Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/173180422/Beaver-Creek-Property-Owners-Association-lawsuit-against-Vail-Resorts-over-proposed-forest-flyer-alpine-coaster-at-the-base-of-the-ski-area-Filed-O
Timestamp: 2017-04-24 19:53:35
Document Index: 787774448

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 30', '§ 6', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1988', '§ 1983']

Beaver Creek Property Owners Association lawsuit against Vail Resorts over proposed "forest flyer" alpine coaster at the base of the ski area. Filed Oct. 1, 2013. ScribdBrowseInterestsPolitics & Current AffairsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthFictionHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryScience & TechBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBeaver Creek Property Owners Association lawsuit against Vail Resorts over proposed "forest flyer" alpine coaster at the base of the ski area. Filed Oct. 1, 2013. Uploaded by jasonblevinsBeaverResortSkiColoradoRegulation0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Beaver Creek Property Owners Association lawsuit against Vail Resorts over proposed "forest flyer" alpine coaster and other recreational development plans for the base of the ski area. Filed Oct. 1...View MoreBeaver Creek Property Owners Association lawsuit against Vail Resorts over proposed "forest flyer" alpine coaster and other recreational development plans for the base of the ski area. Filed Oct. 1, 2013.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentDistrict Court, Eagle County, State of Colorado 885 Chambers Avenue, Eagle, Colorado 81631 Plaintiffs: BEAVER CREEKPROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; THE HIGHLANDS RESORT ASSOCIATION; HIGHLANDS LODGE OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION; HIGHLANDS SLOPESIDE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; HIGHLANDS TOWNHOMES ASSOCIATION; HIGHLANDS WESTVIEW ASSOCIATION; MCCOY PEAK ASSOCIATION, INC.; GREYSTONE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; WILTSHIRE COURT ASSOCIATION, INC.; THE STRAWBERRY PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.; BEAVER CREEK MEADOWS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; MEADOW RIDGE AT BEAVER CREEK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; MOUNTAIN LODGE ASSOCIATION, INC; and PARK PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. Defendants: THE VAIL CORPORATION; VAIL RESORTS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; VAIL RESORTS, INC., BEAVER CREEK FOOD SERVICES, INC.; EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, acting by and through its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attorneys for Plaintiff Beaver Creek Property Owners Association: Richard A. Johnson, #16047 Lew M. Harstead, #27325 JOHNSON & REPUCCI LLP 2521 Broadway, Suite A Boulder, Colorado 80304 Telephone: (303) 442-1900; Facsimile: (303) 442-0191 Attorneys for Plaintiff Greystone Condominium Association: Carrie A. Rodgers, #17028 James Belgum, #37873 MOYE WHITE LLP 16 Market Square, 6th Floor, 1400 16th Street Denver, Colorado 80202-1486 Telephone: (303) 292-2900; Facsimile: (303) 292-4510
DATE FILED: October 1, 2013 2:31 PM FILING ID: 54FB87F686D48
Case No. 2007CV30 Div. 4
Plaintiffs the Beaver Creek Property Owners Association and Greystone Condominium Association hereby submit this Amended Complaint.
PARTIES Plaintiffs 1. The Beaver Creek Property Owners Association, Inc. is a Colorado non-profit corporation, consisting of owners of real property in Beaver Creek who voluntarily choose to join the association (the “BCPOA”). 2. The Greystone Condominium Association (“Greystone”) is a Colorado non-profit association comprised of owners of real property in the Greystone development of Beaver Creek. 3. The BCPOA and Greystone are collectively referred to herein as the “Associations.” Defendants 4. The Vail Corporation is, upon information and belief, a Colorado corporation with a principal place of business at 137 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado 81658. 5. Vail Resorts Development Company is, upon information and belief, a Colorado corporation with a principal place of business at 390 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 1000, Broomfield, Colorado 80021. 6. Vail Resorts, Inc. is, upon information and belief, a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 390 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 1000, Broomfield, Colorado 80021. 7. The Vail Corporation, Vail Resorts Development Company and Vail Resorts, Inc. are collectively referred to herein as “Vail Resorts.” 8. Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. is, upon information and belief, a Colorado corporation with a principal place of business at 390 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 1000, Broomfield, Colorado 80021 (“Beaver Creek Food Services”). 9. Eagle County, Colorado (the “County”) is a Colorado governmental entity that acts by and through its Board of County Commissioners, which is a governmental entity, that is reconstituted from time to time, and may exercise within its jurisdiction those powers granted to counties pursuant to C.R.S. § 30-11-101, et seq. (the “County Commissioners”). JURISDICTION & VENUE 10. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 57 and C.R.C.P. 106, because the subject property is located in Eagle County, and because the actions which constitute the basis for the Amended Complaint took place in Eagle County. 2
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Overview
12. This litigation arises from Vail Resorts’ attempts since 2006 to construct an amusement ride on the mountainside of Beaver Creek. 13. In 2006, Vail Resorts first sought to construct an alpine slide on a portion of Tract S in the Beaver Creek Planned Unit Development (“PUD”). 14. The portion of Tract S where Vail Resorts sought to construct the alpine slide is designated as Open Space Recreation (“OSR”) under the Beaver Creek PUD and is subject to a conservation easement. 15. The Associations, along with other neighboring associations, opposed Vail Resorts’ efforts, which resulted in this litigation. 16. This litigation was “administrative closed” in 2008 in order for Vail Resorts to pursue approval from the United States Forest Service (“USFS”) for an alpine slide, coaster or other similar gravity-driven activity (an “Alpine Slide/Coaster”) to be located and operated on USFS property at the Beaver Creek ski area. 17. Vail Resorts never pursued such approval from the USFS.
18. Instead, Vail Resorts undertook plans to instead develop a larger, mountainside amusement complex in Beaver Creek that will include, at a minimum, an Alpine Slide/Coaster, a ropes challenge course, a summer tubing course, ticketing operations, a food and beverage facility and separate restroom facilities (the “Proposed Amusement Complex”). See generally, Exhibit 1 attached for a map showing the locations of the proposed improvements. 19. Vail Resorts seeks to construct and operate the Proposed Amusement Complex on the same Tract S in the Beaver Creek PUD, where Vail Resorts first sought to construct an alpine slide, and which is subject the Conservation Easement. 20. The location in Tract S where Vail Resorts seeks to construct and operate the Proposed Amusement Complex is situated around an existing building which was developed and approved as a children’s ski school (the “Children’s Ski School”), and is served by a gondola named the “Buckaroo Express,” which runs from Beaver Creek Village to the Children’s Ski School building (the “Children’s Gondola”).
