The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.Spring St.SU-1977-1L u. (-1 E. U / vt Â£ C 1 f -- 1 00"1\42 3 -&140 4 â€ž1 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Stacy; Standley FROM: Bill Kane RE: Wedum - Hyman DATE: February 14, 1977 In order to clarify and strengthen the record with regard to the above, any negative vote should take into consideration the following; 1. Poor Access: The individual homesites are propozed for driveway intersection on Gibson Avenue. This is a steep, dangerous road segment which is shaded in winter with icy conditions, poor grades, and very poor sight distances. Although all units are proposed with one common drive, there is still no good place for a driveway on that road. There are sites in this world which are simply not suitable for development. 2. Visual Impact: The size of the structures and their distribution along the hillside represents the maximum visual impact on the City of Aspen. The problem is exacerbated by the large solar collectors envisioned. Tighter clustering should be considered. 3. Lack of Consideration of Alternatives: During the reviews the staff recommended the consideration of one, clusteeed 4-plex at the inter- section of Gibson and Lone Pine Roads. This was rejected by the applicant and was not picked up on by Council. This could be suggested as a course of action which will no doubt result in the project withdrawl. 4. Adverse Impact on Spring Street: Due to the dangerous conditions on Gibson Street as mentioned above, Spring St. in Oklahoma Flats will, as a practical matter, end up as combined parking area and access. The road is inadequate, has a poor grade, is shaded and used by other Oklahoma Flats residents. Parking will create problems and access restrictions for the residents. All of the above could be mitigated by a different development style. 5. Sewer: The Aspen Metro District is under a 201 Study and the City has been warned that a total moratorium might be needed. 6.10â€¢3zu J 0.14 1.-C c Â£---~C .. 1-ME U k) 0 Â£ 2 S / GA) ED AC CAJOU LE 06â‚¬- KE- c EI V i A) 6 BY 1-IA N 6 D E- L 1 V E Â£ V LEGAL. Ala-1-/CE FOR.~ P U 8 0 L H 29% R. I NG O BJ 00 ED 0 1.- M YM AN PILl. b. F O k 30 2-6 , 3, 1 7 76 AND UJ A 1 U EL- THE- /3 0 A Y An A t L ED RE 90/KE_mENT-, Al OT C F (CA lto Aj 0 -9 D n ti/n 4 hÂ»wÂ«*-1 /48 0 2-/O 2> Â«u v~.5" e 4 ..1 1 wra-21 77/o*.*p ~~Â« 3 _6_9- Ca-2.4 Â·r-4.-1/ 4 2 1, 1 Â£~fb : -4*ill fdj , &92 207 ?2~ !2041 . r. 47 1 94 09 1 -1-- f 4 + ... 4 - , 12 0 0 /5-,-L.4+0~ v-g,Â£4Mo~R-.Â£tit *447*Â« BA, 14%1(htl463240)<(4 91 641- r V Al_,_. 624 9-O Aol_ 011-4~ 0724 U 44- 0 4 .. MEMORANDUM TO: ASPEN CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING STAFF (HC) RE: WEDUM-HUMAN P.U.D. SUBDIVISION PLAT AMENDMENT - FINAL PLAT DATE: JANUARY 20, 1977 This is a renewed request by Randy Wedum to amend the Wedum-Hyman P.U.D. Subdivision Plat by the exclusion of 7,731.6 square feet of area from the proposal. The excluded land would subtract area from the parcel 3, common area, an area to be dedicated to the City for right-of-way for Spring Street. This request is made pursuant to Section 20-14 (e) of the Subdivision Regulations which require reconsideration of the plat by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The City Council has recently acted by a 3-2 vote to deny the replat. Mr. Wedum is reinitiating this appeal. The comments of the Planning Office are as follows: 1. Parcel 3 will retain approximately 12,000 square feet which we feel represents a viable common area. 2. We recommend approval of the amended plat showing the exclusion of the 7,731.6 square feet from the plat. We understand title to said property will be owned by the adjacent property owner, Mr. Mayer, and no additional development will be precipitated by this exclusion. Mr. Mayer now owns a non-conforming lot and such land will serve to reduce the non-conformity of this existing lot. 3. A revised plat is submitted for your inspection, and a summary of the proceedings to date prepared by Mr. Wedum. 4. The attached memo from Sandy Stuller discussed the potential for creation of additional building lots engendered by this revision. 5. A title commitment is included in the presentation showing ownership of the Lukas parcel as represented by Mr. Wedum. 6. Should the subdivision be denied, the property, since it is owned in two separate parcels, will most probably be developed with two building sites. One site will be located on the lower level in Oklahoma Flats. 7. Your motion, should it be approved, should include the representations of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement previously presented. .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Â·64-9-Cgunci~LV,O Z Ch,-C'J FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Wedum-Hyman P.U.D. Subdivision Plat Amendment - Final Plat Reapproval DATE: Ooteber 6, 1976 41â‚¬,5 l,4, 0 .0 e 1.. This is a4equest by Randy Wedum to amend the Wedum-Hyman P.U.D. Sub- division Plat by the exclusion of 7,731.6 square feet of area from the proposal. The excluded land would subtract area from the parcel 3, common area and area to be dedicated to the City for right-of-way for Spring Street. This request is made pursuant to Section 20-14 (e) of the Subdivision 14 Regulations which require reconsideration of the plat by the Planning p~,l and Zoning Commission and City Council. â‚¬0 e, 0--- 011 *4 6 The comments of the Planning Office are as follows: jek .Â·' 4 4 6,1 1 C ,Â¢ ri. Parcel 3 will retain approximately 7,500 square 0 0 \ b 1 6 feet which we feel represents a viable common area. L p 1/ AP' 1 4, 3 #) This size is too small to facilitate a tennis court r 3 3 1 . /&32> which the Planning Office has previously opposed. Unf te \.7 1, f y \2, qve Â»>/ ?A)/ 4~ f 2. We recommend approval of the amended plat showing the exclusion of the 7,731.6 square feet from the plat. We understand title to said property will be n., j owned by the adjacent property owner, Mr. Mayer, and \0 / e no additional development will be precipitated by this 0/ r o exclusion. Mr. Mayer now owns a non-conforming lot LA 1 0 & and such land will serve to reduce the non-conform- 93/>~ Â«,4 ity of this existing lot. 0-2 9 b 3. A revised plat is submitted for your inspection. B %,U \de C'.f jp 6,(f. O e 26 4, The attached memo from Sandy Stuller discussed the Â·v potential for creation of additional building lots engendered by this revision. 4 ,)4' V AD~---_.t..12' 'Your motion, should it be approval,should include the :1 representations of the Subdivision Improvement ~ /' Agreement previously presented. 90 0 9 'f /4 9, ~f) *1#2 0 T/.3 14 u-1.4 6 1 A AU Â·4 24 ibuâ‚¬5.st//2/ 0 94.~-3 0-cÂ«u,4.