HARC chair to face ethics complaint

By Douglas McDaniel

Telluride Town Councilman Stu Fraser has filed an ethics violation complaint against Chance Leoff, the chairman of the Telluride Historic Architectural Review Commission, over his participation in a Clark’s Market application hearings when he should have been recused.
The Ethics Commission will meet Monday at 11 a.m. at Rebekah Hall to review the case.
“It appeared there was a potential violation,” Fraser said. “On Monday they will make a decision on whether it’s frivolous or whether there is a merit. If they find there is merit, then they will conduct a hearing right after that.”
Fraser alleges violations on two separate occasions, one during a hearing on Clark’s on July 19, and another on Dec. 13, both meetings in which the controversial Clark’s Market expansion was discussed.
At the HARC meeting of July 19, 2006, Leoff “presided over the proceedings and did not recuse himself, and actually developed the motion used for the application’s continuance,” according to the complaint.
“The Chairperson created a motion and voted to continue the application to another meeting,” the complaint states. It states Leoff presided as HARC chairman at the July 19 meeting when the Clark’s project was discussed but he lives within 150 feet of the grocery store applicant’s property. The Town of Telluride’s rules on ethics for public officials state, “a town official shall also be prohibited from voting on any motions directly arising out of the discussions on the matter.”
In addition, the complaint states, on Dec. 13, 2006, while Leoff recused himself from the Clark’s hearing “witnesses will testify that he returned to the meeting in violation of the Ethics Code.”
The witnesses listed in the document include Leoff, Fraser, HARC boardmember Sonchia Jilek, Town Clerk Michelle Haynes and Town Planning Director Chris Hawkins.
On the night that HARC denied the Clark’s application based, for the most part, on issues related to “mass and scale,“ Leoff recused himself from the meeting, “but showed up during the meeting and was asked to leave by the Assistant Town Clerk Michelle Haynes and then by Town Attorney Kevin Geiger. He left, but not after challenging the individuals on their rights to request his departure.”
The complaint states that after the between the meetings of July 19 and Dec. 13, the HARC chairman had been counseled by Town Attorney Kevin Geiger about the relevant provisions of the Ethics Code regarding recusal. In fact, Leoff is a former member of the Ethics Commission that created the revised code.
“Unethical behavior, those are big words for not having recused myself,” Leoff said. “A lot of people (public officials) will tell you they make mistakes in that proximity issue. It’s a lay board. These things happen.”
He said as far as the meeting in December goes, “I walked in, walked out.” After the July meeting, he said, Fraser had confronted Leoff over the recusal issue and his “handling of the meeting,” asking the chairman to resign.
“He wanted me to step down as chair or there’s going to be an ethics violation,” he said.
But Fraser denied asking Leoff to resign.
“I told him in August that there were some problems, but I didn’t ask him to resign,” Fraser said. “I’m only speaking of a narrow situation. In terms of the way he handles meetings, I think he has done a very good job on some things.”

Valley Floor valuation trial set for Feb. 5

By Douglas McDaniel

Bolstered by a recent favorable court decision and newly armed with the hiring of the firm of Stifel, Nicolaus to provide support for $20 million in bond financing, the Town of Telluride is ready to pursue its court battle in February with the San Miguel Valley Corporation over its condemnation of the Valley Floor.
With the valuation trial set for Feb. 5 in U.S. District Court in Delta, Telluride Town Attorney Kevin Geiger on Tuesday gave the council on overview of the anticipated proceedings.
He said the town has met all of the jurisdictional requirements for the condemnation, including having the authority to do so for a “legitimate public purpose.” In addition, he said, both the Town and the SMVC have reached the requirement that there has been a failure to agree to terms based on good faith negotiations.
“It will go to a jury of six in Delta,” he told the council. “There is going to be a complex analysis of what is the highest and best use of the property.”
According to a memorandum from Geiger to the town council, the District court has reserved three weeks for the final valuation trial, with a jury of six “freeholders,” that is, property owners, determining the value of the 570-acre parcel.
Geiger’s memo states the landowner will have the burden of proof during the trial, and the “just compensation” due to the SMVC is “determined by considering the reasonable market value of the Valley Floor under an analysis of what is the most advantageous use or development scenario for the Valley Floor, without engaging in speculation.”
The restriction on any possible speculation was supported by a recent ruling by a district judge that a $26 million dollar sale of property in Mountain Village cannot be used as a determining factor for the value of land on the Valley Floor.
In September, the SMVC made a motion that the five acres of land on Country Club Drive, intended for the new Rosewood Resort, should be used as evidence to a valuation trial jury to determine the price of condemnation. However, District Court Judge Charles Greenacre ruled the sale was admissible because the properties weren’t comparable.
In a related matter, the council contracted the bond financing services of Stifel, Nicolaus. According to the acceptance letter from Town Manager Frank Bell, the firm will provide the work on the financing of the $20 million public debt authorized by the town’s voters in November.
“When a determination is made that the town has sufficient resources to acquire the property, your firm will become the selling and managing agent for the related public debt,” Bell stated. “In order to help maximize the town’s available resources we may also wish to explore financing strategies related to the town’s existing and proposed public debt authorizations not related to the Valley Floor acquisition.”
Geiger said the jury that will meet at the Delta County Courthouse at 501 Palmer Street in Delta will determine the amount of compensation the town is required to pay.
“All of this comes down to a one-page jury form,” he said. The final figure the town will need to be paid, Geiger added, will need to be forwarded to the court within 90 days, and the town may take possession of the Valley Floor pending an appeal.
Once the Valley Floor is acquired, the Town will create a conservation easement to “restrict the development of any permanent structures on the Valley Floor so as to maintain its status as undisturbed open space,” Geiger’s memo states.

