Subject: Fw: Nirvana Ranch LLC Resubdivision
From: PHOTOLLC ACTUAL (actualphotollc@yahoo.com)
To: JOHNSON@WCRLEGAL.COM;
Date: Friday, June 25, 2010 8:22 AM
Garth Valentine
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Denny Ehlers <dehlers@durangolaw.com>
To: actualphotollc@yahoo.com
Cc: Paula Schler <pschler@durangolaw.com>
Sent: Fri, June 4, 2010 12:35:44 PM
Subject: Nirvana Ranch LLC Resubdivision
Mr. Valentine,
I have done a preliminary review of the materials provided to me. I believe that the PUD creation was based upon the
1972 PUD Act and the PUD portion of the County Regulations in effect at the time of the of the BOCC approval of the
PUD Master Plan in December 1978. Lot 21 appears to have been clearly part of the PUD. Does the Declaration of
Covenants describe the properties it applies to? I do not have the declaration of covenants. I believe the discussion of
whether Lot 21 was created by a PUD plat or as a remainder parcel after other final plats were recorded or lots sold, is
not determinative of whether Lot 21 was part of the PUD. If included in the property covered by the declaration or if the
declaration was supplemented as plats were filed and lots brought in, such facts would further support the fact that Lot
21 was part of the PUD from the beginning and remains such. Often developments incrementally develop and annex
parcels into the association and coverage under the declaration as phasing occurs.
Based upon what I have reviewed I believe that the County is bound by the zoning that existed at the time of the PUD
Master Plan Approval in 1978. The fact that the County treated all parcels in the PUD in future filings clearly indicates
that the County considered the underlying zoning for density calculations as Foothills and not valley. I believe that
although 5 final plat filings have occurred this in no way indicates that Lot 21 is not part of the PUD. I believe that the
subsequent attempted rezone of the property to Valley should not be effective to override the PUD density approval
demonstrated by subsequent filings to be Foothills.
Although the covenants allow parcels as small as 2 acres in resubdivision, the covenant declaration, read in concert
with the approved PUD Master Plan and existing Foothills zoning density limits, leads to the conclusions that parcels
could be as small as 2 acres but must still have the overall PUD density stay within the Foothills density as such
existed in 1978. Unless there is provision for termination of the PUD in the PUD ordinance in effect in 1978, I believe
the approval remains valid and vested.
All of this said, I am not excited about stepping into this “appeal” at this late date. My schedule remains full with other
matters and I have upcoming spine surgery. I would be willing to assist other counsel with analysis and preparation.
My hourly rate is at $300/per hour if you would be interested in pursuing this further with me. Let me know. Denny
Crane, Leake, Ehlers & Bruzzese, P.C.
102 West 18th Street
Durango, CO 81301
Print https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?action=inbox#2112928637
1 of 2 6/16/2016 1:56 PM
(970) 375-7411
(970) 259-6354 Fax