HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.246527301002
DOCUMENT LAYOUT
THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION
LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER ;
Summary Sheet
Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Determination for the Hearing Officer
Administrative Determination
Staff Memo
Application
Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter
Site Plan
Miscellaneous
Plat copies (11x17)
1 ~ .,,
h-.
n ,. >. ~~a f~T s. .a .:. m. ~~?k r.. a, .,»~,:::i.~aMa,^~F~,~s*.~i^~3~$....+.A?e F~ ~-a ~, ~.n_ :a.P~«~br, a;, ~e"+h,'
.. ,
•
-..
JO ;CF'Fi C EDWARDS, JCd.
~ ~~~
.\TTONNCY hT LAW
?HC JCPOMC PItOIC~~tO tIFL OVILPHIO v
LOI H0f1TH MILL ~TIIC C T, >UITC k~OD
ASf'E N, COLD Glh DO 01611 _
TCLLFHOHC 190J1 DYtf •7110
. M E~M^O R It N D U_2d_
TO: Sandy Stuller ,Michael Kinsley, Bob Childs, and
• Kareri Smith
• RE: Bart Strang Ranch
DATE: July 21,.1980
• Chuck Vidal came to see me regarding the T~ rt Strang Ranch. You
_ may recall that this use to belong to -B-r-ei#rer, •,an Hawaiian Develop-
ment Virm and has been. sold out to 1, 0 ~•p~l indivi.duals when BroY.er
was .unable to maY,e progress through the County codes in getting
subdivision approvals. Just prior to the passage of our 35 acre re-
gulatiOn, the Strang Ranch (Fri+h +- ~ a¢+ ,mow"T+; ~a s„
divided up into thi - a~,~aT~, The total acreage
o- e ranch is approximately 2,000 acras. I frankly do not
remember what the various Broker Pouse'proposals which we did
not accept were but 2 am sure that it is reflected somewhere •
•in Karen's file.
Bis new proposal which he would like us to consider is as follows;
.., h,of- v ft.~.-„~-
Present zonzing is RS-30 which would theoretica3ly allow 68 nits,
34 of-which would be employee housing and 34 of which would e
lice uidrxet. ~He wou-.c nrnnnaa ~, „~,~, ~n ..F ,_~._ ________, .. ..
acre parcels ana abandon the remainder'as common area. Each of the
owners woula then to cTe a"~al• of s :Lots ~,ahiciz t=he ould do
withwhat they please. and 4 other lots would be sold,-the proceeds to
go to the FIomeowners' Association for the construction of amenities
sv:-h as a eery elaborate riding rink, horse barn, etc., with the
whole subdivision to have an eaue'strian orientation. The lets were
originally .laid out in order to preserve the agricultural meadows
so that the general agriculruai producing capability of the 7
land would not be encroached upon by the construction of chc - i!
houses.
They would agr.'e to nhasing of 'the actual granting of the builr?ing
penr.its so as not to overwhelm the growth management quotas.
. The ways that the phasing could be accomplished are by the
:~ecord.ng on their part'of a covenant to only allow development
within the subdivision to proceed,at that rate, or in the
:alternative an agreement with the County in settlement of
potential disputes whereby they would make the commitment
to phasing. procedurally, it would amotnrt to no affirmative
.action oi~ the County whatsoever other than the a.ssuance of
~~C~~ee-~i -ST ~ 7~eer~c~ ~S/~~a- S~ ~~ /~2•diviceQo
Ivy rS~r~YYeA~-,l~r~ 7`~r~;~'2~ / '
~ °.
i
9
." MEMO
Page Two
of building permits in response to requests and perhaps the
phasing agreement mentioned above.
At the present time, T'see••the following advantages;
1. Resolves the status of the Bart St ~n9 ?.~Op
acre_ranc Dreyer as covenan s against future development
r~ou d be recorded.
