but that's not the case now," he explained. "Vail Mountain belongs to the U.S. Forest Service. which means it belongs to all "regardless of the pros and cons, 80 percent of today's timeshare buyers are satisfied with their purchases" the people in the country, not just those who can afford a second home or expensive hotel bills. Regardless of the pros and cons, 80 per- cent of today's timeshare buyers are satisfied with their purchases, according to a recent survey of 1,500 timeshare owners'. However, there is a form of timesharing that does not involve ownership. It is sold as a vacation plan and gives the buyer only a right to use. With timeshare ownership, buyers receive equity, the protection of a title, a warranty deed, and the right to sell, rent will. or loan their unit. They participate in homeowners' associations to regulate and assess operat- ing costs which cover maintenance and up- keep. Vacation plan buyers, however, receive no title or deed as there has been no real estate transaction. They are guaranteed prepaid, well maintained accommodations. nothing more; and the specific unit that they will occu- py depends on availability. While buyers are usually permitted to rent or sell their plan, they are usually precluded from doing so at a profit Since vacation plan buyers are not owners. there are no homeowners' associations. The buyers. therefore, have no input in mainte- nance and operating cost decisions. These are the managements responsibilities, and for the duration of the right to use period (lasting up to 20 years), operating cost in- creases will be made at the sole discretion of the management Hence. the quality of management and the extent and frequency of operating cost in- creases will largely determine the success or failure of vacation plan timesharing. Vail offers prospective part-time residents both forms of timesharing: ownership at Vail Run, The Wren, and Vantage Point; and vaca- tion plans at Sunbird Lodge. Sunbird sells a twenty year vacation plan where buyers pay from $1,000 to $12.000 for accommodations one week per year for the duration of the plan. At the end of the twenty years, the plan owners can renew their con- tract at the same price they originally paid. According to Vail Town Attorney Larry Rider, "plans lasting this many years are just too ripe for problems:' Though vacation plans are new at the Sun- bird (sales began in February 1978) Rider's analysis has already received some factual support The Denver Better Business Bureau `This survey was conducted by the American Land Development Association. funded by and serving American realtors. has received nine complaints regarding Sun- bird's "high pressure sales techniques" and "falsely advertised prizes:' The complaints have been forwarded to the Colorado Attorney General Office. Sour- ces outside the Attorney General Office have said "that office" (the Attorney General) is currently investigating Sunbird sales opera- tions. Some, while taking the sales tour and list- ening to the presentation, are told by Sunbird sales agents that vacation plan resales, though not handled by Sunbird, are handled by "agents all around town." To their dismay, many later find that real estate agents cannot deal with Sunbird plans because they are not. indeed. real estate. When Russell Brown of Denver looked for "any kind of agent" to help him sell his vacation plan, he could find none. Mr. Brown still has his plan and considers himself "pretty well stuck with it" Sunbird sales people are not required to have any type of a license to sell. and that could be the root of Sunbird's problem, according to one former Sunbird sales per- son. Sales people there have underquoted operating costs by as much as fifty percent to prospective buyers. The Town of Vail is considering ordi- nances that would restrict timesharing to certain high density zones, and would limit vacation plans to a duration not to exceed five years. their goal being not to allow the infiltration of timesharing into areas that are presently zoned for singly family units and year-round rentals. They also hope to avoid Vail businesses being reported to the BBB or misrepresenting themselves to Vail visitors. Timesharing, in some forms. may very well be a dream-come-true for vacationers but, in light of the current employee housing situa- tion. is timesharing what Vail needs right now? One long term rental development is already converting to timesharing; that con- version has had a dramatic effect on the already critical employee housing shortage. Though many deny it, there is a direct rela- tionship between timesharing and the em- ployee housing shortage. If energies are di- rected to develop a viable, controlled time- sharing market in Vail, and at the same time, a high priority can be given to alleviating the employee housing shortage. then timeshar- ing may be able to peacefully coexist and prosper with the Vail community. But if the burgeoning growth of one leads to the di- minishment of the other, then the Vail Coun- cil, and the community as a whole might have to decide between the two. That is, if by then, its not too late. 59 MEMORANDUM. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Devel?p...ent Department DATE: October 28, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi-family, and a request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the develvp ... ent of 17 EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # 1. Applicants: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, the United States Forest Service and the Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUESTS The property, located at 845 Red Sandstone Road, is under consideration for a rezoning and a Special Deveh px..ent District. The current zoning is General Use District. The p.vyosed zoning is Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF). The new zoning would increase the development potential, as the existing zoning limits the uses to public types of uses. The applicants include the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (the District), the United States Forest Service and the Town of Vail. The District owns approximately three-quarters of the land area under consideration. The Forest Service currently owns one-quarter of the land area. The Town and Forest Service are currently in negotiations to transfer their portion to the Town, as part of the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement (LOAA). The site is currently vacant, as the former water treatment and storage plant has been removed recently. If the request is approved, the applicants will construct seventeen condominiums. The dwelling units will be located in four buildings, located along the Red Sandstone Creek. There will be 7 one-bedroom, 5 two-bedroom, and 5 three-bedroom dwelling units. Each dwelling unit will have its own one-car garage, with the exception of one three-bedroom unit, which will have a two-car garage. The primary reason the applicants are proposing an SDD at this time is to provide a detailed record of the future development potential, which will eliminate questions about future develvp...ent potential of the property. The SDD is a helpful tool to obtain answers to questions about the potential deveLF...ent impacts from the rezoning of the property. In addition to that primary purpose, there is one deviation from the Zoning Code, which would either require a variance or be allowed via the SDD aFy.vval. • 1 F.Nmry.- j. _.Amemos\sandstone.028 The applicant is proposing a 4-foot high retaining wall between the edge of Red Sandstone Road and the interior driveway. Due to the fact that this area is located in the front setback, the Town Zoning Code limits the height to three feet. The wall exceeds that allowable height by 1 foot and this is a deviation ff.,... the code. Upon completion of the LOAA, the Town will have title to the northern-most portion of the development site. The Town and the District will hold the land until a Homeowner's Association (HOA) can be created. Upon establishment of an HOA, the Town and the District will transfer ownership of all the land to the Association. There is no developer profit anticipated for the project. The sales price of the condominiums will be based on the cost of construction. In the development agreement between the District and the Town, there is an allowance for up to 25% of the units to be sold as free-market dwelling units (i.e. no deed restrictions). The purpose for this is to defray the costs and lower the purchase price for the future homeowners. At this time, it is anticipated that 100% of the units will be deed restricted. The deed restriction will be similar to that used for Vail Commons, which restricts the sale to local Q...vloyees. After construction, it is anticipated that most of the homes will be owner occupied. The Town and the District will make the homes available to their employees. While the Town anticipates selling the dwelling units to its :...j,loyees, the District will both sell and retain ownership of some of its units to rent to its :... Floyees. More discussion of the proposed unit ownership will be provided later in the memo. • 2 F:WVMOM%PWiz=0 ieandsWne.o28 0 II. ZONING ANALYSIS • Staff has r.,, sided a Zoning Analysis of the proposed project, as it compares to the MDMF standards: Zoning: General Use District (GU) Proposed Zoning: Medium-Density/Multiple Family (MDMF) w/ Special Development District (SDD) Lot Size: 1.60 acres or 69,887.66 sq. ft. Buildable lot area: 54, 140 sq. ft. Allowed/MDMF Pronosed Density 22 d.u.s 17 d.u.s Height: 35' 35' GRFA: 18,449 sq. ft. 16,275 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 20' Side/Side 20' 20' Rear: 20' 20' Site Coverage: 31,449 sq, ft. 12,029 sq* ft. • or 45 % or 17% . lteautred Prouosed Landscaping: 20,966 sq. ft. 36,450 sq. ft. or 30% or 52 % Parking: 34 spaces 44 spaces required proposed Percent enclosed: 50% of 53% enclosed required parking (17) (18) III. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION FROM PEC WORKSESSION ON SEPTEMBFeR 9.1996 Below are the list of questions raised at the previous PEC worksession. Staff has grouped them into categories of general issues and specific items relating to the project. 1. Is the SDD the appropriate tool to use for the review of this ,...Yosal? Staff believes that the SDD is the most appropriate process to use in this case, because it requires the specific design to be provided simultaneously with the request for a change in zoning. For clarification, the r.r,,,osed devekv... ent densities fall below those allowed under the MDMF 0 3 zoning. The proposed levels of density will become the new cap and any future request for expansions will trigger a major SDD amendment. A major SDD amendment must be ap ,, ,ved by Town Council with two readings, after a recommendation by PEC. Though the SDD process . allows requests which exceed the limits of the underlying zoning, the standards are ref;,.;,..ced and used as a "yard stick" to ensure that proposals are consistent with surrounding properties. Furthermore, the process is such that interested parties and adjacent property owners will have ample opportunity to give input on the requests. 2. Is affordable housing an appropriate use of the land? Is it app.;,r..ate to transfer land f'i.,... the United States Forest Service to the Town of Vail for affordable housing? The Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement (LOAA) r.r, *rides for a comprehensive transfer of land between the Town of Vail and the Forest Service. Land on the perimeter of the Town overlaps into the jurisdiction of both entities. The LOAA is an effort to exchange different properties between the two entities to create a win-win situation. As part of this effort, several parameters were laid out for the use of the lands under consideration. Some of these include: 461. That there will be no National Forest Service lands within the municipal limits of the Town of Vail. 2. That the Forest Service survey, identify, and maintain a common boundary of the Town of Vail and the Forest Service and that both agencies share in • the enforcement of regulations pertaining to the boundaries. The boundary has been simplified where possible, irregularities have been reduced or eliminated. 3. That all lands acquired by the Town of Vail are used for public purposes, such as open space, employee housing (per the Town of Vail ;,...Floyee housing ordinance), recreation or for the resolution of unauthorized uses." The LOAA was approved by the Town Council on May 17, 1994. Staff relies on it as the most authoritative document concerning the transfer of land from the Forest Service to the Town of Vail. The third paragraph above clearly calls for employee housing as a recommended use for LOAA parcels, such as the one under consideration. 3. Should the development be targeted for the rental market or the ownership market? Staff has identified three sectors of the residential market, which the Town is trying to serve based on needs of the community: the permanent resident, the year-round renter, and the seasonal renter. The size, scale, and location of this site lends itself best to the permanent resident looking 4 • purchase a home. One of the concerns is that the "affordability" could be lost, after the first sale. A deed restriction, similar to that used with the Vail Commons devel.,r.-ent, will also be used • with this devel,,F..ent and the restriction will limit the resale value to an appreciation of three percent per year. In addition to the three percent per year which individuals can realize at time of resale, other costs can be added to the resale price. For example, if the Homeowner's Association assesses each unit owner for reroofing, residing, additional landscaping, paving, etc., one hundred percent of the assessment can be added to the resale price, allowing the owner to recoup costs attributed to maintenance. The deed restrictions have been written in such a way to preserve the affordable purchase price, while allowing residents to invest in the upkeep of their homes. The deed restrictions run in perpetuity, eliminating any risk of losing the initial subsidy to a future homeowner. 4. Should the dwelling units be made available to the residents throughout the community? Yes, staff believes that all residents should be able to participate in a lottery according to criteria which reflects the needs of the community. Staff recommends that there be three tiers: Yloyees working for the Town/District (to be determined by each organization); Critical ;,?.. Other -...yloyees working for the Town/District (to be allocated as determined by each organization); and Other community residents/employees (to be allocated by Town of Vail / District). • In response to the point made about Town employees having an unfair advantage over other community residents, there are two issues to consider: the Town provides a service to the community and staffing the Town enables the delivery of services to the community. It is not an us/them issue, we are in this together. Secondly, the Town and District are trying to lead by example by creating affordable housing for their employees, to encourage other ;,...Floyers to do the same. 5. How can the Town and District ensure that the units are used by ....Floyees of the Town and District in the future? Staff believes it is primarily an issue of priority-- we would like to see critical Q..Floyees of the two organizations housed as the top priority. With that goal in mind, the Town and District will establish reciprocal I st and 2nd rights of refusal for all 17 dwelling units in the devel.,F...ent. This will allow the employees at the top of the lottery criteria list to be housed. However, if other employees own the units, we have still accomplished the goal of p. aiding o..Vloyee housing. As indicated in the lottery criteria list, other residents of the community will have an opportunity to buy homes in this develujp ..ent, if the supply is not exhausted by employees in the higher priority categories. Staff believes it would be heavy-handed to require a sale and then evict a local who chooses to work for a different employer in the valley. Regardless of employment location, the deed restrictions require that residents work an average of 30 hours per week at businesses which are located in Eagle County. 5 6. What has been the precedent for roads which cross private property? Staff researched two other properties where this situation has occurred. At the time of . redevelopment, the Town required easements to accommodate the existing alignment of the pavement, but did not require dedication of that portion of the site as right-of-way. As the land continued to be held as private property, the Town allowed the area in the easement to be used in the calculation of GRFA and other deveLru.ent standards. This is also consistent with the way the Town treats other easements (such as utility and drainage easements), concerning the calculation of development standards. Specific items relating to the development proposal. Insure that any wetlands to be disturbed are mitigated adequately. After walking the site with Russ Forrest, the Town Environmental Planner and Nicole Ripley, a wetland consultant, staff understands that the Corps of Engineers must be notified of the activity on-site. The consultant will assess the wetland qualities of the site, review the devel,,,,went plans, and determine the potential area of disturbance to jurisdictional wetlands. The consultant has recommended that an area equivalent to that of the disturbance be replanted on the north and south ends of the site, as mitigation for areas being i...racted. The applicant understands that the northern and southern ends of the site must be planted with • nursery grown stock, matching the willow species currently on-site. The specific area of revegetation has yet to be determined, but will be determined prior to the first reading of the ordinance by Town Council. Neither the consultant or the Town's envir anuental planner believe that the characteristics of the site, or the magnitude of the proposed development, will warrant other mitigation requirements than those described above. 