Telluride Journal

2008-07-07T15:58:00.000-07:00

Summer Driving in the Blue Bomber
and Other Ghastly American Summer Rituals

People can go walking on the Valley Floor now, that is, that 570 acres the Town of Telluride paid for in a condemnation action against Neal Blue, head of General Atomics, which while lighting and heating and glowing up the world is also a major manufacturer of drone bombers and spy planes.

But we will avoid that for just right now. If only because, as Telluride was fighting this battle, and as I was writing about the legal beagleisms all along, the official start of where this official descent into hell, which is where all great literature, should actually begin.

But instead of writing really, really great literature (hah!), I was so busy writing up a bunch of words congratulating everyone about having saved the world in this “VF” matter – as well as the additional news that, as you read this, scientists are on a train to meet in India with the Dalai Lama in order to halt the eternal suffering of mankind – I only had time to drive by the Valley Floor instead, on the way to work at the Telluride Watch.

Yes, some people choose hiking boots. Others go to worship upon the Valley Floor on bikes. Still others fly over “the Floor” in hot air balloons. My weapon of choice was then known in my small circle as the “Blue Bomber,” a rusted, ‘80s vintage Subaru that, quite honestly, no longer really had reverse available as an option, had three out of four doors that were pretty darn hard to open, and about 400,000 million billion miles on the odometer.

I loved to drive the “Blue Bomber” because gravity was its friend. Gliding downhill saves on gas. I hated to drive the “Blue Bomber,” too, because going uphill was well, embarrassing, or would be, if driving this dream machine weren’t my solution to reduce the impossible suffering of mankind, too.

For, you see, as the “Blue Bomber” made regular non-stop flights from Telluride through the friendly skies of the San Juans to my home in San Bernardo, which was originally called Matterhorn in the mining daze of 100 years before, this miracle machine was San Miguel County’s answer to maintaining the speed limit on Highway 145 for both the driver and every high-tech, gas-guzzling, fully loaded, tailgate pressing Imperial (as in the Empire is Real)” Cruiser lucky enough to fall in behind it as we, the great quick-dried community of hurried commuters, construction workers, tourists and so on, paraded our way into town.

I had been driving these jalopies for 10 years now, in order to reduce the impossible suffering of mankind, ever since I was the editor for car coverage at the Robb Report, where one of my jobs was to test-drive high-end automobiles. Don’t own or drive one of those things just right now, though. However, since I was living and working so close to Walden Pond, which was right around the corner from that magazine’s offices at the time in Acton, Mass., a conflict began to arise in my Henry David Thoreau-poisoned skull about losing my sense of social responsibility by pimping, in print, the glories of living large, being insanely wealthy, owning expensive wheels and other kinds of pornography for the rich.

So to keep my feet planted firmly on the ground, I bought a $200 Volkswagen Rabbit and drove it, or, left it in the parking lot at the Robb, when I had to suffer through the guilt of having to drive the latest Porsche, Jaguar, Mercedes or Caddy around, pretending I was rich, too. Honestly, that task was so exhausting it was not uncommon for me to drive the Rabbit at lunch over to Walden Pond (leaving the $90,000 custom Hummer or whatnot in the Robb’s parking lot) and take a short nap.

But now it’s 10 years after and we are going to Disneyland! Usually, as I cranked up the engine beneath the haughty gaze of Sheep Mountain in San Bernardo, we lifted off with three or four people on board. So we were doing our best, as far as the carbon footprint goes, but for four adults it was a hell of a thing to work out, in terms of fares, scheduling and so on.

My great great-grandfather must have worked the caboose for the Gallaping Goose, the old mountain train line moving around ore in the mining days, I think, as the flight fell out of the clouds of the Matterhorn camping area and we descended toward the Ophir Loop, knowing full well this wild curvy ride was really what Walt Disney had in mind for his bumpy roller coaster mountain ride, heh!

Now I’m the tour guide as we spin around the daily rock avalanches of Hwy. 145, Ames far down below, Alta far above, wheeee! ... Too bad Nikola Tesla didn’t consider wind before hydro first ... wheeee! ... Better let this first badass military column of “The Empire Is Real” SUV Cruisers pass! ... wow ... Look at those maniacs go ... geez ... that’s a hell of a drop ... Oh Lord, oh lordy low! ... Most of the cars I saw the high-mountain Peruvians driving in the Wade Davis film at Mountainfilm Film Festival for that week were 20 years newer than mine ... hmmm, Third World indeed, yes, yes ... the “Blue Bomber” will offer Telluride resident, e-Bay CEO and bigtime “Valley Floor” donater of a fund amounting to $50 million to buy the Valley Floor, Meg Whitman free rides whenever she needs ... Oprah, too, another heavy investor and Telluride mainlight, but only if it fits in with our schedule ... Yeah! ... Here comes Lawson Hill, we are landing now, down on the Valley Floor, leading a parade of still more Empire is Real Cruisers as we go easy on the brakes, letting gravity do its work, wheeeeee! Wheeee! Wheeeee! Wheee!

... And then, a big sigh, that “E” ticket item itself: The Valley Floor ... let us pray ... I mean, finally, the Conoco Station! at Society Turn on the Valley Floor, planted just near the headwaters of the San Miguel River canyon’s flow ... Yee-haw!

From high up above, coming down the highway into the San Miguel River Valley, the actual gateway to the Valley Floor, the conglomeration of civilization at Society Turn, could actually be confused with a large U.S. Calvary outpost with a big red corporate logo, a real rarity in San Miguel County (almost as rare as a traffic light), instead of a flag mast where the bugler might stand.

But there were no insurgents anywhere near Fort Conoco, just us consumers, who, if not for the price of gas, all seem to be immune to war. There’s nothing to explode around here but that pressurized bag of chips gas-pushed to us at 9,000 feet from the lowlands by that big ol’ Frito Lay truck belching out its own “Blue Bomb” of electro-petrol hoopla. Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray!

Then, after obtaining a small loan for gas and guzzling up on all the necessary monoculture sodium glutton-o-mate we can absorb, we, the forever “Born to Be Wild,” were ready for the Floor!

First part was a bit of a disappointment, yes, with that mine-tailing remediation site and, of course, the power lines, the channelized river and troubled wetlands. Gotta do something about that, someday. Old habits die hard. Then, the glories of the great field of dandelions, an invasive species, the mountains and the glittering waters of the San Miguel, with a fly fisherman out there, as we headed eastward, invading forward.

Nice thing about this first drive on the, at the time, almost freed Valley Floor (it was finally released to Telluride in full about one year later, but not after the condemnation case was won in the Colorado State Supreme Court), maybe just one court order away then (hah!), this great victory in preservation, was the fact we had so many other people dressed in orange now, along the way, to point out the highlights and, yes, directing us to slow down, as in chill, at 35 mph: Road construction on the Spur, which is road leading to Telluride from Hwy. 145 that’s most likely still deteriorating like another antique paen to the Galloping Goose years ...

Then, at 25 miles per hour, where the first glorious grove woods and road meets, we are forced to slow down even more, due to construction, yes, but with time to appreciate the scenery explode as the whole vista opened wide again with a big fat “Welcome to Yellowstone”-style hello! And there stems the seed of an idea: Maybe it should just all be kept this slow, even after the Large Butted Caterpillar, Beeping Dumper and Asphalt Scorching Beetle-box return safely to their winter breeding grounds. Then Telluride could extend the 15-mph ethic of town further out into the world, creating the drive into as just more well-intended take-a-breath time, eco-tourism wise.