2. Usage on the ~0~1 would be minimized since one
34 single family dwellings would be constructe w ereas
present zonri allows 68 and i t ey were to nrw_,il
in liL-igating the le alit of their-35 acre divsions-
Lti~2 they cou t eoretically have 53 free market units:
~' - _ .---
Disadvantages that I see at the present time are:
1. Resolves the question of the property Guch that
development becomes immediately possible, if not probable,.
creating load factors soon on a road which is marginal
.. and needs some bulldozer work.
' 2. There ..are no employee housing commitments in the
proposal allowing 34 more free market units without" '
any contribution to the employee housing pool. However,`
~ if their 3.5 acre divisions prior to our regulation being
may, in .effect were upheld, there would be 53 fr~c-~_m»rka+ nn;rG
there with no employee housing commitment Dither.. Also,
under our caretaker regulation,_there may be some, of ~;
~~ ~jp~i•¢/th2se units who would .want to have a resident caret- ales
~~ ~Q~,~,,/ as a babysi er or o elp with the horses, etc., so some
`7 units may be provided. In addition, they have cor~.nitted
to housing on-site all employees of the equestrian center
in the ranch operation.
At the present time, my guess is that they might be willing
to take even less than the 34 that they have offered to
settle for and my guess as`to the range. would be somethi,eg
between not less than 20 nur more than the 34. Please
review this Ptemorandum and communicate your thoughts i:e
Sandy and i,>hen everyone has had an opportunity to i:hink
about it, let us decide what sort of response, if any,
that we t,~ould want to give to Chuck Vidal.
r - ~~
6/2/81
STRANG RANCH
MEMORANDUM TO FILE
RE: PLANNING OFFICE DETERb1INATION BY JOE WELLS OF CONTIGUOUS
OWNERSHIP OF 35 ACRE`PARCELS ON STRANG RANCH
• Wells' map in the file indicates that, out of 54
parcels, only 37 are actually held in separate ownership
/l by reason of the cumulation of certain adjacent contiguous
lots which were apparently conveyed into the same owherships.
The lots which he found were contiguous and in the same
• ownership and, therefore, cumulated by County regulations
are as follows. Lots 10 through 14, 16, 20, 30, 31, 33,
52 and 53 (a total of 12 lots); lots 23, 29 and 36 (3 lots);
lots 25 and 26 (2 lots); lots 40 and 43 (2 lots.); lots 42 and
45 (2 lots); lots 35 and 51 (2 lots},
'.
-,
_. .,:_ w_ . _.
~ ~~
iG'~-
Il W ,e.... ~i
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILLLDING
201 NORTH MILL STREET;SUITE p109
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (303f 925-7116
April 29, 1982
Bob Child
Board of County Commissioners
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Sopris Creek Ranch
Dear Bob,
There is a statutory procedure by which a farm name can be
registered. I am enclosing copies of the appropriate
affidavits by which the name '1Mount Sopris Ranch" was
appropriately reserved by the parties who purchased the
former Bart Strang Ranch. Apparently, the .Parrys never
bothered to comply with the statutory procedure for
registration of a farm name. Were there to be a dispute on
this matter, I believe the proper compliance by the current
owners of the Strang Ranch would prevail. Certainly, they
were acting in good .faith, since they checked the
registration records to make sure no other ranch had regis-
tered the farm name they selected.
However, in spite of their compliance with the registration
procedures, they have elected to change their farm name in
deference to the Parrys and will be selecting a new name
shortly (probably the West Sopris Creek Ranch).
Very truly yours,
JEE ch
Enclosures
. F~~w --
~ y _ ~ ;. , . ~w ~ ,. ~ ~. .
~.,.~ cz-- ~'
~.
Opcn Lands. Rca1 Estatc
November 13, 1980
Mr. Charles Vidal
Real Estate Affiliates
300 E. Hyman
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Chuck•
I've massaged the numbers about every way I could trying to
justify a charitable donation of, ten building sites '(develop-
ment of twenty-four) on the Strang Property; and I can't make
it work. The problem is two-fold: First; if you'need the
cash from the sale.. of 14 lots to develop the common areas,
then obviously tax relief via donation will not help with
these lots. Second, if only five partners. could potentially
use the tax breaks offered by donation, their ownership in-
terest does not represent a large enough portion to allow
them to keep one lot apiece and still donate ten Tots."