~ :/ IÂ£. c 4 â‚¬1.z. P . *U-e 9 '.1-<.rl-~<-c<Q Â£21 th 12. CU edum , logy> 1 r .. WEDUM - HYMAN P.U.D. SUBDIVISION RESUBMITTAL OF AMMENDED FINAL PLAT December 1, 1976 The owners of the Wedum-Hyman P.U.D. Subdivision request to resubmit to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to the Aspen City Council the Amended Final P.U.D. Subdivision Plat. At the previous review by City Council, settlement with the adjacent property owners concerning an overlap on the lands submitted in this subdivision by Kathleen Lucas, Howard and Pauline Mayer had not been finalized. Submitted with this request is a copy of the up dated title insurance policy which verifies that this matter has been finalized, with no exceptions listed for either party mentioned. The settlement documents were recorded on November 22, 1976. The owners request to be placed on the agenda for the next Planning and Zoning Commision meeting and, if approved by them, to be placed on the agenda for the following City Council meeting. Sincerely, John R. Wedum 07~33 6-L--4 - JRW:abs L.iC-8 2 f jot Â·0,1. 182-_REV. 1-73 Summondin Civil Action-The C, F. lioecket 111:ink Book & Litho. C -7 ~~ ///7 2 / 1 u IN THE District -- COURT. . STATE OF COLORADO, Ess. DIV. County of Pitkin.. ..... .- J 1-4 rd \ CIVIL ACTION No... *oh--90 f t Smuggler-Durant Mining Corp. a New York Corporation, W.H. Loughran and Randy Wedum PLAINTIFF.S ..-- 1 VS. City of Aspen, Colorado a Municipal Corporation SUMMONS and the City Council of ~ Warning: If this summons does not contain the docket number of the civil action, then the complaint may not now be on file with p the clerk of the court. The complaint must the City of. As.pen â€ž be filed within ten days after the summons is served, or the action may be dismissed without notice upon your proper request to the court. Information from the court con- cerning this civil action may not be avail- able until ten days after the summons is served. DEFENDANT.S 1 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, TO THE DEFENDANT ABOVE NAMED-GREETING: You are hereby summoned and required to file with the Clerk an niKKeiÂ· to the complaint within 20 .. days after service of this sunimons zipon you. If you fail so to (10, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. If service ripon you is macie out.icle. the St:itc of Coloraclo, or by publication, or if a copy of the com- 1 plaint be not served upon you with this stlinmons, you are required to file your answer to the complaint i within 30 days after service of this summons upon you. â€¢ This is an action* Under Rule 106 C.R.C.P. as more fully stated in the attached F Complaint p f Dated November 11 ... .., 19.76 2-im k Â« CLERK OF SAID COURT, ~ruce Kistler ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF. r212 S. Hunter Street -. - Aspen, Colorado 81611 DEPUTY CLERK, ADDRESS OF ATTORNEY. NoTE.-This summons is issued pursilant to Rule 4, Colorado Rules Civil Procedure. (SEAL OF COURT) *If the summons is published or served without a copy of the complaint, after the word "action" state the relief demanded. If body execution is sought the summons must st;ate "founded upon tort." L .. IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PITKIN AND STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. Smuggler-Durant Mining Corp. ) a New York Corporation, ) W. H. Loughran and Randy ) Wedum ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) COMPLAINT City of Aspen, Colorado ) a Municipal Corporation ) and the City Council of ) the City of Aspen ) Defendant. ) Plaintiffs allege as follows: 1. This is an action under Rule 106(a)(4) C.R.C.P. 2. Plaintiffs Smuggler-Durant Mining Corp. and W. H. Loughran are the owners of certain lands located in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly line of that certain tract known as the J. R. Williams Ranch whence the west 4 corner of said section 7 bears N55Â°27'55" W 2369.32 feet; thence N89Â°20'00" W 3.47 feet along said property line; thence N15Â°30'00" E 45.39 feet; thence N74Â°30'00" W 125.0 feet; thence S15Â°30'00" W78.49 feet; thence N89Â°20'00" W 87.22 feet; thenceN04Â°12'54" W 160.88 feet; thence N19Â°15'00" E 92.00 feet; thence N43Â°45'00" E 40.88 feet to a point on the center- line of Gibson Avenue; thence following said centerline 208.56 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 1133.00 feet, the chord of which curve bears S72Â°30'08" E 208.26 feet; thence S55Â°59'26" E 33.10 feet; thence S59Â°03'29" E 99.40 feet; thence S55Â°29'50" E 69.80 feet; thence S50Â°44'15" E 30.67 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of an old Denver and Rio Grande Railroad right-of-way; thence following said right-of-way line 11.33 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 384.30 feet, the chord of which curve bears S15Â°50'28" E ]1.33 feet; thence N89Â°20'00" W 5.24 feet along said right-of-way line; thence following said right-of-way line 87.29 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 389.30 feet, the chord of which curve bears S22Â°52'46" E 87.11 feet; thence S29Â°18'13" EO.04 feet along said right-of-way line to the point of intersection with the southerly line of said J. R. Williams Ranch; thence N89Â°20'00" W 251.13 feet along said southerly line to the point of beginning containing 86,060.554 square feet more or less. .. Plaintiff Randy Wedum holds options to purchase said real property. 3. Plaintiff filed an application for subdivision of their lands pursuant to the subdivision ordinance of the City of Aspen and fully complied with all requirements thereof. 4. In the course of processing such application the preliminary Plat was duly approved by the Aspen Planning Commission and the final Plat was approved by all of the required departments of the City of Aspen and duly executed by all required signatories except the defendant City Council. 5. On or about October 12, 1976, the final Plat, as approved by the said Planning Commission and other required departments was presented to the Aspen City Council which body refused and otherwise denied the final approval of subdivision Plat, all of which constituted an abuse of discretion by the said City Council. 6. Plaintiffs are entitled as a matter of Law to have the Final Plat approved and executed by the Aspen City Council. 7. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law. WHEREFOR, Plaintiffs pray for judgement as follows: 1. That a citation by issued to defendants to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted and ordering the Defendants to certify to the Clerk of the Court on a day and at a time certain a complete transcript of all records and Proceedings had before each of the departments, agencies and bodies of the City of Aspen with regard to Plain- tiffs' application for subdivision approval. 