That way, by the time you pass the other slight corporate oil logo, this time Shell, as travelers enter this National Park for human behavior, Telluride, Colorado, the Gunnison Prairie Dogs can be more easily watched and watched for.

This would, of course, have forced a bit of an alteration in the Blue Bomb’s daily flight plans. But we could’ve make up for it with a less intensive tour on the way home after work, after we’d picked up a big bag of chips for the ride back up the mountain: Does anybody remember the license plate number of that smog belching Frito Lay truck? No? It should’ve been reported.

Oh well, as they always say, the good vibe of the sermon only lasts as long as the car ride home from church. But as rituals really go, the finale for that year’s Fourth of July fireworks display went awry, with all eyewitness versions of this buzz bombing of Town Park being unreliable since even those who were most responsible for the annual incendiary celebration were ducking for cover at the time.

One witness who saw it occur right after having one beer and two shots of tequila claims to have seen a white phosphorescent charge hit the Town Park playground and people running for their lives. An admittedly secondhand street report claimed a baby carriage was blown up. Another report, again carried around by secondhand street mail, featured someone racing to grab a child out of a baby carriage as they themselves ducked for cover.

The best evidence wasn’t carried by word on the street, but by photograph: A shot from down the street by former Telluride Mayor Amy Levek showed the entire park exploding from some kind of beautiful anti-personnel device sending shimmering fragments of spider-webby silver streaks across the grounds.

Like, wow! … Nobody shares a more intimate connection to both nature and explosives than those thousands who come to the base of Bear Creek Canyon in Telluride for the Fourth of July!

According to Telluride Fire District officials, the fireworks display’s very last shot, a 16-inch shell, failed to reach proper height before going off, but certainly delivered the advertised firepower. The additional good news was, of course, that nobody claimed any injuries, and the event itself was shut down without any further incident. The dust cloud of baby carriages simply left without rioting and the unnoticing throng of proud Americans was somehow sated, without demands for any more spectacular displays of controlled violence than what they’d already just experienced.

Another rumor on the street was the actual errant rocket purchased for the event was supposedly banned after 9/11, though one would have to wonder why: It seemed completely effective, in terms of sheer terror, or, sorry, sorry, Shock-and-Awe values.

A visit to Firecracker Hill a couple of days after it was lit up that July 4 evening like a smoky Fort Sumter still turned up some evidence of the rocket red glares, including a scattering of round, purplish cardboard caps and burned-out yellow, AA battery-sized cylinders, plucked right out of a young pine tree like bad fruit, around the compromised hill otherwise covered with small mounds of gravel pits built as launching points for the fireworks blasts. A close look around the trampled, fire-burnished mound revealed that over the years the treetops had all died or been diminished in some way, as if singed by frequent spaceship landings.

No other place in town was allowable for such abuse, and resulting small fires all around the base of Bear Creek were being put out well into the next day. By Thursday night it rained, washing away the any burn scars and, if it ever existed, that apocryphal burned-out baby carriage was secreted away by those in authority.

Forensics aside – sight lines on a bazooka pointed down to Town Park are clear enough to strafe the playground – the real critique here was not that it was lucky nobody got fried. Nor was it that, even in 2007, like the ancient Aztecs, we as a culture were willing to sacrifice the hilltop at the base of a national geologic and primordial treasure such as Bear Creek for our once-a-year ritual of flaming ecstasy (even when, if that canyon ever caught fire, it would be the rough equivalent to setting off a firecracker in ones’ navel).

Nor should we go into the physics of indirect or misguided flight. Nor wax on what gunpowder does, or the fact that the right to blow up such elemental stuff in metal tubes with triggers is guaranteed by nothing less than the U.S. Constitution.

No, what’s really FUBAR about this obviously faux military exercise is that occurs at, of all times, around or near anything like the annual periods of Mercury in Retrograde!

Everybody knows nothing works right during Mercury in Retrograde.

This is not rocket science. This country, born under a bad sign, now celebrates that bad timing with a series of loud, threatening and potentially fire-triggering explosions. All to great applause. No wonder we scare the bejesus out of the rest of the world.

As any decent astrologist will tell you, during such periods of Mercurial misanthropy everything goes bad, from our technological marvels to our planetwide maze of communications. One Web-based wizard put it this way: “At 23:41 UT (Universal Time), just before midnight on June 15, 2007, Mercury, the cosmic trickster, turns retrograde in Cancer, the sign of the Crab, sending communications, travel, appointments, mail and the www into a general snarl-up … This awkward period begins a few days before the actual turning point (as Mercury slows) and lasts for three weeks or so, until July 10, when the Winged Messenger reaches his direct station. At this time he halts and begins his return to direct motion through the zodiac …’’

Of course, planets are never retrograde or stationary; they just seem this way because of this “cosmic shadow-play,” as the astrologers put it. But regardless of what some might see as superstitious nonsense, the metaphor works. There’s the national symbol as mixed messages, the bad communications, the poor shooting, the messed-up rocketry – and there’s shadow-play.

Which brings us to faux generals George Bush II and Dick Cheney, two true-blue retro-graders who just that week in Telluride, were the targets of a local petition drive to have them impeached, at least locally, for launching “Shock and Awe” for all the wrong reasons, and at far too great an expense (a plea the Telluride Town Council later decided to vote to support, being the first Colorado state in town to endorse impeachment of Bush/Cheney, though it never took place).

Of course, this impeachment petition was a symbolic act, but our July 4 fireworks are symbolic as well. Since we are all particles in the same cosmic “Shock-and-Awe” footprint wrought by the White House, let us consider Telluride Fire Chief Jamey Schuler’s statement after the display: “The fireworks went off without a hitch,” he said, “except for that one shell,” which could be parsed like “democracy works in Iraq, except for that one civil war” or even “we are all born free, except for the slaves we own.”

By now you should be looking at this and going, gee, not only is Telluride always putting a firecracker in the very belly button of its tourism economy – even worse, this town is annually transmitting cosmically challenged political messages at the wrong astrological time.

My thought was: “Let’s shake the whole thing up next year and declare no more commit pyrotechnical piracy, no more fireworks in our navel, until the current war is declared over. That would be a far clearer symbol than trying to impeach the ‘Shock and Awe’ twins, who barely have a constituency in San Miguel County.

Cancel the fireworks, and therefore the crowds it brings in? Yeah, you bet, I said: “To mitigate the financial impact, we could, say, move the Yankee Doodle Doo-Dah to its proper night, and suggest bringing in, say, Country Joe and the Fish for a special concert and laser-light show in its place.”
But, sadly, those realtors and other elitists who considered tourism the engine in San Miguel County’s regional democracy received this suggestion as happily as news of a drop in Halliburton stock.

But, if such towns really only have one last, big, fat, finale rack, post-9/11, crowd-strafing 16-incher to play with each year, but had misgivings about the war, then why shoot it off at all? Make it the Shot Not Heard Around the World Festival instead, and put the faulty rocket under glass at the museum. Tell everybody each election year, “Hell No, We Won’t Blow.” Let people just stay home fry in the bake and stink and denial of the cities on the Fourth of 2008 until they learn to vote better. Now that would be a shot not heard around the world.

