Letters to the editor
East Vail values
The articles in this paper concerning the new home in East Vail require some
additional clarification. There are actually 102 concerned East Vail residents
who have signed the petition opposing the proposed location, the point being
that this issue is not just centered around several neighbors as the papers
implied, but the effect on a neighborhood. I would also like to thank them
personally for all their support. In regards to the Vail Daily's CORRECTION:
more than 30' means 31', and the wall is the foundation wall, not eaves, or
deck, which extend farther. The average distance between buildings in this
neighborhood is 75'. Also at the DRB meeting, the hired representative for the
project, a professional planner's answer to the question "is this a spec
house?" was "Umm, I'm not sure." However, now we learn that the
owner plans to "occupy" the house while most of us will
"live" in ours. In response to the claims of "NIMBYism" as
well as the obscene and abusive phone message left for my family to hear, I
include my statement that I read to the DRB. I hope that it can help to explain
our perspective more clearly.
I would like to thank the DRB for allowing us the opportunity to speak. This is
not an easy agenda item, but it is an important one. It is also an uncomfortable
one.
This project has caused confrontation between current and future neighbors, as
well as possible conflict within the Design Review Board itself. I appreciate
and understand the many difficulties and emotions involved and I remain
confident that those of you on the board will stay true to the intent and the
guidelines of the DRB's charter and respond accordingly.
I wish we were discussing paint colors or window trim, but unfortunately this
project has larger and more far reaching issues. Those of us who oppose this
project are not objecting to our new neighbor, or his right to build his dream
house. We do and always will respect an individual's right to do so. In return,
we expect our rights to also be respected, with common courtesy, and following
the golden rule.
I believe this is especially true in East Vail. We live in an area of Vail
that's always been a little wilder, more alpine, whose residents truly love the
mountain life. We are independent, yet always ready to help each other. We love
the peacefulness, quiet and privacy that this area once derided as
"Siberia" provides us. The character of the community is demonstrated
by a successful leash-free park, a 70-something "bumper" dentist and
people who are more concerned with locking up their garbage than their homes.
We feel that many aspects of this project's design and placement fail to meet
the guidelines or respect the intent of the DRB. Specifically, I cite from your
handbook, "compatibility of manmade structures with the environment,"
"Area Character Protection." "Maintain the values created in the
community design so that they relate harmoniously to the natural landforms and
native vegetation, and protect neighboring property owners by making sure that
reasonable provisions has been made for such matters as traffic, drainage, sound
and sight buffers ... and those aspects of design not adequately covered by
other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land
uses."
The compatibility with the environment and harmony to natural landforms and
vegetation is demonstrated by knocking down dozens of lodgepoles, blasting the
top of the hill down five feet, erecting a tall, amply glazed, well lit living
space, and then revegetating with small Aspen trees that have never grown in
that area, and best case will be alive but leafless seven months of the year.
I question that area character protection is best served by building the largest
home in the neighborhood, one that dwarfs and dominates everything else in
appearance and scale and stands like a command post telling all in the
neighborhood when it's "lights out." This seems to be a case of
wanting to build a Rock Ledge Road trophy house on a more affordable East Vail
lot.
This project maintains community values by as one neighbor wrote, "the
design maximizes its own sale value by stripping the potential resale value and
privacy out of the neighboring homes." Good design enhances a community and
those around it. This design serves only itself.
The rock ridge has provided the Valleaus, Slicks, Borgens, Leslies, Ochsners and
Ryersons with a natural buffer against sound and light, as well as giving us a
sense of privacy that man made fences or screening trees could never match. This
ridge also separates Juniper Lane from Meadow Drive for most of their length,
adding to each street's individual identity. The project as designed ignores
this feature and chooses instead to listen to noise from the bus route on two
sides, the interstate, various backyards and driveways while casting its own
considerable light like a false beacon over the entire neighborhood. I realize
that the owner and architect have put considerable time and expense into this
project, and yet it appears very little effort has been made to look beyond
their own interests or get a feel for the surrounding area. This I have never
understood. If this plan moved from the top of the rock to just below the crest
it would have great views of mountains, trees, and sky as well as affording
privacy to all, and having addressed the light and sound buffer issue. There is
still plenty of room on the lot to have their square footage and it would
certainly be less costly to build yet still be a beautiful home. I love this
area because of its beauty and the great neighbors.
It would be wonderful if this project could become a part of that.
Tony Ryerson