Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHolland & Hart letter to DRB 06-19-2013Christopher H. Toll, P.C. Phone 303-290-1637 Fax 303-975-5300 H 0 L LA N D & HART. JJIIIIIIIII CToll@holiandhart.com ~[E©[EOW[E®June 19,2013 ~ JUN 1 9 2013 WDesign Review Board 75 South Frontage Road TOWN OF VAILVail, CO 81657 RE: The Vail Recreation District's Application Regarding Moving the 18th Green Members of the Board: In connection with the Vail Recreation District's ("VRD") application to reconfigure the 18th green, fairway, and tee boxes, we represent (or speak on behalf of) the owners often properties on Sunburst Drive, which runs adjacent to the Vail Golf Course. Their names and addresses are attached. For the following reasons, the VRD's application is not consistent with the Vail Town Code, and we ask that you deny the application. The Application Is Connected to the Town's Clubhouse Plans It is important to note that the VRD's application to move the 18th green is directly connected to the Town of Vail's plan to convert the Vail Golf Course clubhouse and part of the current 18th fairway into an events center. The movement of the 18th green and the reconfiguration of the clubhouse and 18th fairway are part and parcel to the same overall plan, and the movement of the 18th green and abandonment of the western part of the 18th fairway would not be happening if not for the clubhouse renovation. Likewise, the VRD would not be trying to move the 18th green if not for the Town's plans to change and reuse the clubhouse for weddings. The Application Does Not Comply with the Vail Town Code § 12-11-1.D Vail Town Code § 12-11-1.DA provides that the Design Review Board ("DRB") "shall .... "[e Jnsure that the architectural design, location, configuration materials, colors, and overall treatment of built up and open spaces have been designed so that they relate harmoniously ... with surrounding development and with officially approved plans or guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the structures are proposed to be located." Vail Town Code § 12-11-1.D.5 provides that the "objectives of design review shall be" to, among other things, "[p]rotect neighboring property owners and users by making sure that reasonable provision has been made for such matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of light and air, and those aspects of Holland lit Hart LLP Attorneys at law Phone (303)290-1600 Fax (303)290-1606 www.hollandhart.com 63805. Fiddlers Green Circle 5u~e 500 Greenwood Village. CO 80111 Aspen Billin9S Boise Boulder Carson aty Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson Hole las Vegas Reno $alt lake City Santa Fe Washjngton, O.C HOLLAND&HART. ~ Design Review Board Letter June 19,2013 Page 2 design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses." The VRD's plans do not relate harmoniously with the surrounding Sunburst neighborhood and they fail to make "reasonable provision" for pedestrian and vehicular traffic, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of light and air, and those other aspects of design that will affect neighboring land uses. Because the neighbors' homes sit east and south of the clubhouse and directly adjacent to the part of the current 18th fairway that will be used for events, the VRD's current plans will maximize the nuisance to them and the rest of the neighborhood. The VRD intends to configure the new events center so that all banquets, events, and outdoor activities occur to the south and east of the clubhouse. Special events held in this area in the past have been disruptive to the neighborhood and have forced neighbors, including some of the homeowners, to call the police. Rather than develop a plan that would reduce the likelihood of such problems, the VRD has instead proposed plans that will increase them substantially, in number, physical scope, and proximity to the neighbors. As one community member explained recently, even during activities held currently at the clubhouse, people often wander onto her property, the noise is loud and disturbing, and the police do nothing to stop it. Moving the 18th green to allow for weddings on the current 18th fairway and in the outdoor space connected with the new clubhouse is a violation of the Vail Town Code. Specifically, the VRD's application violates the following aspects of Vail Town Code § 12-11-l.D: Pedestrian and Vehicular Traffic Members of the Vail community and visitors to the valley routinely use Sunburst Drive for activities such as family walks, family bike rides, cycling, and other outings. If the golf course clubhouse becomes an events center with valet parking, shuttles, and numerous attendees (attendees will range upward from 160) trying to find their own parking along Sunburst Drive, many of those using Sunburst Drive will be put in danger. The road does not have the capacity to handle the increase in traffic the VRD proposes. This is especially true when, during the summer months, the events center will likely be in use a minimum of three nights every week. The VRD's movement of the 18th green will allow for intended uses that raise a number of issues, including safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists along Sunburst Drive, the potential that fire and emergency personnel will not be able to access Sunburst Drive during large events, the