2. That the Court order the Defendant City Council of the City of Aspen to approve the final subdivision Plat of Plaintiffs lands and to execute the same so as to permit its recordation with the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, and -2- .. 3. For such other and further relief as appears to the Court proper. _1 E r- / 7/,df,2/~Â£4- Byhce Kistler (Reg. No. 931) Attorney for Plaintiffs W.H. Loughran and Randy Wedum 212 S. Hunter Aspen, Coleradg 81Â§11 1 925-1038 /0 / -r i ~9 i ~1 Steptr@n,f AI. Wale (Reg. No. ~/~~,/) Attorney to Plaintiff Smuggler Durant Mining Corporation 117 S. Spring Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-1216 Plaintiffs Addresses: (1) W.H. Loughran 765 S. Alton Way Denver, Colorado 80200 (2) Randy Wedum 400 West Main Aspen, Colorado 81611 (3) Smuggler-Durant Mining Corp. 117 S. Spring Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 -3- .. IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PITKIN AND STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. Smuggler-Durant Mining Corp. ) a New York Corporation, ) W.H. Loughran and Randy Wedum ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) AFFIDAVIT City of Aspen, Colorado ) a Municipal Corporation ) and the City Council of ) the City of Aspen ) Defendant. ) Randy Wedum, being first duly sworn, upon his oath states; 1. That he is one of the Plaintiffs in the above captioned matter. 2. That he is personally familiar with all pro- ceedings referred to in the complaint in this matter, and 3. That he has read the said complaint and that the averments contained therein are true of his own knowledge and belief. Dated November 11, 1976. ~Et_Â»...~ LA~ L.Â£0_t.A,Â·0,4- '(7 Randy Wedum STATE OF COLORADO ) )SS.: COUNTY OF PITKIN ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11th day of November, 1976, by Randy Wedum. /3 1 c -c-k â‚¬:2 Al<42 2Â·. Â·.'1 .\A_ CLi,$,~.-dÂ·-- Notary Public~ .. IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PITKIN AND STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. Smuggler-Durant Mining Corp. ) a New York Corporation, ) W.H. Loughran and Randy ) Wedum ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) MOTION City of Aspen, Colorado ) a Municipal Corporation ) and the City Council of ) the City of Aspen ) Defendant. ) Plaintiffs move the Court exparte to forthwith enter an order requiring the Defendants, City of Aspen and Aspen City Council by its city clerk, Kathryn Hauter to certify to the Clerk of the District Court in and for Pitkin County, Colorado, the transcripts of the entire record of all proceedings by Plaintiffs for the subdivision of lands described in the Complaint before all agencies of the City of Aspen, including, but not by way of limitation the City Council of the City of Aspen and all exhibits and documents attendant to such proceedings and as grounds therefor state; 1. The Complaint herein is supported by affidavit. 2. Under the provisions of Rule 106(a) (4) the Court is empowered to forthwith enter the order requested. *uc@ Kistler (Reg. No. 131) Attorney, f*K Plaihitiffs W. H.(poqg*aÂ¥ t.nll Randy Wedum 21* 1 bilyfitell' Aspt , 4;6110rld/c ~31611 t.925Â· ) 1 . ,Â· ' 1. 4,4 \UN-NE- - Stepht:n A.' Owab/dij 61' 2(23Â·/ Attorley to Plaintiff Smuggl~er-Durant Mining Corp. 117. S. Spring Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-1216 ... The plat presented is the amended Wedum-Hyman Final Subdivision and P.U.D. Plat which reflects the change in property line due to the settlement of the title dispute which was a condition on the approval of the Final Plat. The settlement arrived at reduces the size of the common area and some of the road being dedicated but does not change any of the requirements for the P.U.D. in terms of open space requirements, parking, access, or density. Since the common area is reduced by more than 3%, presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a 15 day public notice is required and also presentation to the City Council. The owners who would like to be placed on the Planning and Zoning Agenda and public notice sent out for the next available meeting which the public notice requirement can be complied with. /1 8 â€¢ t 41 â‚¬> 0 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen City Council ~ ~ FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: ~Wedum-HymanP.U.D. Subdivision Plat Amendment - Final Plat Reapprovai DATE: October 6, 1976 This is a request by Randy Wedum to amend the Wedum-Hyman P.U.D. Sub- division Plat by the exclusion of 7,731.6 square feet of area from the proposal. The excluded land would subtract area from the parcel 3, common area and area to be dedicated to the City for right-of-way for X Spring Street. This request is made pursuant to Section 20-14 (e) of the Subdivision Regulations which require reconsideration of the plat by the Planning , and Zoning Commission and City Council. The comments of the Planning Office are as follows: 1. Parcel 3 will retain aporoximately 7,500 square feet which we feel represents a viable common area. ri This size is too small to facilitate a tennis court 4 which the Planning Office has previously opposed. 2. We recommend approval of the amended plat showing 4 Â§ the exclusion of the 7,731.6 square feet from the plat. We understand title to said property will be : owned by the adjacent property owner, Mr. Mayer, and no additional development will be precipitated by this exclusion. Mr. Mayer now owns a non-conforming.lot and such land will serve to reduce the non-conform- ity of this existing lot. 3. A revised plat is submitted for your inspection. 4. The attached memo from Sandy Stuller discussed the potential for creation of additional building lots ~ engendered by this revision. 5. Your motion, should it be approval,should include the representations of the Subdivision Improvement ~ Agreement previously presented. - - 7%2 . ft 11 IN 0. 4 . â€¢ ". ...a}%.2,1,01~*4%,'*12. 3 -Si :b- 5,06 3.'75-.*s.â‚¬* . .. i, r/~.