21. The Children’s Ski School and Children’s Gondola were only constructed after Vail Resorts solicited and received the Associations’ support for such improvements by representing to the Associations that the new building and gondola would only be used for the purpose of operating a children’s ski school during the winter ski season. 22. Vail Resorts now seeks to use the Children’s Ski School as the hub for the Proposed Amusement Complex, and the Children’s Gondola as the means to reach the Proposed Amusement Complex. 23. The area where Vail Resorts seeks to construct and operate the Proposed Amusement Complex: currently contains hundreds of aspen, pine and other trees; is traversed by a stream consisting of federal headwaters that feeds into Beaver Creek; contains an area of designated wetlands; and is situated approximately 550 feet from the platted boundary lines of the existing Greystone residential units. 24. The Associations oppose Vail Resorts’ efforts to construct the Proposed Amusement Complex in Tract S or elsewhere in the Beaver Creek PUD. The Beaver Creek Governing Documents 25. 1978. 26. Development in the PUD, including the area Vail Resorts seeks to develop the Proposed Amusement Complex, is subject to the covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in the Amended and Restated General Declaration for Beaver Creek, recorded in the Eagle County real property records on December 27, 1979 in Book 296 at Page 446. See Exhibit 2 attached (the “General Declaration”). 27. Tract S, the specific tract where Vail Resorts seeks to develop the Proposed Amusement Complex, is also subject to additional declarations of land use restrictions set forth in the Supplemental Declaration of Land Use Restrictions Pertaining to Tract S Beaver Creek Subdivision, recorded in the Eagle County real property records on March 2, 1982 in Book 337 at Page 131. See Exhibit 3 attached (the “Tract S Supplemental Declaration”). 28. Development in the area where Vail Resorts seeks to construct and operate the Proposed Amusement Complex is also subject to the Articles of Incorporation of Beaver Creek Resort Company of Colorado. See Exhibit 4 attached (the “Articles of Incorporation”). 29. Development in the area where Vail Resorts seeks to construct and operate the Proposed Amusement Complex is also subject to the Bylaws of Beaver Creek Resort Company of Colorado. See Exhibit 5 attached (the “BCRC Bylaws”). The County Commissioners approved the initial Beaver Creek PUD on May 1,
Governing Regulations 30. Development in Tract S must comply with certain laws, rules, requirements, orders, directions, ordinances and regulations of the United States of America (collectively, “Federal Regulations”). 31. Development in Tract S must comply with certain laws, rules, requirements, orders, directions, ordinances and regulations of the State of Colorado (collectively, “State Regulations”). 32. Development in Tract S must comply with certain laws, rules, requirements, orders, directions, ordinances and regulations of Eagle County, Colorado (collectively, “County Regulations”). The 1988 PUD 33. In 1988, the County Commissioners approved the Amended and Restated Guide to the Beaver Creek Planned Unit Development. See Exhibit 6 attached, recorded at Reception No. 395702 in the Eagle County real property records (the “1988 PUD”). 34. The 1988 PUD specifically provided that “alpine slides” were a use-by-right in areas designated as OSR as follows: 2. Uses By Right: a. All recreational activities and facilities compatible with the valley’s environment and consistent with the needs for a year-round mountain resort, including but not limited to, activities and facilities associated with alpine and Nordic recreational and competitive skiing, equestrian operations, sports courts, swimming, ice skating, bicycling, fishing, bob sledding, snow shoeing, children’s playgrounds, hiking, golf, alpine slides, special events, outdoor entertainment and mountain restaurants, provided that such mountain restaurants (i) be within the area as depicted on Exhibit E or (ii) shall be at least 250 feet from any boundary of platted property and contain a Floor Area of less than 2000 square feet or (iii) shall be at least 1000 feet from any boundary of platted property. Any existing restaurant as of the date hereof is not required to conform to the provisions of this Article IV.F.2.a. (Emphasis added.) The 1994 PUD 35. In November 1993, Vail Resorts sought to amend the 1988 PUD in order to, among other things, reallocate densities within the PUD and change land use designations in order for Vail Resorts to develop the areas now commonly known as Bachelor Gulch and Strawberry Park.
36. Concerned over the scope of Vail Resorts’ proposed development, the BCPOA initially opposed Vail Resorts’ proposed PUD amendment in large part to protect and preserve the OSR designated areas in Beaver Creek. 37. As a result, Vail Resorts agreed to limit uses that may occur on OSR designated areas by amending portions of the PUD in order to preserve and protect the OSR areas. 38. Attorneys and agents for Vail Resorts prepared the proposed amended PUD.
39. Vail Resorts’ attorneys and agents purposefully deleted reference to an “alpine slide” as a use-by-right on OSR parcels in the amended PUD that it proposed to the County. 40. The purpose for the deletion of an “alpine slide” was to make clear that an alpine slide was not a suitable use-by-right on OSR designated areas. 41. In 1994, the County Commissioners approved a second Amended and Restated Guide to the Beaver Creek Planned Unit Development. See Exhibit 7 attached, recorded at Reception No. 534635 in the Eagle County real property records (the “1994 PUD”). 42. The 1994 PUD specifically deleted any reference to an alpine slide as a use-byright in OSR parcels as follows: a. Uses by right in Open Space Recreation (OSR): (1) All recreational activities and facilities compatible with the valley’s environment and consistent with the needs of a year-round mountain resort, including but not limited to, activities and facilities associated with alpine and Nordic recreational and competitive skiing, equestrian operations, sports courts, swimming, ice skating, bicycling, fishing, bob sledding, snow shoeing, children’s playgrounds, hiking, golf, special events, outdoor entertainment, utility installations and lines; roadways and bridges; mobile food service, mountain recreation lodging facilities as shown in an approved P.U.D. plan, mountain restaurants and picnic decks as shown in an approved P.U.D. plan, and private club/restaurant facilities as shown in an approved P.U.D. plan or provided that the same (i) be within the area as depicted on Exhibit E or (ii) shall be at least 250 feet from any boundary of platted property and contain a Floor Area of less than 2000 square feet or (iii) shall be at least 1000 feet from any boundary of platted property. Any existing restaurant as of the date hereof is not required to conform to the provisions of this Article IV.F.2.a.(1). (Emphasis added.) 43. In amending the 1988 PUD to the language of the 1994 PUD, the County Commissioners intended to change the uses-by-right in OSR designated areas. 44. In addition, OSR designated areas were subjected to a conservation easement. See Exhibit 8 attached (“Conservation Easement”). 6
Vail Resorts’ 2006 Request for County Interpretation of Uses Allowed in OSR 45. In May 2006, Vail Resorts sent correspondence to the BCPOA stating Vail Resorts’ business decision to install an alpine slide on an area of Beaver Creek Mountain generally known as the “Haymeadow” located in Tract S. 46. The Associations objected to Vail Resorts’ proposal to construct an alpine slide in the Haymeadow. 47. In June 2006, Vail Resorts submitted a request to the County Director seeking review of the 1994 PUD to determine whether an alpine slide was a use-by-right within the OSR designation portion of Tract S. 48. Under the County Land Use Regulations, Vail Resorts was not compelled to request such an interpretation from the County Director. 49. In interpreting the 1994 PUD, the County Director understood that an alpine slide was specifically enumerated as a use-by-right in the 1988 PUD but had been deleted from the specifically listed uses-by-right in the 1994 PUD. 50. Pursuant to the County Land Use Regulations, the County Director was compelled not to substitute his own judgment for the legislative intent of the County Commissioners that amended the PUD in 1994. 51. In July 2006, the County Director issued a written interpretation stating that an alpine slide represented a use-by-right on OSR designated areas (the “County Director’s Interpretation”). 52. In August 2006, the Associations’ appealed the County Director’s Interpretation to the County Commissioners (the “County Appeal”). 53. The County Commissioners scheduled a hearing to be held in October 2006 to hear arguments regarding the Associations’ Appeal and to take public comment and evidence concerning the Associations’ Appeal (the “Evidentiary Hearing”). 54. Prior to the Evidentiary Hearing, the BCPOA submitted three sworn affidavits, from individuals who were involved in the negotiations concerning the 1994 PUD, stating that the purpose of the deletion of an alpine slide from the 1994 PUD was to reflect the intention that an alpine slide was not a suitable use in OSR designated areas (the “Affidavits”).