SMVC tries to turn up the heat on timing of $50 million judgment

2007-02-22T12:24:00.000-08:00

By Douglas McDaniel

Not resting on its $50 million jury award in Delta County, the San Miguel Valley Corporation is putting pressure on the Town to pickup the speed at which it makes payment to the court.
According to a brief filed by the SMVC’s Denver-based legal team on Tuesday, Feb. 20, in San Miguel County District Court, the Town should pay up in 44 days.
The brief states Town Attorney Kevin Geiger, at an instruction conference on Feb. 13, told the court the Town didn’t have the funds to pay the judgment. The document states the town’s request for 45 to 90 days to raise the funds is “excessive.”
In filing the brief, the SMVC attempted to cast doubt on the Town’s ability to raise the funds.
“Yet even now, after all these years, the Town still doesn’t have the money to pay for this condemnation,” states the brief filed by Patricia Campbell, an attorney for Otten, Johnson, Robinson, Neff & Ragonetti. “According to Mr. Geiger, the Town still needs approximately 45-90 days to raise the money, and even then it is not certain whether they will be able to raise enough money to pay the judgment. Indeed, reports after the trial indicate that the Town is still at least $16.5 million short.
“While the Town is legally entitled to a reasonable amount of time in which to deposit funds, 90 days is excessive. It is absolutely unprecedented for a condemning authority to pursue the acquisition of private property for seven years without ever having the money to pay for it.”
While Geiger refused to comment on any new developments Wednesday, during a Town Council meeting on Tuesday he said it would take 45 to 60 days for the public funding component.
However, the SMVC legal representation has asked for “a reasonable time limit of at most 44 days.”
The time limit is consistent with state requirements for condemnation cases, the SMVC argues.
“Forty-five days will allow the Town time to raise additional funds based on Mr. Geiger’s estimate, but will also allow the Respondents to make a reasoned decision about whether an appeal is necessary before the deadline to file a notice of appeal,” the brief states. “If the Town cannot deposit the funds by that time, this proceeding should be declared abandoned.”
The document concludes with one last stinging barb.“The jury’s verdict should be given its full effect. Respondents should not be penalized by the Town’s lack of planning and failure to act in good faith. The Town should therefore be required to either pay the full award or cease its years-long assault on this property.”

Town plays beat the clock to acquire the Valley Floor

2007-02-22T12:23:00.001-08:00

By Douglas McDaniel

Imagine having one month to come up with $15 million. Who would you contact? What would you say?
I need a few million, fast? And tell your rich friends the same?
With the Town apparently unwilling to appeal or attempt to set aside the decision by the Delta County jury that awarded the San Miguel Valley Corporation $50 million for the condemnation of the Valley Floor, Telluride officials are hoping the various fund raising efforts will complete the pricey proposition of getting $15 million in private donations by March 15.
Tuesday, Feb. 20, the first community meeting since the Delta jury rendered its judgment in favor of the SMVC’s $50 appraisal, as opposed to the Town’s $26 million figure, the Telluride Town Council had an unprecedented number of issues on its table.
And just as the council discussed what to do about what Mayor John Pryor called a “disappointing” outcome to the Final Valuation Trial in Delta last week, San Miguel County District Court Judge Charles Greenacre made that day, Feb. 20, the official date of entry for the judgment.
This means that due to the statutory requirement of 8 percent interest on the $50 million due the San Miguel Valley Corporation, it’s costing the Town $330,000 per month, $11,000 a day, $458 per hour, $7.60 per minute, 13 cents per second, until the jury award is paid in full.
The rush to get the Town’s 20 million bonding mechanism in place, and timed with the collection of nearly $15 million in private donations, will result in the Town accruing interest on the public debt at a variable rate of approximately four percent: cutting the interest rate portion of the debt in half.
But now the conundrum rests in the what-comes-first, the-chicken-or-the-egg situation the Town finds itself in.
“We are not going to issue the public debt until we have all of the money,” Pryor said.
With grim resignation council members said an appeal would return the issue into the realm of uncertainty; and in that realm, the Town has already been “surprised,” as the Mayor put it.
Town Attorney Kevin Geiger told those in attendance that the Town’s legal representation in the trial, Leslie Fields, considered making a motion to set aside the verdict because it “was not consistent with the evidence.”
However, Town officials are in no mood to return to the courtroom for another trial against such a formidable foe basking in a booming real estate market. Especially considering that, as Geiger noted, during the trial a recent sale was entered into the record of $5.6 million for a 35-acre-parcel on Sunnyside East, just north of the Valley Floor. If that sale were applied to the 14-parcel alternative the Town was looking at, the price tag would be nearly $80 million, Geiger said.
Better, the council members agreed, to swallow the bitter pill and move forward.
“There is certainty for the first time,” Pryor said. “If you can come up with $50 million: That certainty is valuable.”
The other council members agreed.
“For the easy way out of this, we should come up with the money,” said Council member Bob Saunders. “If we can do that, then it’s done, and we don’t have higher costs.”
Council Member Mark Buchsieb was even more direct.
“Get the money and get it over with,” he said. Then, refuting a comment during the meeting that the Town should drop the entire attempt to condemn the Valley Floor because it was “pissing away” municipal funds, Buchsieb responded that the council is morally obligated to represent the will of the voting public.
“If it’s peeing it away, it’s peeing it away, but they chose to do it,” he said.
Town officials are looking to the Valley Floor Advisory Board, which is heading up various fund raising efforts, such as the Valley Floor Preservation Partners, to put the Valley Floor War to an end.
So far, the outlook is optimistic, according to Jane Hickcox, Valley Floor Advisory Board spokeswoman.
“It’s very exciting and I’m very encouraged,” Hickcox told the Town Council on Tuesday.
As of the date of the verdict, Feb. 16, she said the Valley Floor Preservation Partners had received $8.1 million in donations from the private sector.
“That represents checks coming from 72 cities in 23 states,” she said.
But after a mind-boggling weekend and one business day of trying to digest the verdict and take action, that figure had increased to $9.2 million. Hickcox said fund raising effort was working hard to get as many matching donations as possible to reach the $15 million figure.
“Our matching funds could reach that quite quickly,” she said.
At the same time, there is also the more harried urgency of the moment, as all of the members of the grass roots effort are burning the midnight oil to bring in donors, especially wealthy donors. As Hickcox said, “This is what a 60-year-old fundraiser looks like with very little sleep.”