~i CITY OF ~~ASPEN 13 0 south galena street aspen, codorado:* 81611 MP;MORANDUM DATE: September 10, 1976 TO: Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission FROM,*i~f;~dra M. Stuller RE: Wedum-Hyman Subdivision Members of the Commission: You have continued consideration of the re-approval of this plat pending some investigation as to the land ownership disputes in the area, and an opinion as to whether their resolution among the parties (1) was an illegal convey- ance or (2) creates another development site to the south of the Wedum-Hyman Subdivision. I will attempt to resolve the matter as best I can at this time. The title to the area included within the plat is in the Smuggler-Durant Mining Corp. ("Smuggler") who, in August of 1975, initiated a quiet title action (Civil Action 5698) to quiet title in it against any claim that Howard and Pauline Mayer or Katherine Lucas may have in the tract. The Mayers answered the Complaint and claimed ownership in Lots 4, 5 and 6 of Block 5 of the Oklahoma Flats Addition to the City; and Katherine Lucas responded by claiming Lot 7. The attached map locates these lots for you; and the east-west line traversing Lots 4, 6 and 7 is the southern boundary of the area Smuggler claims. Randy advises me (although the record has no pleadings evidencing this yet) that he has conceded to Mayer's claim which means they will retain title to Lots 1-6 of Block 5. Concern was evidenced that this stipulation would create a new residential lot under the City's small lot section which reads: Where, at the effective date of the adoption of this or any code or amendment hereto, a lot of record was in separate ownership and cannot meet the minimum requirements for area or width, a single- family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record ... 1. Memorandum to Planning and Zoning Commission September 10, 1976 Page 2 However, there are two limitations on this proviso and they read as follows: In residential districts where two-family or multiple , dwellings are permitted, the requirement for square footage of lot area required per dwelling unit shall be strictly interpreted with no credit given for fractional portions of the required minimum as a basis for constructing additional dwelling units, except in the R-6 residential district where a two- family dwelling may be erected on such lot containing a minimum of eight thousand (8,000) square feet. and If two (2) or more lots or combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership (including husband and wife as in all cases a single owner) are of record at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this zoning code, regard- less of diverse times of acquisition, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements estab- I.... lished for lot width and area, the lands involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for purposes of this code, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or occupied which does not meet the width and area requirements established by this code. Consequently, inasmuch as Lots 1-6 share continuous frontage, and are owned by a husband and wife (and have been, I assume, for at least two years) the entire area must be allocated to support the existing structures, and Randy's arrange- ment presents no difficulties. The second issue concerns Mr. Lucas' claim to Lot 7. Mrs. Lucas is named as the grantee in a 1953 deed from Alex Betemps conveying "Lot 7 in Block 5 in Oklahoma Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen". The question is whether Lot 7 extends into the Smuggler tract as I have drawn it in on the attached map. It appears that the only evidence that it does is a pencil sketch showing it so in the map of the Lux Placer of record. In any event, apparently Mrs. Lucas is withdrawing her claim that it extends into the Smuggler claim (but, again, there is no withdrawal of her Answer, or a Stipu- lation in the record of the proceedings to that effect) such as to reinstate Smuggler as the sole claimant. A section in the municipal code reads: No lot or parcel of land, or any interest therein, shall be transferred, conveyed, sold, subdivided or acquired either in whole or in part, so as to . Memorandum to Planning and Zoning Commission September 10, 1976 Page 3 create a new non-conforming use, to avoid, circum- vent or subvert any provision of this Chapter, or so as to leave remaining any lot or width or area below the requirements for a legal building site as described in this code ... The question is whether Randy and Mrs. Lucas' resolu- tion of the controversy will violate this section. I cannot : answer this question conclusively because I do not know how Mrs. Lucas plans to act. If she withdraws her claim by with- drawing her Answer in the quiet title action, it is not clear if she has "transferred" or "conveyed" this interest. In - the alternative, she may quit claim her interest to Smuggler. However, I would suggest that it need not be resolved now. The code states that if she does make this illegal transfer in the future (1) the City must refuse her a building permit for the balance of Lot 7 and (2) if she sells Lot 7, the buyer may rescind the sale and recover damages. In effect, if Mrs. Lucas and Randy conclude their arrangement by a prohibited conveyance, the remaining Lot 7 loses all development potential; consequently the risks are upon them and we need not worry about protecting the City against a potential illegal act at this point. As is apparent the record of the quiet title action is such that it is clear that the litigation has not terminated; and I will monitor the proceedings to insure that the Court has awarded title in Smuggler, and Smuggler has conveyed to Randy, before the plat is recorded. SMS:mc Enc. CC Bill Kane Hal Clark Remo Lavagnino .. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held on September 7, 1976 at 5:00 P.M., City Council Chambers before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commisison to consider a request by Randy Wedum to amend a Final Subdivision plat for Wedum/Hyman Subdivision to delete 7,731.68 square feet from the total property of the subdivision. The resultant total area of the subdivision would be reduced from 93,654 square feet to 86,096.554 square feet. Property is generally described as follows: a parcel of land in the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. and a tract of land beginning at a point from whence the West Quarter Corner of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. A copy of the proposal may be examined in the Office of the City/ County Planner in City Hall during normal working hours. Wedum - Hyman Subdivision P.U.D. This proposal is an amendment to the Wedum - Hyman Subdivision P.U.D. This amendment deals with two subjects. First is a request to modify the access to lot one, as shown on the revised Final Plat, to allow access from Spring Street. The reason for changing access is considered by the Subdividers as a hard- ship on lot two. As it exists the access to lot one consumes most of the flat area of site two, where the building could more easily be located, as well as destroying the natural garden area created by the tree clusters in that area. Tree removal is required to maneuver the driveway through the tree cluster of lot two for access to lot one as well as creating more road than is necessary thus disturbing more vegetation and site. Relocation