55. Prior to the Evidentiary Hearing, the BCPOA submitted an environmental impact report stating that the proposed alpine slide would degrade the natural environment of the Beaver Creek Valley (the “Environmental Impact Report”). 56. Prior to the Evidentiary Hearing, one of the County Commissioners contacted an executive of Vail Resorts, in order to solicit the support of Vail Resorts for a political initiative that the individual County Commissioner was actively supporting, and those two individuals met less than a week prior to the Evidentiary Hearing. 57. The County Commissioners held the Evidentiary Hearing as scheduled on October 16, 2006. 58. An attorney for Vail Resorts, Tom Ragonetti, who represented Vail Resorts during the 1994 PUD amendment process, appeared as a sworn witness in the Evidentiary Hearing and testified that the deletion of an alpine slide from the 1994 PUD was an intentional act. 59. The County Director and/or Vail Resorts failed to present any evidence explaining the purpose for the 1994 PUD amendment deleting an alpine slide or otherwise rebutting the Affidavits previously provided to the County Commissioners. 60. The County Director and/or Vail Resorts failed to present any credible evidence rebutting the Environmental Impact Report. 61. At the Evidentiary Hearing, Stuart D. McGregor, a noise and vibration engineer, testified that the noise from alpine slides will be significantly different from existing noise levels at the base of Beaver Creek and will exceed State of Colorado’s noise ordinance (the “Noise Impact Testimony”). 62. The County Director and/or Vail Resorts failed to present any credible evidence rebutting the Noise Impact Testimony. 63. At the Evidentiary Hearing, over 20 members of the public testified that an alpine slide was not compatible with the valley’s environment (the “Public Testimony”). 64. The County Director and/or Vail Resorts failed to present any credible evidence rebutting the Public Testimony regarding the alpine slide’s compatibility with the valley’s environment. 65. Not a single person testified that an alpine slide represented a use-by-right on Tract S other than Vail Resorts’ attorneys and employees.
66. At the close of the Evidentiary Hearing, the County Commissioners closed the record to the introduction of any further evidence for the consideration of the County Commissioners in their deliberations. 67. The County Commissioners tabled the matter until November 21, 2006 for formal deliberations on the record (the “Deliberations Hearing”). Publicity after the Close of Evidence 68. Subsequent to the Evidentiary Hearing, but prior to the Deliberations Hearing, an attorney for Vail Resorts wrote a letter to the editor of the Vail Daily that commented on the evidence in the record, attempted to introduce new evidence, and generally attempted to influence the County Commissioners’ determination. 69. The Vail Daily published the Vail Resorts’ attorney’s letter to the editor on November 16, 2006, less than a week prior to the Deliberations Hearing. 70. Subsequent to the Evidentiary Hearing, but prior to the Deliberations Hearing, a Beaver Creek merchant who had been in contact with Vail Resorts regarding the Associations’ Appeal, engaged in an effort to communicate with the County Commissioners after the close of evidence. 71. On the day immediately prior to the Deliberations Hearing, Vail Resorts took out a full-page advertisement in the Vail Daily advocating the benefits of an alpine slide to the community in a general effort to influence the County Commissioners’ determination. The County Commissioners’ Deliberation Hearing 72. The County Commissioners held the Deliberations Hearing as scheduled on November 21, 2006. 73. During the Deliberations Hearing, the County Commissioners attempted to explore the legislative intent behind the amendment leading to the 1994 PUD. 74. During the Deliberations Hearing, certain County Commissioners referred to and cited materials and documents that were not properly part of the record or otherwise submitted into evidence prior to the close of the Evidentiary Hearing. 75. During and prior to the Deliberations Hearing, the County Commissioners failed to disclose any ex-parte communications which may have impacted the matter before the County Commissioners.
76. During and prior to the Deliberations Hearing, the County Commissioners failed to disclose any possible conflicts of interest that each or any of the County Commissioners may have possessed. 77. At the Deliberations Hearing, after the recess, the County Commissioners announced their decision to affirm the County Director’s Interpretation, but stated their decision would not be considered a final agency action for purposes of any judicial appeal until the County Commissioners adopted a written resolution. 78. On December 19, 2006, the County Commissioners adopted County Resolution 2006-119 affirming the County Director’s Interpretation. Commencement of This Litigation 79. The Associations (along with other homeowners’ associations in Beaver Creek) promptly made it known that they would initiate litigation with this Court in order to pursue a judicial appeal of the County’s determination. 80. In January 2007, Vail Resorts and the Associations (along with other homeowners’ associations in Beaver Creek) entered into an Agreement whereby: Vail Resorts agreed to refrain from any activity related to the installation of an alpine slide until February 2008; the Associations agreed to limit the claims they would bring in the judicial appeal of the County Resolution, subject to later amendment; and the parties all agreed to seek a stay in the litigation that would result from the judicial appeal (the “Stay Agreement”). 81. The Associations initiated the judicial appeal on January 18, 2007 when they filed their initial Complaint in this matter. See Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Relief Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106. 82. In February 2007, the parties sought to stay this matter consistent with the terms of the Stay Agreement, and the Court subsequently granted such stay. See Order re: Joint Motion for Stay. 83. The Court continued to stay this litigation through the balance of 2008.
84. Around that time, Vail Resorts agreed to pursue approval from the United States Forest Service (“USFS”) for an alpine slide, coaster or other similar gravity-driven activity to be located and operated on USFS property at the Beaver Creek ski area. 85. After a status conference held before the Court on September 10, 2008, the parties stipulated and the Court agreed that this litigation would be “administratively closed” indefinitely, subject to the right and ability of any of the parties to reactivate the case upon filing of a written motion. See Stipulation for Administrative Closure of the Case, entered by the Court on September 18, 2008 (the “Administrative Closure”).
Development of the Children’s Ski School & Children’s Gondola 86. In or around December 2006, Vail Resorts proposed construction of a new children’s ski school to be located on Tract S in the area where Vail Resorts now proposes to construct and operate the Proposed Amusement Complex. 87. Vail Resorts designated the new facility as the “Children’s Ski School” in all applications and materials at that time. 88. Vail Resorts sought support from the Associations for construction of the Children’s Ski School building. 89. Vail Resorts represented that the Children’s Ski School would be used for children ages 7 through 14. 90. Vail Resorts represented that cooking facilities in the Children’s Ski School building would be only for the purpose of lunches to be provided for the children taking lessons. 91. In connection with the construction of the Children’s Ski School building, Vail Resorts also sought approval for construction of the new Children’s Gondola to replace the thenexisting Chair 1. 92. Vail Resorts sought support from the Associations for construction of the Children’s Gondola. 93. Vail Resorts represented that the Children’s Gondola would not operate during the summer except for limited special events and, as a result, the gondola cabins would be removed from the cable during the summer. 94. Based upon the representations of Vail Resorts, the Associations supported Vail Resorts’ applications for construction of the proposed Children’s Ski School and Children’s Gondola. 95. Vail Resorts began construction of the Children’s Gondola and Children’s Ski School in 2007, and the Children’s Gondola began operation in or around November 2007 and the Children’s Ski School opened in November 2008. Vail Resorts’ Alter Ego for the Children’s Ski School 96. On or about September 25, 2008, Vail Corporation leased the Children’s Ski School to Beaver Creek Food Services for the purpose of providing food and beverage services (the “Food/Beverage Lease”).
