Letters to the Editor | VailDaily.com
YOUR AD HERE »

Letters to the Editor

Compiled by Daily staff

Inacuracies …Avon Town Councilor Kristi Ferraro’s June 27 letter to the editor contained several inaccuracies with respect to which the citizens of Avon are entitled to a response and explanation from Traer Creek, LLC, the developer of the Village at Avon. First, Ms. Ferraro asserted that there is an existing “prohibition” of commercial development north of I-70, and that Traer Creek is “trying to get rezoning of a residential neighborhood for commercial development.” The facts are:In 1998, the town council approved the Village at Avon PUD Guide by a vote of 6-0, and at that time approved commercial development north of I-70. Specifically:n Planning Area RMF-1. Planning Area RMF-1 is located at the northeast corner of the I-70/Post Blvd. Interchange. Section F.8(b)(ii) of the PUD Guide specifically states uses by right for RMF-1 include “commercial uses intended to serve surrounding residential areas including any (italics mine) activity for the purpose of generating retail business.” n Planning Area M. Planning Area M also is located on the north side of I-70. Section C of the PUD designates Planning Area M as “regional commercial.” Additionally, Section D.2 of the PUD Guide states that “Planning Area M is entitled to be developed as a mixed use development, and uses may include residential uses, commercial uses, and public and institutional uses at densities in addition to those set forth above as approved by the Town of Avon.”These facts speak for themselves.Councilor Ferraro’s statement that Traer Creek is trying “to get commercial development on the north side of I-70” is simply inaccurate. Planning Areas RMF-1 and M have had commercial uses by right since 1998.A little more history is relevant to understanding the current situation. Through Administrative Amendment No. 1 to the PUD, approved by the town in 2001, the town approved relocation of Planning Area G (the site zoned for school use) from a location on the south side of I-70 to a location within a portion of the original area of Planning Area RMF-1. Subsequently, Traer Creek has on three separate occasions sought, without success, to relocate the school to a site desired by the school district because it is farther from the I-70 interchange and, therefore, safer for children. First, the town denied a formal PUD amendment that, in part, would have relocated the school site to a location within Planning Area M. Second, the town refused to process an administrative amendment application to relocate the school to a site south of I-70 immediately adjacent to its originally approved location. Even though relocation of the school from its original site to the site north of I-70 had been accomplished by an administrative amendment in 2001, the town took the position that moving it back to its approximate original location now requires a formal amendment. Third, in conjunction with the ambulance district and the fire district, Traer Creek submitted a formal PUD amendment to relocate the school site (again, to a location adjacent to its original location south of I-70) and to obtain appropriate zoning to enable development of the fire station and the ambulance facility. At the town’s request, processing of that application was suspended.We at Traer Creek think that Councilor Ferraro should put the public interest first and study, understand and abide by the terms of the PUD Guide and the annexation agreement. It is time to move forward in a spirit of cooperation, and with a view to advancing community interests, with plans for the ambulance district, fire district and an appropriate school site location. This also will enable the potential development of a gas station in its logical location within Planning Area RMF-1 at the northeast corner of the interchange.Second, in her letter, Councilor Ferraro misrepresented Mr. Magnus Lindholm’s statement in the recent Vail Daily article about Traer Creek’s offer to donate land to the ambulance district, which is part of our overall proposal to amend the PUD, saying he had indicated her husband, Craig Ferraro, “owns an interest in the Edwards Shell station.”The facts are: The reporter, without directly quoting Mr. Lindholm, said, accurately, that Mr. Lindholm claimed that “Ferraro’s husband has interests in the Edwards gas station.” n The Eagle County clerk and recorder’s records show that the Edwards Shell station is owned by Edwards Station, LLC.n The Colorado secretary of state’s records show that Edwards Station, LLC, is a Delaware entity, that its manager is East West Resort Development, L.P., the general partner of which is HF Holding Corp., the president of which is Harry H. Frampton III.n It is our understanding that Councilor Ferraro’s husband is the VP/CFO/partner for East West Partners.n According to her filing with the Secretary of State Elections Division, on Oct. 29, 2004, Mr. Frampton donated $990 to Councilor Ferraro’s Town Council campaign, making him the largest single contributor, at more than 25 percent. Again, these facts speak for themselves.Moreover, these facts raise legitimate questions that the citizens of Avon are entitled to ask of, and to receive answers from, their elected officials. There have been discussions regarding the development of a discount gas station in the Village at Avon, specifically within Planning Area RMF-1 at the northeast corner of the interchange. A competing gas station offering discount pricing would likely concern the owner of the Edwards Shell station and those individuals emp-loyed by or affiliated with that owner.Mr. Lindholm’s comments pointed out a potential conflict of interest on Councilor Ferraro’s part. The raising and the answering of such questions is a right and an obligation of good citizenship, as are the expectation and requirement of good leadership from our public officials.Dan ChristophersonSpokesman for Traer Creek, LLCThey’re reading I was pleasantly surprised last week when I learned that several conservative Republicans were reading my letters to the editor on a regular basis. The fact that Mr. Browne’s letter was not too complimentary is of little importance.Although I didn’t agree with much of anything Mr. Browne wrote, I would only like to take issue with the final section of his letter. It’s the part where he expresses the thought that all liberals share a common agenda and that he knows exactly what it is. He clearly states that it includes increasing the size of the government; raising taxes in order to “drag down the wealthy”; opening our borders; never employing the military for a pre-emptive strike; not building a nuclear power plant; and the removal of the word “God” from government facilities. Well he’s wrong on every count! First, I don’t like “big government” and it appalls me that it has gotten bigger since President Clinton was replaced by Mr. Bush. Second, I have no desire to raise taxes in order to “drag down” the wealthy. I do advocate raising taxes in order to balance the budget and avoid leaving monstrous interest payments for future generations. Third, I do happen to think that illegal immigration is really bad news. Fourth, I don’t know how I would feel about some new pre-emptive strike and neither does Mr. Browne. However, I have always been opposed to the war in Iraq because it was begun by a naive president on the basis of very controversial evidence and without any consideration given to the obvious problems that would be encountered following the defeat of the Iraqi army. For me personally, the fact that this war was conceived by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, both of whom avoided active military service, like it was the bubonic plague, has made their actions even more intolerable. Fifth, I have always been a strong advocate of nuclear power plants and have written four or five letters to that effect. Finally, I doesn’t bother me one little bit to have either God (or the Ten Commandments) mentioned on our government facilities. It wouldn’t even bother me if the Tooth Fairy were given some sort of honorable mention.So anyway, most of you understand that while I take pride in my status as a “flaming liberal,” we are not an amorphous group with a common agenda and Mr. Browne really doesn’t know anything much about our individual beliefs.David Le VineAvonVail, Colorado


Support Local Journalism