VRD's inability to enforce crowd control methods, lack of on-site law enforcement, and the VRD' s discretion to put up tents on the 18th fairway, which will inevitably lead to far more attendees than the Town's parking plan anticipates. Once the 18th green is moved, the Town intends to increase the parking lot capacity from 128 spaces to 158 through the use of a valet parking program. Such an increase will further deteriorate the quality of the golf course and thus the area immediately surrounding the HOLLAN D&HART, JIIIIIII Design Review Board Letter June 19,2013 Page 3 Homeowners' homes. As a representative of the Town made clear at the January 14 PEe meeting, even now, when weddings and other events occur only 15 times a year, parking and traffic congestion are still problems when the slightest unforeseen wrinkle occurs. The VRD is now attempting to raise the number of events to somewhere between 65 and 100 1 at the same time it is trying to increase the size of those events. It is irrational to think it can do so and avoid the traffic and parking problems it is already experiencing, even with a plan in place. The Town has proffered a number of parking plans, none of which has been viable. The latest, which the Town claims is feasible, only works by ignoring key realities and assuming perfect conditions. Even then it requires elaborate efforts, such as on-site valet parking, off-site valet parking, and shuttling. But because the Town's plan will stretch the property beyond its capacity, the reality is that any variable will throw the Town's parking plans into chaos. The slightest unexpected event will cause traffic, parking, and safety concerns all along Sunburst Drive. A neighborhood meeting, a group of cyclists looking to use Sunburst Drive, more golfers than expected, families hoping to park near the golf course for an evening stroll along Sunburst-anyone would create a malaise of traffic, safety, and congestion concerns. The VRD is asking for approval of its application to move the 18th green and reconfigure the 18th fairway, so it and the Town can go forward with their plans to use the clubhouse as a revenue-generating commercial operation, but they assume that no other variable will ever occur. It is not a realistic assumption. In addition, the VRD's plans raise serious safety and congestion concerns. According to its and the Town's plans, events scheduled at the clubhouse may begin as early as 4 p.m. At that time, golfers will still be on the course and their cars in the parking lot, which will not have the capacity for both golfer vehicles and event attendee vehicles. The result will be individuals parking along the shoulder of Sunburst Drive, which creates hazards for emergency vehicles trying to access the neighborhood, as well as severe congestion for the residents and substantial risk to the bikers and runners who use Sunburst. The risks associated with the increased traffic congestion are too serious for the DRB to ignore and are sufficient reason not to approve the VRD's application. Sound and Sight Buffers If the DRB allows the VRD to move the 18th green, the Town's and VRD's plans will create noise that will serve as a nuisance to all homeowners along the 18th fairway and current 18th green and in the adjoining townhomes. Indeed, the expansive use of the facility as a revenue-producing events center raises the following concerns regarding noise: 1. Orientation of activities. The Town's current proposals place activities in the one location that will maximize the noise nuisance to the homeowners. In its initial estimates, the VRD indicated that the events center would likely host close to 100 events per year. After resistance from the community, it revised that number to 65, but the initial estimates were likely more realistic. The VRD is hoping to build a premier wedding venue, and that space will attract users. I H 0 L LA N 0 & H ART, JIIIIIIIIIII Design Review Board Letter June 19,2013 Page 4 2. Lack of effective control. The VRD has shown an inability to control the noise level of events held in the modest space already at the clubhouse, even when neighbors complain. If the VRD succeeds in creating an event center of the magnitude it is proposing, the impact on the neighborhood will be severe. When the windows and doors are opened, the building itselfwill act as an amphitheater, magnifying the volume of events held there. Music, crowd, and traffic noise will cause a diminution in value of the homeowners' homes. 3. Hours of operation. The VRD plans to allow music to continue at the new events center until midnight each night and activities may continue to 2:00 a.m. The attendees likely will not all leave until some time after that. Such late hours will prevent those in the neighborhood, including the homeowners, from experiencing any peace and quiet at a late evening hour, something many of the homeowners relied on having when they purchased their properties. 