97. Through the Food/Beverage Lease, Vail Corporation specifically leased possession and control of the Children’s Ski School for liquor license purposes to Beaver Creek Food Services. 98. In doing so, Vail Corporation identified the Children’s Ski School as “The Ranch” and not as a facility otherwise intended for the purpose of providing services to children. 99. The existence of the Food/Beverage Lease was unknown to the Associations until only recently. 100. In or around September 2008, Beaver Creek Food Services submitted an application to the Eagle County Liquor License Coordinator to add the Children’s Ski School to an existing hotel and restaurant liquor license held by Beaver Creek Food Services. 101. In doing so, Beaver Creek Food Services did not identify the new premises as the Children’s Ski School or otherwise disclose that the facility was used for the purpose of providing services to children. 102. Instead, Beaver Creek Food Services’ submissions to the liquor licensing authorities referred to the Children’s Ski School as simply “The Ranch.” 103. Ski School. The liquor licensing authorities issued a liquor license applicable to the Children’s
104. Vail Resorts and Beaver Creek Food Services never disclosed to the Associations that Beaver Creek Food Services had obtained a liquor license to serve alcohol at the Children’s Ski School. 105. Vail Resorts never disclosed to the Associations that the liquor and restaurant facilities would be located and operated at the Children’s Ski School. 106. The Associations only learned about the liquor license at the Children’s Ski School in May 2013 when Vail Resorts sought to modify the liquor license in order to allow Vail Resorts to sell alcohol on the decks and areas surrounding the Children’s Ski School. 107. Vail Resorts withdrew the request for modification after the BCPOA objected to the proposed modification of the liquor license at a hearing held in May 2013. Vail Resorts’ Plans for Development of the Proposed Amusement Complex 108. In April 2013, Vail Resorts submitted a request to the Beaver Creek Resort Company’s (the “Resort Company”) Design Review Board for approval of what Vail Resorts labeled as “a landscaping remodel and three new recreational facilities” near the “Ranch building” in Beaver Creek. See Exhibit 9 attached (the “2013 Application”). 12
109. The 2013 Application sought approval to build new rides/activities that would comprise the Proposed Amusement Complex to be located on Tract S, using the Children’s Ski School as the hub of the amusement complex. 110. A representative of Vail Resorts represented that Vail Resorts spent a large sum to construct the Children’s Ski School and Children’s Gondola, and therefore sought to operate the Proposed Amusement Complex in order for Vail Resorts to achieve a better return on its investment. 111. The 2013 Application called for the Proposed Amusement Complex to be accessed by the Children’s Gondola, even in the summer months. 112. The 2013 Application sought approval for the construction and operation of an Alpine Slide/Coaster on Tract S. 113. The 2013 Application described the proposed Alpine Slide/Coaster as one which “rides securely on steel tracks down the mountain” and showed over a half-mile of steel track to be constructed on the mountainside. 114. In an attempt to disguise the nature of the Alpine Slide/Coaster, Vail Resorts only referred to the Alpine Slide/Coaster as a “Forest Flyer.” 115. The 2013 Application also sought approval for the construction and operation of a ropes challenge course in the Proposed Amusement Complex (the “Ropes Course”). 116. Plans for the Ropes Course included structures approximately 50-feet high.
117. The 2013 Application called for the Ropes Course to be situated on or near certain areas of the Proposed Amusement Complex that are designated as wetlands. 118. The 2013 Application sought approval for the construction and operation of a summer tubing course in the Proposed Amusement Complex (the “Tubing Course”). 119. Plans for the Tubing Course called for excavation of an area 463 feet long and 81 feet wide, in order to place plastic mats on the hillside covering an area approximately 294 feet long and 27 feet wide. 120. Vail Resorts never explained why the excavation of the Tubing Course was far in excess of the planned coverage by plastic mats. 121. The 2013 Application made clear that Vail Resorts would construct a support/storage building related to the operation of the Alpine Slide/Coaster (the “Support Building”).
122. However, Vail Resorts failed to submit any plans for the location, footprint or design of the Support Building. 123. During hearings before the Design Review Board, Vail Resorts’ representative made clear that the Proposed Amusement Complex would require ticketing operations (“Ticketing Operations”). 124. Vail Resorts’ representative stated that the Children’s Ski School would be utilized to provide Ticketing Operations for the Proposed Amusement Complex. 125. However, Vail Resorts otherwise refused to provide any application, documentation or other information regarding the proposed location or operation of the Ticketing Operations for the Proposed Amusement Complex. 126. During hearings before the Design Review Board, Vail Resorts’ representative made clear that the proposed amusement complex would require food and beverage facilities to serve patrons of the amusement complex (“Food/Beverage Facilities”). 127. Vail Resorts’ representative stated that the Children’s Ski School would be utilized to provide Food/Beverage Facilities for the Proposed Amusement Complex. 128. Vail Resorts’ representative stated that Vail Resorts sought to expand the deck of the Children’s Ski School in order to facilitate the Food/Beverage Facilities. 129. However, Vail Resorts otherwise refused to provide any application, documentation or other information regarding the proposed location or operation of the Food/Beverage Facilities for the Proposed Amusement Complex. 130. The 2013 Application called for an existing restroom facilities building (the “Restroom Facility”) to serve patrons of the Proposed Amusement Complex. 131. However, the Restroom Facility was never previously approved by the DRB.
132. Furthermore, the Restroom Facility is located in close proximity to the delineated wetlands, in violation of applicable codes and/or regulations. Vail Resorts Commenced Construction of the Proposed Amusement Complex 133. In late-July 2013, Vail Resorts began trucking in thousands of cubic feet of dirt, and placed and graded such dirt within the area of the Proposed Amusement Complex.
134. Vail Resorts commenced such activity without obtaining a grading permit from Eagle County, despite the fact that the square footage of dirt far exceeded the amounts allowed without obtaining a grading permit. 135. Vail Resorts’ representative informed the Associations that the grading activities were not related to Vail Resorts’ Proposed Amusement Complex. 136. Only after the County investigated Vail Resorts’ grading activities did Vail Resorts apply for a grading permit. 137. Vail Resorts’ application for the grading permit acknowledged the grading was related to the Proposed Amusement Complex, and the Tubing Course in particular. Reactivation of Litigation 138. In light of Vail Resorts’ actions, the BCPOA recently filed its motion reactivating this case. See Motion to Reactivate Case. 139. This Amended Complaint is filed pursuant to the Court’s prior Order expressly allowing amendment of the underlying Complaint in the event of reactivation. See Order of Administrative Closure. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Judicial Appeal under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) 140. The Associations incorporate the above paragraphs.
141. The 1988 PUD previously governed development in the Beaver Creek PUD and expressly provided that an “alpine slide” was a use-by-right in OSR designated areas, including Tract S. 142. In 1994, the County Commissioners amended the PUD to specifically delete reference to an “alpine slide” as an enumerated use-by-right. 143. The purpose of the amendment was to make clear that an alpine slide was not a suitable use-by-right in OSR parcels. 144. The 1994 PUD is a written instrument, documenting a legislative enactment by the County, and was recorded in the Eagle County real property records. 145. Under Colorado law, an amendment to a PUD reflects an intention to change the law which must be given full effect.
146. The County Director acted in violation of the County Land Use Regulations when he substituted his own judgment in place of the legislative intent of the County Commissioners as expressed in the 1994 PUD amendment. 147. The County Commissioners exercised a quasi-judicial function when they reviewed the County Director’s Interpretation in order to determine whether an alpine slide represented a use-by-right in OSR designated areas. 148. The County Commissioners exceeded their jurisdiction, abused their discretion and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when they affirmed the County Director’s Interpretation by determining that an alpine slide represented a use-by-right in OSR designated areas. 149. The County Commissioners’ affirmation of the County Director’s Interpretation was devoid of evidentiary support. 150. The County Commissioners misinterpreted and misapplied Colorado law when it failed to give effect to the 1994 PUD amendment deleting reference to an alpine slide as a useby-right in OSR parcels. 151. The County Commissioners’ affirmation of the County Director’s Interpretation serves to improperly amend the 1994 PUD by reading a term into the 1994 PUD that the County Commissioners previously deleted. 152. There is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Breach of Contract 153. The Associations hereby incorporate the above paragraphs.
154. Vail Resorts entered into an agreement with the Associations that Vail Resorts would pursue approval from the USFS for an alpine slide, coaster or other similar gravity-driven activity to be located and operated on USFS property at the Beaver Creek ski area. 155. Vail Resorts breached this agreement by failing to seek USFS approval to construct an alpine slide, coaster or other similar gravity-driven activity on property owned by the USFS. 156. As a proximate result of the breach, the Associations are entitled to an award of specific performance compelling Vail Resorts to honor the terms of its agreement as a precedent to constructing and/or operating any alpine slide, coaster or other similar gravity-driven activity in the Beaver Creek PUD.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Declaratory Relief – Operation of Club/Restaurant Facility 157. The Associations hereby incorporate the above paragraphs.