If the split were such that each. partner took three lots and
four were sold. to pay for common area development, then five
individuals could take the tax adbantage of donating two lots
each. However, their direct financial benefit still wouldn't
be as great as through sale..
A donation is taken at full fair market value of the property
and is directly deductible from adjusted gross income.. For
someone in the 50~ tax bracket, a donation "shields" income
equal to the fair market value of the property, and saves paying
income tax equal to 1/2 the value of-the property'.
In addition, because the donation is subtracted from adjusted
gross income in determining taxable income, it can pu£ the
donor in a lower tax bracket, fhereby reducing the rate of tax
on all his income.
The following examines the direct financial benefits of an
open market sale of a lot versus a donation of the lot to a
qualified charity:
Daniel E. Pike 428 East I Ith Avenue
(303) 837-1036 •` Denvef • Colorado 80203
_ .au. ,...., ..: _ ~ .. ~.., ....; •._.., ,.~~,~,...
Letter To: Mr.
Dated November
Page Two
Assume:
Charles Vidal
13,,.."1980,..
Fair Market Value....... $150,000
.. ..
Basis........... ~ ...
Expense of Sale. ...... ~ ~~~~~~'~' 50,000
Tax Rate of Partner......... ~~~~ 18.000
......,.......;....:., 50~
Sale:
Sale Proceeds....$150,000 Long Term Capital
Less.Expenses.... 18,000 Gain .................$ 82,000
$132,000 .Taxable Gain X
Less Tax......... 16,400 __Tax Rate...... X.5
Net After Taxes. .$115,600 Tax on Gain......... $ 16,400
Gift:
Fair".Market Value....... $150,000 (Shield)
X Tax. Bracket ~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~ " ' " " '
X.5
Tax Savings.......... .. $ 75,000
It is clear to see that in your case tax savings alone does not
justify a donation.; It does substantially soften the impact of
developing at a density less than maximum: Some'of the planning
hassle of trying to develop at a maximum level is eliminated.
The tax savings. may be taken immediately, where a sale might take
a year, two,-or more. This means saving 1980 tax dollars versus
receiving 1981 or 1982 income - a significant factor with today's
inflation rate.
This is of course a simplified interpretation of charitable dona-
tions. A tax attorney or~atY''"~b''uhtant`~shoul"~"be consulted if
you wish to pursue this. Many details regarding. the type of gift,
the recipient, and the timing should be carefully worked out.
A donation of some of the lots is an alternative you should
examine when determining yobs"development proposals. I would be
happy to discuss this in greater detail with you at any"time.
Sincerely,
DEP:fg Daniel E. Pike
~td,,,,~
d, K ~_ ..,
h
... ~ .i. rc r. +. .. u . ik.u e.: .~
U'' 506 eas£ ma:n street
X 1,) aspen, Colorado 81611
April 27, 1982 '~i lj'y~
Joseph E. E~?wards, Jr.
201 Scuth Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
HA'~ID DELIVEFLD
Re: Bart Strang Ranch
Dear Joe:
Being returned to You are the Aspen Title
tents earlier submitted .a: CO'~Y abstract azd corporation docu-
ith respect to the former Bart Strang Ranch. Based on
these doc~~~nts and information supplied by You f offer the follaaing opinion.
BIS'SC~RV '
In Julv of 1974 Brewer Properties, Inc. ("Breuer") eu_ecu+,~d 34 deeds for the fo~.~~r
Bart Strang ch (?_004A) for lots +arying in size from 35 to 50 (approx.) acres
~ three CO rations• ThYee correc.ion deeds (survey errors) were re~rded on
October 1st; but other than. these all conveyancers wem re~rded on July 29, 1974.