Jury alternate says six-member panel wanted Town to pay $65 million

2007-02-16T15:10:00.001-08:00

By Douglas McDaniel

In the parlance of the Old West, it was an ambush, a good, old-fashioned appraiser whoopin’.
After hearing the $50 million jury award for the Final Valuation Trial for the Town of Telluride condemnation case over the Valley Floor, the Town’s legal team responded to the decision by immediately leaving the scene of the severe legal defeat without comment.
On Friday the jury in the Final Valuation Trial for the Town’s Valley Floor rendered a verdict: $50 million for the 570-acre property, thrashing the Town’s effort to keep the price at almost half as much.
It took the jury just three hours of deliberations to reach a verdict in the nine-day trial.
After two working weeks at the Delta County Courthouse, the six-member jury sided completely with the price set by San Miguel Valley Corporation expert appraiser Larry Stark, apparently disregarding the Town of Telluride’s expert appraiser’s price of $26 million. On the ninth day of the trial, Thursday, the jury had gone into deliberations at 2:35 p.m., and had come to a verdict at 10 a.m. on Friday, Feb. 16.
The Town should feel lucky. At the beginning of the day Friday, the jury had a price of $65 million written on the board. According to jury alternate Maxine Isley; the other jurors were supporting additional amounts. But she said the jury changed its mind when the question of whether or not there would be a mistrial declared if they went above the SMVC’s $50 million price tag.
Isley said the town’s case was given very little credence at all.
“There was not a lot of debate and I was disgusted with that,” said the resident of Hotchkiss who was able to participate in the discussions but not vote. “After we first went into deliberations everybody (the six voting jurors) asked for a show of hands, and they showed their hands that the corporation had proven its case. They pretty much had their minds made up when they left last night. I thought they would at least consider the evidence more.”
On Friday morning, the jury considered giving them more than $65 million, she said.
“They felt like the property was worth at least that much,” Isley said. “They all felt like $50 million was not enough.”
She said at one point in their deliberations the jury sent a question to San Miguel District Court Judge Charles Greenacre asking whether the Town had plans to develop the Valley Floor itself, or, whether it had the ability to develop it in the future. But the judge refused to have the question posed to the court on the basis of its irrelevancy, she said.
Many of the members of the jury, all property owners in Delta County, voiced strong opinions against government use of eminent domain to take land from the property owner, she said.
“There were people who were very aggressive in their opinions before we even went into deliberations,” Isley said. “They really had problems with the whole taking thing, that the government was taking land and not wanting to pay anything for it.”
In its closing statement Thursday, Feb. 15, the SMVC lawyers had disputed the Town’s assertion that the plan for one-unit per 35-acre lots was the highest and best use for the property. SMVC attorney Mikaela Rivera said the so-called “B plan,” 77 lots or approximately one unit per seven acres on the south side at a cost of $56.8 million, was preferred by San Miguel County and fit in with the Telluride Regional Master Plan.
Rather than believing Telluride attorney Leslie Fields’ closing statement that the landowner’s appraisal was a puffed up piece of fantasy, the jury (with the exception of the $6 million lopped off Stark’s highest appraisal) sided with the SMVC that such plans were realistic.“It’s a playground, a playground for the super rich,” SMVC lead attorney Darrell Waas said in his closing statement, adding that if the Town wants it for a playground, it will have to pay playground prices.
The jury was completely unmoved by Town appraiser Richard Chase’s rationale for his $26 million appraisal.
Apparently, it was not a playground price.
“They were not interested,” Isley said of the jury’s response to Chase and his calculations. “His comps were too old, they said. He knocked down the price for one (Sunnyside East) because he thought something was wrong with it (the final price). One guy (jurist) said that really ‘stuck in his craw.’ ”
In cross examination of Chase, SMVC attorney Darrell Waas successfully sought to portray the Town appraiser’s valuation approach as a mere attempt to play lowball, with oversimplified calculations drawn from a narrow field of comparable sales in the region.
Waas then critiqued Chase’s three appraisals for the Town beginning with a $15.5 million price in 2000, followed $19.5 million in 2003 and $25.9 million in 2006. Waas brought to light that there was a large increase in values between 2000 and 2006, and questioned why Chase did not use any sales in the Telluride Region after April of 2001. Chase’s comparable sales were an average of approximately six years old, while Stark’s were approximately two.
The jury decided to believe Stark. The Town’s efforts to show how many hurdles the SMVC would have to go through also left the jury unconvinced.
“They certainly didn’t spend time deliberating,” Isley said. “They didn’t go through the evidence of the town, or thought their point mattered … it seemed like they didn’t really like the town, that’s all I could tell you.”
While Telluride Mayor John Pryor said he was “disappointed in the jury’s award,” he discounted any talk about the Delta jury being tainted or unfair.
He said an appeal at this juncture is unlikely because of the expense.
“The award starts accruing interest at 8 percent,” he said. “If we went to trial again in another year that would be a half-million dollars.
“We can’t go through another trial. We just need to get more fundraising done.”
The Town has already approved the bonding for $20 million, and has approximately another $10 million in available from various fund raising efforts.
Immediately after the award was announced representatives for the San Miguel Preservation Partners, which is leading the outside fund raising efforts, were in a meeting to discuss the developments and prepared to release a joint public statement.The Telluride Town Council will meet in executive session on Tuesday, Feb. 20, to discuss the Valley Floor issue with its legal counsel.“Our community values this property greatly,” Pryor said. “We have a large fund raising effort ahead of us.”

###

Go figure!

2007-02-16T09:37:00.000-08:00

Valley Floor Valuation
Trial Jury Goes Into
Deliberations

By Douglas McDaniel

It comes down to the jury now.
The lawyer versus lawyer, land planner versus land planner, and especially appraiser versus appraiser phase of the Valley Floor War is over, at least for the time being.
With the possibility of an appeal hanging like an overcast cloud bank over the Delta County Courthouse during the entire Final Valuation Trial for the Valley Floor, the six-member jury is in their final deliberations today. Unless they are able to render the mind-numbing flood of calculations, contradictory factors and figures into a Solomon-esque simplicity, their deliberations will likely go on into the weekend.
There is nothing left but the score now. Something with at least six zeroes attached to the back end. Something on a single sheet of paper. A final price. An astonishing figure, either way. Somewhere between $26 million, what the town’s appraiser says, and $56 million (rounded off to $50 million), what the San Miguel Valley Corporation believes it can get for the 570-acre parcel.
On day eight of the trial, the town rested its case.
The week began with the legal team led by Leslie Fields launching into the attack mode, chipping away at what they hoped were to be viewed by the jury as “speculative” planning by Peter Jamar, the SMVC land planner, and pie-in-sky pricing by Larry Stark, the SMVC’s appraiser.
But by Wednesday, Feb. 14, in cross-examination, SMVC attorney Darrell Waas tried to portray the town appraiser’s valuation approach as a mere attempt to play lowball, with oversimplified calculations drawn from a narrow field of comparable sales in the region. Sales, in fact, that have already been eclipsed in the booming Telluride real estate market, according to SMVC.
The town’s appraiser, Richard Chase, was kept hopping Wednesday with questions about such differences of opinion and approaches, and at one point seemed to have difficulty operating his calculator.
Waas scored at least one major victory: Getting a $5 million-plus sale for a property in Sunnyside East, on the mesa to the north of the Valley Floor, entered into the court record.
Throughout the day, Fields had successfully neutralized Waas’s efforts to get Chase to acknowledge the recent sale, getting it stricken off the record when he mentioned the transaction in court. But after Chase made a broad statement characterizing the sales in the Sunnyside developments (his comparable sales figures for Sunnyside involved 811.62 acres for $20.8 million, or, $861,000 per 35-acre lot), San Miguel County District Court Judge Charles Greenacre allowed Chase to answer Waas’s question about the sale.
“Actually, it was $5.8 million,” Chase admitted.

The clash of comparables

Attempting to defeat the criticism by Chase about Stark’s use of comparable prices outside the Telluride region, Waas questioned the town’s appraiser about the international cast of buyers who might be wealthy enough to buy land in Telluride, compared to other destination resorts such as Aspen, Vail, Breckenridge and Jackson Hole.
Asking about the latter, Waas questioned Chase about whether or not Jackson Hole was an appropriate region to draw comparables. In Chase’s previous testimony, he argued it was not, since Jackson Hole was regarded as a world-class mega resort like Aspen, Vail and Breckenridge. But Waas got Chase to admit Jackson Hole has fewer skier visits each year than Telluride, and that Telluride’s junior status among larger resort areas and relative isolation actually made it more attractive for the super rich buyers looking for exclusivity.
Chase answered “yes” to Waas’s statement that the “desirability of location and the fact that it has fewer people than Breckenridge is something people might be looking for.”
Chase admitted that it was acceptable to go outside a sales area for “outside” comparable if adequate sales data was not available, but he felt “very comfortable” that he had enough comparable sales in the Telluride region to value the Valley Floor.
“There’s no problem with going out of your area as long as the fruits of your labor are really comparable,” he said. “I felt strongly that sales that occur in the region set a benchmark.”
Waas then reviewed Chase’s three appraisals for the town beginning with a $15.5 million price in 2000, followed $19.5 million in 2003 and $25.9 million in 2006. But Waas asserted there was a large increase in values between 2000 and 2006, and questioned why Chase did not use any sales in the Telluride region after April of 2001. Chase’s comparable sales are an average of approximately six years old, while Stark’s are approximately two.
“There has been an upturn since 9/11,” Chase admitted.
Chase said no large comparable sales were available after 2001. Instead, he used time adjustment calculation to address the market increase and apply it to the comparable sales.