158. A present controversy exists among and between the Associations and Vail Resorts concerning Vail Resorts’ and/or Beaver Creek Food Services’ operation of a restaurant facility at the Children’s Ski School. 159. The Associations are parties whose interests are affected by County Regulations, State Regulations and Federal Regulations (collectively, “Government Regulations”). 160. Vail Resorts’ and/or Beaver Creek Food Services’ service of alcohol at the Children’s Ski School is subject to certain Government Regulations. 161. Vail Resorts’ and/or Beaver Creek Food Services’ operation of a facility serving alcohol at the Children’s Ski School violates certain Government Regulations. 162. The Associations are parties whose interests are affected by the PUD, the General Declaration, and the Tract S Supplemental Declaration (collectively, the “Governing Documents”). 163. Vail Resorts’ and/or Beaver Creek Food Services’ operation of a club/restaurant and proposed operation of Food/Beverage Operations at the Children’s Ski School is subject to the Governing Documents. 164. Vail Resorts’ and/or Beaver Creek Food Services’ operation of a club/restaurant facility at the Children’s Ski School violates the Governing Documents because, among the following, and without limitation: the operation of a club/restaurant facility less than 1,000 feet from the boundary of Greystone’s platted property violates the PUD; Vail Resorts obtained approval to construct the Children’s Ski School under false pretenses; and the service of alcohol at the Children’s Ski School violates Government Regulations. 165. The Associations are therefore entitled to enforcement of the Government Regulations and Governing Documents by prohibiting Vail Resorts and/or Beaver Creek Food Service from operating club/restaurant facility and/or serving alcohol at the Children’s Ski School. 166. A declaratory judgment would afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to the rights, status and other legal remedies of the parties.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Declaratory Relief – Restroom Facility 167. The Associations hereby incorporate the above paragraphs.
168. A present controversy exists among and between the Associations and Vail Resorts concerning Vail Resorts and/or Beaver Creek Food Services’ operation of a restroom facility in the area near the Children’s Ski School. 169. The Associations are parties whose interests are affected by the Government Regulations. 170. Vail Resorts’ operation of the Restroom Facility is subject to certain Government Regulations. 171. Vail Resorts’ operation of the Restroom Facility in close proximity to delineated wetlands violates certain Government Regulations. 172. Documents. The Associations are parties whose interests are affected by the Governing
173. Vail Resorts’ construction and operation of the Restroom Facility is subject to the Governing Documents. 174. Vail Resorts’ construction and operation violates the Governing Documents because, among the following, and without limitation: Vail Resorts failed to obtain DRB approval to construct the Restroom Facility; Vail Resorts obtained County permission to construct the Restroom Facility under false pretenses; and the operation of Restroom Facility violates certain Government Regulations. 175. The Associations are therefore entitled to a judgment giving effect to the Government Regulations and Governing Documents by prohibiting Vail Resorts from operating the existing Restroom Facilities. 176. A declaratory judgment would afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to the rights, status and other legal remedies of the parties. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Declaratory Relief – Alpine Slide/Coaster 177. The Associations hereby incorporate the above paragraphs.
178. A present controversy exists among and between the Associations and Vail Resorts concerning Vail Resorts’ proposal to construct and operate an Alpine Slide/Coaster on Tract S. 179. The Associations are parties whose interests are affected by the Government Regulations. 180. Vail Resorts’ proposed construction of the Alpine Slide/Coaster is subject to certain Government Regulations. 181. The construction and operation of an Alpine Slide/Coaster on Tract S would violate certain Government Regulations, including and without limitation, the County Regulations governing allowed uses in OSR portions of Beaver Creek. 182. The 1988 PUD previously governed development in the Beaver Creek PUD and expressly provide that an “alpine slide” was a use-by-right in OSR designated areas, including Tract S. 183. In 1994, the County Commissioners amended the PUD to specifically delete reference to an “alpine slide” as an enumerated use-by-right. 184. The purpose of the amendment was to make clear that an alpine slide was not a suitable use-by-right in OSR parcels. 185. The 1994 PUD is a written instrument, documenting a legislative enactment by the County, and was recorded in the Eagle County real property records. 186. Under Colorado law, an amendment to a PUD reflects an intention to change the law which must be given full effect. 187. The Associations are entitled to a declaration giving full effect to the 1994 PUD amendment that intended to change the law by deleting an “alpine slide” from the list of uses-byright allowed in OSR designated areas. 188. If an alpine slide is not a use-by-right allowed in OSR designated areas, then neither would an alpine coaster or any other gravity driven device be considered to be a use-byright. 189. Documents. The Associations are parties whose interests are affected by the Governing
190. The construction and operation of an Alpine Slide/Coaster in the Beaver Creek PUD is subject to the Governing Documents.
191. The construction and operation of an Alpine Slide/Coaster at the proposed location in Tract S would violate the Governing Documents because, among the following, and without limitation: an amusement ride is not an allowed use in Tract S pursuant to the PUD; the operation of an Alpine Slide/Coaster will not maintain a pleasant and desirable environment for all persons residing in Beaver Creek; the operation of an Alpine Slide/Coaster will violate certain restrictions for development in Beaver Creek; the construction of an Alpine Slide/Coaster is contrary to the objectives for design in Beaver Creek; and the construction/operation of an Alpine Slide/Coaster violates the very design scheme for which Vail Resorts developed, marketed and sold property in Beaver Creek. 192. The Associations are therefore entitled to a judgment giving effect to the Government Regulations and Governing Documents by prohibiting Vail Resorts from constructing and operating an Alpine Slide/Coaster on Tract S or elsewhere in the Beaver Creek PUD. 193. The Associations are therefore entitled to a declaration that Vail Resorts may not construct and operate an Alpine Slide/Coaster on Tract S or elsewhere in the Beaver Creek PUD. 194. A declaratory judgment would afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to the rights, status and other legal remedies of the parties. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Declaratory Relief – Ropes Course 195. The Associations hereby incorporate the above paragraphs.
196. A present controversy exists among and between the Associations and Vail Resorts concerning Vail Resorts’ proposal to construct a Ropes Course at the proposed location on Tract S. 197. The Associations are parties who interests are affected by the Government Regulations. 198. Vail Resorts’ proposed construction of the Ropes Course is subject to certain Government Regulations. 199. The construction and operation of the Ropes Course on or near the area of delineated wetlands violates certain Government Regulations. 200. Documents. The Associations are parties whose interests are affected by the Governing
201. The construction and operation of a Ropes Course in the Beaver Creek PUD is subject to the Governing Documents.
202. The construction and operation of a Ropes Course at the proposed location in Tract S would violate the Governing Documents because, among the following, and without limitation: Vail Resorts has failed to obtain proper permission to construct the Ropes Course on or near the area of delineated wetlands, and the construction and operation of the Ropes Course in areas of delineated wetlands would violate certain Government Regulations. 203. The Associations are therefore entitled to a judgment giving effect to the Government Regulations and Governing Documents by prohibiting Vail Resorts from constructing and operating a Ropes Course on or near areas of delineated wetlands. 204. A declaratory judgment would afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to the rights, status and other legal remedies of the parties. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Declaratory Relief – Proposed Amusement Complex 205. The Associations hereby incorporate the above paragraphs.
206. Independent of the controversy over each of the proposed rides/improvements proposed for construction and operation in Tract S, a present controversy exists among and between the Associations and Vail Resorts concerning Vail Resorts’ proposal to construct and operate the Proposed Amusement Complex itself, which Vail Resorts proposes to include, at a minimum: an Alpine Slide/Coaster, a Ropes Course, a Tubing Course, a Support Building, Ticketing Operations, Food/Beverage Facilities and Restroom Facilities. 207. The Associations are parties who interests are affected by the Government Regulations. 208. Vail Resorts’ proposed construction operation of the Proposed Amusement Complex in Tract S is subject to certain Government Regulations. 209. The construction and operation of the Proposed Amusement Complex in Tract S would violate certain Government Regulations, including and without limitation, the County Regulations governing allowed uses in OSR portions of Beaver Creek; development of areas on or near delineated wetlands; and County and State Regulations governing the service of alcohol. 210. Documents. The Associations are parties whose interests are affected by the Governing
211. The construction and operation of the Proposed Amusement Complex in the Beaver Creek PUD is subject to the Governing Documents.