2. Architecture In the discussions about the architecture at the previous PEC worksession, the PEC and DRB members were roughly split as to the arr,,opriateness of flat roofs. After reviewing the colored renderings, the Board members had a greater appreciation for the quality of the proposed development, specifically the amount of variety within the massing, or as described in the hearing, the "wedding cake effect." Staff believes that the range of comments on the flat roofs, the best analysis of them is summarized as follows: flat roofs can be the most efficient and are appreciated by design professionals. Designs which incorporate flat roofs can be very high quality (and in fact are better than the design of Vail Commons). However, the public will not appreciate the good architecture and will perceive the project as a stack of boxes. Furthermore, this image will convey "public housing." • 6 The applicable criteria in the Zoning Code is found in the Design Review Section and the SDD criteria. The SDD calls for compatibility with the surrounding properties. In this case, the • SULx anding Y..,rerties have either pitched roofs or a combination of flat with shed roofs. The DRB criteria are more specific and state that: The majority of roof forms within Vail are gable roofs with a pitch of at least four feet in twelve feet. However, other roof forms are allowed. Consideration of environmental and climatic determinants such as snow shedding, drainage, and solar exposure should be integral to the roof design. Deep eaves, overhangs, canopies, and other building features that provide shelter from the elements are encouraged. The guidelines also call for snow shedding to be minimized in pedestrian areas. It should also be noted that although flat roofs may be appreciated for their simplicity, flat roofs are an often cited attribute of Lionshead which the community is trying to move away Another issue raised by the PEC was the need to break-up the siding material with areas of stucco. Both the flat roof issue and the stucco issue have not been addressed since the previous PEC/DRB worksession. • 3. Consolidate curb cuts. The project has been re-engineered so that both Brooktree, Sandstone Park and the proposed project are served by one curbcut. The applicants are willing to piu.ride permanent access easements for the neighboring develup,,Lents. 4. Add a staircase to the north end of the site to access the Town of Vail bus stop. The applicant has been concerned that providing a staircase from the devel. p...ent to the bus stop across the street could be seen as a discriminatory act, against disabled individuals. Staff has researched the issue with the Town attorney, as well as with Vail Associates staff who deal with ADA issues regularly. Since the elevation difference at this corner of the site is approximately 16 feet, a ramp connecting the devel„r?.. ent to the upper road would be over 200 feet long. Given the tough requirements of the topography and the law, a connection at this location cannot be provided. 5. Add landscaping along Red Sandstone Road. The Town has a sight-distance standard for intersections between driveways and roads, such as Red Sandstone Road. The area falling within a triangle of 10 feet by 250 feet must remain free of • vegetation which could block the sight of oncoming traffic. Notwithstanding this requirement, staff believes that additional landscaping must be planted along Red Sandstone Road. Previously, 7 there were 8 spruce and 8 shrubs in this area. Since the worksession, the applicant has added plant material so that there is now a total of 13 spruce, 3 cottonwoods and 8 shrubs in the area. However, staff believes that additional buffering is needed. Staff recommends adding 4 spruce . and 5 shrubs in the area that extends south from the largest group of landscaping. The applicant has agreed to plant this area, as long as the finished grade is such that landscaping can be planted in the area. 6. Provide a sidewalk along Red sandstone Road. There is not sufficient room, given the retaining required, for a sidewalk. At the end of the worksession on September 9, 1996, the PEC concluded that given the site constraints, additional landscaping was a higher priority than a sidewalk. 7. Provide a streamwalk. After studying the site, staff believes that the connection f'i,,,u- a potential streamwalk to the road above is not workable. As discussed above, the elevation dill-,.;,.ce at the base of the upper road is significantly higher than the stream. Given the relatively short length of walkway and the steep climb required around the creek culverts, a streamwalk does not appear to be a component that could readily be included in the devel„Yu.ent. A compromise solution may be to have the applicant provide a pedestrian/fisherman's easement • along the creek. This would allow creek access, without requiring a walkway to be constructed that would not be workable. 8. Provide additional snow storage. The snow storage areas are now 30% of the total pavement area. Staff believes the increase in this area, which has been made since the worksession, adequately provides for storage areas. 9. Parking for the three bedroom units. Increasing the size of the garages for the three bedroom units would require a redesign of the whole project. However, in order to address the concerns of the PEC and to ensure that the three bedroom units are adequately served, the applicant has suggested that a guest space be reserved for each three bedroom unit. 10. Pedestrian access fiwiLiL within the garages. Pedestrian doors have been added to the garages which have some portion of exterior wall. In several cases, the way the buildings have been notched, provided just enough of an exterior wall • 8 to include a door. However, one garage in each building does not have adequate exterior exposure to add a pedestrian door. • 11. Overhead utilities. The applicant has committed to removing the existing overhead utilities. For clarification purposes, staff understands that the existing two poles on site will be removed and the existing service will terminate at the pole located immediately north of the Sandstone Park building. 12. Details. The dumpster will be enclosed, to improve the quality of the entrance area of the development. The sod areas between the buildings have been expanded, to y?v Jide additional turf area for the residents to use. The sod will be easier to maintain than "native vegetation," particularly since the new areas between the buildings will connect the sod from the front and back. IV. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING REOITEST The criteria, the Town has used in the past, to evaluate rezoning requests are listed below: A. Is the request in conformity with the Land Use Plan? The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates these parcels as Medium Density is Residential (MDR), which translates to a density of 3 -14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Page 32 of the Land Use Plan calls for the following type of develoy?.. ents in areas with this designation: "The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with commons walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre." The buildable area of the combined sites is 1.24 acres. As the proposed development will consist of 17 dwelling units, the resulting density will be 13.71 d.u./ac. which is less than what the Land Use Plan prescribes. Please note that this calculation is based on buildable site area, not total site area. Additionally, the requested zoning of Medium Density Multi-Family Residential allows for up to 18 dwelling units per buildable acre. B. Have circumstances changed since the original zoning was placed on the property? The District has used the facility in the past for water treatment and storage. It is no longer needed by the District. The site is surrounded by rights-of-way and roads, utilities, infrastructure, and residential condominium and townhouse devel,,y.„eats. Staff believes that because the area has developed over time as a • residential neighborhood, that it is reasonable to rezone this site to allow residential development, in order to be compatible with adjacent land uses. 9 C. Does the proposed zoning provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community? • Staff believes that the development of this site as affordable housing will increase the viability of our community. Affordable housing has been listed in the Town's annual c.,u..unity survey as a top priority, for reasons of economic stability as well as the desire to increase the sense of community. Though interest runs high, locating sites which can acc.. ---odate affordable housing is difficult. Housing at this location addresses the priorities of the community and enhances the viability of the Town. D. Does the y..,,yosed zoning present a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The land uses on the surrounding properties are similar to the uses of the rY-Vosed development. The applicant has prepared an analysis of the densities of the surrounding properties, which is shown below: Proiect Zone District/ Parcel Units Gross Density Permitted Density Size (du/ac) Potato Patch Club RC, 6/ac ± 10 acres 44 4.4 Sandstone Park LDMF, 91ac 1.54 16 10.3 Brooktme MDMF, 18/ac 1.23 acres 48 22.0 • Cotton wood Park LDW, 9/ac .69 acres 7 10.1 Aspen tree MDW,18/ac .49 acres 15 30.6 Sandstone Creek Club LDW, 9/ac 5.9 acres 84 14.2 Sun Vail MDMF, 18/ac 4.91 acres 60 12.2 Breakaway West MDMF, 18/ac 1.87 acres 54 28.8 SnowLion/SnowFox MDMF, 18/ac 1.36 acres 42 30.8 Telemark MDMF,18/ac .96 acres 18 18.7 Homestake MDMF, 181ac 1.36 acres 66 48.5 Lionsmane MDMF, 18/ac 1.04 acres 37 35.5 Vail Village 9th 2-Family 3.39 acres 24 (potential) 7.0 Parcel A General Use 5.7 acres 0 0 The gross density of the proposed devel„,.,a.ent is 10.6 dwelling units per acre. (17 units/ 1.6044 gross acres = 10.6 du/ac) As such, it is well within the range of the densities in the area. E. Suitability of the proposed zoning. Staff believes that the ,.,. ,,osed zoning is suitable for this site. The development allowed by the rezoning will allow the community to move towards its goals. regarding the supply of affordably priced homes. The develo,,... ent will be in line with surrounding projects, concerning uses and density. • 10 V. EVALUATION OF i tic SPECIAL DFMLOPMENT DI4TRiC1REQUEST • Below are the nine criteria used to evaluate Special Devel-I ...ent District proposals: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties, relative to the architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff believes that the architectural scale, bulk and building height are all successful. However, staff is concerned about the identity and the character of the project. Specifically, staff is concerned about the flat roofs. The surrounding devel. v ..ents in the Sandstone area range in age and quality, and none exclusively have flat roofs. Many have a combination of flat and pitched roofs. For example, Sandstone Park has steeply pitched sheds and gables in conjunction with flat roofs. Brooktree has a combination of a mansard-type roof with a flat roof. Aspentree and Potato Patch Club both have built-up gravel roofs, which are pitched at relatively shallow slopes. Staff believes that one of the significant elements in each of the surrounding properties is the roof eave overhang. We believe that this gives architectural character to the devel„ I,...ent, as it creates a shadow line, breaks up the mass and bulk, and creates a character that is appreciated by the general public. Staff does not want to discount the overall quality of the ?,.oFosed design. However, we believe that the character should be modified by adding pitched roofs to the flat roofs in a way similar to Sandstone Park, immediately adjacent to • the project to the west. Of particular concern to staff is the height of the flat roofs relative to the road elevation surrounding the project. We believe that the roof areas will be highly visible from the surrounding area. The elevation at the comer of Red Sandstone Road and Potato Patch Drive is approximately 2 - 3 feet higher than the elevation of the second story roofs. Since pedestrians and drivers on the road will be higher than the roof elevation, the flat roofs will have greater exposure. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Staff believes that the uses, activity and density will be compatible with the su,.uanding develup ... ent. As discussed above, under the evaluation of the rezoning request, the proposed density is consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and will be lower than the surrounding devel.,y...ents in the area. C. C.,...pliance with parking and loading requirements, as outlined in Chapter 18.52. The V.uposed deveky.,..ent exceeds the Zoning Code requirement regarding the total supply of parking spaces, as well as the supply of enclosed parking spaces. 11 Each of the condominiums will have its own oversized garage. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail C.,...rrehensive Plan, Town • policies and Urban Design Plan. The Vail Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) calls for a density on this site ranging t].,... 3-14 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development, at 13.1 dwelling units per buildable acre, is consistent with the Land Use Plan. A thorough analysis of the consistency with the Land Use Plan is provided above, under the rezoning discussion. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which this Special Development District is ..,.,,osed. The only hazard affecting this site is the 100 year floodplain. All i...?.?, wements, grading, and disturbance will be located outside of the floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development, responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of community. The site plan and building design have been developed to take full advantage of the • open space area along Red Sandstone Creek. Each of the dwelling units will abut this corridor, which will increase the quality of life of the residents of this development. In the site planning deveh p...ent, the 30' stream centerline setback standard of the Town has been respected, providing a buffer between the riparian corridor and the devel.,r...ent. There is one location where some of the existing vegetation will be removed. Tom Braun, the representative for the devet p...ent, has stated that the District will transplant vegetation during the construction process or will replace it with new plant material, matching the existing species. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Driveways have been aligned so that the Red Sandstone, Brooktree, and Sandstone Park develup...ents will all be sharing the same access onto Reel Sandstone Road. Easements will be provided to maintain this access in the future. The point of intersection with Red Sandstone Road has been located at a point where visibility is the greatest, as Red Sandstone Road winds its way up to Potato Patch. Concerning pedestrian circulation, staff has requested that the existing sidewalk along Red Sandstone Road be continued up to the entrance to this devel. _v ..ent. Is 12 Originally, staff and the PEC requested that a pedestrian connection be provided firm... this project up to Red Sandstone Road, above the development. . Unfortunately, the ADA laws are such that providing a staircase without a second accessible route cannot be done. An important detail relating to circulation is the areas for snow storage. Snow will be stored along the driveway, on the east side as well as at the northern end of the drive. Snow storage areas have been increased, as discussed above. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space, in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Staff requests that the applicant buffer the project more from adjacent properties, particularly along Red Sandstone Road. Staff understands that there is a very steep slope in this area, plus retaining walls, which limits the plantable area. However, staff believes more trees and shrubs should be added, per the comments made earlier in the memo. Staff also requests that the existing vegetation be preserved. The large spruce (24 inch caliper) on the north west corner of the site is proposed to be preserved. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable functional and efficient relationship throughout the devel.,r...ent of this Special Development District. At this time, it is anticipated that the development would be completed in a single phase. If for any reason, the Forest Service and the Town cannot complete the transfer of ownership of the northernmost part of the state, the District will proceed ahead with construction of the first three buildings. A condition of approval will be to have the District resubdivide all the parcels into one lot. Though the zoning code definition allows parcels adjacent to one another to be considered as one lot, ultimately the development area must be replatted as a condominium map. As part of that process, the land will eventually be platted as a single lot. As part of the initial phase, staff understands that the existing overhead utility lines will be buried. Staff understands that two poles will be removed and the existing overhead lines eliminated back to the existing pole adjacent to the Sandstone Park Condominium Building. C] 13 VI. STAFF RYXDMOENDATIQ1 Staff recommends approval of the requested Special DeveL, ... ent District and Rezoning with two conditions. We believe the applicant has been responsive to a majority of the issues and has designed a quality product which will help meet the community's housing needs. However, staff believes that the architectural character, and landscape screening, of the project could meet the SDD criteria better than the current design. As a result, staff recommends approval of the project with the following conditions: 1) That the applicant modify the architectural character of the project by incorporating a mixture of flat roofs and shed roofs into the design, prior to first reading of the ordinance at Town Council. 