Room for Wal-Mart?

Shortly after this the Sunnyside East sale of $5.8 million was allowed to be entered in the record, possibly to stick in the jury’s ear like a de facto additional comparable.
Waas then tried to poke holes in Chase’s assertion that any development other than the one-unit per 35 acres option was “speculative.” He said if it wanted to, the entire town of Telluride could be moved into the Valley Floor.
“Isn’t it clear,” Waas asked, “with the future of their (SMVC’s) property, that that’s where this town has to grow?”
“That’s true,” Chase responded.
“Is there room for a hospital?”
“That’s true.”
“A Wal-Mart?” asked Waas.
“I think a Wal-Mart would drive people in Telluride crazy,” Chase responded.
But after going back and forth in this manner, Chase insisted Stark’s appraisals and the SMVC’s land planners were “out on speculative limb by a good measure.”
After Fields rested the town’s case, SMVC brought in rebuttal witnesses, starting with Jim Felt, a water attorney for SMVC since the 1980s.
He said an augmentation plan established in Water Court in 2004 would have to be amended if SMVC were to develop water amenities on the site, but it was a far simpler process than made out by several of the town’s witnesses. All SMVC would have to change is the evaporative component for the ponds on the plan, and that was the only significant hurdle, Felt said.
On day nine, Thursday, Feb. 15, the landowners presented additional rebuttal testimony from Johnnie Stevens, Jamar and Stark, all brought back to assert that the SMVC’s pricing, and planning, were realistic, not “speculative.”

Valley Floor field trip

Of course, everything rests on the point of view of the Delta County-based jury members who are mostly retired landowners, a group predominantly made up of females.
To the possible good fortune of the Town of Telluride on day seven of the trial, Tuesday, Feb. 13, the sun was not shining too brightly on those jurors on an overcast, then snowy afternoon over the Valley Floor.A sunshine-brilliant clear day might have been of little benefit to the town when the six jurors and four alternates were shepherded by Telluride Chief Marshal James Kolar around the 570-acre parcel.The Valley Floor looked beautiful, if not too beautiful, as early afternoon snow flurries made the view of the east end of property from the Gondola cabin look like a spackled grayish blob, those all-important pricey vistas a whitewash of merged mountaintops and sky.The trial started on its seven day with a snocat tour of the property in question, lunch on the second floor of the Shell Station (in the trial, it’s still referred to as the Texaco station), followed by a tour by a Telluride Galloping Goose bus up to Mountain Village, and then, a gondola ride. The jurors, led in a line through the Mountain Village center, were all smiles and seemed to be enjoying themselves as they awaited lift-off from the gondola.Any time mingling with Telluride culture or residents (and of course, the press) was avoided. Though their Galloping Goose led them around the traffic circle at the gateway to town to head up to Mountain Village, they spent little more time in town than enough to get off the Telluride gondola station and back on another bus to continue their tour.

The value of views
On the previous day of the trial in Delta, Monday, Feb. 12, the comparative views on and around the Valley Floor became an aspect of the town’s attack. On the stand, Chase said he focused his comparative sales strictly to the region, as opposed to Stark, who also compared Telluride’s prices to other ski towns such as Aspen and Steamboat Springs.Chase said the issue of views from lots, one of the factors used for determining price, showed that the Valley Floor’s low-lying vistas were less desirable than for such mesa-top plots found on Grayhead, Diamond Ranch and Sunnyside.All three properties are perched on mesas on the northern slopes near the Telluride Regional Airport. “Views are what sell in this market,” Chase said. “Grayhead has superior views to the Valley Floor. The mesa-tops offer multi-dimensional views versus the one-to-two dimensional views of the Valley Floor.”Fields asked Chase about the possible development scenarios as they related to the town, Mountain Village and San Miguel County. Chase told the court the most likely scenario which he based his analysis on was that any development would likely occur under the county’s jurisdiction. “Certain issues suggested Telluride and Mountain Village wouldn’t be able to annex,” he said. Telluride couldn’t annex a developed Valley Floor, he said, because of limitations to its water supply. Mountain Village couldn’t annex, Chase said, because of the obstacles of trying to connect utility systems between two vastly different elevations. In addition, he said, “The Mountain Village never had a Master Plan that incorporated the Valley Floor … so it would be with the county.”The most likely development scenario, which he based his calculations on, was under the one per 35-acre option. “The highest and best use was for 35-acre home sites,” Chase said. “It’s a relatively easy, straightforward process, an expedient process at the county level.”That’s because, as Chris Dunn, the town’s expert land planner testified earlier in the day, the development option required minimal development infrastructure, no affordable housing requirements, no transportation mitigation, no school sites or public parks, and so on.

Which scenario to choose?
This view of the most likely development scenario differed greatly than Stark’s appraisal, which focused on three possibilities. Stark based his value conclusions for the two possible develop options for the Valley Floor as follows: $40.6 million for Alternative A and $56.8 million for Alternative B. Alternative A involves 15 units under a one unit per 35-acre analysis; Alternative B involves 77 lots or approximately 1 unit per 7 acres on the south side.
An Alternative C with a plan of up to 1,200 people on the south side of the Valley Floor with up to 800 units of density was developed by Stark, but it was not used in his final calculation. To arrive at his estimate for the south side of the Valley Floor, Stark indicated that the final figure reconciled the two prices from Alternatives A and B. Regarding the choice to use a calculation that used 40 percent of Alternative A and 60 percent of B to come up with a $50 million price tag, Chase said the approach was highly unusual. “I only heard about stories like that in Las Vegas, to tell you the truth,” Chase said.For Alternative A, Stark reviewed his 10 comparable sales of property. The locations were from the Telluride area, Jackson, Wyo., Aspen and Steamboat Springs. The range of value for these comparables was approximately $20,000 per acre up to $160,000 per acre.For Alternative B, Stark reviewed his four comparable sales of property. The location of the comparables include: the Telluride area, Jackson, Wyoming, Steamboat Springs and Breckenridge. The range of value for these comparable was approximately $87,000 per acre up to $185,000 per acre.But Chase criticized the need to compare the Valley Floor to sales outside the region. He said mega-resorts with twice to three-times more skier days than Telluride, such towns as Vail, Aspen, Breckenridge and Steamboat Springs, shouldn’t be compared to a relatively new resort area. "The Telluride area, if you try to compare to other international resorts, is up and coming, but is in my opinion still in its infancy,” he said. “Telluride hasn’t hit the mega-resort status yet.”

Appraisal versus appraisal
Chase’s first comparable sale, Grayhead/Ruffner Peak, is a 1,368-acre property that sold for more than $19 million, or, $14,368 per acre, in 1997. The second comparable sale, the 432-acre Diamond Ranch, went for $9.3 million, or, $775,000 per 35-acre lot. The third comparable sale, Sunnyside, just north of the Valley Floor, but at a higher elevation, involved 811.62 acres for $20.8 million, or, $861,000 per 35-acre lot.Chase’s bottom line price after his analysis: a total “take” value of $25,983,800 as of Jan. 9, 2006, the so-called “date of value.”Meanwhile, the SMVC’s price stands at $50 million.
How the jury will be able to reconcile the gap is now the greatest question of them all.