212. The construction and operation of the Proposed Amusement Complex at the proposed location in Tract S would violate the Governing Documents because, among the following, and without limitation: construction and operation of an amusement complex on or near areas of delineated wetlands would violate certain Government Regulations; an amusement complex is not an allowed use in Tract S pursuant to the PUD; the operation of an amusement complex will not maintain a pleasant and desirable environment for all persons residing in Beaver Creek; the operation of an amusement complex will violate certain restrictions for development in Beaver Creek; the construction of an amusement complex is contrary to the objectives for design in Beaver Creek; and the construction/operation of an amusement complex violates the very design scheme for which Vail Resorts developed, marketed and sold property in Beaver Creek. 213. The Associations are therefore entitled to a judgment giving effect to the Government Regulations and Governing Documents by prohibiting Vail Resorts from constructing and operating the Proposed Amusement Complex in Tract S or elsewhere in the Beaver Creek PUD. 214. A declaratory judgment would afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to the rights, status and other legal remedies of the parties. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Declaratory Relief – Conservation Easement 215. The Associations hereby incorporate the above paragraphs.
216. A present controversy exists among and between the Associations and Vail Resorts concerning Vail Resorts’ use of Tract S inconsistent with the terms of the Conservation Easement. 217. Easement. 218. The Associations are parties whose interests are affected by the Conservation
Vail Resorts use of Tract S is subject to the terms of the Conservation Easement.
219. Vail Resorts’ and/or Beaver Creek Food Services’ operation of a club/restaurant facility, which serves alcohol, in proximity to the platted property at Greystone violates certain provisions of the Conservation Easement. 220. Vail Resorts knowingly violated the Conservation Easement and/or caused the Conservation Easement to be violated. 221. Vail Resorts concealed the violation of the Conservation Easement.
222. The Associations are therefore entitled to a judgment giving effect to the Conservation Easement by declaring that Vail Resorts violated the Conservation Easement and therefore failed to maintain the conservation value of the Conservation Easement. 223. Vail Resorts’ attempt to use Tract S for the operation of the Proposed Amusement Complex will violate the Conservation Easement. 224. The Associations are therefore entitled to a judgment giving effect to the Conservation Easement by declaring that the operation of a mountainside amusement complex on Tract S will violate the Conservation Easement and fail to maintain the conservation value of the Conservation Easement 225. A declaratory judgment would afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to the rights, status and other legal remedies of the parties. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Private Nuisance 226. The Associations hereby incorporates the above paragraphs.
227. Vail Resorts’ construction and operation of the Proposed Amusement Complex in Tract S, including, but not limited to, the Alpine Slide/Coaster, would constitute a private nuisance. 228. Vail Resorts’ construction and operation of the Proposed Amusement Complex in Tract S, including, but not limited to, the Alpine Slide/Coaster, would be an intentional, unreasonable, negligent and/or reckless interference with the Associations’ use and enjoyment of their respective properties. 229. The interference and loss of use and enjoyment caused by Vail Resorts’ construction and operation of the Proposed Amusement Complex in Tract S, including, but not limited to, the Alpine Slide/Coaster, would be substantial. 230. Due to the unique character of the Associations’ properties and the surrounding area, monetary damages would be insufficient to maintain and restore the properties to the conditions they are in but for the interferences caused by Vail Resorts’ construction and operation of the Proposed Amusement Complex in Tract S. 231. The Associations are therefore entitled to a judgment enjoining Vail Resorts from constructing and operating the Proposed Amusement Complex.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Public Nuisance 232. The Associations hereby incorporates the above paragraphs.
233. Vail Resorts’ construction and operation of the Proposed Amusement Complex in Tract S, including, but not limited to, the Alpine Slide/Coaster, would constitute a public nuisance. 234. Vail Resorts’ construction and operation of the Proposed Amusement Complex in Tract S, including, but not limited to, the Alpine Slide/Coaster, would injuriously affect the safety, health and morals of the public. 235. Vail Resorts’ construction and operation of the Proposed Amusement Complex in Tract S, including, but not limited to, the Alpine Slide/Coaster, would work a substantial annoyance, inconvenience, and injury to the public, and would substantially change the unique character of the area that the public commonly enjoys. 236. Due to the unique character of the area and the substantial annoyance, inconvenience, and injury to the public, monetary damages would be insufficient to maintain and restore Tract S. 237. The Associations are therefore entitled to a judgment enjoining Vail Resorts from constructing and operating the Proposed Amusement Complex. ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Misrepresentation/Concealment/Fraud 238. The Associations hereby incorporates the above paragraphs.
239. Vail Resorts made representations to the Associations that Vail Resorts sought to construct the Children’s Ski School for just that, the operation of a children’s ski school. 240. Vail Resorts represented that the Children’s Ski School would be used for children ages 7 through 14. 241. Vail Resorts represented that cooking facilities in the Children’s Ski School building would be only for the purpose of lunches to be provided for the children taking lessons. 242. Vail Resorts made representations to the Associations that Vail Resorts sought to construct the Children’s Gondola serving the Children’s Ski School for the purpose of transporting children to the ski school.
243. Vail Resorts represented that the Children’s Gondola would not operate during the summer because the gondola cabins would be removed from the cable during the summer. 244. Vail Resorts made representations to the Associations that Vail Resorts would pursue approval from the USFS for an alpine slide, coaster or other similar gravity-driven activity to be located and operated on USFS property at the Beaver Creek ski area. 245. Vail Resorts made representations to the Associations that it would refrain from constructing and operating an alpine slide, coaster or other similar gravity-driven activity in Tract S until Vail Resorts received approval to construct an alpine slide, coaster or other similar gravity-driven activity on USFS property. 246. Vail Resorts made such representations knowing the representations were false and/or to create a false impression of the actual actions that Vail Resorts intended to pursue. 247. Vail Resorts made such representations with the intent that the Associations would rely upon the representations. 248. 249. The Associations relied upon the representations. The Associations’ reliance upon the representations was justified.
250. The Associations’ reliance resulted in damages, including, specifically attorneys’ fees and costs, in an amount to be proven at trial. TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Civil Conspiracy 251. The Associations hereby incorporate the above paragraphs.
252. At the time that Vail Resorts’ proposed construction of the Children’s Ski School and Children’s Gondola, Vail Resorts represented in all of its submissions that the proposed improvements were intended for the construction and operation of a children’s ski school. 253. Vail Resorts sought support from the Associations for construction of the Children’s Ski School and Children’s Gondola by representing that the Children’s Ski School would be used for just that, a children’s ski school. 254. However, unknown to the Associations until recently, at or around the time of approval and construction of the Children’s Ski School, Vail Corporation leased possession and control of the Children’s Ski School to Beaver Creek Food Services for liquor license purposes. 255. Vail Resorts’ and/or Beaver Creek Food Services’ operation of a facility serving alcohol at the Children’s Ski School violates Government Regulations.