###

Clark's Market expansion sent back to HARC

By Douglas McDaniel

Immediately after the Telluride Town Council remanded the Clark's Market expansion application back to the town's Historic and Architectural Review Commission, regional grocery store magnate Tom Clark, his architect, Dan Hunter and his associates could be found outside Rebekah Hall in a circle, wacking away at the project's blueprints.
Their goal: to reduce the "mass and scale" of the project's western facade in order to pass the scrutiny of HARC, which previously denied approval for the three-story, 50,000 square foot grocery store and condominium project.
This effort by Clark's was launched after the council asked the applicants if they would be willing to reduce the section of the building that drew the most objections from the public, and, members of HARC, the so-called "Western Elevation."
After an extensive, three-hour worksession Tuesday, the impasse over the project was given new life when the council granted the applicants permission to reduce the square footage for affordable housing which it had previously required.
The impasse was broken with a simple question by Telluride Mayor John Pryor.
"Is there anything you can do with the west end to change how it's perceived from the Bachman Village side?" he asked.
Put on the spotlight at the tail end of the meeting, Clark responded, "What are you asking us to do? You tell me, John. What is it that the community wants us to do?"
When the applicants went before HARC previously this month, they had refused to reduce the square footage of the project based on the economic necessity of using the sale of free-market condos to help fund the expansion. But after Town Councilman Mark Buchsieb offered the pivotal suggestion that they "knock off portions of the employee housing, and a couple thousand from the commercial," project architect Hunter seized the opportunity.
"If we do away with a couple of thousand, does the council have the ability to excuse that amount of employee housing?"
Clark said he would be amenable to the idea since "we don't lose the economic units," that is, six new free-market condominiums for the two floors above the 20,000 foot grocery store expansion.
"I think we can make a substantial reduction in the west side roofline," Hunter told the council. "This feels to me like there is a fairly substantial mass that's going to go away."
With that, Pryor moved to remand the matter back to HARC, with the council voting unanimously 6-0, with Councilman Bob Saunders recused due to the close proximity of his home to the Clark's property.
"I'm very eoncouraged by our community working together," Pryor said at the end of the worksession.
The meeting began with an apparent air of intractibility.
Town Attorney Kevin Geiger told the council HARC's denial, based on the subjective interpretation of the project's mass and scale, is "aspirational, but clearly not absolute."
Town Historic Planner Mike Davenport, in an overview of the history of the application, said such aspects of the project as the maximum allowable height "does apply with the land use code with the waiver allowed by the council," and that another sticking point, parking, actually includes "eight more spaces," for a total of 88, "than what is required by code."
But while he said town planning staff recommended approval, "subject to certain conditions," the majority of a room full of more than 70 citizens in attendance plead with town officials to uphold HARC's denial and send it back for more work.
"you cannot go against your boards, otherwise you will drive away community participation," Peter Pitts said.
HARC members were also there to speak their peace.
"I did my job," said Sonchia Jilek, HARC board member. "Are you doing yours?"
Robert Balkind, representing Bachman Village, said most of the residents objected to the visual impact created by the western facde, asking council to demand a "trimback."
"The impacts are tremendous," he said. "It's going to block the view."
In response to the apparent comunity support for HARC's denial, several members of the council stated their preference to send it back to the board one more time.
"We are not ignoring what HARC has done," said Councilman Stu Fraser, who with Councilwoman Andrea Benda had called up the application, with the council acting as HARC. "The denial of this application was the only way for us to move forward," he said.
But Councilwoman Roberta Peterson said the only way to move forward was to move back.
"Remand it back to HARC," she said. "They are the experts."
Those who came to support the original HARC decision gave a positive response to the council's remand of the application back to the board with the direction that the developer "significantly reduce" the western facade.
"This is certainly moving in the right direction," Balkind said.
Summing up the results of the meeting after criticizing the council for calling up the matter in first place, resident David Oyster said "This whole meeting has reinforced my faith in the process."