Delta jurors get a snocat, bus and gondola tour of the Valley Floor

2007-02-13T13:28:00.000-08:00

By Douglas McDaniel

It may be to the good fortune of the Town of Telluride that the sun was not shining too brightly on an overcast, then snowy Tuesday over the Valley Floor.
A sunshine brilliant clear day could be of little benefit to the Town during its Final Valuation Trial as the six jurors and four alternates from Delta were shepherded by a tight-lipped Town of Telluride Police Chief James Kolar around the 540-acre parcel.
So if you are looking for clues on how Day Seven of the trial went: The Valley Floor looked beautiful, if not too beautiful as early afternoon snow flurries made the view of the east end of property from the Gondola cabin look like a spackled grayish blob, and those all important pricey vistas bearing nothing more than a whitewash of merged mountaintops and sky.
The trial started on its seven day with a snocat tour of the property in question, lunch on the second floor of the Shell Station (in the trial, it’s still referred to as the Texaco station), followed by a tour by a Telluride Galloping Goose bus up to Mountain Village, and then, a gondola ride. The jurors, led in a line through the Mountain Village core, were all smiles and seemed to be enjoying themselves as they awaited lift-off from the gondola.
Any time mingling with Telluride culture or residents was avoided. Though their Galloping Goose led them around the traffic circle at the gateway to Town to head up to Mountain Village, they spent little more time in town than enough to get off the Telluride gondola station and back on another bus to continue their tour.
On the previous day of the trial in Delta, comparative views on and around the Valley Floor became an aspect of the Town of Telluride’s attack.
On the stand, the Town’s appraiser, Richard Chase, said he focused his comparative sales strictly to the region, as opposed to the San Miguel Valley Corporation’s appraiser, Larry Stark, who also compared Telluride’s prices to other ski towns such as Aspen and Steamboat Springs.
Chase said the issue of views from lots, one of the factors used for determining price, showed that the Valley Floor’s low-lying vistas were less desirable – and therefore less expensive – than for such mesa-top plots found on Grayhead, Diamond Ranch and Sunnyside.
All three properties are perched on mesas on the northern slopes near the Telluride Regional Airport.
“Views are what sell in this market,” Chase said. “Grayhead has superior views to the Valley Floor. The mesa-tops offer multi-dimensional views versus the one-to-two dimensional views of the Valley Floor.”
Telluride’s lead attorney in the trial, Leslie Fields, asked Chase about the possible development scenarios as they related to the Town, Mountain Village and San Miguel County. Chase told the court the most likely scenario which he based his analysis on was that any development would likely occur under the county’s jurisdiction.
“Certain issues suggested Telluride and Mountain Village wouldn’t be able to annex,” he said. Telluride couldn’t annex a developed Valley Floor, he said, because of limitations to its water supply. Mountain Village couldn’t annex, Chase said, because of the obstacles of trying to connect utility systems between two vastly different elevations. In addition, he said, “The Mountain Village never had a Master Plan that incorporated the Valley Floor … so it would be with the county.”
The most likely development scenario, which he based his calculations on, was under the one per 35-acre option.
“The highest and best use was for 35-acre home sites,” Chase said. “It’s a relatively easy, straightforward process, an expedient process at the county level.”
That’s because, as Chris Dunn, the Town’s expert land planner testified earlier in the day, the development option required minimal development infrastructure, no affordable housing requirements, no transportation mitigation, no school sites or public parks, and so on.
This development scenario differed greatly than Stark’s appraisal, which focused on three possibilities. Stark based his value conclusions for the two possible develop options for the Valley Floor as follows: $40,600,000 for Alternative A and $56,750,000 for Alternative B.
Alternative A involves 15 units under a one unit per 35-acre analysis; Alternative B involves 77 lots or approximately 1 unit per 7 acres on the south side; and, Alternative C involves a plan of up to 1,200 people on the south side of the Valley Floor with up to 800 units of density.
To arrive at his estimate for the south side of the Valley Floor, Stark indicated that the final figure reconciled the two prices from Alternatives A and B.
Regarding the choice to use a calculation that used 40 percent of Alternative A and 60 percent of B to come up with a $50 million price tag, Chase said the approach was highly unusual.
“I only heard about stories like that in Las Vegas, to tell you the truth,” he said.
For Alternative A, Stark reviewed his 10 comparable sales of property. The locations were from the Telluride area, Jackson, Wyo., Aspen and Steamboat Springs. The range of value for these comparables was approximately $20,000 per acre up to $160,000 per acre.
For Alternative B, Stark reviewed his four comparable sales of property. The location of the comparables include: the Telluride area, Jackson, Wyoming, Steamboat Springs and Breckenridge. The range of value for these comparable was approximately $87,000 per acre up to $185,000 per acre.
But Chase criticized the need to compare the Valley Floor to sales outside the region. He said mega-resorts with twice to three-times more skier days than Telluride, such towns as Vail, Aspen, Breckenridge and Steamboat Springs, shouldn’t be compared to a relatively new resort area.
"The Telluride area, if you try to compare to other international resorts, is up and coming, but is in my opinion still in its infancy,” he said. “Telluride hasn’t hit the mega-resort status yet.”
His first comparable sale, Grayhead/Ruffner Peak, is a 1,368-acre property that sold for more than $19 million, or, $14,368 per acre, in 1997. The second comparable sale, the 432-acre Diamond Ranch, went for $9.3 million, or, $775,000 per 35-acre lot. The third comparable sale, Sunnyside, just north of the Valley Floor, but at a higher elevation, involved 811.62 acres for $20.8 million, or, $861,000 per 35-acre lots.
Chase’s bottom line price after his analysis: a total “take” value of $25,983,800 as of Jan. 9, 2006, the so-called “date of value.”
This was based on the 35-acre lot value of $1.8 million per lot under Alternative A, which he viewed as the most reasonable development scenario to base the price on.
The trial will return to Delta on Wednesday with more testimony by Chase, and then a likely cross-examination by SMVC attorneys Darrell Waas and Mikaela Rivera.

Valley Floor War Scoreboard

2007-02-08T15:25:00.000-08:00

Who: Town of Telluride vs. The San Miguel Valley Corporation

What: Valuation trial for Valley Floor condemnation by Town of Telluride. The Valley Floor consists of 573 acres located to the south of the Highway 145 Spur (the east-west road that leads into Telluride, "the Spur"), 121 acres located to the north of the Spur; and 20 acres located at Society Turn, at the southwest corner formed by the intersection of Highway 145 and the Spur. These parcels are commonly referred to respectively as "the South Side," "the North Side," and "the Society Turn parcel."

How the SMVC got the land: In 1967 Joe Oberto sold his Valley Floor property to Newmont Mining, owner of Idarado, for $300,000. Sixteen years later, the Cordillera Corporation, the predecessor to the San Miguel Valley Corporation, purchased approximately 860 acres from the Telluride Valley Corporation.

At Stake: 540-acre parcel west of Telluride, east of Society Turn. The Town of Telluride Town Council voted to file legal action condemning the Valley Floor in January 2004, after the Town voted in June 2002 to acquire the South Side of the Valley Floor through condemnation. Votes were 609 in favor, 385 opposed.

Condemnation Means?: Also referred to as the power of eminent domain, it’s a legal process by which a governmental entity may take title to property owned by a private party, provided that just compensation is paid.

Value to be Determined by: A panel of six jurors from Delta, all of whom are property owners, will render a verdict with a determination of value on a one-page jury verdict form that will include the legal description of the property.