256. Vail Resorts and/or Beaver Creek Food Services were aware that the service of alcohol at the Children’s Ski School violates Government Regulations. 257. Accordingly, Vail Resorts and/or Beaver Creek Food Services identified the Children’s Ski School as “The Ranch” in all submissions for a liquor license. 258. Vail Resorts’ and/or Beaver Creek Food Services’ operation of a club/restaurant facility at the Children’s Ski School violates the Governing Documents. 259. Vail Resorts and/or Beaver Creek Food Services were aware that the service of alcohol at the Children’s Ski School violates Governing Documents. 260. Accordingly, Vail Resorts and/or Beaver Creek Food Services attempted to rebrand the Children’s Ski School as “The Ranch.” 261. Vail Resorts and/or Beaver Creek Food Services wrongfully conspired to serve alcohol at the Children’s Ski School, to obtain a liquor license under false pretenses, by wrongfully operating a club/restaurant in violation of the Governing Documents, and to rebrand the Children’s Ski School as “The Ranch” to further the conspiracy to wrongfully use the building as for Food/Beverage Operations for the Proposed Amusement Complex. 262. Vail Resorts’ and/or Beaver Creek Food Services’ wrongful conspiracy was motivated by Vail Resorts’ desire to use the Children’s Ski School in an improper manner in order to maximize its own commercial revenue. 263. Vail Resorts and/or Beaver Creek Food Services’ conspiracy has resulted in damages to the Associations in amounts to be proven at trial. THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Colorado Consumer Protection Act 264. The Associations hereby incorporate the above paragraphs.
265. Vail Resorts engaged in a deceptive trade practice when Vail Resorts sought support from the Associations for approval and construction of the Children’s Ski School by representing that the Children’s Ski School would be used for just that, a children’s ski school, while failing to disclose Vail Resorts intended to use the Children’s Ski School for other purposes, including the operation of a club/restaurant and as the hub for the Proposed Amusement Complex. 266. Vail Resorts engaged in a deceptive trade practice when Vail Resorts sought support from the Associations for approval and construction of the Children’s Gondola by representing that the gondola was needed to transport children and would not operate during the summer because the gondola cabins would be removed from the cable during the summer, while
failing to disclose that Vail Resorts intended to use the Children’s Gondola for other purposes, including to transport customers to the club/restaurant and the Proposed Amusement Complex. 267. Vail Resorts engaged in a deceptive trade practice when Vail Resorts sought approval for the construction of the Children’s Ski School and Children’s Gondola under the guise of need for a children’s ski school, when Vail Resorts intended to use the Children’s Ski School building and Children’s Gondola as the hub for the Proposed Amusement Complex. 268. Vail Resorts and/or Beaver Creek Food Services engaged in a deceptive trade practice when Vail Resorts sought and obtained a liquor license to serve alcohol at the Children’s Ski School under false pretenses and without disclosing that the facility was used as a children’s ski school. 269. Vail Resorts engaged in a deceptive trade practice when Vail Resorts sought the Associations’ support for amendment of federal legislation, under the guise that such legislation would allow Vail Resorts to refrain from construction of an alpine slide, coaster or other similar gravity-driven activity on Tract S, when Vail Resorts’ actual intention was to construct an alpine slide, coaster or other similar gravity-driven activity in Tract S. 270. Vail Resorts engaged in a deceptive trade practice when Vail Resorts began grading activities for the Tubing Course, without a valid permit, while informing the Associations the grading work was not related to the Proposed Amusement Complex, when Vail Resorts’ actual intention was to begin construction of the Proposed Amusement Complex without obtaining the necessary permits and approvals. 271. Vail Resorts’ deceptive trade practices occurred during Vail Resorts’ development activities in the Beaver Creek PUD. 272. The Associations own property in the Beaver Creek PUD, which property was developed by Vail Resorts, and the Associations remain consumers of and/or are impacted by Vail Resorts’ continued development within the Beaver Creek PUD. 273. Vail Resorts’ deceptive trade practices significantly impact the public as actual and potential consumers of Vail Resorts’ goods, users of Vail Resorts’ services, and users of Vail Resorts’ property. 274. practices. The Associations were injured as a result of the Vail Resorts’ deceptive trade
275. Vail Resorts’ deceptive trade practices resulted in damages to the Associations in amounts to be proven at trial. 276. 1-113. The Associations seek treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs under C.R.S. § 6-
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 277. The Associations hereby incorporate the above paragraphs.
278. This cause of action is to redress the deprivation under the color of statute, ordinance, regulation, policy, custom, practice or usage of a right, privilege, and immunity secured to the Associations by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States (42 U.S.C. § 1983). 279. The Associations are members of a class of persons who own property in Eagle County and are subject to the actions of the County and the County Commissioners. 280. The County Commissioners’ actions in engaging in ex-parte communications with an executive of Vail Resorts at a time when Vail Resorts sought a decision from the County Commissioners, and then failing to disclose such ex-parte communications, were arbitrary, capricious and irrational, undertaken with bad faith pre-textual motives, and intentionally and deliberately done for the purpose of denying the Associations their constitutionally protected rights to due process and equal protection of the laws. 281. The actions of a County Commissioner in soliciting the support of Vail Resorts for certain political initiatives at a time when Vail Resorts sought a decision from the County Commissioners, and then failing to disclose such solicitation or any other possible conflicts of interest, was arbitrary, capricious and irrational, undertaken with bad faith pre-textual motives, and intentionally and deliberately done for the purpose of denying the Associations their constitutionally protected rights to due process and equal protection of the laws. 282. The County Commissioners’ actions in referring to, citing and relying upon materials and documents that were not properly submitted into evidence were arbitrary, capricious and irrational, undertaken with bad faith pre-textual motives, and intentionally and deliberately done for the purpose of denying the Associations their constitutionally protected rights to due process and equal protection of the laws. 283. The County Commissioners acted willfully, knowingly, with reckless disregard and deliberate indifference, and purposefully with the intent to deprive the Associations of their constitutional rights. 284. The County Commissioners’ actions, while purportedly carried out under color of law, have no justification or excuse in law, and instead constitute a gross and egregious abuse of governmental authority and power, shock the conscience, are fundamentally unfair, arbitrary and oppressive. 285. The Associations are therefore entitled to monetary relief in an amount to be determined at trial, including an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: A. An order overturning or invalidating the County Commissioners’ affirmation of the County Director’s Interpretation; B. An award of specific performance compelling Vail Resorts to honor the terms of its agreement as a precedent to constructing and/or operating any alpine slide, coaster or other similar gravity-driven activity in the Beaver Creek PUD; C. A declaration prohibiting Defendants or any other parties from operating a club, restaurant or Food/Beverage Facility at the Children’s Ski School building or elsewhere within 1,000 feet of the nearest platted property; D. A declaration prohibiting Defendants or any other parties from serving alcohol at the Children’s Ski School building; E. A declaration prohibiting Defendants or any other parties from operating the existing Restroom Facilities; F. A declaration prohibiting Defendants or any other parties from constructing and operating an alpine slide, coaster or similar gravity driven device in Tract S or elsewhere in the Beaver Creek PUD; G. A declaration prohibiting Defendants or any other parties from constructing and operating the Ropes Course on or near areas of delineated wetlands; H. A declaration prohibiting Defendants or any other parties from constructing and operating the Proposed Amusement Complex or any similar amusement complex in Tract S or elsewhere in the Beaver Creek PUD; I. A declaration that Vail Resorts violated the Conservation Easement and failed to maintain the conservation value of the Conservation Easement; J. A declaration that the operation of the Proposed Amusement Complex in Tract S will violate the Conservation Easement and fail to maintain the conservation value of the Conservation Easement; K. A judgment enjoining Vail Resorts from constructing and operating the Proposed Amusement Complex in order to avoid a private nuisance; L. A judgment enjoining Vail Resorts from constructing and operating the Proposed Amusement Complex in order to avoid a public nuisance;
