HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeorge Lamb Letter 012313 001 2 'Thj
George S. Lamb D
3130A Booth Falls Court JAN 2 3 2013
Vail, CO 81657 10(S J
TOWN OF VAIL
TO: Vail PEC Board of Directors
FROM: George Lamb
RE: Proposed Vail Golf Course Expansion
"Materially Injurious"
In June I wrote a letter to the TOV Council regarding my on-going disappointment over
the second home owners lack of representation and even, ill treatment over the years. My
comments came with some experience having been on"your"side of the table as a past
member of the PEC and Chairman of the DRB and as a Vail resident for over 40 years.
My letter was precipitated by the now on-going controversy over the Vail golf clubhouse
expansion.
The vote to authorize the use of conference center funds versus returning them seemed
quite benign. Similarly,the June TOV application to the PEC to change the zoning
around the golf clubhouse also seemed non-controversial. However, and likely unknown
at the time by the PEC, and certainly unknown to the surrounding neighbors, much in-
depth study had already been given to the expansion of both the clubhouse and parking.
When the golfing community and the neighbors became aware of these dramatic changes,
they voiced their negative reaction from both a golfer's view of a compromised golf
course to the neighbor's concern of a materially compromised residential environment.
The TOV has undertaken a very calculated campaign of hosting various public meetings
in an effort to appear to placate both groups. Although the golfers may not be totally
satisfied with the current situation, their concerns have been tempered. The neighbors on
the other hand have been told"if you don't like it, move...", and consequently they have
been forced to hire expensive legal representation... the project has been delayed, yet the
TOV is seemingly forging ahead.
So here we are today...
Isn't it terrific having attorneys sitting in the audience or advising you behind the scene?
I was most impressed with your January PEC meeting during which some very germane
questions were raised. Some of you felt it necessary to recuse yourselves, which I respect;
however I view the overriding issue is more one of neighborhood compatibility versus a
client conflict.
The primary question the TOV is now asking you to consider is whether the golf course
expansion project, as proposed, would be "materially injurious"to the neighborhood. As
an active Vail real estate broker for over three decades,my answer would be a
resounding—YES. To actually quantify the specific economic/dollar negative impact to
properties along Sunburst Drive and the Golf Course town homes in particular is
somewhat subjective, and as I recall the PEC and DRB are charged not to necessarily
consider the economics. However the resulting negative consequences of the current
proposed project would most certainly be material both in perception and from an
environmental, visual and congestion prospective.
Unlike the Donovan Pavilion, which reportedly the golf clubhouse expansion is
attempting to emulate, or even exceed in scope and functionality, the golf course is
surrounded by a vibrant residential neighborhood. The proposed expansion would be
forcing further non-compatible commercial activities into an already overly congested
area.
Another major concern of this proposed expansion is parking and the management of any
viable plan to mitigate increased traffic. The TOV had apparently acquiesced to the
concept of not converting the current 18th green into additional parking. A parking
management plan typically appears quite feasible on paper, however; I can point out a
number of such proposals which have been implemented such as valet and off-site busing
which became impractical, ignored, and unenforceable and were pre-ordained to failure
and abuse.
In summary, the TOV should abide what their constituents thought they were approving
relative to the conference funds by improving the existing golf club house versus
compromising the golf experience and compatible functions as set forth with the Pulis
covenants.
This is not the venue to question the economic viability of creating a new
conference/wedding pavilion which would be in direct competition of other private
existing and new facilities throughout Vail. Rather the TOV should set an example by
being very transparent in their application and overly sensitive to any negative impacts to
an existing residential neighborhood, whether such application is materially injurious or
not.
Respectfully submitted,