4. Loss of Use and Enjoyment of Property. Estimates suggest the center will host more than anywhere from 60 to 100 events per year, and the number could be substantially more than that. This will prevent the neighbors from enjoying their property at least three nights per week and potentially more. 5. Disturbances on Private Property. As many owners in the area made clear before the PEC, the impact of events does not stay within the confines of the golf course clubhouse. In the past, event attendees have created disturbances in the parking lot and on neighbors' property, something that will continue with the increased number of events and attendees. Preservation of Light and Air Lighting associated with evening activities will be a nuisance to the neighborhood in several respects. Because lighting for outside activities will most likely be affixed to the building, it will shine toward the residences, creating a continuing glare. Any lighting sufficient to illuminate the outdoor banquet areas will almost certainly be bright enough to illuminate the adjoining properties as well. And because lighting will be necessary beyond the period when events occur, as people are leaving to their vehicles, it will be a problem well past midnight, resulting in an aggravated impact on the neighboring residences. Affects on Neighboring Land Uses The VRD's plan most definitely will be materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity of the events center. Mike Nash, an appraiser with over 20 years of experience in Colorado and Eagle County, has stated that the VRD's plan, if approved, would "negatively impact values of existing homes on Sunburst Drive, thereby causing material injury to those homes." Mike Nash Opinion, attached, at,-r 10. That economic injury alone should lead the ORB to deny the VRD's application, but there is also the injury the neighbors will suffer in the HOLLAND&HART. ~ Design Review Board Letter June 19,2013 Page 5 use and enjoyment of their property. On most summer nights, instead of the tranquility they enjoy now, those immediately adjacent to the clubhouse will face loud music, the din of mingling and partying guests, and the annoyance of attendees wandering onto their properties (something that already occurs with the smaller and fewer events the clubhouse currently hosts). Those throughout the neighborhood-including residents of the townhomes-will find their current use and enjoyment destroyed by the guttural sounds of shuttles passing in the afternoon and late at night, clogged roads, partiers in the parking lot or along the golf course, slower response times by first responders, and the noise that will inevitably arise as attendees (many of whom will have been drinking) shuffle back to their cars or shuttles as late as 2 A.M. The Sunburst Neighborhood was not built for this kind of operation. Those who developed it meant it to be a quiet, residential community lining a golf course, with narrow roads and almost no shoulders. See Jay Pulis Affidavit, attached as Exhibit B. Because they designed it that way, there is no way the VRD can move the 18th green and create a commercial enterprise in the heart of it without risking safety and public health and without materially injuring properties in the vicinity. Failure to Relate Harmoniously with Neighboring Land Uses 1. Erratic Behavior and Lack of Law Enforcement. During past social gatherings at the clubhouse, which were much smaller than that which the VRD is proposing to host, the conduct of attendees has often been out of control, resulting in safety issues and disturbance to the neighbors and the neighborhood. And calls to law enforcement have been ineffective. Larger events designed to be outside will only increase such activity. 2. Tents. The moving of the 18th green allows the VRD and the Town of Vail to use the 18th fairway and the 18th green as a venue to raise large tents under which they can host affairs even larger than those contemplated for the events center itself. Such a use will only exacerbate the issues we have already raised, including noise, lighting, and unruly behavior, and will create opportunities for other nuisances and torts, such as trespasses onto the residential properties. The information the Town has circulated indicates that the Town will prohibit private parties from using tents but that the VRD may still use tents for special public events. Moreover, the VRD has not promised to prohibit the use of tents on the 18th fairway. The Town could also change its policy at any time to allow tents both within the zone covered by the CUP and outside it. 3. Reconfiguration of Driving Range Nets and Misuse of Public Funds. As part of its decision to move the 18th green, the VRD now must increase the height of the driving range nets, which will distract the homeowners, neighbors, golfers, tourists, motorists along 1-70, bikers, and others attempting to enjoy the scenery. No valid reason exists for reconfiguring the driving range nets, especially if the VRD abandons its plan to move the 18th green. The movement of the green is what places golfers in danger. The VRD's HOLLAND&HART,~ Design Review Board Letter June 19,2013 Page 6 current plan is forcing it to spend large sums of money to address safety concerns that would not exist ifthe VRD would simply change its current course of action. Indeed, one of the purposes of the DRB is "to protect the welfare of the community." Vail Town Code § 12-11-1.C. The VRD is not protecting the welfare of the community by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to move the 18th green, then mitigating all of the safety concerns that move is causing. It is choosing to move the 18th green into a far more dangerous area than where it currently sits, which is forcing it to waste public funds to alleviate the risks it is causing. 