Value in this case means: The reasonable market value of the Valley Floor under an analysis of what is the most advantageous use or development.

When and Where: Delta County Courthouse, starting Feb. 5, ending within a three-week outside time range.

Why is it in Delta?: The case is being heard in Delta County after the SMVC requested a change of venue of the jury trial to another county in August of 2004.

Featured Lawyers: Town represented by Leslie Fields, Esq. and Jack Sperber, Esq., two partners with the Denver law firm of Faegre & Benson, and the San Miguel Valley Corporation, represented by Darrell Waas, Esq., Mikaela Rivera, Esq., and Patricia Campbell, Esq., of the Denver law firm of Otten, Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragonetti.

Presiding Judge: San Miguel County District Court Judge Charles R. Greenacre

Witnesses for the SMVC:
Johnnie Stevens, long-time Telluride resident and frequent player for the SMVC over Valley Floor development issues
Peter Jamar, of Peter Jamar Associates Land Planning
Larry Stark, a land appraiser for National Valuation Consultants, Inc.
Wayne Hunsperger, an expert appraiser who will be offering rebuttal testimony to the testimony of Stark
Mike Rozycki, San Miguel County Planning Director

SMVC’s estimated value: $50 million.

Based on What Sort of Analysis: Stark based his value conclusions for the two possible develop options for the Valley Floor as follows: $40,600,000 for Alternative A and $56,750,000 for Alternative B.
Jamar testified to three development alternatives for the South Side: Alternative A, which involves 15 units under a one unit per 35-acre analysis; Alternative B, which involves 77 lots or approximately 1 unit per 7 acres on the south side; and, Alternative C, which involves a plan of up to 1,200 people on the south side of the Valley Floor with up to 800 units of density.
To arrive at his $50 million estimate for the south side of the Valley Floor, Stark indicated that the final figure was a “reconciliation” between his two prices.
For Alternative A, Stark reviewed his 10 comparable sales of property. The locations from the Telluride area, Jackson, Wyo., Aspen and Steamboat Springs. The range of value for these comparables was approximately $20,000 per acre up to $160,000 per acre.
For Alternative B, Mr. Stark reviewed his four comparable sales of property. The location of the comparables include: the Telluride area, Jackson, Wyoming, Steamboat Springs and Breckenridge. The range of value for these comparable was approximately $87,000 per acre up to $185,000 per acre.

Town of Telluride’s estimated value of the Valley Floor: $26 million.

Based on what appraisal?: In Feb. 2001, an appraisal prepared by Chase and Company for Telluride valued SMVC’s 714.14 acres at $22.6 million. In 2003, another appraisal by Chase and Company valued the Valley Floor at $19.3 million, and in 2005 at $26 million.

Where the Money is Coming from: On Nov. 7, 2006, Telluride voted 585-333 to approve an additional $10 million Open Space bond capacity increasing Town’s acquisition funds to $30 million. Additional funds are being obtained from donors and various grass roots fund raising efforts, such as those by the Valley Floor Preservation Partners (www.valleyfloor.org).

Strategy of Town’s attorney, Fields, in cross examining the lineup of SMVC testimony: To point out the hypothetical nature of the appraisal and development plans and rule out or diminish the significance of speculative forecasts.
For example, the cross examination of Jamar reviewed the assumptions necessary for his development scenarios.
According to Telluride Town Attorney Kevin Geiger: “These development assumptions for Alternative B included receiving approval from San Miguel County for a PUD on the south side, which includes completion of the County’s five step review process for PUD approval. The Forest Service would have to approve a possible gondola from the Valley Floor across the U.S. Forest Service parcel of property known locally as the ‘Wedge’ before cresting out on Coonskin ridge in Mountain Village near the Peaks Hotel and Spa. The State of Colorado Water Court must approve an augmentation plan to permit the creation of certain water features on the Valley Floor including the creation of the approximately 24 acre Blue Lake. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would have to approve a new individual Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act, which would include a new comprehensive delineation of the Valley Floor’s wetlands since the prior delineation expired in 2000. It is also anticipated that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be involved in the Landowners’ proposal to improve the fish habitat of the San Miguel River by extensively rerouting the San Miguel River in an attempt to return the river to a more natural meandering state as opposed to the current channeled alignment. Finally, the Town of Telluride would have to approve access to Colorado Avenue, sewer service and possibly water service.”
On cross examination of Stark for the Town, Fields questioned the reconciliation of value at $50 million, which he acknowledged as a subjective number between the two ranges of possible value. She also challenged both standard and extraordinary assumptions of Stark’s appraisal. Fields inquired on a number of specific adjustments made for Stark’s possible development scenarios.

Possible Appeals: Either party can make an appeal to the Colorado Court of Appeals.

What this is all leading to: A conservation easement binding the majority of the Valley Floor as undeveloped in perpetuity. On Feb. 5, the Town requested letters of interest and statements of qualifications from land trusts and conservation management entities who might be interested in holding and managing the conservation easement. In addition to the initial conservation easement, a management plan is anticipated to be adopted by the town in partnership with local stakeholders.

The Town will own the Valley Floor when: Funds for the anticipated jury award will be needed to be paid within 90 days. This is currently projected to be in May. Once the deposit is made, a Court “Rule of Order” will convey the Valley Floor to the Town. From that time, the Town will be in possession of the property, pending an appeal. If an appeal is filed, the SMVC cannot take the jury award. If the jury award is withdrawn from the Court registry, then any possible appeals will be dismissed.