###

Prior to a well-attended meeting to consider creating a Regional Transit Authority for the Montrose, Ouray and San Miguel counties, Montrose County Manager Joe Kerby said he'd met a proponent of a plan to place a light rail line between his city and Telluride.
The plan would be to blast a tunnel through the mountains for the most direct route.
But before a magical monorail system can be built to transport the considerable working class population that spends each day driving up and down the mountains, representatives of each town have their own idea of what might be the first priority if such a RTA existed.
For the representatives at the exploratory meeting to discuss an RTA held last week in Ridgway, near where one of the rare intersections with a traffic light in three counties allows 7,000 cars to pass daily, the priorities differed based on their diverse economic realities.
"We are definitely interested in a ground transportation effort," San Miguel County Commissioner Elaine Fischer told officials from Gunnison, Crested Butte, Montrose, Ouray, Ridgway, Mountain Village and Telluride.
But while moving people about on the groun tends to be the focus and need for Ridgway, Ouray and Telluride, Montrose is more interested in finding a source of stable funding for its airline guarantee program.
In addition, the political and economic realities of each town creates a problematic situation for officials. Montrose County, for example, needs to upgrade its roads and bridges. Kerby said the county's current needs, after losing its ability to collect sales tax, might make it difficult to include an effort to support additional taxation that might result from the creation on an RTA.
"We have significant funding challenges at the city and county level," he said. "We would be looking at the RTA as a funding mechanism for infrastructure and road improvement.
This could mean that Montrose may not be a part of RTA at the beginning.
"What I'm hearing are different priorities," Fischer said. "Montrose may not be able to participate due to sales tax concerns."
The recent experience for Gunnison County, where a regional transit authority was recently formed, was shared by John Devore and Jim Schmidt, who spoke on behalf of the Gunnison/Crested Butte RTA. tTheir points on the effort were also supported by Telluride Town Manager Frank Bell, who worked for Crested Butte as the RTA effort reached various stages of development.
Devore said the Gunnison/Crested Butte effort began in earnest in 2002, when the area's airline guarantee program was floundering.
"All towns were present to take a leadership role and take posession of our own destiny," he said. "We wanted a more unified air program for the community."
Outlining the process, Devore said Gunnison and Crested Butte were able to take advantage state statutues to create both an RTA and a marketing district. The latter of which draws from a lodging tax to fund local marketing efforts. As a result of forming an RTA, the area has been able to buttress its airline guarantee program with one of the buzz phrases for the meeting, "permanent funding," as opposed to a reliance on pledges.
With an RTA board consisting of local elected officials so that new taxes can be waged to fund various projects, the Gunnison/Crested Butte effort has put 90 percent of its funds into the airline guarantee program and still have the rest left over to fund a public shuttle bus effort in the community for both the winter, and to a lesser extent, summer months.
Because each funding effort requires voter approval, the chances for political success in generating support for taxation needs rests on the ability of each community to communicate sucessfully with voters.
"The political hurdle is the importance of being able to convince the voters that we are all in this together," Bell said.
Also, he said, there is a need for focus early on, since an RTA, since it concerns a broad swathe of transportation needs for communities, the RTA has "tentacles" that extend to all aspect of civic endeavors.
"What needs to be managed politically is these things have tentacles because transportation is a common denominator," he said. It's critical, Bell added, to have a "narrow focus."
Prior to ending the meeting, those present agreed to meet again in coming months and in the meantime gather figures on what the economic benefit of an RTA might bring, looking at what might happen with various sales tax increases for the combined three counties.