4. Lack of Buffer to Protect Residences. Whatever activities occur at the current parking lot, the current clubhouse site, or at the current location of the 18th fairway and green, the impacts on the Homeowners and the neighborhood will be significant. There is simply no way to buffer the homeowners from the activities. At Donovan Pavilion, the nearest residence to the building is approximately twice the distance as is the nearest residence on Sunburst Drive to the Vail Golf Course clubhouse. In addition, at Donovan, Gore Creek and a wide and dense growth of evergreen trees shield the nearby residences. If this project goes forward in any manner other than by simply creating a quality golf course clubhouse with no significant event facility, the neighborhood residences will experience substantial reduction in value and will require increased protection from both parking activities and event functions. 5. Uncertainty Regarding Zoning and Development Plans. Because of the broad options available under the zoning regulations, the VRD will have broad flexibility regarding how to use the clubhouse, the 18th green, and the 18th fairway. The uncertainty regarding how the VRD intends to use the property prevents the residents of the adjoining properties from the normal use of their residences, decreases the property and resale value of the golf course neighbors' homes and properties, and leaves open the possibility that the VRD will, at a later time, use the property for purposes other than those it now identifies. Conclusion In sum, the VRD's plan for the 18th green and fairway, which is inseparable from its and the Town's larger plan to convert the Vail Golf Course clubhouse into a wedding events center, is not harn1Onious with the surrounding neighborhood, is harmful to neighboring properties, and is not consistent with neighboring development. On occasions in the past, the DRB has taken the position that its role is limited to design features. The Vail Municipal Code establishes that the responsibility of the DRB is more general. As pointed out initially, it is the responsibility ofthe DRB to halt any project whose "design, location. .. and overall treatment of ... open spaces" fails to be harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood, harms neighboring properties, or is inconsistent with neighboring development. To protect the neighboring property owners and the welfare of the community, the DRB must therefore reject the VRD's application. HOLLAND&HART ~ Design Review Board Letter June 19,2013 Page 7 Respectfully, ~~ Christopher H. Toll Steven T. Collis Christopher H. Toll, P.C. Phone 303-290-1637 Fax 303-975-5300 H 0 L LAN 0 & HAR T, IIIIIIIIIIII Cfoll@hollandhart.com June 19,2013 Design Review Board 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Property Owners Contesting Application. 1. R. Glenn Hilliard Legal Description of Property: Lot 2, Unit A, Vail Valley 3rd Filing Physical Address: 1801-A Sunburst Drive, Vail, Colorado Mailing Address: 1355 Peachtree Street #640; Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Telephone Number: 404.350.8835 2. Deborah Webster Legal Description of Property: Lot 4, Vail Valley 3rd Filing Physical Address: 1825 Sunburst Drive, Vail, Colorado Mailing Address: 4321 East Lake Creek Road; Edwards, CO 81632 Telephone Number: 970.476.4500 3. Olson Family 2012 Trust. Legal Description of Property: a tract lying south of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3, west of Lot 2, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, and northeasterly of Sunburst Drive Physical Address: 1785 Sunburst Drive, Vail, Colorado Mailing Address: 4 Berthe Circle; Colorado Springs, CO 80906-3161 Telephone Number: 970.476.6129 4. Starfire Company, Ltd. Legal Description of Property: Lot 3, Vail Valley 3rd Filing Physical Address: 1815 Sunburst Drive, Vail, Colorado Mailing Address: CM Management; Post Office Box 1670; Vail, CO 81658-1670 Telephone Number: 524.422.388.000 5. 1835 Sunburst Drive, LLC Legal Description of Property: Lot 5, Vail Valley 3rd Filing Physical Address: 1835 Sunburst Drive, Vail, Colorado Mailing Address: 5675 DTC Boulevard; Greenwood Village, CO 80111-3216 Telephone Number: 303.741.0100 Holland 8r. Hart UP Attorneys at Law Phone (303)290-1600 Fax (303)290-1606 www.hollandhart.com 6380 S. Fiddlers Green Circle Su~e 500 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Aspen Billings Boise Boulder Carson Oty Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson Hole las Vegas Reno Salt Lak.e City Santa Fe Washington, D.C. H 0 L LA NO & HART, JIIIIIIIIII List of Property Owners Contesting Application June 19,2013 Page 2 6. Richard J. Callahan and Mary Celeste Callahan Legal Description of Property: Lot 7, Vail Valley 3rd Filing Physical Address: 1875 Sunburst Drive, Vail, Colorado Mailing Address: 190 High Street; Denver, CO 80218 Telephone Number: 303.715.1144 7. Samuel Maslak and Luleta Maslak Legal Description of Property: Lot 12, Vail Valley 3rd Filing Physical Address: 1979 Sunburst Drive, Vail, Colorado Mailing Address: Post Office Box 1730; Vail, CO 81658-1730 Telephone Number: 970.479.6402 8. Landon Hilliard, III Legal Description of Property: Lot I-A, Vail Valley 4th Filing Physical Address: 2049-A Sunburst Drive, Vail, CO