of access and parking would reduce the amount of roadways needed, less disturbed vegetation and improve the buildability and quality of lot two. It would decrease the traffic flow onto Gibson Street at the top point which may have more future traffic load. Creating access to one unit ~-onto Spring Street would be of minor impact as the road is a dead end road now and in future with a caculatable and minimal limited amount of future traffic. The road now is traveled by the residents of Oklahoma Flats and is a very light traffic load. The access would be the first driveway on the road and would not generate traffic into Oklahoma Flats. Forty feet of road was didicated to the City of Aspen for public right-of- way by the subdividers to make the road 212 times larger than the present road to satisfy any future traffic. Since the traffic to this site would only use the roadway dedicated to the city by the Subdivider and not enter into Oklahoma Flats, the only impact created by the change of access would be on the section of road from the sub- ject property to Gibson Street with no other access located on it. The traffid on this road is minor now and in the future the only difference to the change of access is the point of intersection to Gibson Street which the Subdividers feel the change of this intersection, does not outweigh the disad- vantages caused by the existing approved solution. Point two concerns a clarification which arose during the final approval concerning ownership of a portion of the property which was under contention. .. Page two Wedum - Hyman Subdivision P.U.D. The question was raised by City council at that time whether the proposed subdivision had enough square footage with including the disputed parcel. The revised plat shows the disputed area and reveals that the subdivision has enough square footage for the density determined without the disputed parcel. Therefore, this is a request to delete the need for clear title to the disputed parcel of land prior to the filing of the final Subdivision P.U.D. Plat. If clear title is achieved through court action or quick claim deed, the parcel will be used and governed as presented in the Wedum - Hyman Final Subdivision P.U.D. Plat. 0 . 1 * Â· i A C.,a I do INDEKED ; lÂ« ...... '..1 N' 774 1%.i. r u x. 1 6 ..,. 1 i G~Â· 2 â€¢., -~ Â· 11 +A '9 44 / 19 1 .A- Eiss--.=Â«34% 4\ \ . 1 1 .j. 4 , 400 2. t;! 121 I 1_71 ' 2.9 4 1 A':1.i.0, .0 1 ' N . ': I 1.1 % 6.' Â»401 i- - f V / I. / I Ill C. ; \Cl / 27.4,1 1 1 1 1 .1 7 1 '.- , , I r--â‚¬2-Cdâ‚¬* . 74. 12- 3Â»2#416Â·1 1 0.1 1 . 0-1 44 1 ~lk'I 2 7---*. -t- *-* r ; \ th,;11.ir- $ #, 4 . \ i.. i . 1 -2.- _74---cl-l 1 1 ' .4 ~, i /2 1 ; 1 , '. 1 4. \ t,=\ ViÂ»-4-_.:.! 2. Li*~]Tl-:iI-Ja~:_11.11 i 9 1 . ' f i 1 ~i it rv-2-f-i- i-f -~~14 7/-/ , - 1 4 1, j '. 1 .3-2. . Â»-2,4. f: f i D'.1,~1 :~ti\--2,1 /-1.----./ -itit.'b; h - i I I ; i .1.- j kit j 41 .1 P 1 e \ ,-f / 1 / i \ , i . 3 B \ 4 f / 1 i 4 / 1 I j 1 1-1 - 6- 1 1.-, 041 'a -'-,-.frr'-7- / /0 IN.-I ./ I ./ I /* :4,2.-7 / 4// 1/9 / \Â«.55144 1 -:69. , .k. 4 \ - ...A ./7 - ~ U .~4~\ -, tt tv\ - 1 I .- / - M- corn : f. Ar-n~ 2 7 MA t' O r r i 1 ltv De A C VED l_ LJ /i 4 1.1.V & .. . t... i~- 1 2 I N r*'0117,47Â£7 - W.A .En u MA FLATS A U D 1 0 * 0/ - e ,7-' 4 1 1 11 --- . .. August 19, 1976 The owners and subdividers of the Wedum-Hyman P.U.D. Subdivision request a 30-day extention of time to the 90-day requirement for recording their Final Subdivision P.U.D. Plat. A conditional approval was granted which required the settlement of the ownership dispute for a portion of land in the common area before recording of the plat. A settlement has been reached on the disputed land, with a reduction of the common area originally proposed. Review by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council is required because the reduction in common area is more than 3%. It is therefore necessary to extend the deadline for recording of the final plat in order that the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council can review and approve the change. The 90-day requirement is up on August 22, 1976, and the scheduled Planning & Zoning meeting is set for September 7, 1976. A 30-day extention is needed in order to process the amendment to the Final Subdivision and P.U.D. Plat. .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Bill Kane, Planning Director RE: Plat of the Wedum-Hyman Subdivision DATE: August 5, 1976 BACKGROUND Randy Wedum has requested time at the August 9 Council meeting to request approval of a replat of the Wedum-Hyman Subdivision. If you will recall, there was brought to the Council's attention a title dispute on Lot 3 of the subdivision at the time of final plat approval. Lot 3 consists of the common area for open space at the base of the hill in Oklahoma Flats. Randy was given final plat approval by Council with the understanding that all title questions would be resolved to allow recording of the plat within 90 days. Litigation has sprung up over the proper title to this land, and Randy will be unable to file the plat within the required 90 days. Essentially, he is requesting reapproval of the subdivision without the common area and a portion of the Spring Street right-of-way. This request was made to the Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on July 6 and an approval was given with the condition that Lot 3 be precluded from any further development. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that no further action be taken on this subdivision until all title problems are resolved. The reasoning for this recommendation is as follows: 1. Approval at this time would create a dangerous precedent in that future developers might be encouraged to request splitting off the proposed open space of a P.U.D. for future development. 2. An approval would cast some question on the legal status of the Spring Street right-of-way. 3. This is a classic case of an individual's legal development problems resulting in great cost for the City. This project has resulted in what seems to be endless staff reviews and Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. 4. Should Lot 3 be excluded, there is no feasible way of preventing future devleopment on it. This project has required a totally desproportionate share of time from both the Engineering and Planning Departments and we recommend no further action on this matter until Mr. Wedum is prepared to come back with clear title. .. MEMO TO: BILL KANE PLANNING DEPT. FROM: LOUIS BUETTNER Â»~55*9 //2/ v' ENGINEERING DEM. DATE: Aug. 3, 1976 RE: Wedum-Hyman Subdivision & PUD I have checked the area figures for the disputed property in this subdivision. The area shown in parcel 3 and Spring Street would be approximately 15,147.31 sq. ft. I must point out that approximately 18% or 2745 sq.ft. of the disputed land is lying in the right-of-way for Spring St. as decicated in this subdivision. De LeT fo #1 11 j. 68 07 / T C 094, SiS y 4, 1 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Wedum-Hyman P.U.D. Plat Amendment DATE: July 1, 1976 This is a request by Randy Wedum to alter the P.U.D. plan of the Wedum-Hyman Subdivision by the following: 1. Lot 1 - Changing access to Spring Street. 