Telluride Town COuncil 'Calls Up' the Clark's Project

By Douglas McDaniel

The controversial Clark’s Market expansion into a 48-foot high, 20,000 square foot grocery store with two additional floors for six units of employee housing and six new free-market condominiums, unable to past muster under the town’s architectural review guidelines, is being taken to a higher court.
However, an even higher court, local voters, may be waiting in the background.
Two council members – Stu Fraser and Andrea Benda -- have requested a “call up” of the Clark’s Market expansion after HARC denied the applicant’s request.
In a situation that’s just short of an institutional crisis over the town’s goal of preserving the historic architectural status of the town, the implication of an override of the decision made by the Telluride Historic Architectural Review Commission could inspire opponents of the project to pursue a referendum to defeat any possible reversal of HARC.
But first the three-year-old Clark’s Market saga must take a strange turn. The next episode will include a rarity: The Telluride Town Council will assume the role of HARC.
Rather than a review of the HARC decision to deny the project, largely over issues of “mass and scale,” the council will erase the blackboard on the 59,000 square foot building project, creating a virtual ‘do over.’
“They have taken jurisdiction of the Clark’s proposal,” Telluride Town Manager Frank Bell said. “It’s in their court now.”
He said the special session at 10 a.m. on Jan. 23 at Rebekkah Hall will provide the council with the options of either upholding the HARC decision, overturning the denial and approving the project outright, or, approving it and sending it back to HARC to work under new instructions.
The Town’s land use code allows the council to take such actions, he said.
However, only six of the council members will be able to vote in a case that requires a simple majority. That’s because Councilman Bob Saunders, who spoke as a local citizen against the proposal during the last HARC meeting prior to the denial, is recused from voting on the matter because he lives close to the project.
With Fraser, the council’s liaison to HARC, and Benda, who has spoken recently about reforming the entire HARC process, moving to keep the Clark’s application alive, the ball is in the hands of remaining members Mayor John Pryor, Councilwomen Roberta Peterson and Jill Masters, and, Councilman Mark Buchsieb. If there’s a 3-3 tie in any future vote, that will mean the project will remain unapproved.
All members of the council, including the recused Saunders, declined comment on the pending case, but many other players in the process are speaking out loud and clear.
“The reality is if HARC makes a decision and council overturns it, then what’s the point of having HARC?” asked HARC Chairman Chance Leoff, who also has been recused from the process because of his home’s proximity to the project.
He said if the HARC decision is reversed, then a ballot initiative may be launched.
“If we are going to stray this far from what’s normally allowed, then the public should have a chance to weigh in on what this is going to be,” he said. “The public is the highest court, isn’t it?”
Local architect Calvin Wilbourne, a former HARC chairman who also publicly spoke to the need to address the “mass and scale” issues during the architectural review hearing that led to a denial, said there is enough public sentiment against the project to get the signatures for a referendum.
“There are enough people around to do it right now,” he said of a potential voter initiative, adding that when the council meets Jan. 23 “that whole place will be full. It’s going to be very vocal. It’s a very active group (that’s opposed).”
Linda Levin, Town deputy clerk said the number of signatures equired to put it on the ballot is based on the percentage of registered voters in the last election. Typically, the town has a 1,000 or so voters, which means approximately XXX valid signatures would be needed for a successful initiative campaign.
However, another observer who has included his voice in the public process, Jonathan Augello, an architectural designer, believes both HARC and the architect for the Clark’s project, Dan Hunter, could have gone further to remove the impasse.
“It’s a conservative board with conservative rules, so it’s tough,” he said of HARC. “But they were real, real close. They could have just made it with just a little more effort.”
Augello said he was in favor of the visual impact of the building, especially considering the current state of the property with its large dirt-lot parking lot and odd sense of Victorian style and commercial utility.
“It’s not going to be any worse than it already is,” he said.
Another proponent of the building is Bob Biener, a former HARC member who has represented the owners of condominiums located above the current Clark’s Market.
“I think the building has evolved into something that fits in and looks good to me,” he said.
The problems came with a clash of egos and the board’s reaction against the perceived pressure placed on the board by town staff and elected officials to push application through, he said, adding, “There’s more involved to this than design. All in all, I don’t really feel like the mass and scale of the building would detract from the historical character of the town.
“I would have voted for it,” he said.
Lacking any other proposal to compare it to, Town Planner Mike Davenport said he expected the Clark’s project to eventually be approved by HARC since the grocery store is the best choice for the property.
“If something else would be proposed for there it would probably end up being some kind of a condominium project,” he said.
He said the lack of HARC approval doesn’t mean negotiations shouldn’t continue.
“We review the applications against the design guidelines, the land use code and the Master Plan,” he said. “(HARC’s position) is an important consideration, but it’s not the only thing we are considering.”