Mailing Address: clo Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.; 140 Broadway; NY, NY 10005 Telephone Number: Respectfully, Christopher H. Toll Steven T. Collis DISTRICT COURT FOR EAGLE COUNTY P.O. Box 597 Engle. CO 81631 Plaintiffs: SAMUEL H. MASLAK, et al ... COURT USE ONLY ... Case Number: 2012-cv-921Defendants: TOWN OF V AlL, et al Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Division: 3 Courtroom Christopher H. Toll, # 15388 Steven T. Collis, #40940 Hol1and & Hart LLP 6380 South Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 500 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Telephone: (303) 290-1600 ctoll@bQIJandhart.com stcollis@hollandhan.cQm John W. Dunn, #1421 Mountain Law Group, LLC Community Bank Center #206 70 Benchmark Road P.O. Box 7717 Avon, CO 81620 Telephone: (970) 748-6428 idunn@mountainlawgroup.com AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL R. NASH Michael R. Nash, being duly sworn upon his oath, states as follows: I. My name is Michael R. Nash. I am a real estate appraiser and consultant. Carol L. Simon is a real estate appraiser and consultant employed by my firm, Nash-Johnson Associates, Inc. Michael R. Nash and Carol L. Simon of Nash-Johnson Associates, Inc., have proyjded real estate appraisal and consulting services in Colorado including Eagle County for oyer twenty years. 2. On September 24. 2012 the Town of Vail, in cooperation with the Vail Recreational District, submitted three applications for the Planning and Environmental Commission's review to facilitate Ihe l'enovalion ofthc Vail GolfCoursc clubhouse. 3. rll(;~ applications submitted by the Town of Vail requested a) a zone district boundary amendment to I'ezanc the g.olf course parking lot from a General Use (GU) District to the Outdoor Recreational (OR) District; b) a prescribed regulation amendment to allow building heights of up to 33 feet for sloping roofs within thc Outdoor Recreational (OR) District; and c) a conditional use permit amcndments to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Golf Course Club House (VGCCH). 1 EXHIBIT 3 4. We have interviewed several Realtors active in the Town of Vail's real estate mnrket over the past ten days and the following is concluded. 5. In June of 2006 Veile development obtained approvals for the expansion of Lion Square North Condominiums located at 660 West Lionshcad Place, Town of Vail, Colorado. Based on the planned expansion Lion Square North Condominiums would add a floor and, in turn. obstruct a portion ofthe ski slope views enjoyed by homeowners within Montaneros, a condominium development directly north of Lion Square NOl1h Condominiums. Following the June 2006 approval for redevelopment at the Lion square NOl1h Condominium five condominiums within Montaneros were listed through Vail Board of Realtors multiple listing service. 6. The marketing ofactive listings in Montaneros was impacted by said expansion of the Lion Square North Condominium. some units being impacted more than others. 7. Subsequent to redevelopment projects in Vail from 2005 through 2010 prospective buyers of pl'opeI1)' are cognizant of adjacent property with potential for redevelopment and often inquire as to the status of the adjacent propel1y: prospective buyers in the Landmark Vail Condominium development have expressed concern regarding the possible redevelopment of the Concert Hall Plaza CondOininiums. an outdated condominium building built in 1978 that sits adjacent to Landmark Vail Condominiums between Landmark Vail and the Vail ski slopes. 8. Adjacent, proposed development/redevelopment, irregardless of the stage in which the development/redevelopment is at and irregardless ofthe perceived impact being positive or negative, is one factor that a property buyer and/or seller will integrate into their decisions regarding listing, buying, or selling real estate. 9. Considering the time value of money, the (present) value of $1 received today. a negative adjustment or discount would be applied to a sale price by a prudent investor if a lengthy marketing period or potentially delayed closing of a sale is perceived, in this case applied to Sunburst Drive property due to the VGCCH plan, however unrealized at this time. The discount would increase relative to the perceived, extended length of a marketing time. 10. Realtors offering property for sale are obliged to pass on any knowledge the Realtor has regarding planned and on-going development/redevelopment of adjacent properties to prospective buyers. All prospective buyers are encouraged to do their own due diligence in regards to their purchase. 11. In my opinion the VGCCH plan negatively impacts home values on Sunburst Drive. Dntcd Decem ber 21, 2012 Mlcha~­{. Nash 2 STATE OF COLORADO ) 55. COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE ) sr The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of December, 2012, by Michael R. Nash. Witness my hand and official seal. U;t/~ \\\\'.,",.. 1"."1"1/1My Commission expires 2--I b -( " ~,,\ ,,~luENS " .$ ,<:) ............. C'.l.'", .. ~... ... y~"',~/ '\\",\'I10/ ~01AIf),\\ \ i; --: J \~••.•.Pt.Js l. \~/Qi "fI.."N. ..,_"f'~!10~~•. ~...... " .., OY!it;f; ." ::'" OF CO~ ;,'fioY"n.