All the deeds were special warranty dG~,ds;shv,~ed doct„^~ntai~y fees of from $2.50
to $3.OO; and had detailed survey descriptions. The conveyances were 'ac9mittedly
done. in anticipation of the proposed amandmr_.nt to include large lots (35+ acres)
within the definition of sulxlivision "With respect to the County's action on the
aimnctrnnt, the records show:
October 23, 1974 P & Z recoimnended approval of the amendc~nt deleting
the 35 acre exception.
November 14,1974 Published notice of the public hearing.
December 16,1974 BOC.'C public hearing.
DeceiNSer 23,1974 BOCC adopted resolution amending the axle,
The Board has been presented with several proposals for develop~rnrnnt, the *mst
recent cans ~nsidered and denied. in late 1974. Tire reasons given for denial were.
insuffici_ert access roads (West Sopris Creek & prince Creek Roads); imiiaCts on
other public facilities; location next to crit cal elk v+~interng, migration and
cal`n-n9 areas; inconsistency ~,rith adjacent agricultural areas; and questions as
``-o the adequacy of the water supply.
l
~~
~ Page 2.
,,
ISSUES
With the recent decision in Pennobscot v Board of CoL~nty Cormissioners the
ability of a landamer to sukxlivide 35+ acre tracts Wit'~out subdivision approval
is no loncjer at issue. S^h:at is of concern to us, however, is whether the tracts
parcelled in 1974 are to be deemed subdivided lots (prior to the adoption of the
C~ quota allocation system) so as to be er~t from the quota requirements
{5-510.2) and the mandatory PUD requrementsl. ':tao ele*rents of our subdivision
regulations appear to be relevant. They are subsections (b) and (c) of the defini-
flan of subdivision found in'Section`20-1 {p, 234 Su~y.2)
"{b) No subdivision of land shall be deemed to 'have occurred merely by
reason of the establishment of a public right-of-way (for access
or utility"purposes) across such land without regard'as to whether
-such right-of-way Baas an~~;red by dedication er establi§hn~nt by
prescription:
(c) In the event that two or mire contiguous parcels of land, previously
separately conveyed (or described) shall come under single ownership,
the division of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, sites, parcels,
separate interests, interests in coramn, or other division,~ven if
divided along the line of a previously described or ~nveyed paxcel,
shall consttute'a subdivision of land. Nothing herein shall be deer,~eci
to apply to a lot shc~m on any recorded subdivision plat, unless such
subdivision plat shall rot`have rersived those. approvals required by
state or local law."
The two issues as I see there are (1) did Brewer affect a subdivision (parcelling
and cazveyan~) of the lots in 1974 and (2) if so, have tnese lots"maintained their
separate identity (or, conversely "m~xged"under {b) or {c)) subsequent to that til-re.
1974 WNVEY&'VCES .
As noted above the deeds issued were in good form, with ~mpiete legal descriptions,
and doctmient fees indicating consideration was received. Grantees of the deeds
from Brewer are: _. , .
1. Hawaiiana Investment Co.,Inc. ("Hawaiiana") (16 lots)
2. C.B. Kilauea Inc. ("Kilauea") (15 lots)
3. Hawaiana Modular Co.;7nc: {"Hawaiiana Modular") (l0 lots)`
with 13 lots being retained by Brewer. Docim~ntaton submitted by you shwas:
1. Hawaiiana was incorporated in October 1970 in Iiawai and was a corporation
in cJOod standing in 1974,
1• It is my understanding that the land is zoned RS-30 PUD, The PUD r~ "cements,
however,-are not applicable for the construction of a siaigle family hoii~ where
the subdivision of land is not proposed. 3-1.9{c)
t
,~,
,.. ~
.., _w ~__..~~~~.„,.,-W ~_.rw,
d~ ~ Page 3.
„. ::. F_ ~ _ ~~ ~~~ ,.
Y
2. Kilauea was incorporated in 1972 in Hawaii and was a corporation in gocw'
standing in 1974.
3. Hawaiiana Modular was incorporated in Hawaii in 1973 and was a corpora-
ti.on in good standing in 1974.