###

Community voices support denial of project at Telluride's "Gateway"

No one is quite sure how long it has been since the Telluride Historic and Architectural Review Commission has denied an application, certainly not a project as large as the Clark's Market expansion.
In the history and practice of the organization created to guarantee the national historic architectural character of the town, it is indeed rare.
But last week HARC did just that, setting the three-year-old project into a tailspin. Exhausted by the conflict of economics and the visual impact of the project, which at points would reach 48 feet in height, the plan for the 20,000 square foot grocery store, plus six new units of deed-restricted employee housing, six new free market condominiums and 24 parking spaces below, most of the members decreed that the project created the wrong kind of architectural statement for the so-called "Gateway" to the Town of Telluride.
While recused HARC Chairman Chance Leoff waited outside the building as the rest of the commission deliberated, the appearance of community support to deny the project based on issues of "mass and scale" made it easy to overcome his main concern: That the remaining board members might succumb to the political pressure from the city fathers, or, the refusal of the project directors to reduce the scope and, especially, square footage, to reduce the impact.
"We are here and the application is not architecturally compliant," HARC Vice Chair Sonchia Jilek told the board and those present at the special meeting to discuss unresolved issues prior to the commission granting a "certificate of appropriateness." "A lot of our guidelines have been overlooked. I cannot approve this project. I don't see why we are continuing this process."
Those sentiments were echoed by commission member Joe Waller, who lamented the project designer's inflexibility in reducing the size of the project, or, at least, finding architectural solutions to the problems of "mass and scale."
"I have never met an applicant who says he has to have a certain size or he's not going to build the building," he said. "It's time to deny this application and not continue with it."
While commissioner Chris Myers attempted a diplomatic approach, trying to keep the HARC process going, Jilek responded that "I can't figure out a way to move this forward at this point."
Other than town planner Mike Davenport, though obviously ailing, who attempted to keep the discussions going, the only board member who spoke in favor of the project was Harley Brooke-Hitchin. She said the project was within size limits granted by the town planning process.
"I think it's very good looking," she said of the building designed by architect Dan Hunter. "I think it meets the guidelines, but what you are saying is we can't approve unless we change the square footage."
Arguing the economic success of the development needed the additional space for the condos to defray the costs of the grocery store's expansion, Hunter said he didn't have the authority to agreee to a reduction in size.
"Regarding mass and scale, we get down to the issue of what does it cost to Tom Clark to build these buildings," he said. "The condos pay for a fraction of this market addition."
He said it was unfair for board to ask the applicant to reduce the "mass and scale," which is largely determined on a subjective based on design elements that create perspective, is really "about square feet."
Then, expressing his frustration with the empasse, he said, "We are about at the end of our ... for what we can do for you with mass and scale. It doesn't seem like there is anything we can do for mass and scale ... for us to come back to you.
"We're clevered out, folks."
During the community participation portion of the meeting, residents spoke for an against the project, but the weight of criticism carried the day.
"The financial aspect of this project should not be considered," Ken Hodges said. "If they can't do it, they can't do it. It seems like a decision has been made there."
Based on a general concern that the project might further damage Telluride's status with national historic preservation organizations, several community leaders soke at the meeting, including Bob Saunders, a town councilman who spoke only as a citizen, and Rick Silverman.
"The community is behind you guys," Saunders told the panel, "for you to do what it is your job to do. The mass and scale is too big, and we all understand that."
Rick Silverman said the project affects more than just the neighbors of the project.
"You are the final seige gates," he said, urging HARC to vote against the building that is "not in compliance with the historic architecture of Telluride."
The board meeting dissolved into a discussion about whether to go on from the outset. During an examination of the steps taken to extend the distance between the two buildings, the texture and color of the brick used, and the visual effects of the varieted combination, HARC board member Waller questioned whether it was effective to attempt to reduce the mass and scale as requested by simply changing the material.
More to what the majority of board members had in mind, he asked, "Are you willing to change the square footage on the third floor?"
Hunter responded, "No."
While the official language of the imminent denial will be worked out this week, the commissioners listed such items as reducing the West Elevation face of the project, broadening the width and separation of the main two buildings, and finding some way to use setbacks to help reduce the "mass and scale."