\:;:'''''lnlll'I\'~~('I"'ilIon 1!J,~\t" 3 APPRAISER'S QUALlF!CATIONS MICHAEL R. NASH EXPERIENCE Thirty-three years of appraisal experience primarily in Colorado, and secondarily in Montana, Wyoming. New Mexico, Nebraska, Utah. South Dakota, and Vermont; having served as an independent fee appraiser and as a staff appraiser (5 years) for the Federal Government. Appraisal experience includes fee simple, leased fee, easement. and right-of-way valuation on a variety of properties including: commercial real estate (such as office, apartment, and retail buildings, warehouses, and motels), farms, ranches, ski resort/recreation and development properties. and Single family residences. Specialized appraisal experience includes conservation easements, eminent domain, litigation, plus teaChing for Arapahoe Community College and KaplanlJones College, Real Estate Appraisal and Uniform Standards for Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) as an Appraisal Qualifications Board (AQB) certified USPAP instructor EDUCATION INCLUDING SPECIFIC APPRAISAL TRAINING University of Minnesota Master of Science -Forestry. speCialization and thesis in Remote Sensing/Aerial Photography University of Minnesota Bachelor of Science -Forestry, management and research American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1979 -1984 University of COlorado (232 hrs) University of Minnesota (120 hrs) American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers (ASFMRA). 1980, Peoria, Illinois (40 hrs) Continuing Education: 1988-"Eminent Domain," Joseph Montano. attorney 1990-»Practical Problems ... in Eminent Domain Cases," Joseph Montano, attorney 1991 -"Malket Analysis," Appraisal Institute and ·USPAP,· Appraisal Institute (AI) (16 hrs) 1992 -''Water Law," University ofColorado (James Felt); "Boundary Law," Continuing Legal Education; and "Standards of Professional Practice: AI (11 hrs) 1993 -"Business Valuation," Continuing Legal and Accountancy Education 1994 -"USPAP Update," Continuing Appraiser Education 1995 -"Fair Lending and The Appraiser," Continuing Appraiser Education; "Real Estate Law" (24 hours); "Real Estate Practice (24 hours); and "Colorado Law and Contracts" (24 hrs) 1996 -"Trust Accounts and Closings" (24 hours) and ·Advanced Law and Finance" (24 hrs) 1998 -"Standards of Professional Practice,' AI (15 hrs) 1999 -"Eminent Domain," Continuing Legal Education (16 hrs) and "1031 Tax Deferred Exchanges· (4 hrs) 2001 -"Golf, Mountain and Resort Development; Continuing Legal Education (13 hrs); "Litigation Appraising: AI (16 hrs); and "Condemnation Appraising: AI (16 hrs) 2002 -'Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA)", Appraisalillstitute (16 hrs): 'Concept and Principles of USPAP -An Instructor's Application: Appraisal Foundation (16 hrs): and "Standards of Professional Practice: AI (15 hrs) 2004 • "Real Estate Camp." James Smith (24 hrs) 2005 -·USPAP Instructor Recertification Course: Appraisal Foundation (7 hrs) 2006 -"Emerging Issues in Conservation: Water Rights and Energy Development: Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts (15 hrs) and "Appraisal Review-General: AI (7 hrs) 2007 -"Relocation Appraisal Training Program," ERC (6 hrs); "USPAP Instructor Recertification Course," Appraisal Foundation (7 hrs); "Getting to know Rural Properties; Colorado State Univ. (8 hrs); "BUsiness Practices and Ethics," AI (8 hrs): and ·Valuation of Conservation Easements: AI (33 hrs) 2008 -"Advanced Conservation Easement Issues," ASFMRA (10.5 hrs) 2009 -"USPAP Update," Appraisal Foundation (7 hrs) 2010 -"USPAP Instructor Recertification Course: Appraisal Foundation (4 hrs); ·Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions,· ASFMRA (21 hrs): ·Valuation of Conservation Easements & Other Partial Interests in Real Property: ASFMRA (22 hrs): 2010 Internal Revenue Service Conservation Issues & Guidance, AI (8 hrs); 'Conservation Easement Appraiser Update Course,· CO Division of Real Estate (8 hrs) 2011 -·Colorado Assessors Overview: Appraisal Institute (4 hrs) and "USPAP Update," Appraisal Foundation (7 hrs) 2012 -"Conservation Easement Appraiser Update Course: CO Division of Real Estate (2 hrs); "USPAP Instructor Recertification Course," Appraisal Foundation (4 hrs); and Recession, Post-2007 & Impacts for RE Appraisers, Appraisal Institute PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS MAl (Designation #8033). Member of the Appraisal Institute since 1988 Certified General Appraiser, State of Colorado, (#CG01313850) AQB Certified USPAP Instructor, The Appraisal Foundation, (lD# 10379) Colorado Licensed Reaf Estate Broker, (#E140008788), and Realtor Member of Employee Relocation Council (ERC) Vocational (Teaching) Credential for Post SecondarylAdult Education from Colorado State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education, October 1999 through September 2009 Now expired: Certified General Appraiser, State of Utah, (#CG53877), Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of Wyoming, (Permit#148 and Temp. Practice Permit#148). Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of Vermont, (Temp. License # 03/06/98), and Real Estate Appraiser, State of New Mexico, (Temp. Permit #TP-1493) QUALIFI ED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS (Denver Federal Court; U,S, Bankruptcy Court; U.S. Tax Court Colorado County Courts of Clear Creek, Denver, Douglas, Eagle, Garfield, Jefferson, Larimer, Mesa, Pitkin, Saguache, and Summit; Colorado Tax Court; and Colorado Board of Assessment Appeals) 10/95 Denver County Court; COOT vs Kubby, Case No. 94-CV-4033, (condemnation) 4/95 Jefferson County Court; Wright vs CDOT, Case No. 94-CV-0498, (salt damage) 3/98 Deposition; Sportman's Wildlife Defense Fund vs Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado, Case No. 97-B-737 4/96 Pitkin County Court; CDOTvs Bishop,Case No. 98CV61-3, (immediate possession) 3/99 Denver Federal Court; Sportsmen's Wildlife Defense Fund vs Roy Romer, et ai, Case No. 97-6-737 7/99 Deposition; Summit Co. School Distr. & Town of Breckenridge vs Breckenridge Airport Corp., Case No. 95-CV-53, (condemnation) 2/00 CO Board of Assess. Appeals; Steamboat Ski & Resort Corp \IS Routt Co. Soan:! of Equalization., Year of 1999, Dod<et No 35186 4/00 Deposition; COOT vs. Bishop, Case No. 98CV61-3, (condemnation) 11/00 DenverCounty Court; Urban Drainage and Flood Control vs. Elitch's, Burlington Northern Railroad, and "Unknown"; Case Nos. 2000-CV-007315, 2000-CV-007316, and 2000-CV-007317, (condemnation) 4101 Deposition; CDOTvs. Stapleton, Case No. 00-CV-218, (immediate possession) 5/01 Pitkin County Court; COOT vs. Stapleton, Case No. OO-CV-218, (immediate possession) 6/01 Deposition; Smith and McElroy vs. CBMR Real Estate, Case No 2000-CV-09, (condemnation) 7/01 Deposition; COOT vs. Harper, Case No. 00-CV-279, &vs. Olson, Case No. 00-CV-298, &vs. Wehmiller, Case No. 00­ CV-310. (condemnation) 8/01 Deposition; CDOTvs. Smith, Case No. 98-CV-106-3, (condemnation) 9/01 Pitkin County Court; COOT vs' Smith, Case No. 98-CV-106-3, (condemnation) 9/01 Colorado Board of Assessment Appeals; Steamboat Ski and Resort Corp vs. Routt Co. Board of Equalization, Years of 1998 and 2000, Docket Nos. 37893 and 37236 10/01 Pitkin County Court; CDOT vs. Wehmiller, Case No. 00-CV-310, (condemnation) 11101 Pitkin County Court; COOT vs. Olson, Case No. 00-CV-298, (condemnation) 11/01 Pitkin County Court; COOT vs. Harper, Case No. 00-CV-279, (condemnation) 4102 Deposition; Holy Cross Electric Association vs The Piney Valley Ranches Trust, Case No. 99-CV -185, (condemnation) 6/02 Eagle Co. Court; Holy Cross ElectriC Assoc. vs. The Piney Valley Ranches Trust, Case No.99-CV-185, (condemnation) 8/02 Deposition; CDOT vs Old Snowmass Comers Partners, Case No. 98CV317, (condemnation) 10/02 Arbitration; AWOl vs. Cabeza De Vaca Land & cattle Co., JAG No. 02-748, (water valuation) 12/02 Deposition; COOT vs Soderberg/Grueter, Case Nos. OO-CV-301 and 316, (condemnation) 1103 Pitkin County Court; COOT vs. Soderberg. Case No. 00-CV-301, (condemnation) 3/03 Clear Creek Co. Court; Douglas Mountain Water Co. vs Norsemen of the Rockies, Case No. 02-CV-81, (immediate possession) 6/03 Deposition; CDOTvs Upchurch, Case No. 00-CV-321, (condemnation) 2/04 Deposition; Arvada vs. HK New Plan Arvada Plaza, LLC, Case No. 02-CV-2941, (condemnation) 2104 Saguache County Court; Hornick vs Trujillo, Case No. 02-CV-36, (water valuation) 3/04 Deposition; Douglas Mountain Water Co. vs Norsemen ofthe Rockies, Case No. 02-CV-81, (condemnation) 3/04 Jefferson County Court; Arvada vs HK New Plan Arvada Plaza LLC, Case No. 02-CV-2941, (condemnation) 7/04 CO Board of Assess. Appeals; Johnson Properties vS Arapahoe Co. Board of Equalization, Year of 2002, Docket No. 42451 10/04 Deposition; Reusswig vs. Granby Lake Shores Estates LLC/Cooper, Case No. 03-CV-156 11/04 Arbitrator; Arapahoe Co. Board of Equalization and Mary Ann S. Hamilton, Trustee; Yearof 2003, Review No. 02281-000 3/05 Jefferson Co. Court; Genesee Water &Sanitation District vs Genesee Foundation, Case No. 2005-CV-14, (immediate possession) 4105 Deposition; Wolf Creek Ski Corporation vs. Leavell-McCombs JV, Case No. 04K 1099 (DLW) 6/05 Deposition; David S. McDonald vs Encana Oil and Gas, Case No. 04CV52, (fire impact) 9/05 Deposition; Rose vs Rose, Case No. 03 DR 396, (divorce) 10/05 Garfield County Court; Rose vs Rose, Case No. 03DR396, (divorce) 12105 Mesa County Court; COOT vs Jacobson, Case No. 05CV459, (immediate possession) 8/06 Garfield County Court; David S. McDonald vs Encana Oil and Gas, Case No. 04CV52, (fire impact) 12107 U.S. Bankruptcy Court; District of Colorado NRE Unlimited Inc., Case No. 07-17348 MER, (market rent) 6109 U.S. Tax Court; Trout RanCh, LLC etal vs Commissioner of IRS, Docket No. 14374-08, (conservation easement) 8110 Deposition; COOT vs South Santa Fe Joint Venture, et ai, Case No. 2009CV1277, (condemnation) 12/10 Douglas County Court; COOT vs. S. Santa Fe JV, Case No. 2009CV1277, (condemnation) 2111 State of Colorado Tax Hearing, Colorado DOR vs. (4) Van Wyhe cases, (conservation easements and tax credits) 2/11 Deposition; Copper Mountain, Inc. vs. Mario D. Novelly Trust, et ai, Case No. 2009CV466, (contract payment) 11/11 Summit Co. Court; Copper Mountain, Inc. vs. Mario D. Novelly Trust, et ai, Case No. 2009CV468, (contract payment) 3/12 Deposition; Steamboat Springs vs Charles Johnson, Routt Co. Treasurer, Holders of Leasehold Interests in West Acres Mobile Home Park Lots, Case No. 07CV200, (condemnation) 5112 Deposition; 1st National Bank of Omaha vs. Farkas, Deutsch & Freeport LLC, Case No. 11CV1599, (foreclosure) 8/12 Deposition; RFTA vs Jo-Net, Inc., Case No. 11CV333, (condemnation) 8/12 Larimer Co. Court; 1'1 National Bank of Omaha vs. Farkas, Deutsch & Freeport LLC, Case No. 11CV1599; (foreclosure) (Note: No publications have been generated.) DEC-18-2012 10:56 FIRSTBANK UHILLS P.01 DfflTIDcr COURT FOR EAGLE COUNTY P.O. Box 597 Eagle, CO 81631 Plaiatiffs: SAMUEL H. MASLAK, et al. DefeDdants: TOWN OF VAIL, et al. Attoro!YJ for PIaiBtift's: Christopher H. Toll. #15388 Steven T. Collis, #40940 Holland & Hart LLP 6380 S. Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 500 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Telephone: (303) 290-1600 ctoI1@hoUlandhart.com stcollis@hollandhart.com John W. Dunn, #1421 Mountain·Law Group~ LLC Community Bank Center #206 70 Benchmark Road P. O. Box 7717 Avon, CO 81620 Telephone: (970) 748..0428 jduim@mountainJawgroup.com A COURTUSEONLY A Case Number: 201l-ev-921 Divisioll: 3 Courtroom AFFIDAVIT OF JAY B. PULIS, JR. Jay B. Pulis, Jr., having been duly swom, states as follows: 1. I am over the age of 18 and have personal knowledge ofthe matters stated below. 2. My father bought land in the Vail Valley in 1941 as a family summer retreat. The block ofland was a mile long and 1/4 mile wide, 160 acres in total. 3. Part ofour property was land where much ofme Vail Golf Course now sits, as well as the land where Sunburst Drive and its homes wind alongside the Golf Course. EXHIBIT 1 DEC-18-2012 10:56 FIRSTBANK UHILLS P.02 4. To manage our property, my brother and I fonned the Pulis Ranch Company with three equal partners: me, my brother W wren. and a silent trust for the children of Our brother who had already passed. away. S. Warren and 1 also set up Vail Valley, Inc., for the purpose of developing and selling lots for residential use alongside the Golf Course. The three owners of Vail Valley, Inc. were the same as the owners of Pulis Ranch Company: Warren, me, and the trust for our nephew and meces. 6. We intended from the very beginning to develop the land to be a golf course with supporting golf~related facilities, and swrounding residences. The homes on the border ofthe course were to be golf course lots, and historicallY they have been marketed that way. 7. Minimizing development and maximizing open space were always very important to us. We always intended the golf course land to remain as golf course land and to be used for recreational pmposes. 8. To ensure the neighborhood and the valley met our vision for it, in 1966 we leased our land on which the Vail Golf Course now sits to the Town of Vail, with specific requirements that it should only be used for a golf course or other specified recreational uses. If any clubhouse were built, it had to consist only of facilities ordinarily available in structures operated in conjunction with golf courses. 9. To further achieve our intent regarding limited development, in 1977 we conveyed the land through which Sunb\U'S1 Drive passes to our residential development company, Vail Valley. Inc., so that the land could be used to develop a community that would be nestled between mountains on one side, and the Golf Course on the other. DEC-18-2012 10:57 FIRSTBANK UHILLS P.03 10. The Town used the land leased to it as a golf course, and we saw the neighborhood we had planned come to fruition. 11. By the time we sold the Golf Course property to the TOWI4 the Vail Valley had beCome one ofthe nation's premier tourist destinations, and we knew how tempting it would be for the Town to make a large profit by either developing the golf course land itself or selling it to other developers, contrary to the common plan we had for the golf course and its adjoining neighborhood. 12. To prevent that ftom happening, and to preselVe the neighborhood around the Golf Course, we included with the January II, 1984 deed to the land a restrictive covenant that I 1 stated that the only use of the land was for a golf course, open space, park, or related facilities that were required to support those uses ("Pulis Covenant"). The idea behind the Pulis Covenant was to keep the land as undeveloped as possible so it would remain a golf course with ouly supporting facilities for a golf course. 13. Creating an events center with a wedding venue and indoor/outdoor banquet facilities is not consistent with our intent or the intent ofthe Pulis Covenant. Our intent was a golf course, simple required support facilities, and surrounding residences, and not conunercial operations. 14. We intended tbatthe owners of the lots adjacent to the gOlf course would be able to enfurce the Pulis Covenant in the 1984 deed AllOwing them to do so would maintain our original intent that those lots be golf course lots. 15. The Town officials agreed to use all ofthe land. including the land where the clubhouse and the 18th Green now sit, for a golf course and related support facilities. DEC-18-2012 10:57 FIRSTBANK UHILLS P.04 16. We did not intend any of the land to be used as a means for increasing revenue for the Town. 17. Our conditions were agreed upon by the Town's officials with their initial signing of the document. I would expect that commitme~~.t? be hon~d b'l~~ p:~ent re~resentatives. tdff!; ~, c¥ ­'1;4 -< , , lq­) Date: / 2-1! ~2--' 7 7 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DENVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ) g day ofDecember, 2012, by Jay B. Pulis. Jr. Witness my hand and official seal. ~~~ JEREMY JONES My Commission expires NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORAI NOTARY to 20084005288 MY cctMSSIOt1I EXPIRES FEBRUARY OB, 2014 TOTAL P.04