4. Brewer is a Delaware corporation incorporated in 1972 also in good stand-
' ing (at least in Hawaii) in 1974.1
,You have stated that in 1974 all corporation;other than Brewer were wholly owned
subsidiaries of Brewer or each other.
It is truce that the ire execution and recordation of a deed does not create acon-
olusive presumption of a conveyanc~``of an interest in land. Curtiss v Ferris, 452.
p. 2d 38(Colo.1969). And_that the Colorado courts ,will ignore the sparate legal
identities of corporations when necessary to prohibit the perpetration of fraud or
evasion of the la:a, or whenever justice so requires. Bi~sh_o_~ w_s. U. S., 16 F 2d 410
(C.A.A. Colo. 1926); Fish vs. East, 114 F 2d 177 (C&.lOtT-C,ir. 1940 Sell vs. U. S.,
336 F 2d 467 (C.A. 19th Cir. 1964); Fink vs.MOntgorery Elevator Co., 421 P.2d 735
(1966); Contractor's Heating and Suppl Co. vs.Scherb, 432 P.2.d 237 (Colo. 1967); In-
dustrial Comrussion vs. Lavach, 439 P.2d 359 (Colo. 1968); Rosebud vs. Boggis, 561
P.2d 367 Colo. App. 1977 ;.Hill vs. T.~armin, 609 P.2d 127. (1980); Gude vs. City of
Lakewood, Colorado Supremo Court No. 80 SC 81 decided. November 2, 1981,
However, I think that under t2ie facts°of this case a court would not "pierce the
corporate veils" of t'ie corporate entities involved. But, rather the facts evi-
denoe effective conveyances to separate legal entities, for consideration, not
established for the purpose of perpetuating fraud or evading the lao:.
MERGER
Relying on the abstract and January 6, 1982 memo in which the results of the ab-
stract were analyzed, I would conclude that: .
1. Lots. 26 & 28, and lots 40 & 43 have merged under subsection (c) of
the County definition.
2. Lot 54 is less than 35 acres in size; the location of the. right-of-way
does not establish it as a separate parcel (see subsection (b) of the
definition of subdivision); and development authority would not be granted
absent compliance with the County subdivision and C3"iP regulations.
Pfeifer v Board of County Conanissioners, 54b P.2d 946 (1976).
DISCL2IZN~R
Be advised that theabove does not guarantee issuance of any developrient permits.
Cacg~liance with Section 18-2 of the Land L'se Code, inter aha, i§ required. This
' opinion is directed solely to the question of the need for compliance with the
County's subdivision, mandatory P.U.b, and Cdr allocation procedures prior. to
1 I have relied for this and subsequent comments on ownership exclusively on the
Aspen Title abstract and January 6, 1982 file me.~ for my conmeents; as well as
the corporate documents submitted by you.
~. ..._,
• ~ Page 4.
issuance of development authority for the separate parcels (identified as
1 through 54) of the Strang Ranch.
Very truly yours,
a~.y
Sandra M. Stoller
Cotmty Attorney
SMS:pb
_~ - - ~~,:
~~ ~, =
~~J~
_.
~v~~~~ ~>~~~~
__. ~-~. ,,.,.~:~x.M .,~ d
~.. .~.._.~-..,.a
506 east main street
aspen, colorzdo 81611
_ ~
March 22, 1982 ~V
~~
Mr. Joseph E. Edwards, Jr. ~' L'
Attorney for P1t. Sopris Ranch
201 N.-Mill Street, Suite 109
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Joe:
I Tn response. to your letter. of March 4th regarding the funding of improve-
ments to the West Sopris Creek Road; I would like to clear up several
apparent misconceptions you expressed.
To begin with, the Board of County Commissioners-did consider improving
--the W. Sopris Creek Road both prier to and after the public hearing for
the 1982 budget. It was generally felt that although the road is somewhat
primitivE, neither the traffic VGlume, nor the accident records i;d;cat2
abnormal deficiencies under existing conditions, It was also felt that
there were other roads in the County that warrant attention with a priority
greater .than that of 41est Sopris Creek.