2. Reducing the area of the subdivision by eliminating the disputed land totally 15,575 square feet. The application is made pursuant to Section 24-8.26B of Ordinance #71 which requires the Planning and Zoning Commission review and City Council action on an amendment to a P.U.D. plan. The comments of the Planning Office are as follows: 1. Additional access on Spring Street would not be consistent with the cluster P.U.D. plan for development. It would also contribute to traffic congestion on Spring Street which already has poor width; poor surface conditions; poor drainage; and a hazardous intersection with Gibson Avenue. We oppose the access change. 2. Reduction of the open space common area of the P.U.D. plan negates the value of the plan to the extent that a new development proposal should include clustering of all units to the east of the property. In addition this presents a very dangerous precedent in that future applicants could be encouraged to try to remove common areas from P.U.D. once given final approval. 0 4 0 CITY~AS PEN aspen,couorad, iD b OX V MEMORANDUM TO: HAL CLARK FROM: MICK MAHONEY WJ tr DATE: MAY 21, 1976 RE: WEDUM-HYMAN PROPERTY An option to purchase the Wedum-Hyman property at a cost of $70,000 is sufficient to establish that this is the acceptable value of the property. I find the Public Use Dedication Fee to be satisfactory. PSM/pm 'C .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Wedum-Hyman Subdivision - Final Subdivision Plat and Final Development Plan DATE: May 20, 1976 This is a request by Randy Wedum for Final Subdivision Plat and Final Development Plan approval of the Wedum-Hyman Subdivision. The project consists of four (4) lots plus common area on 2.15 acres of land. Significant features of the final plat are the following: 1. The lots are restricted to single-family home construction. 2. No vehicle access is allowed from Spring Street in Oklahoma Flats. Access is restricted to one road cut on Gibson Avenue. 3. Lot sizes are less than 30,000 square feet but the total density is correct for R-30 zoning. A P.U.D. allows smaller lot sizes. 4. Public road dedications are accomplished for Gibson and Spring Street. 5. A public use fee of $2,334.81 is required. 6. A detailed landscaping and drainage plan has been completed and monies escrowed as a performance guarantee. 7. An Improvement Agreement has been prepared which delinates improvements to be made to the site and $15,658 has been escrowed with the City to ensure performance by the Subdivider. 8. The project was conceptually approved by City Council a year ago for eight (8) dwelling units. The present four (4) units reflects the new zoning of R-30. 9. The project incorporates a solar collector design. The comments of the Planning Office are as follows: 1. We feel that the proper location of the four dwelling units is to cluster the units to the east of the property. This would reduce the stringing-out of houses along Gibson Avenue and improve parking and access design. 2. The site is steep and subject to erosion pressures. Thus our emphasis on a detialed reclamation plan. 3. We recommend deletion of the tennis court from the Final Plat for the following reasons: a. It is located in the 100 year floodplain. Con- struction will necessitate filling of the flood- plain and fencing of the court. Filling will interfere with the Natural Flooding area affecting downstream property owners. Fencing will act as a flood barrier creating a dam effect in the floodplain. .. -2- . MEMO Wedum-Hyman May 20, 1976 b. Numerous shrubs and trees will be removed from the streamside thereby damaging the riparian zone of the river. c. The court is located contiguous to the right-of-way of Spring Street accommodating no building setback (zoning code requires 30 foot setback). Such building precipitates a request for a variance by the Board of Adjustment. d. It will be administratively difficult to restrict future parking on Spring Street for the tennis court and to prohibit night lighting. e. The residents of Oklahoma Flats are adamently opposed to locating the tennis court at this site. 4. Clear title has not been obtained for certain portions of the property. Any approval of the plat should prohibit recording of the plat until a title policy be obtained showing clear title to the total tract. We understand this will be resolved within two weeks. 5. The Planning Office feels the Final Plat as presented to the City Council represents the best development plan possible given the applicants unwillingness to cluster the four units to the east of the property. The Planning Office had recommended the eight(8) unit plan in June, 1975, and endorsed this four (4) unit plan at Preliminary Plat stage. .. MEMO TO: HAL CLARK PLANNING DEPT. FROM: DAVE ELLIS rr- CITY ENGINEER ~;~. DATE: May 19,1976 RE: Wedum-Hyman Subdivision Final Plat & Agreement PLAT The engineering department has reviewed the latest plat revisions submitted May 18 and feels that it is ready for submission to council. We will contact Mr. Wedum for clarification of the parking area easements. AGREEMENT The agreement appears to be satisfactory with the excep- tion of the second and third paragraphs in Section 12 regarding parking easements. We see no problem in clarifying the language. The total escrow amount would be $15,658. The engineering department recommends that the plat and agreement be approved with the following two conditions: 1) A title policy be obtained showing clear title to the total tract. 2) The tennis court be deleted as per your letter on April 21. .. .. J-* /1,11 Ii: May 18, 1976 41,4 1 C '1 4 Landscaping and soil stabilizing for Wedum-Hyman Subdivision and P.U.D. site. Problem Areas - as noted on site plan A. Gully with utility line easement Bare soil exposed rocks B. Bare and partially bare slopes - upper C. Bare slopes - lower Problem A. Restore the existing slope and vegetation with existing types of natural grasses, flowers on site using large rock to stabilize the slope in levels for the refilled soil. 1. Place large boulders at base of cut. 2. Backfill from top of hill with aggregate. 3. Continue filling in levels the length of gully. 