2) That the applicant add additional trees and shrubs (4 spruce and 5 shrubs) to the area of the site adjacent to Red Sandstone Road, prior to first reading of the ordinance at Town Council. • 0 14 • • • _ On idkz- Existing Cottonwood Tree to be Removed - Edge of Stream ?? - Plant Key f5,m Common Name Scientific Name ( ?M {Cdaado Spruce Picea pungens 8' ht. ave. 25 O?Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides 2.21/2"cal. 23 L--:-: Con onwood Populus acuminata 21/2" cal. 22 p Bailey's Dogwood CoMUS S. Mea'Baileyf e5 27 O Hop Crabapple Mal" 'Hopa 2" al. 3 0 Kl dike Poten iW Potentilla fruiticoss Wondike' a5 27 Native/Wildflower Seed Mix AB Dian•bed A ves L:.. ; B"Wass sad 5950 s.f. ® wildflower seed 5ra 51 Q Rebated Shrubs Fran Site Note: 1. For .. 1tral and Site Plan information refer to Molter Architects drawings. 2. Fay.. i:., o abon, refer to Engineering Designworks, Inc 3. Plant locations are preliminary and will be staked by Ovffwes -.r--tative prior to final installation. I I Denotes Snow Storage Area tobeRantosed E.:.: , Jad6o Rennin 1? t \ • ? `rye ? /a ? 1 \1\ 1 ilding "D" f !III 11 ?? 1 i "?• .? III \\ ? I (? ? .?11 ,ll?. I fed ? Sands .? t ode ? 7 F. .. Shrubs tobeRmefad Dogma WA f "i ?i U I ? I I ! I?/? ++'? 0 l ! I ,? ';? 1 CD 0 +- ' * '`• I I 1 MdWhgUrtiatrbeRtaswtl Malik r• I ? -? ! U 1"-W4r PJwAt °o 7 UP ?x 6 < e U m 0 ¢Qa Ca aS sisal • ty •}y A •O a}s& •" 9 o to M 0 o Iwo U ?i 0 U ? o+ R? w R a to iH a a? c a vM ?I F. a" /II?l11?VV ?1 a I? 8 ? V4 r Sheet L-1 a One mm In , N? o? ? F?1 O U -0 CL -J 1 > m :2 !'4 0-4 GRAPHIC SCALE `. \ \, \`, \¦sat f` ¦ \ F?+•? n ¦ • ¦ • . I \\?, `.'` \' 1"x'1 0 00 6n (w ab 1*,h to t 20KOF b1LJM 0 ( \ / i aN¦ J - - N04 0 UlIE (TV) 'o? 17,71 Fr oll a: M Ica VEAR W, FLOOD -06 .?' noL?°Lr7 \ `-` r'- _T'V??? 1 ?/1? ice, '11 BLDG. 1 1 \' I wt¦ \ ?. Yj * «v. / '? I 30 OR M ASp rto .D,. 94.0 ?' -=?_ - :°,'p^ ,\ \ / wat W. 9-23-96 PAR= = I 1' ' Imn3 J061 96462 ae - .\ l ,way -a- LOCATM SL DG. DRWN: MLM PW OF ENG :MLM N«.I ?! '-`? -? - . WIC Ne Btr t ! / Y I MMGEL I mL N.OP'. 1 ` / J o?¦ Nr = / e¦Te ,t SLOG. / I °?' 1 d / j mn.y FILE: 96462 WIDE TO 9* DD tAt¦ ¦ aunat \ \ ? aDL? I i RCNa / I i / ?/ I. tc IM OCSICIG GRADE a\ \ \ t` ` AIL •' Oa1G[R WANE ? f I PAN cr- "gyp Ad. otQw? aim ' / 1 \ ` - ? f??-?/' l•er LEGEND ?C7 ??••tt ??Ji -- - E)OSILIG 2 CONTOUR s TO' CONTOUR LL GENERAL NOTES EMING SPOT Eyirm AiCCNTrara w 0 1. TM .. ..,a Y •?Iat ",at w a I a Ian o"y tB' GIF ?' -------, • ® , n.r Jaw SPOT GRAM QZ En cn of the tY1YAtE vrodrl , 2 Jtw e Yb an eareuNm nYryat nn .. I Y VM pm an en ?] : ty b ?. tameaa. NOTES Qi 99QQ }. 'v ant rim tata¦t awe a Y«Yw t0 mM1 To•n a va eP.t, i.... 1. rromc antra «nIq .. ... Y w aatm Y tnw ar an 4 the 1. SURVEY FRONDED BY EAGLE VALLEY SURVEYING. 0¦ly oY I. .. TroNk contra pmt M bps¦nINMO aq etvrowE DATE OF SURVEY: MH-r by th. by w .... t• o9enetia 9A55 OF ELEVATION. 1E511?S6D0-063 5. AC AamnA YMI e. olaou.a me Dta for by a• ours aw/a tmv«Ia MV. tl7, _Z d a. i cme >ne i. at oarnst S. lIw vena Y .. W A•Mnq al ewn9 unitft Ren -a- ,I- tow 2 FOUNDATION PUN 407 AVAILABLE FOR BUILDING DIMENSIONS. O t W air -tnr tYn omOkY - N Y w ?..... '....."y 7 TOPOGRAPHY ON RED SANDSTONE ROAD INTERPOLATED FROM Q to nolRy w F+Ioneef. UI vlort E tan mw" -W not ee tl+ ty et the o, NEARBY PROJECT. C7 fna:w a purer /. AwncNAL TTIPOGRAPhv i NEFDEO FOR ACCLRAiF UTILITY 1?y( 7. Contlxta mot rot mote RYE Alion...CYNptYt• w tlM?w to wet LOCATION. TOP OF BRIDGE GRADES. CMP LOCATION. AND } C `2 UneutllerlnC aw,gw Z not be tM .. My f tlr 0:- of M7wa. FLOW PLAN ANALYSIS, Yl e C-V.. agmatta i m a? d asetE - aa+tucum to L5 P«atnt my w 5. ABBREVIATED ROOD PLAN1 ANAU9S TO BE : r-AED AFTER .Mh a m«Fme P Wawa . -t pft e?iE agtiN YEL jWd mp a MiIwME?a SURVEY INFORMATION OBTAINED. (n > m w 1, pm. Cmtrettm Ctm1 a :. t M Cd"&^g w ., .. Yn 6. SEE DRAINAGE REPORT FOR BASIN AND DISCHARGE INFORMATION. ? tYtY16 A NIICVIIL'Be11 . . 9. Cut an/a •r 0"" t W rmt note 2 hWlZMtY tees to 1 Yot .atket Q' 'mot W pw au Liba-s f t tan Sa«ya ,f . a 10. Cw.V-li- .-mg to be , by o Csb V. C I V • • 10 BE OBACAIM f R.c I ?J CURB AND QJM WS MAM ip E WMNECTID TO DL CAS MAN DM NEST SAVE or ROAD. Ma11N 6 SANDSTONE 70 .,..,u., LINE GRAPHIC SCALE APAao01ATE N>GIp "? \ B vtnro w r+D? TO E M hauna TO ... a.U mLwE OF sEw r • / iO" CORRUGATE METAL mac a / I 1-k . m fL O,1 /anEar Jr \\ DOWING TREE UNE ./ VAULT BE- NG WATER LIME NO OO.WCIM psww?co- Z? BLDG. EA5/NG "TER LINE I \ A A?'JM / '? ?..?-•J?? JI? t •D• BE RELC?fn 9Fva1o: 1 ST ..f'?• 1 SSE CA BE cGsBN; j waa?D caNMEnwM 8 \ 'TT ?1 7p MOEY. 1 1 ITE wJ.oMD LOCA 90' c e• ?? "B"AD 1 'r"? I PART I ?' -?? o PARCEL wau MAN, TO GATE vuC ` J ff BLDG. --mm TE EMDp m. ? S PROPOMD CABLE I BLDG. 1 BL ?OPL AA 51ME'f I I ?p 1 33.75•WWO I ELECTRIC A`NS NYORAMi MAIER MAN ' I PART OF G• MUST BLOCK / 'U45'BlOd( ant oft oft c I II \ I PARCELI OAS. AM am ?- / .# e-.a•.e• TEE I I ?LDG. Aero PNQMI4T e• K SEKER WAIN GA 7 u? ' I 'B' 'A'm'ar°EHOa°°K ?1M7ER MAN -- \ \\ \ ,4.1 EY5111C I S10RT IA.M .J" "-5 .. E-_ llIOOMCC A9.O \qC? E amomm pa.M ?AA B\ w I I M S \ \ I { ?5• BUD/ / / / \ \ AN.8 ?u5•EI A PR-K?-M TRUST BLOCK PA' pR"f r / ELECTRIC TRA,a?.r..'' ..+ r \\ s g ` mEPxoNE M cAeLE \ • PN°-5- 9t-S- PA'S 17? ? .9 i '`40 \ PR,? \ _ -? 00000 sop Z)oq \ \ ?' 1 sv? LEGEND EXISTING 2 CONTOUR °?q ?i ya° `Y ,r41t91T POLE E%ISTNIG IW CONTOUR ELEC. MANNaE® a a iI ~ (TTPI EXISTING SPOT ORAGE ------------------"?U --- R._._ Y CONTOUR ® -Y- --------- ?rl -- ,.. IV CONTOUR <- .w SPOT GRADE NOTES 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY EAGLE VALLEY SURVEYING. DATE OF SURVEY: 9/13/94. BASIS OF ELEVATION: MN-ISB-fiW-063 RIM 6190.6 INV, SIM ^.. FOUNDATION PUN NOT AVAILABLE FOR BUILDING DNENSIONS. J. TOPOGRAPHY ON RED SANDSTONE ROAD INTERPOLATED FROM A NEARBY PROECT. a. ADDITIONAL TOPOGRAPHY IS NEEDED FOR ACCURATE UTILITY LOCATION, TOP OF BRIDGE GRADES. CMP LOCATION. *NO FLOOD PLAN ANALYSIS. 5. ABBREVIATED FLOOD PLAIN ANALYSIS TO BE -n.40 AFTER SURVEY INFORMATION OBTAINED. 6. SEE DRAINAGE REPORT FOR BASIN AND DISCHARGE INFORWTUON. ? m CIOm rr?? I? W f V1 Oni? ? x X ILL Ci U Ln Da?? co ?./ t•--t n W n n W o a o oN N n W ^? m a wooer hams cr, L m 9-23-96 JOBI 96462 DRWN: MLM ENG : MLM FILE: 96462 ?W 0 Aa O C7 x O ?cn Z ?+ pV a ? I.a rn •PG, C2 , i APPROX. LOCATION \ PUTMe CASOMeNT POR MOOKTREE ml,e APPROXGMTI! LOCATION ?? yffi necTRK wASwoLe ra \ •' ??. PeD ? a war rcb .. .... `.`. APPROXRUTe LOCATION .? °?" -LT.1 1.7 ` \ eznTING GewM wAwNOLe ? \ \ 1 \OA..,- root or sT.eiw? - \`\I %o OGt OP 5TREAN 1 / ~y `1, ? RLOCA ,1 ?`•? /? RtTeDf1 - VaN .. WAUWAT 1'N 1 IW6 ".:` ex. GUARD RAIL- f K f e%IGTING ec CORD AND G ! ?.-- ?rALLt '? ` loo reAR PLOOD PLAN- j' I f 9LD6 mar/ i , v y:.:?" ' 1 , ,?„raWeR rat cx rw t.v I ? ovo -1 ii^^ro RSA'O ? ? I 1, t seTMCR GS`0 1\' 1 1 w -----< OR is SeTWCK MON? ? \ -, X, 1LSTOYN 1lNV f "--' MoRe TY LINE 1 0 • ? i `I DG, } TMM E.o uueoz z:;;:- I BLlicil • BLDG. cow, T 5 )3 ,IAIt , 11? ?. 1 - 7M-- - 1 EKISTwG W1R10Le 1 ,; awR. . MRC PAD HE . O 0 mwo" MOROsco u361w I BLDG. , ll ?' Pine AN'f i ?5 1 11871 - p• ToRDOr 1 L/ / / /'/? PAD p alu 1w ex. eoGe ?, OROOZTRte DRm ua era CURS a our R TIE INTO EXISTING ORADe f, r2Po 1 1 I I , I 1 a 1 APPRDR-j I LOCATSON I 1 , PUTAE 1 1 ORAIRRGe I 1 I CASdEN, 1 I I I I ' I I 1 PROPOStD R - . ` L?j I eLacrRic Raasroe«el? ?^ I TeLePHc L CAGLe' V .. i I I PeoG SAND.r?NF @ Ra40' ?e •?: ?? a. MUIC LOGTKw OP" / ewes ra as `* 1 ---------- 7-7 t6of ft. iv ELK. Na+NOLta?`•+ SITE PLAN IPRELIMINARYI fi R, T LEGEND - - EXISTING 1 CONTOUR EXISTING 10' CONTOUR 'elTi EX!ST!NG SPOT GRADE °RC°CS,D 2'CONTOUR ?RCeCSED le. CON-CUP NOTES $,XN•e' MovNC ST EAGLE RAL.E" Sd TPK DAR V 51.VEr NOM. CANS OP WVATIOR -64- 3 RIN sm6 RN. Sr*' 2. PARNET xe1GNTG • N' i rePell S,CeT L' PM Melt~Y -D6CAPl%r IEY 5PR7 0'" PRe N N R OR 1" %A PIPER ?2e' 12 'M P.EL10A.R1 uTILI- PIER r U r (n U p O Z Q Q' 0 c) z <0 Q U QZ- N O N -b W ?°1- F- ??' Z (n ?pU W > Q w W U J Q W PoftjRWAIEX co cwt PLAN ovew DATE: SePT. 7G, 1111 RCv1SRXlb Sim PUN SNEET rRNSM A0,1 ? ex T -vc J1J ?J ALT Ail i I ROOF PLAN tw . f-O. A - - 1 t AL1 I I CLOSET •f\ ? ow HIND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN •m ...p UNIT A3: TWO BEDROOM UNIT A4: THREE BEDROOM UNIT A5: TWO BEDROOM 1001 SO. FT. 1518 SQ. FT. 986 SQ. FT. T xeR ? ? oea LIVRIS ROOM LIVING ROOM MASTER BEDROOM I MASTER BEDROOM DIN" ROOM LPANB ROOM - ---- - _ DIRM ROOM 21 D1NON 80011 li Xwer 4 ? r A21 ] PORCH . PORCH p L_ _ p r BEDROOM N " " ?I N ! BEDROOM I }d ? BEDROOM t 1 -- ? _ I L ?i K= BEDROOM t G - L "Or -- ---- ROOF SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Iw . to MDT Al, THREE BEDROOM UNIT Al ONE BEDROOM A11 xi rT. m SO. rT. ....DM OECX I DEER I Li?INS A0011 7Lr4R1e It0011 MASTER BEDROOM MASTER BEDROOM N I I I ?Iwle _...?, 1S y{??1pppMMMR ORRMS ROOK OATH CLOSET 1 OATH l}} 1 II CLOSET "' roROR1 I R I (+R?I ME? poRd? - • BEDROOM 2 Al p . BARA@ SAAASE OARMEI I V l% _ _ _ EXTERIOR NAZI ABOVE Ay Al GAR-N! GARAGE t R N UP J FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN a VV - " Lo U_ Q 1 N O 0 Q O Z Q ? ? O O ?- Q00 J LQn 0 .d N _ Q W <z Q O 3Wu Z wwRJ r-I w J cl > Q J ui w J cfl Q w RRELDAMART axx?T mm mr." DARSEII4IBER R6, w" RMSIOMS: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEET MINDER: A1,` -r AU L ROOF PLAN w . ra UNIT 59: TWO BEDROOM UNIT 54: THREE BEDROOM Mao sv. rt. rata su. ri. Mar WYM MOM IfYDIY M011 I -?•??, m"Ift I li 004"o ROOM DD6N MYA { Y ASS ? ? mlN _ JI ? I ; YaDMOM S I oe?x I L = Au K:ip i _ I I 1 _ _ L ITI,I I I1 ?. D? . ? ? Ylattt tlDROOM I CLOWT THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ?m ..a SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN w." UNIT 51: ONE DEOROOM UNIT DT: ONE DEDROOM 776 SO. IT. 776 SO. FT. oeac .. 'I(' - - - - - Lr4m MOM .am Daa Lr4m ADDM MAWM Yoram 0900 MOM 1 I, - rordM UP Mapl ' d! U - c J V M iAPAM YARAY! G%RR VKM M ? T1 IOR WAL exTMWR wA ? ??. =?' » to WAY[ C/AA« L ----- U FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN i ,/, , --r f-' U N_ U?O p Uz a QU<00 t; w -Z W CD?N > `) I -bN V W z I- Z QNO 3aU W Hai?w J ?z> 0 ca n aC W W J Q W rRaaaMAar COMM" mm ormw DA'Mr. ,1RAMN R[YYIYNN& rum ft." YMCCT A/AR[R Al,2 w I A2B (4 ROOF PLAN v /V - >? • • 2 A2.B ' i _ A2B i A C °? ? II NASRR BEDROOM I - CLOWT) - THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A2D 4) IIOT Dk 11RIt! BEDROOM UNIT DS: TWO DIDIIOOM 160 SO. PT. 116 SQ rT. i ROOT oe? D= I uvm ROOM LDIBOI ROOM i, ?MASTER .. .1 DINING *DOW -_ ^ - - - - DROIOI ROOM ra a PORCH rp-i? PH ' ?' ? eeolROaR 1 BEDROOM 2 I - - _ W"OOM I IJ.L•4 -- _ - ? ROOF O SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Wr • as LROT 0, OW ..^ .^. J m SQ <R. UNIT D- ONE BEDROOM mSM R. - ....I-ON Om / - LnBRR Roots _ - - - ? - oeac NMTM ..., ? LIVOI/ ROOM . + 1 MASTER ..... 1 E EtxoaE DINING ROOM Lac 00 DRIDW ROOM I _ PORCx Ixoee' -y UP- ----- - L" V L PORCH UP - DS SARABE D4 SARA6t 'i .I E)<TEIUDR WALL ABOVE - _ MXTIMIOR W L LL ABOVt D3 DI SARAoe 6ARAW I UP FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ( I'D "S.. -0. h ?- U Fes- 0 a O Q Z oao 0 F q Z QZ 0 0 .tf N cs Lu Q N U' 3: a Z W UJ R- 1 0 ai J ? 0 J u H M.I J cD CD Q W PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAIT REVIEW DA MR 26, 066 MON PLANS 6WEET NUNBEL A1, 3 F-I ?..t 40 0 NORTH ELEVATION 4 1/r. r-W SOUTH ELEVATION 3 IW . T-0' ??- ?Ltl WEST ELEVATION E a: EAST ELEVATION I/...-w i ?- r I ? U Q ? 1 H to Q ? O O z Q cn °°O 00 ?- Q Z z lu ?0 Q of z w Qz ? C? Q O 3WU Z of w a? C?j w > J Q O w ?-' w J (Q Q w IIRLIIN AIAR1' RlVIlW PLAN DATE SEPT. 16, 046 SlVISIDNS exTeRm ELEVATIONS A2?1 ,? .7 • • T ±: ? X71 -- n NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: "8" • P-0" i O SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8° • 1'-0" -LDII WEST ELEVATION SCALE '/8" _ "-0" G , -j O EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 118" • P-0" U N_ UZ 1 ?flo (j000 ? FEU Q z -J» Co ca M 0 rrnn 1 dN? V? WZ{- za`?o 00) 3au JI-ww? JZ> o CD Z3 ?f Q w w J C9 Q w rxuuuuRr CONCEPT RAN seYRW •We: seer. is, ws *"slow: exmioR eLeVAnow weer %UMM: A2,2 =1 d 17; O SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE 1/8" * "-011 -1pl O WEST ELEVATION SCALE: '/8" . "-0" 4`=--f F - -- - N d- U Q I- 1 ? N_ O C) z Q ? D O 00 ?- Q Z zwJ w Q z a`?o (D 3aU Z ?ww H W J ? J Q w w J m ? Q W Ptevmw DATl: serT. 15, a" R[V1510N* o NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" • 11-011 i EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" • V-011 !%TM0* MVA'n" SHM AU1kM: A2,3 I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 28, 1996 SUBJECT: A discussion item regarding vehicle storage/transportation related businesses in commercial zone districts. Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION The Zoning Code currently does not specifically address businesses such as Vans to Vail or Colorado Mountain Express which are a commercial enterprise providing van transportation within the valley. These businesses have numerous vans (10 - 50) as part of their operation. An issue arose out of a code violation at the West Vail Lodge, which had leased a portion of the parking lot to a transportation business and was storing 8 to 10 vans on this property (zoned CC3). The operator of the van business was not licensed to operate on the site. When Chapter 18.52, Off-Street Parking and Loading, was originally adopted, this type of use was not contemplated nor did the use exist. Staff currently treats the office required for such a use as we would any commercial office (i.e. permitted in all commercial zone districts). However, we treat the "storage" of vans or other vehicles as a Heavy Service enterprise. Vehicle storage is listed as a conditional use in the Heavy Service zone district. Vehicle storage is not permitted in any other zone district. The problem is where to draw the line. One or two vans parked in a commercial district is normally not a problem. Other commercial businesses have similar vehicles (such as delivery vehicles). How many vans can be parked in a commercial district before they start to have a deleterious effect on the neighborhood? A similar use is a moving truck rental business (U-haul and Rider type businesses) which has trailers, panel vans, and large moving trucks. This type of use has historically been treated as a prohibited use in the commercial zone districts. Many communities across the country regulate the number of vehicles that are permitted to be stored on a commercial site due to the negative impacts such a use can have. This type of storage has negative impacts on commercial and neighboring residential uses as they are unattractive, create clutter, and create the appearance of "greater intensity" of development. They also utilize parking areas which may not have been required/allocated for such a use. Staff believes the line should be drawn at two vans per licensed transportation business (with an office on-site) located in a commercial zone district. If there is no surplus parking on-site, additional parking for these vans will be required. Excess vehicles must be stored off-site (e.g., via conditional use permit in the Heavy Service zone district). Staff also recommends that this interpretation be codified within the parking regulations. 0 II. ACTION REOUEa i eD Staff is seeking validation of this interpretation or for the PEC to direct staff accordingly. Code modifications will be pursued accordingly. fAeveryone\pec\memoskvans.028 • 2 0 I • TOWN OF VAIL GRFA ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY REPORT OCTOBER 22, 1996 I. EVALUATION OF VAIL'S GRFA REGULATIONS The purpose of the GRFA Analysis is to evaluate potential alternatives to the Town's existing zoning regulations that control the bulk and mass of residential buildings, specifically Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) zoning regulations. This report has been prepared to provide background information to the Town Council, Planning Commission and public as an initial step in the evaluation of the Town's GRFA system and the consideration of alternatives to GRFA. This report provides a general overview of the rationale for regulating building bulk and mass and the zoning techniques commonly used to implement such regulations; summarizes the Town's current system of bulk and mass control; outlines the evolution of the Town's GRFA regulations; assesses bulk and mass regulations of other resort communities; and describes five conceptual alternatives to the existing GRFA system. Three major areas of concern identified by the Town regarding the existing GRFA system that have prompted this evaluation are: 1) GRFA as a Means for Controlling Building Size The size and shape of buildings (bulk and mass) are currently controlled by GRFA, site coverage and building height regulations and to an extent by the design review process. It has been suggested that GRFA is the least effective mechanism for controlling the size and shape of buildings and that site coverage and building height regulations can provide • adequate control. 