You must understand that the entire County road system is now suffering
from the neglect. of previous administrations; and despite cur affirmative
approach to system upgrading, we must work within budget limitations and
apply. funds on a first-order basis to where they will be most cost/beneficial.
You .mentioned that the ranch owners had paid $131,000 in ad-valorem taxes
between 1975 and 1981, and "have recei~/ed virtually no road improvements."
You must understand that only 19% of this payment is'receved by Pitkin
County, and of this only 20% is available for road maintenance and road
improvements, given other County obligations.
What this means is that only a small fraction of the cast of maintaining
this road (approximately 2%) is paid by the ranch o!vners; far lass than
you imply.
It is the policy of Pitkin County to allocate its limited resources to
projects which derive the most public benefit, while at the same time
providing a functional and safie road system for the public at large..
It is this difficult balancing act which lPd to the adoption of a Land
Use Code aimed at pacing development with the Tegical improvement of
facilities.
If the development and special interest group you represent had the
benefit of a proper land use review, ±hen the constraints cf this road
would have been identified for everyone's knowledge, and arrangements
~.
.:_
..: x ...~,, ,:~. ~ ,~'. ,'. .:~ " .
Letter to Mr. Joseph E. ards, Jr.~ ~ "'"
March 22, 1982 -
PAGE 7W0
made for its improvement. Lacking this: opportunity, the road is now competing
with all other roads for a limited pool of funds, and considering the long-
range budget forecasts, it may be a very tough competition. On a more .positive
note, nothing`is preventing the formation of a road improvement°district for
this area. In fact, many sirniiar groups have recently formed districts., and
the prospect of cooperation of this sort is encouraging. If you would like to
--explore this in more detail, please let me know..
As far as the 1982 budget is concerned; we appropriated $39,000 for gravel
-and dust salt on the rural road system. If revenue projections materialize,
a portion of this money could be_spent on the W. Sopris Creek Road. Thee
.allocation of these funds will be 'made in early suirm;er by the Board after
.the revenue picture beccmes more clear.
..Sincerely
~..~~
~-Ne en aliK n Klanderud, Chairwoman
hoard of County Commissioners
--kiKK: cd
cc: SOCC
Curt Stewart
..Patrick Dobie
- Planning Office
~""~
pi~ks~ ca~~
Charles R. Vidal
Real Estate Affiliates
Box 3159
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: Bart Strang Ranch
Dear Chuck:
506 east mein street
aspen, Colorado 81611
November 25, 198.0
As you know, the Board of County Commissioners at their November 24,
1:980 meeting;, considered your request to entertain an application
for the resubdivision`of the approximately 2,ODO acre tract known as
the Bart Strang Ranch. At that time the Board concluded that there
were some advantages to be gained by resubdivision in terms of more
efficient utilitzation of land fewer road cuts, fewer utility
extensions, better accommodation to 1041 areas, etc. Consequently,
I have been directed to advise: you that the Board will entertain your
application for resubdivision and recognize the lots as existing prior
to .the adoption of the growth management quota system (Section 5-510)
and applicability of the housing requirements (Section 5-300) provided
that:
1. The application be limited to residential and agricultural
(including equestrian) uses and contain not more than 25
lots;
2. Offer possible phasing techniques;
3. Provide on-site employee housing for any agricultural
(including equestrian)` operations proposed; and
4. Fully comply with all applicable regulations (including
subdivision) of the Code, .not specifically. exempted above.
Nothing herein shall be construed as approval of the application nor
commitment to do so. It is understood that full compliance with all
relevant land use regulations (except 5-510 and 5-300) as well 'as the
above stated conditions are a necessary condition of any approvals
given and the Board hereby reserves the .right to assert any objections
to the .proposal under applicable Code. provisions when and if an appl-
cation is made. p
Very truly .yours
~~ .
Sandra M. Stuller
County Attorney
SMS:pb
~c: Joe Wells