4. Spread and mix in top soil. 5. Re-seed with native grasses/flowers. Problem B. Restore growth of vegetation on slope as existing on other areas. 1. Spread top soil by machine and hand. 2. Seed with appropriate grasses. 3. Mulch and coverwith synthetic burlap. the BOTAN [la .AAH - EVIE Lâ€¢V a Whuu company Box 2383 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303 925 9803 0 0 Wedum-Hyman Subdivison 5/18/76 page two Clt . . 9 3/3 i V 9 Problem C. '' Remove excess existing fill, regrade and seed withg#*Asses and native flowers mix. 1. Remove excess fill. 2. Level by machine and hand to conform to natural slope.- , 3. Spread top soil by machine and hand. 4. Mulch and seed. *Mix for grasses and wild flowers will contain: galt grass crested wheat red/white clover perennial rye aster family (wild daisy, etc.) wild geranium larkspur lupine mahonia Estimated cost for landsacping trouble areas as noted: Problem A $400.00 Problem B 500.00 Problem C 540.00 Total $1,440.00 BOTANICAL EYE CO, By O Aui LÂ£L.ho . .. - MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Wedum-Hyman Final Subdivision Plat DATE: April 21, 1976 Randy Wedum has requested time on the City Council Agenda to discuss his Final Subdivision Plat for the Wedum-Hyman Subdivision. Both the Planning Office and City Engineer feel strongly that this item is premature for Council consideration of the Final Subdivision Plat. Should the applicant request a decision on the Final Plat from Council the recommendation from the Planning Office and Engineering Department is for denial. Certain of the items which have not as yet been resolved are the following: 1. Clear title to the property has not been obtained. The Engineering Department recommends no action by Council until this has been resolved. Should the land under despute not be judged to be owned by Don Hyman, the pro- ject will not have sufficient land for the four (4) units proposed. 2. The design for access to the four lots from Gibson Avenue has been changed from that recommended by the Planning Commission and the Planning Office. At Preliminary Plat stage one access point to Gibson Avenue was approved. This plat shows three separate access points. Upon final engineering design of the subdivision the Engineering Department has advised that it is impossible to adequately design a frontage road along Gibson due to severe terrain constraints which limit the buildable area of the subdivision. Such constraints have forced the Engineering recommendation of three access points to Gibson Avenue which is counter to the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations. We recommend that this problem be handled by consultation among the applicant, the Planning Staff and the Engineering Department. Unfortunately due to pressing mall decisions and that Mr. Ellis will be on vacation April 21 - May 3, 1976 this conference has been delayed. 3. Tennis Court: ~ The Planning Office and Engineering Department have recommended against locating a tennis court on the land of the project south of Spring Street. The Planning Commission allowed the court subject to no parking on Spring Street and no night lighting. The Planning Office and Engineering Department recomends against allowing the court due to the following: a. It is located in the 100 year floodplain. Construction will necessitate filling of the floodplain and fencing of the court. Filling will interfere with the Natural Flooding area affecting downstream property owners. Fencing will act as a flood barrier creating a dam effect in the floodplain. .. - MEMO Wedum-Hyman April 21, 1976 Page Two b. Numerous shrubs and trees will be removed from the streamside thereby damaging the riparian zone of the river. c. The court is located contiguous to the right-of-way of Spring Street accomodating no building setback (zoning code requires 30 foot setback). Such building precipitates a request for a variance by the Board of Adjustment. d. It will be administratively difficult to restrict future parking on Spring Street for the tennis court and to prohibit night lighting. e. The residents of Oklahoma Flats are adamently opposed to locating the tennis court at this site. 4. Drainage and Landscaping Plan: These plans submitted by the applicant and prepared by Wright-McLaughlin are not satisfactory to the City Engineer. The plans were designed from a plat and no field inspection was conducted by Wright-McLaughlin. The settling basin as shown on the plat is located in an area occupied by large cottonwood trees and may necessitate removal of these trees. The suggested bonding amount does not include funds for landscaping. The plan recommends merely raking and seeding the desturbed areas and curbing where necessary. The Engineering Department has contacted by letter Wright-Mc- Laughlin and requested additional definitive work. 5. Certain physical encroarchments on the Wedum-Hyman land have not shown on the surveyed plat. In summary, the Planning Office recommends that these above described matters be resolved before consideration of the Final Plat. We will arrange a conference with the applicant upon return of the City Engin- eer and City Attorney. .. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Final Development Plan - Wedum-Hyman DATE: February 26, 1976 This is a public hearing to consider the Final Development Plan for Wedum-Hyman Subdivision. The comments of the planning office are as follows: 1. The Engineering Department is requiring dedication of 30 feet from centerline of Gibson Avenue for future expansion of the street. The revised plat submitted by Mr. Wedum incorporating this easement does not show building sites, parking, or access locations. We undertand that the buildings will need some setback variance as part of the PUD, but we are not able to determine to what extent since building sites are not shown. Also, no parking is allowed in the city right-of-way. 2. The P&Z should be aware that setback variances are allowed for buildings if developed under the PUD provisions. 3. The residents of the Oklahoma Flats area are protesting the location of a tennis court on the lower property due to access constrictions.. Off-street parking for the courts is not shown on the plat. The planning office feels that due to the extreme narrowness of Spring Street and its poor entrance to Gibson Avenue we cannot recommend the installation of a tennis court on Spring Street. There are no ways to guarantee the amount of useage of the courts. 