Appraiser: Valley Floor worth $50 million

2007-02-08T10:49:00.000-08:00

By Douglas McDaniel

If the San Miguel Valley Corporation has its say, every man and woman in Telluride would pay the kind of prices either Ross Perot or Ophrah Winfrey might pay for the Valley Floor.
“I came in at fifty million,” said Larry Stark, a land appraiser for National Valuation Consultants, Inc., on the stand as a witness for the SMVC during the third day of the Valley Floor Valuation Trial in Delta.
That was his opinion price on the “take” portion of the Valley Floor, based on his assessment of what the uber-elite pay for their exclusive mountain meadow and ranch properties.
Such as the $87,038 per acre that Winfrey paid for an 85 acre tract near Telluride in 2004, or the $67,422 per acre Perot paid as part of a $90 million deal for a ranch near Jackson Hole, Wyo.
Assessing the overall value of the 540-acre parcel at anywhere from $40 million to $56 million, Stark laid out an appraisal of the Valley Floor that would likely benefit from the skyrocketing real estate market, as well as its exploitation as a future development Disneyland.
The setting of the trial itself was hardly the Greenpeace Rally one might of inspected, based on San Miguel County District Court Judge Charles R. Greenacre’s “decorum order” no doubt anticipating a showing of town resident support for the condemnation, and, a low, low price.
With the exception of Telluride Town Mayor John Pryor in attendance, the court pews on Wednesday were filled with a scattered collection of men in business suits as they watched the proceedings dominated by charts upon charts of figures, maps and aerial photographs displayed on an overhead projector.
And as the real and imaginary astronomical dollar amounts flew through the courtroom to be considered by the six-member jury of Delta property owners, the sharp-dressed attorneys on both sides of the room did every thing they could to point the final valuation meter up or down.
As Stark took the court for a slide-show tour of the West, where prices for some of the most pristine mountain properties go for anywhere from $16,000 per acre in Steamboat Springs to $23,000 in Aspen, it was the sales for land adjacent to the Valley Floor, development properties at Sunnyside East and West, that cast some of the darkest clouds over the Town’s hope to keep it around $45,000 per acre.
One property on Sunnyside East, which overlooks the Valley Floor from the north, originally sold for $23,741 but two years later was resold at $56,940 per acre, he said. Another recent sale by yet another high-profile buyer, Meg Whitman, CEO of eBay, included a price tag of $114,701 per acre for 157 acres of land near Highway 145 south of Telluride.
“We’ve seen a 100 percent appreciation over a five-year period,” Stark said. “The property owner is due to paid for its highest and best use. If not for this condemnation, this would be put to the highest and best use.”
At the extremes, the property might be worth as much as $96 million, if developed under one scenario, he said. Stark stated the Valley Floor south side has attributes that buyers look for, such as proximity to the Town of Telluride, approximately 3.5 miles of frontage on the San Miguel River, senior water rights, a potential gondola site, wetlands and mountain views. He explained his methodology for analysis, detailing the adjustments he made for such things as the condition of the properties, their location, property rights conveyed, market conditions and especial allowable zoning densities.
Stark then addressed his value conclusions for two possible develop options for the Valley Floor as $40.6 million for Alternative A, $56.8 million for Alternative B. The $50 million estimate wasa “reconciliation” between the two alternatives, he said.
The latter was a point that Telluride attorney Leslie Fields tried to chip away at during Wednesday’s cross-examination, asking whether he gave more weight to the development alternative that would lead to the highest possible value of $50 million.
“You put more weight on the riskier development option,” Fields asked Stark.
“Yes, I did,” he answered.
She also tried to create a sense of uncertainty about how the $50 million price was based on a wide range of hypothetical factors, including a long list of governmental approvals for everything from zoning density to the ability to, again, hypothetically, realign the San Miguel River.
The second day of the Final Valuation Trial for the Valley Floor condemnation began with the SMVC attorney, Darrell Waas, calling longtime local resident Johnnie Stevens as a witness. Stevens testified extensively as to the changes in Telluride in the last 50 years, including everything from the closing of the Idarado mine to the opening of the ski area in the late ’70s.
He was followed as a witness by Peter Jamar, a land planner, who testified to three development alternatives he explored for the south side of the Valley Floor. The first, Alternative A, included 15 units under a one-unit-per 35-acre plan, the second, Alternative B, planned for 77 lots or approximately 1 unit per 7 acres on the south side. The final plan, Alternative C, looked at more than 1,200 people living in 800 units on the south side of the Valley Floor.
The current population of Telluride is estimated to be just over 2,000 full-time residents.
Fields cross examined Jamar on a number of the assumptions necessary for the three development scenarios, including the need for various approvals from San Miguel County, the U.S. Forest Service, a State of Colorado Water Court and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Town of Telluride's Final Valuation Trial for the condemnation of the Valley Floor property began Monday, Feb. 5, with two whole teams of lawyers and a jury pool of 150-plus people filing into the Delta County Courthouse.
By Tuesday, both sides, the Town represented by Fields and Jack Sperber, Esq., two partners with the Denver law firm of Faegre & Benson, and the San Miguel Valley Corporation, represented by Waas, Mikaela Rivera, Esq., and Patricia Campbell, Esq., of the Denver law firm of Otten, Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragonetti, had made their opening statements.
According to the daily update provided to the town by Telluride Town Attorney Kevin Geiger, most potential jurors already completed a pre-trial jury questionnaire addressing employment and residency issues, or whether any they had any knowledge or strongly held opinions about the case.
"Following a number of preliminary matters," Geiger stated, "potential jurors and counsel for the parties convened in the Courtroom to begin the jury voir dire process, which means 'to see them say' or 'to see them speak.' Eighteen potential members of the jury were 'called' at random from the audience into the jury box.
"The voir dire process involves the Judge asking potential members of the jury specific questions that are designed to reveal, among other things, the background, education and interests of potential jury members.
"The Court excused a number of potential jurors for a variety of reasons, including medical hardship, financial hardship, advanced knowledge of the issues in the case or strongly held beliefs that would interfere with a juror being impartial and fair. By noon, the Court had assembled a full panel of eighteen potential jurors with no additional Court identified cause for challenge."
After Monday's lunch break, the court continued with counsel asking questions of potential jurors, whittling the potential jurors from 18 down to a total of eight "with each side using five peremptory challenges, which are jury dismissals without stating a reason," Geiger stated.
The jury was impaneled by mid-afternoon Feb. 5, taking an oath of jury service for the trial's duration, which is expected to be three weeks. The jury of six regular members and two alternate members consists of six females and two males.
Opening statements were made by Waas for the SMVC, who is pitching to keep the final determined value high, and by Fields for the Town, who is arguing to keep it within the approximately $25 million the Town is intending to pay.
The difference is anywhere from $45,500 per square acre to $87,000 per acre for the 540-acre parcel.

Jury selected in Valley Floor Valuation Trial

2007-02-06T10:26:00.000-08:00

By Douglas McDaniel

The Town of Telluride’s Final Valuation Trial for the condemnation of the Valley Floor property began Monday, Feb. 5 in Delta with two whole teams of lawyers and a jury pool of 150-plus people filing into the Delta County Courthouse.
By Tuesday, both sides, the Town represented by Leslie Fields, Esq. and Jack Sperber, Esq., two partners with the Denver law firm of Faegre & Benson; the San Miguel Valley Corporation represented by Darrell Waas, Esq., Mikaela Rivera, Esq., and Patricia Campbell, Esq. of the Denver law firm of Otten, Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragonetti; had made their opening statements.
According to the daily update provided to the town by Telluride Town Attorney Kevin Geiger, most potential jurors already completed a pre-trial jury questionnaire addressing employment and residency issues, or whether any they had any knowledge or strongly held opinions about the case.
“Following a number of preliminary matters,” Geiger stated, “potential jurors and counsel for the parties convened in the Courtroom to begin the jury voir dire process, which means ‘to see them say’ or ‘to see them speak.’ Eighteen potential members of
the jury were ‘called’ at random from the audience into the jury box.
“The voir dire process involves the Judge asking potential members of the jury specific questions that are designed to reveal, among other things, the background, education and interests of potential jury members.
“The Court excused a number of potential jurors for a variety of reasons, including medical hardship, financial hardship, advanced knowledge of the issues in the case or strongly held beliefs that would interfere with a juror being impartial and fair. By noon, the Court had assembled a full panel of eighteen potential jurors with no additional Court identified cause for challenge.”
After Monday’s lunch break, the court continued with counsel for the asking questions of potential jurors, whittling the potential jurors from eighteen down to a total of eight “with
each side using five peremptory challenges, which are jury dismissals without stating a reason,” Geiger states.
The jury was impaneled by mid-afternoon Feb. 5, taking an oath of jury service for the
trial’s duration, expected to be three weeks. The jury of six regular members and two
alternate members consists of six females and two males.
The opening statement, made by Waas for the SMVC, who is pitching for keep the final determined value high, while the Town’s opening statement was made by Leslie Fields, who is arguing to keep it within the approximately $25 million the Town is intending to pay. The difference is reportedly anywhere from $45,500 per square acre to $87,000 per acre for the 540-acre parcel.
Day Two, Tuesday, Feb. 6, was the first day the parties actually introduce evidence to the jury with the presentation and examination of witnesses, Geiger states.

HARC chair to face ethics complaint

2007-01-25T12:41:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-24T10:35:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-24T07:33:00.000-08:00

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."

###

2007-01-18T15:20:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-12T10:50:00.000-08:00

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"

2007-01-05T11:03:00.000-08:00

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."