2) Time Reouired to Administer the Current Svstem A considerable amount of staff, homeowner, architect and contractor time is spent explaining the system, calculating GRFA of proposed buildings and monitoring the construction of new buildings. Questions have been raised as to whether the effort necessary to administer GRFA is an efficient use of staff and applicant time. 3) Regulation of Interior Floor Snace The Town has received a number of comments from the community regarding the appropriateness of the Town regulating the use of interior space within the exterior walls of a home. For example, if the size and scale of a home is appropriate, does it really matter what is done with interior floor space and does the regulation of interior floor space provide any tangible public benefit? While these three issues have prompted this analysis, one of the key steps in the public review of the existing GRFA system is to confirm, or validate, these issues with the community. In addition, it is anticipated that other issues or concerns-will be identified by-the community during this process. Four assumptions, or "givens" have been made relative to this process: GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT • Braun Associates, Inc. 1) Public involvement is a key element of this process and final decisions regarding GRFA will be made by the Vail Town Council will input from the community, the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town staff, 2) Some mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass, or zoning regulations which control the size and shape of buildings are necessary; 3) This process will address single-family, duplex and primary/secondary residential devel.,r.jLjLent only; 4) The "no action" alternative, or maintaining the current GRFA system, is a viable . alternative. II. BACKGROUND ON BULK AND MASS CONTROL Guidelines and regulations addressing building height, bulk, and mass play a large role in determining a community's character, liveability and sense of place. Simply stated, bulk and mass refers to the overall size, shape and scale of a building. Bulk and mass controls address many of the factors that determine the spatial and visual qualities of a community. Building bulk and mass controls also help protect property values by providing some assurances of the type and intensity of development that may occur on a site or throughout a community. These regulations establish the design parameters and framework in which architects, developers, review staff and boards can work. The importance of controlling building size and spatial relationships was recognized long ago. Early zoning regulations provided for adequate access to light and air and limited the intensity of use. The Standard Zoning Enabling Act granted local legislative bodies the authority to regulate • and restrict: the height, number of stories, size, shape and placement of buildings and other structures; the percentage of the lot that may be covered by buildings, the size of yards or other open spaces; and the use of land to control population density, open space, and access to daylight and air, and to limit congestion and over crowdedness. The act places this authority under the police powers of the community used for protecting the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. OBJECTIVES OF BULK AND MASS CONTROLS Communities establish height, bulk and intensity regulations to achieve a broad range of objectives: • Ensuring adequate access to daylight and air by limiting building height and controlling the setback of buildings from street and property lines. • Limiting congestion by controlling intensity of use, traffic, population, etc.. • Creating meaningful open spaces and landscape areas on site for aesthetics and character • Maintaining. a balance-between building scale-and the surrounding environment • Preserving a sense of place, scale and community character • Defining the proportions and character of public spaces and streets • Defining urban form and/or rural character • Preserving solar access to adjacent structures and sites GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. - 2 • I MECHANISMS FOR CONTROLLING BULK AND MASS • Communities utilize a variety of zoning and design regulations to control building bulk and mass in order to achieve specific community objectives. The following summarizes the most commonly used regulations. Although discussed individually, these mechanisms are typically used together in order to create a system of bulk and mass control. Vail's current zoning regulations utilize most of the examples described below. 1. Lot Coverage Controls Lot coverage controls directly affect building bulk and mass by limiting the proportion of a site that can be built upon or covered by improvements. Typical lot coverage controls include: Maximum Site Coverage - Site coverage limits the amount of a lot that can be covered by buildings. Site coverage limits are usually expressed as a percentage of the lot. Site coverage typically includes all portions of a lot covered by roofed structures as measured from exterior walls of such buildings. Covered porches and car ports are sometimes included in site coverage calculations. Impervious Surface Ratio. - This expanded site coverage concept establishes the maximum proportion of a lot which may be covered by surfaces which do not readily absorb water. Impervious surface typically includes all buildings, paved areas, all areas covered by roofs such as porches, decks, driveways and parking areas (paved or not), decks and patios, walkways, etc. Landscape Surface Ratio - Establishes the minimum area of a lot which is required to be • landscaped. Landscape regulations often address factors such as location of landscaping, minimum dimension of landscape areas, minimum number of trees and shrubs and size of plant material, etc. Landscape requirements can affect building mass by limiting building site coverage or can help limit the perceived mass of a building. Setback Requirements - Setbacks from front, side and rear lot lines establish open space between buildings and ensure all buildings have adequate access to light and air. Setbacks influence the spatial relationship between buildings, but do not directly affect the bulk and mass of individual buildings. 2. Building Height Building height directly controls building bulk and mass by regulating the maximum number of feet or stories of a building. Height restrictions typically vary by zoning district. While a variety of methods are typically used to calculate building height, height is typically measured to the top of parapets or ridge lines or to the mid-point of ridge and eave lines to either existing or finished grade below. In addition to quantitative standards, design guidelines are often used to encourage varied roof planes and building heights. 3. Floor Area Controls Floor area controls influence building bulk and mass and intensity of use by limiting the amount of floor area permitted on a site. A variety of methodologies are used to regulate floor area of a building: GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT • Braun Associates, Inc. 1 Maximum Floor Area Ratios - Floor area ratios (FAR) limit the maximum buildable floor area of structures based on a ratio of floor area to lot size. Ratios typically vary by zoning district, often with greater than 1:1 ratios in high density and commercial areas and less than • l: l in low-density residential areas. A variety of methods are used to determine what portions of a structure are calculated as floor area. Areas commonly excluded as floor area include enclosed parking, elevator shafts, stairways, attics with head room less than 5 feet, open porches and exterior decks. In some cases multi-story spaces created by vaulted or cathedral ceilings are calculated at a higher rate than other floor area. In other cases basements spaces are not counted as floor area. Maximum Floor Area: - Maximum floor area controls establish an absolute maximum cap on floor area. Minimum Floor Area Ratios - Sometimes used in residential areas to establish minimum floor area per structure to protect against creation of sub-standard dwelling units. Buildine Volume Ratio - Closely related to FAR control, Building Volume Ratios address the total interior volume of a building. The purpose of the approach is to quantify multi-story/vaulted spaces such as cathedral ceilings. While this technique represents a more accurate method of calculating the bulk and mass of a building, it is not widely used due to the cost and technology needed to implement this system. 4. Lot Size and Shane Most zoning regulations which address building height and bulk are based on ratios or percentages related to the size of a lot. As such, lot size and shape play an important role in the overall size, bulk and orientation of structures. 5. Design Review • Each of the four quantitative standards described above influence the bulk and mass of a building. However, even with these parameters the perceived bulk and mass of a structure depends on a number of other design considerations. The bulk and mass of a structure can be influenced by the placement and relationship of building forms and voids in building facades; the setting, or context of the structure; the proportion and scale of windows, bays, doorways, and other features; shadow patterns; building articulation and offsets; location and treatment of entryways; variations of building height and roof lines; facade details; and the use of materials, finishes and textures. Design guidelines are often used as a complement to quantitative standards to address these types of design considerations. The design review process is typically most effective in combination with character plans, guidelines or pattern books which provide a clear direction for development for various areas of the community. III. VAIL'S BULK AND MASS CONTROLS Vail's existing system of-controlling the-bulk and mass of residential buildings utilizes three zoning tools. The Town's definitions of site coverage, building height and GRFA are included at the end of this report. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 4 • 1) Site Coverage Maximum allowable site coverage in Vail's single-family, two family and primary/secondary districts is 20% (allowable site coverage is limited to 15% on lots with greater than 30% slope). The amount of allowable site coverage is directly proportional to the size of a lot. For example, on a 15,000 square foot lot 3,000 square feet can be covered by buildings and other improvements and on a 10,000 square foot lot only 2,000 square feet of site coverage is permitted.. Site coverage includes the total horizontal area of any building, carport, arcade, or covered walkway as measured from perimeter walls or columns at or above grade and any roof overhang, eave, or covered patio or stair that extends more than four feet from the building. 2) Building Height Allowable building height in the single-family, two family and primary/secondary districts is 30' for buildings with flat roofs and 33' for buildings with sloping roofs. Height is measured from the top of the roof ridge to existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. Measuring height to the most restrictive of existing or finished grade requires buildings to "step" with natural grades and in doing so reduce the mass of a building. This definition also prevents the alteration of existing grade in order to build-up or elevate a site. Allowable building heights are uniform in the single-family, duplex and primary/secondary zone districts, allowable height does not vary based on the size of a lot. 3) GRFA The Town's definition of GRFA establishes limitations on the amount of floor area only. GRFA does not regulate how interior spaces are used (i.e., GRFA does not limit the number of bedrooms) nor does GRFA limit building mass created by vaulted spaces. Maximum allowable GRFA in the single-family, two family and primary/secondary districts is 25 square feet of GRFA for each 100 square feet of total lot area. For example, a 15,000 • square foot lot would be permitted 3,750 square feet of GRFA. In addition, 425 square feet of GRFA is permitted for each allowable unit and a garage credit of up to 600 square feet per unit is also allowed. The Town's "250 Ordinance" also allows for an additional 250 square feet GRFA per unit for structures that are at least five years old. Allowable GRFA is calculated on a graduate scale for lots over 15,000 square feet in size. The ratio of allowable GRFA decreases for larger lots. For example, only 10 square feet of GRFA are permitted for each 100 square feet of lot area over 15,000 square feet. The purpose of this graduate scale is to limit the amount of allowable GRFA on larger lots. Design Review The design review process does not specifically address building bulk and mass issues. Other than a very generic statement in the guidelines that "structures shall be compatible with existing structures, their surroundings, . . . Compatibility can be achieved through the nroner consideration of scale. nronortions, site planning . .". There are no guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass. The zoning standards listed above are evaluated by the Planning Staff as a part of their review of proposed developments This evaluation-occurs prior-to review by the Design Review Board or Planning Commission. Final design review approval can not be obtained unless a project complies with GRFA, site coverage, building height and other zoning standards. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT • Braun Associates, Inc. IV. EVOLUTION OF VAIL'S GRFA SYSTEM The following chronology summarizes the major changes that have been made to the GRFA system over the past 27 years: Ord. 7. 1969 This ordinance enacted the Town's first comprehensive zoning regulation. FAR, or "floor area ratio" was defined and maximum floor area ratios were established for residential devel,,r,.,ent and commercial development. The single-family and duplex zone district permitted up to .33:1 FAR and also required a minimum floor area of 900 per unit. Vail's original zoning code did not include building height or site coverage limitations. Ord. 8. 1973 This was a comprehensive revision to the zoning code. A definition of Floor area. Gross Residential (GRFA) was established by this ordinance. Minor changes were made to allowable GRFA in most districts. Building height, site coverage, and "Building Bulk Control" was also added to multi-family zone district and other higher density districts. Building Bulk Control established maximum length and off-set requirements for buildings. Ord. 19. 1976 Comprehensive revision to Ord. 8 of 1973 which established height definition based on average distance of the finished grade at lowest point, mid-point and highest point of exterior wall; established minimum distances between buildings in various zone districts; established graduated scale to determine allowable GRFA; and established an absolute maximum GRFA for duplex structures of 4,000 square feet. Ord. 30. 1977 Reduced allowable densities (allowable units) in most residential zone districts. • Ord. 50. 1978 Reduced allowable building height in single-family, duplex and primary/secondary zone districts to 30% reduced allowable density and GRFA in RC, LDMF and MDMF districts. Ord. 37. 1980 Modified definition of GRFA by excluding crawl spaces with less than 6' 6" clearance; adding garage credit for single-family, duplex and p/s development; definition of height changed to distance between ridge and existing or finished grade, increased building height to 33' for sloping roofs in single-family, duplex and p/s districts. Ord. 41. 1982 Modified definition of GRFA by establishing definitions for crawl space and attic space, changing the 6' 6" crawl space rule to 5', counting overlapping staircases only once, and adding credits for mechanical space (50 sq. ft.), airlocks (25 sq. ft.), storage (200 sq. ft.), and solar heating rock storage areas. Ord. 4. 1985 Established the "250 ordinance" allowing for additions of up to 250 square feet of GRFA to homes that are at least five years old. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 6 • Ord. 36. 1988 Allowing for use of 250 Ordinance in cases where the renovation of the dwelling involves the "complete removal of the building and its foundation and the replacement thereof'. Ord. 9. 1991 Proposed ordinance to repeal the 250 ordinance was denied. Ord. 15. 1991 Modified the definition of GRFA by counting the total square footage of all levels of a building including substantially enclosed decks; eliminating the credits for mechanical, storage, airlocks and solar rock storage; and adding an additional 425 square feet of GRFA per allowable unit in the single-family, duplex and primary/secondary districts. Ord. 17. 1991 Modified the definition of site coverage to include covered decks, stairways, etc, and overhangs greater than 4'. Ord. 17. 1994 Modified definition of GRFA to include bay windows and established provisions for up to 60% of allowable common area in multi-family buildings to be used as GRFA for Type III and IV EHUs. The evolution of GRFA and other bulk and mass regulations reveal a number of interesting points: • The definition of GRFA has undergone at least four major amendments in the past 27 years. • The Town's first zoning ordinance did include limits on F.A.R., however it did not include height or site coverage regulations. Height and site coverage regulations were added in 1973. • "Building bulk" control was added in 1973 and deleted in 1976. This regulation required offsets in buildings to avoid large, unbroken wall planes. • The 1980 amendment to the definition of height (distance between ridge and existing or finished grade) was very significant in that it kept the height of buildings relative to the grade of a lot and in doing so minimized building bulk. • The amendment to site coverage in 1991 added covered decks, patios and overhangs to the definition of site coverage, effectively reduced the area of a lot that could be covered by buildings. V. SURVEY OF OTHER RESORT COMMUNITIES The following summarizes how other mountain resort communities regulate the bulk and mass of low-density residential development. This not a scientific survey, rather it is a compilation of case studies which demonstrates the variety of methods used to regulate building bulk and mass. Town of Breckenridge, -Colorado Breckenridge utilizes a performance based development review process which places an emphasis on qualitative standards as opposed to quantitative standards. Breckenridge also has different development standards for its historic downtown area and outlining residential areas. The following analysis pertains only to the Town's outlying residential areas. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT . Braun Associates, Inc. 7 Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations 0 The Town does not limit the floor area of homes in outlying residential areas. • Site Coverage The Town does not have formal site coverage regulations. The area of a site covered by buildings is regulated by platted building envelopes or minimum setbacks, and minimum landscape/natural open space requirements. • Building Height Building height is regulated by a guideline that "discourages" homes over two stories. • Desian Review While not referred to as a design review process, the Town does evaluate site planning and architectural considerations during the review of development in outlying residential areas. Landscaping, building colors and materials, and other zoning considerations (height, driveway grades, etc.) for compliance with adopted standards and guidelines. The bulk and mass of a structure is also considered for proposals that exceed two levels. Other Considerations The Town has averaged 32 permits for new single-family and duplex units in each of the last three years. The average size of these units has been 4,029 square feet, exclusive of garages. The Town staff indicated that from their standpoint the review process for single-family development is relatively smooth for all concerned. The review process for single-family homes involves staff review and hearings with the Planning Commission and Town Council. Municipality of Whistler, British Columbia • This analysis pertains to Whistler's typical single-family zone districts (RS-1 and RS-2). Whistler includes a number of developments approved by "land use contract" (i.e. a Planned Unit Development) which have site specific regulations that often allow more or unlimited floor area in single-family homes. Bulk and Mass Controls Floor Area Limitations Floor area of single-family lots is limited to 325 square meters (3,496 square feet) or 35% of the lot area, whichever is less. A garage credit of 56 meters (600 square feet) is allowed and the definition of floor area includes all interior space, excluding crawl space, measured to the outside of exterior walls. Site Coverage Site coverage is limited to 35% of the lot area and includes the footprint of the building only as measured at exterior walls. Building Height Buildings are limited to 7.6 meters (25 feet) and is measured from grade to the mean level between the eave and the ridge. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 8 • • Design Review • The Town does not have a design review process. Other Considerations Based on comments from the planning staff, the type and intensity of single-family devel.,YjLjLient varies. The floor area of some, but not all, homes is "maxed" out. The staff does not perceive the lack of design review to be an issue with regard to bulk and mass or the overall aesthetics of the community. The review of floor area limitations is not an issue due to the "black and white" nature of how floor area is defined. The Town's by-laws do not allow for variance requests to density or floor area. Town of Aspen, Colorado Aspen has experienced a pattern very similar to Vail's with regard to redevelopment within its residential neighborhoods. This analysis pertains to Aspen's Moderate Density Residential Zone district (R-15), which requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Bulk and Mass Controls Floor Area Limitations Floor area is limited by a graduate scale based on lot size. A 15,000 square foot lot would be permitted 4,500 square feet of floor area. Floor area includes all horizontal surfaces measured to the exterior face of exterior walls. Totally sub-grade basement spaces and up to 500 square feet for garages are excluded from calculation as floor area. In certain cases exterior decks and balconies are counted as floor area. The volume of vaulted space is also addressed by applying a multiplier to floor space that has a floor plat greater than 10'. • Site Coverage There are no site coverage limitations in these zone districts. Landscape requirements essentially establish a limit on site coverage. Building Height Building height is limited to 25' and is measured from natural grade to the mean height of the eave and ridge, provided that the ridge not exceed 30'. Design Review The Town does implement a design review process that addresses all aspects of building design and site planning. Other Considerations Two years ago the Town went through a "monster home" debate. This debate concerned the demo of small Victorian homes and construction of larger homes. The issue was primarily over the potential loss of neighborhood character that was resulting from these types of redeveluji jL ents. Resolution of the issue was to incorporate design guidelines specific to building bulk and mass and building scale. These. guidelines require homes to have.a composition of additive forms which include a "primary mass" and "secondary mass" and also mandate building offsets. The purpose of these design guidelines is to avoid large, box-like structures and encourage structures that reflect a composition of smaller building forms. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT is Braun Associates, Inc. 9 Deer Valley Resort, Utah While Deer Valley is located in Park City, devel.,r...ent is regulated by the Deer Valley PUD. The City's Residential Devel„r...ent District (RD) provides the underlying zoning for single-family • development at Deer Valley. In many cases the develvi ...ent regulations for subdivisions within Deer Valley vary from the RD standards. For example, in many cases building envelopes supersede setback requirements and building heights may vary on a lot by lot basis depending upon site specific considerations. Bulk and Mass Controls Floor Area Limitations There is no floor area limitation in the RD zone district and many of the early subdivisions in Deer Valley did not include floor area limitations. Recently the Town and developer have worked together to establish maximum floor areas for each newly platted lot. Allowable floor areas vary depending upon site conditions and range from 7,000 to 10,000 square feet. Floor area includes the area of a building enclosed by surrounding exterior walls and any portion of a covered or enclosed deck or patio. Basement space is excluded from floor area calculations. Site Coverage Unless specified by the PUD or a specific subdivision plat within Deer Valley, there are no site coverage limitations. Most recent subdivisions in Deer Valley include building envelopes for each lot which essentially establish a maximum site coverage area. Building Height Unless specified otherwise by the PUD or a specific subdivision plat within Deer Valley, building height is limited to 28'. Height is measured from natural grade to a point mid-way between the eave and ridge. • Design Review Both Deer Valley and the City implement a design review process that addresses all aspects of building design and site planning. Deer Valley design guidelines include specific reference to building bulk and mass and building scale. Other Considerations In many cases single-family development in Deer Valley does maximize allowable square footage. A representative of the developer indicated that the Deer Valley design review process effectively controls building bulk and mass, however, there have been cases where building envelopes have been too small to adequately accommodate allowable square footage which on occasion Steamboat Springs, Colorado Residential areas in Steamboat Springs include older "in-town" neighborhoods and newer large-lot subdivisions in outlying areas. The analysis below pertains to the Town's low-density residential zone districts. Bulk and Mass Controls Floor Area Limitations There are no floor area limitations in Steamboat Spring's low density residential districts. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 10 • • Site Coverage • There are no site coverage limitations in any of Steamboat Spring's low density residential zone districts. Building Height Building height is limited to two stories or up to three stories if additional setbacks are provided. Design Review The Town does not have a design review process for single-family homes but many subdivisions have private covenants that include a design review process. Other Considerations Steamboat Springs is about to re-write their development regulations and floor area, site coverage and design review may be considered as a part of this re-write process. However, the town planner indicated that there is no real concern in the community with the size and design of single- family homes that are currently being constructed. Beaver Creek Resort, Colorado Deve1upuent regulations in Beaver Creek are established by the Beaver Creek PUD Guide and are implemented by the Beaver Creek Design Review Board and the Eagle County Community Development Department. Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations • With the exception of the new Strawberry Park neighborhood, Beaver Creek does not limit the floor area of single-family homes. • Site Coverage Site coverage limits are established by the size of platted building envelope that have been established for each lot. Building footprints and related improvements must be located within platted building envelopes. Building Height Buildings are limited to 35' in height, however, height is determined by averaging the distance from grade to a mid-point between the ridge and eave at various points around a building. This averaging systems has allowed for portions of buildings to exceed 35' by significant margins. Beaver Creek recently amended building regulations to limit the absolute height of a building to no more than 50'. Design Review Beaver Creek has a very involved design review process which specifically address building bulk and-mass. - - Other Considerations Beaver Creek is certainly known for its large single-family homes and the resort's devel„Y,,..ent regulations encourage this type of development. While the lack of floor area limits may be a factor GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT • Braun Associates, Inc. 11 in the size of homes that have been built in Beaver Creek, a more direct factor is probably the way building height is measured. Beaver Creek's method of averaging building height allows for very large building mass on one or more elevations of a building. • Sun Valley, Idaho Sun Valley is predominantly a second-home community with much of the local population residing in either Ketchum or Haley. Residential development trends in Sun Valley have been quite similar to Vail, Aspen and other Colorado resort communities. Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations There are no floor area limitations in Sun Valley's low density residential zone districts. • Site Coverage Site coverage is limited to 2,500 square feet on lots up to 10,891 square feet and a graduate scale is used for lots greater than 10,891 square feet. A 15,000 square foot lot would be permitted 2,842 square feet of site coverage (18.9%). • Building Height Building height is limited to 30' and is measured from natural grade to the highest point of the roof. Building height up to 35' may be permitted if additional setbacks are provided. • Design Review The Town does implement a design review process and bulk and mass is often considered in the Town's review of single-family development. The Town's design guidelines do not specifically address bulk and mass, however proposals have been denied due to inappropriate • bulk and mass. Other Considerations According to the town planner, there is a trend toward larger homes with few below 4,000 square feet and 7,000 square foot homes are not uncv,,ujL?on. There is a concern in the Sun Valley area with "trophy homes", however this concern is primarily in areas of Blaine County located outside of Town boundaries. VI. CONCEPTUAL BULK AND MASS ALTERNATIVES Five conceptual alternatives to the Town's existing GRFA system are described below. These alternatives are assessed relative to how each responds to the three primary issues of concern with the existing GRFA system. Zoning implications with regard to the implementation of the alternative, potential pros and cons of the alternative and other issues to consider regarding the alternative are also discussed. These five conceptual alternatives are not intended-to be a finite list of the only alternatives that may be suitable for Vail's. Rather, they represent a range of alternatives that are intended to provide a framework for discussions with the community, Planning Commission and Town Council. It is anticipated that other alternatives or variations of alternatives listed below will be identified during this process. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 12 • 0 Concentual Alternative #1 - No Action • Descrintion of Alternative This alternative would leave the existing GRFA system in place. No changes would be made to allowable GRFA or the definition of GRFA. Obiective of Alternative Accept the three identified issues as "givens," and continue with the existing system. Zoning Implications This alternative would have no affect on other elements of the Town's existing zoning regulations. Resnonse to Three Identified Issues mechanism for • Does not address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary controlling building bulk and mass. • Does not address the "appropriateness issue" of the Town regulating the use of space within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes. • Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. 0 Other Considerations • Assuming there is a general comfort level with the size of homes that are being built in Vail, this alternative would essentially maintain the status quo. • No action would be needed to implement this alternative. GRFA ANALYSISIPRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 13 Conceptual Alternative #2 - "Conversion of Interior Space" Descrintion of Alternative • Modify zoning regulations in order to allow for additional GRFA in existing homes that cu...,..Ily exceed allowable GRFA, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass of the home. Similar to the 250 Ordinance, this alternative would only apply to existing homes. There would be no change to the review process (i.e. GRFA system) for new construction. Obiective of Alternative This approach is intended to allow flexibility to owners of existing homes by allowing GRFA to be created within the interior space of a home (i.e. loft additions, conversion of crawl space, etc). In the past the Council has had some difficulty denying variance requests for additional GRFA which do not affect the bulk and mass of a home. This alternative would allow for such additions. Zoning Implications This alternative would have no affect on other elements of the Town's existing zoning regulations. Resnonse to Three Identified Issues Does not address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass. Does begin to address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing • homes. Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. Other Considerations • Could prevent illegal conversions and ensure that work is done in conformance with building code standards. • Could increase the number of building applications and the amount of staff time required to implement the GRFA system. • This alternative may result in new homes being designed such that new interior space could be converted to GRFA in the future (i.e. vaulted spaces are designed in new construction to allow for future conversion to GRFA, the end result of which would be buildings designed as if there-were no GRFA,limit at all, • Consideration should be given to not allowing the conversion of existing garage space to GRFA. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REP _ ORT Braun Associates, Inc. 14 Conceptual Alternative #3 - Elimination of GRFA/Addition of Design Guidelines • Descrintion of Alternative This afternative would eliminate GRFA as a tool for controlling the bulk and mass of single-family, duplex and primary/secondary buildings. GRFA regulations would remain in place for structures that contain more than two units. With this amendment the bulk and mass of single-family and duplex devel.,F...ent would be controlled by site coverage and building height only. In order to provide assurances to prevent the development of large, non-descript boxes, this alternative would also include new design guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass issues such as building form, off-sets, scale, etc. Obiective of Alternative The objective of this alternative is to address each of the three issues identified with the current GRFA system. This alternative would place the burden of controlling bulk and mass on site coverage, building height and design guidelines. Zoning Imolications With the elimination of GRFA, some alternative method for calculating required parking and determining the 6001o140% split for primary/secondary developments would be necessary. Resnonse to Three Identified Issues • Does address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for • controlling building bulk and mass. Does address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes. Does address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. Other Considerations • Elimination of GRFA limits may encourage applicants to maximize site coverage and building height, resulting in large/box-like structures. • Eliminating GRFA could allow for additional development on lots that may result in impacts on adjoining properties. • Site coverage would become the primary limiting factor for controlling building size, with the elimination of GRFA the Town could potentially see-very large homes on larger lots because such lots are permitted greater site coverage. • Elimination of GRFA may result in larger, more livable employee housing units. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT • Braun Associates, Inc. 15 Alternative #4 - Eliminate Basement Space as GRFA Descrintion of Alternative • This afternative would amend the definition of GRFA to exclude interior space located entirely below grade from calculation as GRFA. Obiective of Alternative The objective of this alternative is to not count floor area that is not seen (i.e. space below grade). Zoning Imnlications This alternative would not create conflicts with other sections of the zoning code. Response to Three Identified Issues Does not address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass. Does begin to address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes. Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. Other Considerations • • This alternative would indirectly create additional allowable GRFA for many t,.. Ferties. Basement space that was previously calculated as GRFA would no longer be considered GRFA under this alternative, thereby creating new GRFA that could be utilized above grade. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 16 • Conceptual Alternative #5 - Volumetric Control Descrintion of Alternative In lieu of using square footage as a means of controlling bulk and mass, this system would rely on the volume of above-grade interior space expressed in cubic feet. This alternative would require all applications to be submitted in CAD (computer aided design) form. A CAD program would be utilized to calculate the volume of the building. Obiective of Alternative The objective of this alternative is to provide a more accurate method of regulating the bulk and mass of buildings. Zoning Imnlications With the elimination of GRFA, some alternative method for calculating required parking and determining the 60%/40% split for primary/secondary developments would be necessary. Resnonse to Three Identified Issues Does address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass. • Does not to address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes. • Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. Other Considerations • While this may potentially be the most direct, effective way of calculating the bulk and mass of a building, this alternative would not prevent the design of non-descript boxes. • Potentially burdensome process for applicants because it would require all proposals to be done in a CAD format. • Could increase the amount of staff time required to implement the system. • Would need to establish allowable volume of space permitted on a lot. • Have not identified any communities which utilize such a system. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 17 s Appp- E" T') PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 28, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet John Schofield Mike Mollica Greg Amsden Andy Knudtsen Henry Pratt George Ruther Galen Aasland Dominic Mauriello John Schofield Dirk Mason Gene Uselton Tom Moorhead Diane Golden Judy Rodriguez Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moff et at 2:00 p.m. • 1. A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding a 3rd floor, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 802B Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the request. Staff believes there will be minimal impacts involved with this request and recommends approval with no conditions. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. He did not. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none. Galen Aasland said the applicants had made the changes that the PEC required. Diane Golden agreed with Galen. Henry Pratt also agreed with Galen. Gene Uselton asked for clarification regarding the landscaping requirement. Greg Amsden had no further comments. Greg Moffet had no comments. Henry Pratt made a motion for approval in accordance with the findings in the staff memo. The motion was seconded by Greg Amsden. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • October 28, 1996 1 e It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 2. A request for a sign variance to allow for a freestanding sign for an individual business in a multi-tenant building, located at Mountain Haus, 292 E. Meadow Drive/a portion of Block 5, Vail Village First Filing Applicant: Leslie and James Glendining Planner: Dirk Mason Dirk Mason gave an overview of the request. He said that staff was recommending approval with 3 conditions attached to that approval. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. The applicant had nothing to add. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. Gene Uselton had no comments. Greg Amsden had no comments. Galen Aasland noted that this business location has been historically unprofitable and he suggested that the PEC give the owner any benefits possible to help. Diane Golden had no comments. Henry Pratt agreed with Galen to give as much exposure as possible to this business. He asked if the applicant could move the sign to the planter location? Mike Mollica said staff hadn't reviewed with the landscaping crew if this would be possible. An issue might arise regarding the irrigation system in the planter. Dirk Mason said a letter would be needed from the Mountain House Association to change to this location. Greg Moffet was in favor of the sign in a more prominent location. Henry Pratt made a motion in accordance with the staff memo, with the addition of a 4th condition to allow the sign further out into the planter if desired by the applicant. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 3. A request for a common area variance and a site coverage variance to allow for the conversion of one interior parking space to common area, located at 200 Vail Road/Part of Lots A, B and C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Lodge Tower Condominium Association, represented by Stan Cope Planner: Dominic Mauriello Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 28, 1996 2 • .7 • Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the request. He stated that there would be little or no • impact on adjacent properties and that it would not be visible to the public. Dominic said there was a physical hardship on the site. He stated that staff was recommending approval with one condition as stated in the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Stan Cope stated the intent of this application was to add storage. He stated that next spring the Lodge Tower would come again before the Commission to request a whole new entrance to address the aging parts of the Lodge Tower. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. Galen Aasland said this would increase the guest services, but Galen didn't like decreasing the parking. Diane Golden said that this was an improvement and she had no further comments. Henry Pratt disagreed that this was a hardship, rather a self-induced hardship. He did, however, have no problem with this application. Gene Uselton agreed with Henry regarding the hardship. He asked the applicant if the parking lot was ever full. Stan Cope stated that most of the time the employees park there. If full, restrictions are placed on employee parking. Stan stated that the intent for the whole program was to have people take • transportation from the airport into Vail. Greg Amsden asked if the parking was common parking? He stated that philosophically he had a problem with removing parking from the Village. Greg Moffet stated that he was in favor of encouraging people to take public transportation to reduce the number of cars in Town. Henry made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 4. A request for a minor amendment to SDD # 5 and a conditional use permit to allow for the addition of conference space, located at 1100 N. Frontage Road/SDD #5, Simba Run Building. Applicant: Simba Run Condominium Assoc., represented by Lynn Fritzlen Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the request. He stated that staff was recommending approval with the 3 conditions and 3 findings listed on page 3 of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. • Planning and Environmental Conunission Minutes October 28, 1996 3 Mike Schult, representing Fritzlen Pierce Briner, asked, that the condition that required restriping, be optional. He also would like the storage space on the parking mezzanine, that is currently • used for long term storage, be allowed to remain. Mike would also like the wood storage on the lower level to be kept as an option. If that would not be possible, he could convert it back to parking. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. Gene Uselton asked if the parking spaces met the current standards? Mike Schult said no, that they did not meet the current standards. Mike stated that alterations would be needed to accommodate any handicap spaces. Gene Uselton asked if all the units had wood burning fireplaces? Mike Schult said, yes. Gene Uselton asked the applicant if any consideration had been given to converting the fireplaces to gas? Greg Amsden said the 10' high proposed skylight, as shown on the drawing, gives him no idea what the building will look like when it is done, since the drawing does not show the rest of the building. Mike Schult said the drawing is in two sections. He explained the renderings and showed the proposed conference room. He explained that the skylight would come close to the existing roof. The one on the right and the one over the pool area will be visible from the road. 40 Greg Amsden said he couldn't see the entire elevation of the existing buildings. He didn't however, have any problem with the restriping. Galen Aasland stated that he was in favor of the conference room. He said the applicant would have to turn the storage back into parking to be consistent with other applications. Galen also thought the drawings were inconsistent. He stated that handicapped spaces should be added. Diane Golden said the applicant would have to convert the storage space back into parking. She was however, afraid that once approved, the applicant could move his storage back in there. Henry Pratt said he had no problem with the conversion of the space. He was not in favor of parking at the entryway. He said the applicant would need to restripe the garage and convert the storage back to parking. Henry was uncomfortable with the architecture's mass and bulk. He suggested that the applicant take another shot at it. Greg Moffet agreed with Diane and reminded the applicant to ask permission, not forgiveness. Greg was in favor of inside striping, with no parking in front. With the elevations received, it was hard to try and figure out what the skylight wiykd look like from the street. Greg was in agreement with Galen and Henry's comments. This raised the question as to whether to table or deny the request. Henry Pratt asked if this was tabled, would that give the applicant a chance to formally ask for parking spaces? Planning and Environmental Convnission • Minutes October 28, 1996 4 Dominic Mauriello suggested an additional recommendation be attached for the DRB. • Dominic Mauriello stated that this application met the criteria for a minor SDD amendment. Greg Moffet asked the applicant if he would like to table this? Mike Schult said he could convert the parking and also present additional drawings. He stated that it would not be acceptable to have access inside the garage as the primary entrance for the handicapped. Galen Aasland suggested tabling this. He would also like to have the applicant show the minimum requirements for the disabled parking. Greg Amsden asked the Commission if they all favored the elevations, 180" of what is proposed? Greg Moffet said the skylight should angle away. Henry Pratt advised the applicant that the Commission was not looking for additional visual aids, just a change in the design. Mike Schult said the purpose of the design was to take advantage of the south light. Galen Aasland suggested switching the bulk and mass, so that the slope is towards the south. Galen then made a motion to table this request until the next meeting. • Diane Golden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 5. A request for a setback variance for a garage addition, located at 2704 Larkspur Court/Lot 5, Block 3, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Craig McCully Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the request. He stated that staff was recommending approval with five conditions. The site showed only 1 tree being impacted. The site plan didn't show other trees and vegetation being impacted. Dominic pointed out that the site was littered with debris and was not in conformance with the Municipal Code at this time. Dominic said that staff believed that providing a garage would be a benefit to the neighborhood and that there was also a physical hardship. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Craig McCully was in agreement with staff's suggestions. He explained that he had just taken over the property from the previous owner and has taken steps to clean it up. Galen Aasland said this was a hardship. He would like the Town staff to walk through the building to check for zoning compliance. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 28, 1996 5 Diane Golden asked if there would be 4 parking spaces? Dominic Mauriello stated that there would be 6 parking spaces. is Diane Golden said that would help. Henry Pratt stated that he had no problem with this request. He thought the garage should be moved more to the south in order to request less of a variance. Gene Uselton asked if the driveway was paved, did the applicant intend to pave the parking spaces? Craig McCully stated that the 4 spaces would be gravel. Dominic Mauriello stated that if additional parking was proposed, then it would have to be paved. Greg Amsden said he has seen a minimum of 7-8 cars parked there everyday. He asked the applicant how many dwelling units were there? Craig McCully said there were two units. He has limited the cars to a 5-car maximum and has told the tenants to make other arrangements for the additional cars. Greg Amsden stated that there were rules restricting retaining wall heights. Craig McCully said he would cut into the driveway in order to keep the new improvements below the window level. Greg Amsden said the retaining walls along the driveway might be too high. Greg agreed with • the Commissioners to move the garage to the south to minimize the encroachment. Craig McCully said it needed to follow the lines of the existing driveway. Greg Amsden stated that it seemed to be feasible to move the garage. Craig McCully stated that if the garage were moved, one bedroom would lose a window. This would compromise it quite a bit. Greg Amsden asked if there would be enough room in the garage to put the trash cans in the garage. Greg Moffet said given the drainage and mature vegetation, he had no problem with this application having a hardship. Greg stated that he had no problem with granting this variance. He also stated that he didn't want to move the garage and eliminate the bedroom window. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo and the 5 conditions in the staff memo and additionally, that the Town staff do a walk-through to verify the dwelling unit count and zoning compliance, prior to a building permit being issued for the garage. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes October 28, 1996 6 6. A request to amend Section 18.26.040 of the Vail Municipal Code to add "time-share • estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units" as a conditional use in Commercial Core II. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc, represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther Henry Pratt disclosed for the record that he was doing work for the Sonnenalp properties, but that he did not feel this was a conflict, because they were not the developer of the project. George Ruther gave an overview of the worksession. He pointed out that this worksession is to discuss amending the code and not redeveloping the property. He stated that this amendment request was for a specific section of the code. George stated that at the pre-meeting, Galen had asked what Council concerns were and what the underlying zoning was when this was approved for the Marriott. George stated that according to the minutes in the file, the greatest concern of the Marriot proposal was the request to exceed the allowable GRFA by 70,000 square feet. The time-share component was a lesser issue for many of the Council members. Lynn Fritzlen had stated that if the proposal was approved, then all hotels should be allowed time-share. Tom Steinberg had said that it was a waste of time and too much density. Kent Rose was not if favor of it. Merv Lapin had stated that he was against time-share as a use, as the owners don't take care of the property and that he had seen 10 pages of foreclosures in the local newspaper. Jim Gibson was against the time-shares, as they became run down over time. Peggy Osterfoss was against time-share and the GRFA request. George then stated that he would like to go through each one of the discussion issues, as stated on page 8 of the staff memo. George mentioned that the list in the staff memo of possible • positive and negative impacts were in no way the entire list, but just examples and a point to begin the discussion. Greg Moffet then asked George what the PEC was being asked to do. He asked if we were adding a conditional use to the CC2 Zone District, as well as going over the various discussion issues? He then asked George if the PEC was supposed to attach additional conditions to this use? George Ruther said the PEC was to consider adding a new conditional use to the CC2 Zone District as well as go through the discussion issues identified by staff. Greg Moffet said in breaking down the discussion issues, items 2,3 and 4 address the configuration of the units; items 1,5,9 and 11 address the composition-of ownership, and items 6,7 and 8 address the management of the project. Greg Amsden asked what the review process would be if someone came in with a request for a conditional use to do time-share. George Ruther said a conditional use permit request needs PEC approval, however, it was subject to call-up by the Town Council. Henry Pratt asked if changes to the Municipal Code would go to Council? George Ruther said that any proposed change to the Municipal Code must be approved by the Town Council. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 28, 1996 7 Henry Pratt asked if we would have a list of criteria following this discussion? Greg Amsden asked if we could deny a conditional use outright. He stated that it could be possible to get numerous applications as a result of the proposed text amendment. Tom Moorhead stated after the discussion is heard, the PEC has the authority to attach conditions. He stated that if you have read our provision in our code, you will note that you have the right to grant or not grant the conditional use. Mike Mollica said modifying the definition of time-share was also a possibility. Greg Moffet stated that the PEC was simply making recommendations to Council to change the code. Gordon Pierce, project architect for the Austria Haus, stated that we were in new territory. He stated that there were 40 generations of time-sharing vacations. He said that he was going to bring new ideas to the Commission. He then explained that the State of Colorado had passed a law, The Colorado Ownership Act in 1992, that had set standards regulating timesharing projects. Cynthia Thornberg, representing the Austria Haus developer, stated that there were many time- share types of products and that the proposed type of ownership property has now come into common usage. She stated that Apollo Park and the Wren, in the mid 70's, had very few regulations and that representations made to owners were not always true. She stated that it was a way to finance a vacation over time, and also that a low end purchase could be made. She did note that maintenance has been a problem historically. She stated that ordinances were passed in the 80's that came about because of the problems the industry experienced during the • growth phase. As the industry matured, escrow reserves, as well as a demand in the industry had produced high end participants, such as the Marriott, Disney, etc. She stated that it has now become a high end resort product. Cynthia said that this application is the result of having tried to put something together that would fit in Vail. She stated that Club ownership would be the definition. She stated that with 20 solid weeks of ski time, it shows that we would be committed to our owners. Cynthia noted that the property itself is mixed use. However, since this was a concern with the neighborhood, we have looked at a way to include overnight rooms within the request. We think that our program is an enhancement to the Village. She stated that we're open to suggestions as to the structure, as long as it is a quality balance. We would need to discuss where the club fits into the time-share concept. Gordon Pierce requested any questions. Greg Moffet stated that discussion issues # 2, 3, and 4 were configuration/lock-off issues and that these could be discussed as one item. He asked if we permit time-share as a conditional use, do we need to require that the uses be separate? Gordon Pierce said any units not used by club, could be used as hotel rooms managed through a rental program. That way people who have purchased these units would get something back on their invest when not in use. Greg Moffet reminded everyone that we are not discussing the Austria Haus, but only time-share as a conditional use. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 28, 1996 8 • Gordon Pierce said that lock-offs could be a good thing. • George Ruther said, regarding discussion issue # 2 in the staff memo, that the staff would take a position that as a requirement of a time-share, and in keeping with the Master Plan, staff is concerned with providing accommdations for the destination visitor. Staff would recommend that a lock-off unit be required as part of a time-share unit. George stated that research indicates that people wanted two-bedrooms in their units, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to fill every one of those bedrooms. Greg Moffet asked if staff had a specific number of bedrooms in mind. Greg said he wanted at least two bedrooms. He also mentioned that the PEC would like to hear from the applicant regarding the accommodation unit size they had in mind, what types of amenities and what the minimum square footage would be. Greg asked if we should be discussing accommodation units at this time. Greg feels there should be one accommodation unit for every lock-off unit. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments, with regards to the configuration. Rod Slifer stated that he was on the Town Council and also Mayor when the ordinances regulating time-share were adopted, so he had a vested interest. The flood of time-shares came to the edges of Vail when the ordinances were adopted. Rod stated the existence of lodges has made Vail what it is now. What sets Vail apart was that we have large and small hotels, stated Rod. He noted that we lost two hotels to time-share already, the Ramshorn and the Galatyn. He felt the track record for occupancy in time-shares was not good and that hotels remain a real feeder for our resort community. Rod felt that it was important that we think seriously about changing the ordinances. Rod stated that if it occurs in one place, it will occur in more locations, because it would be financially beneficial. Rod said that he had checked Beaver Creek time- shares and that occupancy was between 65% and 70%. Rod noted that it would be difficult to achieve the same occupancy that you would get in a hotel. Fred Hibbard, the developer of the Village Center, stated that in 1970, when we first started the Village Center, it was in the CC2 Zone District. The zoning next door to Village Center was PA and Fred thought that the zoning should remain. Fred said that he preferred lots of new guests. Since all of the money was paid up front, you wouldn't have anyone to fill those rooms anymore. Also, with the Sonnenalp managing the time-share units, they would only be filled after the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus was filled. When we first built these units, the value was $1.3 million for the 26 units, prior to 1974. Now 26 units would cost over $50 million. The present value of the land is $2.2 million. He stated that the land value would escalate to $9.5 million, thus changing the property values to the assessor. He asked where is the oil field going to be placed? He said that if you approved 270 units on this site, what other properties could conceivably be changed. He said you have to take a look at Vail and the fact that Vail would begin to resemble Beaver Creek. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowner's Association, stated that two weeks ago last Friday, he had a meeting with the applicants and the adjacent property owners. Jim said that the applicant had walked away with some concerns that the East Village Homeowner's Association had. Jim said that he would like to read a letter from Gary McDaniels, President of the Village Center Condo Assoc. Jim further explained that this letter was from the residential units along the creek. It stated that they were "opposed to this use as it is too fast paced and that all future implications of time-share use must be analyzed before proceeding." Jim stated that we must understand how the present time-share works. Jim went on to say that the best gauge was how the regulatory system had worked since the 1980's, since it first came into being . Planning and Environmental Camnission Minutes October 28, 1996 9 in the 1970's. Jim mentioned that back then, we would live with the consequences. Jim stated that the result of living with the consequences, was that in the 1980's, the time-shares caused a major real estate recession because of saturation. Time-share buildings sat empty and it was a • downward spiral. Jim mentioned that the ordinances came about to contain time-shares. Jim mentioned the Sunbird in Lionshead between 1978 and 1979 went into foreclosure and even today it sits there in a neglected state. Jim urged the PEC to take the time-share industry's facts and verify them by independent sources. Jim went on to say that we all knew that VA was looking at major redevelopment in Lionshead and thinking time-share. Jim said that the Sonnenalp was first in line. Jim advised that if the general criteria were met, he couldn't see how you could deny the next applicant. Jim said that it was an inverted pyramid and the scope of the industry needs to be known. Between the Wren and the Sandstone Creek Club there exists high occupancy. Jim stated that there was, however, a real question of value. Jim then asked George what relationship did the subdivision ordinance have with time-shares? George Ruther said that in 1983, the Town amended the subdivision regulations. He said staff would have to check if the 1983 amendment had any effect on time-share projects. Jim Lamont went on to say that Rod Slifer had raised the issue of the success of the Vail hotels. The one favorable issue that resulted from our meeting was the question, were lock-offs the same as an AU? Jim pointed out that they were not readily rentable until the last minute and there was also the renovation and maintenance issue. Jim stated that the Wren did a $1.2 million upgrade annually. Jim stated that the real issue happens after 20 years; what do we do then when the original owners die-off and new ownership brings with it new demand. Jim suggested a mandatory redevelopment and replacement fund and also that the Board of Directors have the power to renovate the building, not 75% of the ownership. Jim stated that time-sharing did not create new faces and therefore, there would be no exposure to any potential new-comers, since the word wouldn't be getting out. Jim asked how many new time-share units did we need and how do we turn the faucet on without creating a huge flow? He asked that without hotel rooms, how could we market conferences? Jim then went on to advise that it would become an issue in Lionshead. He stated that the idea of looking at different ratios needed to be applied to the services. He stated that there would be no support facilities. If the manager chose not to manage, who then picked up the pieces. Jim said it was a question of how many time-share units should you have and to make sure with sales and promotions that some money would go back into the building. He said that the merits of commercial are at the expense of hotel support facilities. He noted that the average expenditure of a time-share party for a 7-day time stay was $200 for 6 people. Jim advised the PEC that he couldn't walk away without reinforcing the issue that it wouldn't be limited to just this project and therefore, if there was a way to create a PA/A1 Zone District, that might be the way to go. Jim stated that we were reinventing history again and asking for trouble. Jim said it was more Vail-like with the attitude, the smaller the better. Tom Moorhead pointed out in Section 18.60.010, Purpose and Limitations, the last sentence read that applications shall be denied. Marc Saxe, a consultant to time-share developers, was recruited by the Marriott in 1990 and had lived in Vail for 7 years. He stated that all the business was outside the Vail Valley and he would like to see work opportunities happen within the Vail Valley. He went on to say that economically, this would clearly define time-share in the market place in order to compete with hotels. Marc stated that there were two provisions that were raised. Jim said he didn't think lock-offs should be required, as the site itself should be the factor in determining the configuration of the Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes October 28, 1996 10 units. Marc stated that it should not be an arbitrary decision. Marc also had concerns with the • usage of the term "rental pool" in an ordinance, since that particular verbiage would trigger the Securities and Exchange to be flagged and could be costly from a marketing value in terms of the licensing process. Johannes Faessle, owner of the Austria Haus, wanted to ask a few questions for the PEC to keep in mind. He stated that we needed to protect a future that so many people are worried about. Johannes stated that he was speaking as a family member, having been here for 17 years and in the hotel business for 4 generations. He did agree that the smaller the better, but noted that it was important to find a way that our hotels stay competitive in the market place. Johannes said the question remains as to what happens when you don't allow a project like this. Johannes reminded the PEC that people don't exactly stand in line to build a hotels in Vail anymore, as it was less restrictive down Valley. He said that it was very difficult to deal with a 30-year old building that was located on a restricted parcel and therefore, if we don't find new ways of financing, redevelopment would not happen. He noted that high levels of job security needed to be provided for our employees. Johannes said that he didn't see a high level of service from our hotels anymore and thus, our customer is thinking less value. He went on to say that the Westin had changed ownership 3 times and the Evergreen had changed 4 times, so if this was so successful, I would hate to see non-successful. Johannes stated that he bought the hotel in 1979 and permanently came to live here in 1982 and now years later, we are searching for what to do with this hotel. He stated that he hadn't seen anything that had worked for this particular property and we can not remodel anymore. Johannes mentioned that 250 sq. ft. hotel rooms were not easy to rent at $300 per room and with ADA codes, etc., we simply cannot afford to tear down and rebuild. He advised that, in 10 or 15 years, it would still be a lost child and then it would be 45 yrs. old. • George Ruther read a letter from Connie Knight. The letter urged the PEC to stick to the Master Plans adopted within the community. Greg Moffet stated that the general comments were fairly well covered and suggested to begin talking about the discussion issues, # 6, land 8, restrictions on composition and ownership. Gordon Pierce suggested zoning just the parcel, rather than taking on the Town. He stated that the 37 AU's were totally undersized and didn't comply with ADA. He stated that the application intended to replace them with 23 accommodation units at 450 sq. ft. each and 20 lock-off units. He said there would then be 63 viable units for the majority of the year. Mark Thornberg, the developer, said wholly-owned and time-share uses shouldn't be mixed. George Ruther mentioned that staff wasn't taking a position at this time, but staff's initial feeling was that whole ownership and time-share should not be mixed. Staff agreed with Mark Thornberg, per the reasons listed in the memo. He said that there were impacts to the real estate values. Gordon Pierce noted that a lot of projects in Town mix units. Cynthia Thornberg stated that currently 37 units would be available 2/3 of the year at the Austria Haus. Jim Lamont said there would be a case to be made if there were some sort of separation between the uses. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 28, 1996 11 George Ruther stated that if a parcel were large enough, a buffer could be created to separate • the different uses. Jim Lamont mentioned that Lionshead had opportunities for buffering. Henry Pratt asked why the usage was only for 8 months. Johannes Faessler said the building is closed for 4 months due to lack of demand. Greg Moffet mentioned that we have been asked to discuss the rental program; or items # 1, 5 and 9 in the discussion issues of the staff memo. Bill Sullivan, representing the developer, stated that the PEC was fighting battles that go back 25 years. He said the focus should be on maintenance. He said that if money goes into a reserve, you would end up with a building that wouldn't deteriorate. On 7/1/92, a law was passed in Colorado that stated 2/3 of the owners could vote to tear down a building. He stated that the team presenting this application was sensitive to the problems and with the component of hotel rooms, he stated that Johannes could fill it, since it will be a state of the art hotel room. Bill mentioned that the scope of the club was 180 members' and that it wouldn't make sense to sell a week at a time. He stated also that maintenance fees would run approximately $3,000 to $5,000 a year, which demanded a high level of service. He said that this proposal was not a one-week type of product, but rather a 5-week product. He noted that customers would be buying into the Sonnenalp management. Greg Amsden asked what the Sonnenalp involvement was. Bill Sullivan stated that the Sonnenalp would be managing the project but the Homeowner's • Association could vote Johannes out if there were a desire. Greg Moffet said a zoning change is the issue. He asked if fractional units should be sold for 4-5 week periods and what criteria alleviates concerns regarding 5-week intervals only. Bill Sullivan thought you would see new faces, as no one wants to spend five weeks in one resort. He also mentioned that by September of each year, we know what would be available for rent throughout the winter, since reservations for the winter are made by August. Jim Lamont asked if Beaver Creek had 5-week increments. Tisa Spinks, a broker with Slifer, Smith and Frampton/ Vail Associates Real Estate, said she was asked to be here to answer questions about time-shares. She mentioned the St. James Place, Phase I has 5 wholly-owned units and that it was originally a time-share. Tisa stated that in Phase II, 8 were wholly-owned units, because the owners had requested it. She mentioned that out of 1,450 weeks available, there were 25 weeks remaining. She said there was an enormous demand for time-share units at the St. James. Jim Lamont stated that this was an evolution of a market. He asked if the market was to have AU, could this request accommodate time-share and wholly-owned in the same building? Bill Sullivan stated that the condo market was hot now. He asked how you know you're getting close to saturation. Planning and Enviromnental Commission Minutes October 28, 1996 12 • • Fred Hibbard, with the Village Center, stated that this can't be done as a hotel. He said that this proposal was asking to double-density. He said the first step can't happen, unless the building was twice as big. He suggested looking at a design where you still have a hotel, with condominiums on the top of the hotel. He thought that a time-share could work, as long as they didn't lose the hotel concept. Cynthia Thornberg said that Fred was eluding to having the public accommodation units drive the project. The mix has got to be enough to spread out for the demand for the units during high demand time. Greg Moffet then asked for PEC members comments. Galen Aasland stated that this was a huge issue. He reiterated that Johannes Faessler mentioned that we weren't seeing a lot of hotels being redeveloped in Town and that time-share would not become the magic bullet. He thought that what Rod Slifer and Fred Hibbard said was important too. Galen felt that Beaver Creek was very impersonal and that was why Vail was successful and different. Galen saw a concern regarding conference space and asked if we were not bringing people here for conferences any more? He also asked how resorts in general worked the big issues. Galen felt with the kind of money to purchase these units, the purchaser would not need to short-term rent them and then they would be left empty. Galen would like to see a Christiania-type project and also some commercial uses. Diane Golden agreed that we were talking about a huge issue. She felt that, with this idea, we would be creating more second homeowners, which she would hate to see happen, as we would • lose the character of Vail. She felt the atmosphere of Vail was what was good about Vail and therefore we need to keep good small hotels. Diane felt hotels could be remodeled and kept viable. Henry Pratt said he had done work for a major time-share developer. He felt time-shares would increase occupancy and also spread occupancy through the seasons. He mentioned that the West Vail Marriott (Streamside) had been sold out in a short time. Henry Pratt said that he was not in favor of all of CC2 being zoned time-share. Henry thought the SDD approach should be used to evaluate each proposal on a case-by-case basis. There are too many variables to have the same criteria and so therefore, Henry believed it should be an SDD Zone District. George Ruther said there was underlying zoning on an SDD and the uses proposed must be allowed by the underlying zoning. Greg Moffet asked if the use would only be for an SDD. Henry Pratt said the only criteria would be that it would have to go through the SDD process. Jim Lamont thought you could create PA (1) Zone Districts. Henry Pratt believed that a PA Zone District and time-share were a good mix. He said that wholly-owned condominiums would not be a good mix with interval ownership. Gene Uselton stated that the Town Council removed time-shares because of legitimate concerns. He asked if those concerns had changed. Gene said that he couldn't see how it could • be done the way Henry said. Gene also asked if financing was the sole reason for time-shares. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 28, 1996 13 Gene questioned whether we were asking the investors to subsidize the hotel operation. Greg Amsden thought the PA Zone District should be looked into and made into a .conditional use in the PA Zone District. He stated that the PA Zone District was very limited in the Town of Vail and he asked what properties were included in the PA Zone District now. Jim Lamont said the Christiania, Mountain House and the Athletic Club were peripheral on the CC1 Zone District. Greg Amsden said if a hotel was bulldozed, then commercial should be added as part of the redevelopment. Tom Moorhead said there was a requirement that not more than 10% of the square footage be commercial within the PA Zone District. Jim Lamont thought you could tweak that percentage. He said that a PA/2a Zone District would create standard zone districts. Greg Amsden stated that he would rather limit it to a select number of sites and that it was spec- real estate. He said that it would follow the same market trends and was no different than wholly-owned units. He asked what the percentage of owners would own their units. Greg Amsden pointed out that Fallridge was without a hotel operation. He thought the biggest concern in the CC2 was condo conversion to time-share. George Ruther stated that you could convert a condo unit into a time-share in the HDMF Zone District, with a conditional use permit. Greg Moffet asked how big the HDMF Zone District was in Town. George Ruther stated there were 17 properties in Town zoned HDMF and any several SDD's with HDMF underlying zoning. Greg Moffet thought we would be opening this up to all of Lionshead. He then asked if we would be going to try to micro-regulate. Greg wasn't sure that what was being proposed was the best solution. He stated that lock-offs and minimum weeks were going to be very different in a 30-unit building, than in a 300-unit building. He suggested if fractionals are the answer then it should be done in the PA zone. He also said that when Lionshead comes about we would need to rezone there as well. Greg said if we are to achieve the Master Plan objectives, then as the bed base continues to grow and deteriorate, we need to do this. Gordon Pierce stated that this Town had an economic problem. He stated that we needed a Renaissance. He said that the Town needed to look at new directions, as the Town had done with skateboarders and snowboarders, etc. He said it was hard to find anyone to finance a hotel. He then said the applicant would come back in a couple of weeks with something more specific. Gordon Pierce stated that this proposal would be managed like a hotel. Greg Amsden suggested to the applicant to make it clear when the owners would not be there and how often the units would be available for rentals. He also felt a mix was needed. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes October 29, 14 7. A request for a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi-family, and a request • for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the development of 17 EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # 1. Applicants: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, the U.S. Forest Service & the Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen gave an overview of the staff memo. Andy explained the Zoning Analysis and stated that the overall project conformed with the proposed zoning. He stated that the SDD component did not provide a blank check, since any future modifications would have to go through Council. He stated that staff believed that a combination of flat and pitched roofs was preferred. He said that staff was recommending approval with two conditions. Tom Braun, representing the applicant, said the building design had been changed and all the issues had been addressed. Tom stated that the design guidelines allow for a variety of roof forms. He then said this proposal was within the realms and that there were untold benefits associated with flat roofs. Jim Morter said that the project had to be affordable and well designed, because it was in a neighborhood that was well designed. He said that a myriad of decisions influenced the design of the roof tops and explained that he was not trying to be uncooperative, but the final design included flat roofs. He then said that the most important goal was to accomplish all the goals. He went on to say that canopies were added to give a level of sophistication and shadow lines. Jim said that stucco wainscoting made the building look worse by giving it a checkerboard look. • He said there were two patterns of wood siding provided. Jim said if the public perceived this as a stack of boxes, then he told the PEC to take a look at Savoy Villas. He also said that Timber Ridge had sloping roofs and looked worse than Savoy Villas, and gave the impression of employee housing. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowner's Association, said that Joe Staufer had asked him to raise some concerns. Jim said that Joe Staufer didn't like flat roofs, but that he felt the change in design added a flair. Jim said that Joe thought it added a Taos feel. However, it could be more exciting with stucco. Jim said he thought it stingy to say the sidewalk can't go up and around the site. He then asked Andy how much rental housing the Town owns. Andy Knudtsen stated that the Town owned the Town Manager's home and two other units. Jim Lamont said the biggest demand was for rentable units. He said that the Water District could take the revenues and leave. If it was public property, then the Town should meet the demand. Jim said the issue on the table was that if the units are sold, the buyer should be selected through a lottery. Jim stated that the public would not be pleased that the first two tiers of this project would go to the TOV workers, since it was on public property. Jim advised use of the lottery. Jim also noted that the Housing Director was involved in the regulatory process. Jim said we needed to make it clear that the Housing Director should sit with the advocates, as the appearance was that of a conflict of interest. Greg Moffet asked for any other public comment. There was none. • Planning and Environmental Cormnission Minutes October 28, 1996 15 Gene Uselton questioned the perpetual deed restrictions. Gene asked if the sloping roofs were added, would the snow shedding be better. Andy Knudtsen said roof pitches could be designed in such a way that snow shed problems • could be eliminated. As an alternative, snow guards could be added. Gene Uselton said he had a hard time guessing what this project would look like and asked if the PEC was making a recommendation to the Town Council at this worksession. Greg Amsden said an SDD was not appropriate for this site. He said that staff was recommending an SDD in order to limit the GRFA, which was a misuse of the SDD. He went on to say that it did not conform and was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood due to the flat roofs. Greg stated that affordability was not driving this project. Greg said that the wood siding did not fly with him. Greg felt that a combination of stucco and wood would be more appropriate than totally wood and that he said he would like to see a lower maintenance product. He then asked about the landscaping. Greg also asked what the typical occupancy of the 3- bedroom unit would be. Greg Amsden thought every garage would have one car parked outside. He said that the project should be palatable and not allow outdoor parking adjacent to Sandstone Rd. He also expressed disappointment that no one shows up at the PEC meetings to offer any input. Tom Braun stated that 30 letters were sent out for notification to adjacent property owners earlier in the review process. Galen Aasland suggested tabling this item. Galen felt an SDD for employee housing was wrong, but that MDMF zoning was needed. Galen felt it needed to be made compatible with existing neighborhoods. He said he would like to see more written information about the improvements • that could be done in the future. He suggested capping development at a certain level. Galen said that interior improvements could work against the long term employee housing concept. Galen would like to see a mostly stucco exterior. Galen agreed with Jim's comment about looking at this like any other applicant. Galen also advised that, from the public aspect, we should be careful about the Town representing itself. Galen would like to see this item tabled. Diane Golden thought the housing should go to critical TOV employees. She also said she didn't remember the PEC saying vegetation was more important than the sidewalk. Jim Morter explained that he raised a question to the PEC at the very end of the previous worksession, whether landscaping or a sidewalk was more important along Red Sandstone Road. Diane Golden also stated that the PEC required a homeowner in East Vail to remove sod on Town stream tract and replace it with native grasses. Andy Knudtsen showed, according to the renderings, where the wetland mitigation was to happen. Diane Golden stated that she liked the design of Savoy Villas. She said that architects say there are benefits to flat roofs and so therefore, she was not afraid to go with the expert's opinion. She stated that she was thrilled to see employee housing incorporated into a neighborhood. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes October 28, 1996 16 Henry Pratt commended Galen on his eloquence and also agreed with Greg Amsden's point of view. Andy Knudtsen stated that the rezoning and SDD have been linked together. Henry Pratt said he would rather have Council have the final word and therefore, the SDD process was a good one. Henry Pratt reminded everyone that we need families here, as seasonal workers are going to be housed out at the Public Works site. Jim Morter said there were 46 parking spaces; 18 in garages and 28 exterior. He said 36 spaces were all that were required. Henry Pratt said that assigning more parking to the 3-bedroom units would reduce guest spaces. Henry asked how were people going to get to the bustop. He said a liability issue exists with falling. Henry said that something needed to be done to address the sidewalk, even though Henry would prefer landscaping. Greg Moffet said he had no problem with the use of the SDD process and that this project should be decided by the elected officials. He stated that the Town's employee housing was going to be on public property and that we require ourselves to have housing on our land, as a private owner has a house on private land. Greg said that he didn't mind flat roofs. He felt, regarding the ramp issue, that a staircase needed to be put in. Greg said that this climate was harsh on wood and though it is more expensive, he wanted stucco. Greg was in favor of this project as long as further considerations were given to the exterior finish. • Pat Dauphinais stated that the plan was set and not only was it well thought out, but well designed. He said to do this within a budget where constraints were difficult. Pat said they were not interested in design by committee. He felt that the fisherman easement was too tight. He asked for a favorable vote to go to Council. Gene Uselton made a motion for approval with the condition that 4 spruce and 5 shrubs be added to the landscaping area along Red Sandstone Road. The motion was seconded by Diane Golden. Galen Aasland asked if adding stucco to the outside could be included in the motion. Gene Uselton said they have not violated code and would not amend his motion. Greg Moffet asked for any further discussion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-2, with Greg Amsden and Galen Aasland voting against it. 8. A discussion item regarding vehicle storage/transportation related businesses in commercial zone districts. Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the memo, asking the PEC for ideas on how to treat this and also to give input on when does it become an industrial use. He said however, that this was a use that was needed. He said that Tim Ewals of Airport Shuttle, had concerns he wanted the • PEC to consider. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 28, 1996 17 Henry Pratt said that the West Vail Lodge used to have a car rental service. He said that this should be a service on this site, since the parking lot at the Inn at West Vail has never been full. Greg Moffet stated that he had a potential conflict, since several airport shuttle customers were customers of his. Mike Mollica stated that there may be surplus spaces on the West Vail Lodge site. He also said there were complaints from the neighbors regarding the vans and U-Hauls parked there in the past. Gene Uselton asked if this was a financial asset for the West Vail Lodge. Henry Pratt said 2 vans were too restrictive and 10 were too much. Henry asked if the West Day Lot was an option. Mike Mollica suggested anything beyond 2 vans would trigger a conditional use. Greg Moffet said the transportation businesses used to have offices in the Village Transportation Center. He asked if it was a good practice for us to require them to rent office space within the Town, in order to park vans here. Mike Mollica said the Town was not hung up on office use, only the compatibility issues. Henry Pratt said he didn't have a problem with a conditional use. He said the revenue may not be worth the bad publicity. Galen Aasland agreed that 10 vans were too many and 2 too few. • Diane Golden agreed. Gene Uselton asked if the vans could park at the Public Works site. Mike Mollica said that space there is limited. Henry Pratt reminded everyone to encourage this use, but with control. The PEC directed staff to prepare a proposal to bring back in the future. 9. A request for a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vail Religious Foundation, represented by Ned Gwathmey Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 11, 1996 • Planning and Environmental Corrunission Minutes October 28, 1996 18 10. A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for a modification to Savoy Villas, of SDD #5, located at 1230 Lionsridge Loop/Savoy Villas, Phase Il and III. The site is generally located east of Timber Ridge Apartments, west of Simba Run, north of the North Frontage Road and south of Lionsridge Loop. A full legal description is available in the Community Development Department. Applicant: BWAB, Inc., represented by Chris Klein Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 11, 1996 11. A request for a major exterior alteration in the CCII zone district, to add common area, located at 710 West Lionshead Circle/Part of Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Vail Spa Condominium Association Planner: Dirk Mason WITHDRAWN 12. A request for a sign variance to allow for a window sign greater than 25 feet above grade and to allow 0.94 square feet of sign area beyond what is allowed, located at Crossroads Shopping Center, 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot R, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Linda Fried Planner: Dirk Mason • WITHDRAWN 13. A request for a residential addition to allow for the addition of two gas fireplaces, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 332 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 6, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: Bruce and Marcy Benson Planner: Dirk Mason WITHDRAWN 14. Information Update: Vail Tomorrow - see letter in packet. 15. Approval of October 14, 1999 minutes Greg Amsden made a motion for approval of the minutes. Galen Aasland had changes on the back page. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0-1, with Diane abstaining, as she was not present at that meeting. • Greg Amsden made a motion to table items # 9 and 10, until the November 11, 1996 meeting. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 28, 1996 19 Diane Golden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0, Gene Uselton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:25pm. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 28, 1996 20 • • •