M. Monetary damages, including, specifically, attorneys’ fees, arising from Vail Resorts’ misrepresentations, concealment and fraud; N. and, O. Monetary damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs arising from Vail Resorts’ deceptive trade practices; P. Monetary damages and attorneys’ fees and costs arising from the County Commissioners’ violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and Q. An award of any other damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and/or any other relief in law or equity that the Court may deem just. Respectfully submitted on October 1, 2013. JOHNSON & REPUCCI LLP s/ Lew M. Harstead Lew M. Harstead Attorneys for Plaintiff Beaver Creek Property Owners Association, Inc. MOYE WHITE LLP s/ Carrie A. Rodgers Carrie A. Rodgers Attorneys for Plaintiff Greystone Condominium Association Monetary damages arising from the conspiracy among the Vail Resorts entities;
Address of Plaintiff Beaver Creek Property Owners Association: c/o Chapman & Isom Law Group 105 Edwards Village Boulevard, Suite C219 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Address of the Plaintiff Greystone Condominium Association: c/o Moye White LLP Carrie A. Rodgers James Belgum 16 Market Square, 6th Floor 1400 16th Street Denver, Colorado 80202
CHILDREN'S SKI SCHOOL - Ticketing Operations - Food/Beverage Facilities
Stream (Federal Headwaters)
Greystone Residential Units
Children's Gondola
Documents Similar To Beaver Creek Property Owners Association lawsuit against Vail Resorts over proposed "forest flyer" alpine coaster at the base of the ski area. Filed Oct. 1, 2013.Skip carouselTps Brouchure2013Mpuj saleNorthbound 10What Are the Best Winter Tourist Destinations in ChinaRadissonSustainable Approach Paradise BayTourism in a Seaside ResortNewmarket Holidays - Xmas destinations at home and abroadSocial Considerations - 182RRR Report Draftdolphin fund presentation<a href="http://cebuayalahomes.com/properties/solinea-lazuli/">Solinea</a> LAZULIWhite Lines 85 Articlewalt disneyBusiness Events News for Mon 02 Feb 2015 - Voyages set for 20% growth, Jewel in the Crowne Plaza, New name for ICCA AIME seminar, Face to Face with Sean Buttrose, and much moreLamplighter August 2007Untitled13_3_6AbroadBallathie House Hotel in the Daily RecordDocuments About BeaverSkip carouselFinley, James b.1794Lincoln Park SurveyNew Jersey Fall 2016 Furbearer Management NewsletterThe Call of the Beaver Patrol
The Young Cattle Kings by Adams, Andy, 1859-1935The Tale of Brownie Beaver by Bailey, Arthur Scott, 1877-1949The Tale of Ferdinand Frog by Bailey, Arthur Scott, 1877-1949The Tale of Timothy Turtle by Bailey, Arthur Scott, 1877-1949Stories about the Instinct of Animals, Their Characters, and Habits by Bingley, ThomasA Mating in the Wilds by Binns, OttwellThe Adventures of Paddy Beaver by Burgess, Thornton W. (Thornton Waldo), 1874-1965The Adventures of Paddy the Beaver by Burgess, Thornton W. (Thornton Waldo), 1874-1965The King Of Beaver, and Beaver LightsFrom "Mackinac And Lake Stories", 1899 by Catherwood, Mary Hartwell, 1847-1902Story Hour Readers — Book Three by Coe, IdaThe Trapper's Son by Kingston, William Henry Giles, 1814-1880Heralds of EmpireBeing the Story of One Ramsay Stanhope, Lieutenant to Pierre Radisson in the Northern Fur Trade by Laut, Agnes C. (Agnes Christina), 1871-1936Pluck on the Long TrailBoy Scouts in the Rockies by Sabin, Edwin L.The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction
Volume 20, No. 573, October 27, 1832 by VariousNotes and Queries, Number 26, April 27, 1850 by Variousnull17212_1885-1889Asbury Park Press front page Tuesday, Dec. 15 2015Lie v. San Francisco & Portland SS Co., 243 U.S. 291 (1917)Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,442 Richard D. Ahrens and Jeanne Ahrens, His Wife v. American-Canadian Beaver Co., Inc., a Corporation, 458 F.2d 607, 10th Cir. (1972)Southern Union Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 725 F.2d 99, 10th Cir. (1984)Continental Marketing Corporation v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 387 F.2d 466, 10th Cir. (1967)J.A. Beaver v. Rayonier, Inc., 200 F.3d 723, 11th Cir. (1999)Beaver Cloth Cutting MacHines Inc. v. H. Maimin Co., Inc., 343 F.2d 442, 2d Cir. (1965)Beaver Valley Power Company, a Pa. Corp. v. National Engineering & Contracting Co., an Ohio Corp. v. Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., 3rd Party Appeal of Beaver Valley Power Company, 883 F.2d 1210, 3rd Cir. (1989)More From jasonblevinsSkip carouselDistrict Court Judge Frederick Gannett rejects Vail ski area request to dismiss Taft Conlin wrongful death lawsuit Eagle County District Court 3-22-2017 ruling in Clearwater Ventures versus Town of Gypsum over the town's condemantion of land through eminent domain Hesperus Ski Area Inspection_pdf_docChimney Rock National Monument 2016 visitor survey, economic impact report for Chimney Rock Interpretive Association 2012 Chimney Rock Economic Impact Report by BBC Research & ConsultingBureau of Land Management, Rags Over The Arkansas River, Christo's Over The River Corporation joint motion to dismiss in U.S. Court of Appeals 10th CircuitThomas Alpern lawsuit targeting Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act U.S. Forest Service recreational amenity fees at Maroon Valley in Maroon Bells - Snowmass Wilderness Area near Aspen Winter Park Town Council lawsuit against Grand County Board of Commissioners seeking to overturn county approval of Serene Wellness marijuana dispensary 2016.07.12 Ordinance 2016-08 (1st Reading)2016-09-28 15-38-43 Petition in Condemnation (1) (1)Colorado State Auditor lawsuit asking Denver District Court to force Great Outdoors Colorado to comply with performance auditDistilled Spirts Council ballot initiative for November 2016 Colorado ballot expanding beer, wine and liquor sales to grocery stores, convenience storesDistilled Spirits Council Colorado ballot initiative allowing 10 liquor store licenses for each companyMarch 8, 2016 ruling by US Court of Appeals Washington DC district Ark Initiative vs US Forest Service over the ski area exclusion in the Colorado Roadless RuleTravelzoo lawsuit against Denver-based Fresh Trips, Fresh Jets, Timmy WozniakUniversity of Denver White Paper analysis of Short Term Rentals in Denver Colorado 2015 Summer Ad CampaignOrder approving change of venue for Ingalls v Vail from Broomfield District Court to Eagle CountyRocky Mountain Wild lawsuit against Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas seeking to overturn Forest Service approval of a land swap connecting US 160 with private land owned by BJ Red McCombs atop Wolf Creek Pass, where McCombs wants to build Village at Wolf CreeVisit Denver visitation report by Longwoods International 2014 Fleury vs Winter Park brief Colorado Supreme Court Rags Over the Arkansas River petition for certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court to stop artist Christo's Over The River projectOpening brief in Fleury vs Intrawest / Winter Park ski area, wrongful death lawsuit over death of Christopher Norris, filed to Colorado Supreme CourtFacilities Use Agreement between City of salida and Madison House Presents for two-day music festival in the cityOpinion From Colorado Court of Appeals 02-12-15 in Rags Over The River appeal of Colorado State Parks approval of Christo's Over The River projectVail Resorts Reply in Support of Vail's Motion to Transfer wrongful death lawsuit jury trial involving in-bounds avalanche fatality of Taft Conlin to Eagle County Rags Over The Arkansas River Notice of Appeal filing in U.S. District Court in Denver appealing federal judgment supporting the Bureau of Land Management's approval of artist Christo's Over The River project. Vail Resorts 01-09-2015 Motion to Change Venue in wrongful death case brought by family of Taft ConlinColorado Supreme Court order granting appeal in Fleury v Winter Park / Intrawest case involving in-bounds avalanche death of Christopher Norris, Dec. 8, 2014 Xanterra lawsuit against National Park Service over Grand Canyon National Park concessionaire contract