4. The Planning Staff will be meeting with Mr. Wedum on Friday, February 27, 1976 to consider these comments. .. MEMO TO: HAL CLARK PLANNING DEPT. Matr~ FROM: LOUIS BUETNERg~ ENGINEERING/DEPT. - DATE: February 3, 1976 RE: Wedum-Hyman Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Review of Plat revised 1-26-76 The Engineering Department finds that this revised preliminary plat will be acceptable with the following additions: 1) The omitted boundary information is added to the Plat. 2) Easements are shown for the Electrical, Telephone and T.V. 3) Twenty foot water line easement must be 10' each side of existing line. 4) This subdivision has been changed to a 4 lot 1 j It ,~/1,2 subdivision. A water main extension of at least 100' of 8" will now be required to service Lot 1. 'Ga col Z 5) A fire hydrant will be required on Gibson St., approximately at the lot line between Lot 2 & 3. The existing fire hydrant located on Spring Street is much too low to service the building sites. 6) Need written boundary description for the sub- division. 7) Parcels 1&2 will have to be dedicated to the city for public right-of-way. 8) The boundary description for the common parking area is needed and the curb cuts must be located. #1 A sewer easement may be required across Lot 3 for 0 <3 fr' - Lot 4. 10) Existing street dimensions are not shown. 11) The location of the river and flood plain must be shown on Sheet 1. 12) Designation of use or function for Parcel 3. 13) Landscaping and grading plan w/details on erosion control and revegetation. 14) Additional dedication along Spring Street to provide 30 1 -----(0 feet of right-of-way. 15) Additional dedication along Gibson Street(from Lot 2 east) to provide one half of a 60 foot right-of-way. LW AV LEGAL NOTICE ~ ~ Notice is hereby given that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing on March 2, 1976, 5:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, to consider the Final Development Plan for the Wedum-Hyman PUD, more particularly described as follows: A p,rcel of land in the NE?f of the SW+ of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. described as follows: * Beginning at s point whence the West i corner of said Section 7 Or r.' bears North 55 29 West 2,371.8 feet; Thonce Nortli 15'00' Â·Inst 118 feet to a point; , Thence South 59'30' Enst 134 feet to a point; 0 Thence North 43*45' Inst 40 feet to a point; ? Thence forth 46'15' 292 feet to n point; Thence South 43'45' West 333 feet to a point Thence South 39Â©15' West 92 feet more or less to the center of the Roaring Fork River, Thence Southensterly and Southerly along the Center line of the . Roaring Fork River to the South boundary line of the John R. Williams Ranch: Thence South 69o20' East along said South boundary line 220 feet , more or less to the point of beginning Except: Any portion of subject land lying in the property des- , cribed in Book 255 at Page 753. 71,â€¢41 /11 i U A tract of land described es follows: Beginning at a point from ' whence the West Quarter Corner of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. bears N. 55'29' West a distnnce of 2371.8 feet, thence N. 15'00' E. a distance of 113.00 feet to n point, thence S. 59'30' E. n distance of 134.00 feet to a point, Â·thence N. 43Â©45' E. a distance of 45.60 feet to a point, Thence N. 46'15' W. a distance of 172.60 feet to a point, thence S. 59003'29" E. a distance of 99.40 feet to a point, thence S. 55*29'50" E. a distance of 69.SO feet to a point, thence S. 50*44Â¥15" E. a 1 distance of 101.59 feet to a point, thence 41Â©34'41" E. a distnnce of 62.83 feet to a point, thence N. 89~20' W. a distance of 316,00 ' feet, r.ore or less, to the point of beginning. 6 z Proposal is on file in the office of the City/County Planner and may be A examined by any interested person during regular business hours. . /s/ Kathryn S. Hauter City Clerk 1 Published in the Aspen Times February 12, 1976 e' Â· ~ ~ 9 Â· f 0 4 . ASPEN/PITK]LNÂ¢W*noing Department 13 0 so 4Zf~NliFirl: street aspen,~~~~~ 81611 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Wedum-Hyman Preliminary Plat DATE: January 29, 1976 This is a continued public hearing to consider plat approval of the Wedum-Hyman Subdivision. The subdivision now consists of four (4) separate lots with common area to the south of Spring Street in Oklahoma Flats. The revised density allows the project to conform to the proposed R-30 zoning for the property. It is necessary to review this proposal under the P.U.D. regulations in order to allow reduction of the 30,000 square feet minimum lot requirement for the R-30 zone. Certain of the four lots contain less than 30,000 square feet, however, the entire ownership is sufficient to allow the four unit density. The lot size requirement may be waived under P.U.D. procedures providing the density for the entire project does not exceed that allowed by the zone. The Planning Office recommends approval of the four lot subdivision provided no vehicle access to the lots is permitted from Spring Street and the conditions of the City Engineer are fully met. .. MEMO TO: HAL CLARK PLANNING DEPT. FROM: LOUIS BUETTNZ f ENGINEERING 43EPT Â·- DATE: January 15, 1976 RE: Wedum-Hyman Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Review This being the 3rd. submission of a preliminary subdivision plat for this property I find it entirely inadequate for consideration. The plat submitted to the Engineering Department for preliminary subdivision review has barely enough information to qualify for conceptual subdivision review. Information submitted previously is not considered unless it is included in the review package. I would recommend this preliminary review be tabled until a proper plat is submitted. The information required is specified in Sections 20-11 and 20-12 of the Municipal Code; design standards are given in Section 20-17 and required subdivision im- provements are given in Section 20-16. .. l MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Wedum-Hyman Subdivision (PUD) - Conceptual Subdivision DATE: January 8, 1976 The attached letter and plat of Wedum-Hyman Subdivision summarizes the project as revised to conform to the proposed R-30 Zone for the property. The project now consists of four (4) lots allowing four dwelling units with recreational common area on the lower land in Oklahoma Flats. No vehicle access is to be allowed to the project from Spring Street. Due to the significant change in the project from its initial approval, Sandy Stuller has advised that the council should take new action on the conceptual subdivision. A copy of the December 16, 1975, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission minutes is attached which contains their motion for approval of this new conceptual plat. The applicant will proceed through the new PUD regulations so as to allow lot sizes less than 30,000 square feet. The planning office recommends approval of this conceptual subdivision plat. I . .% L. + I .. - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C. F. HOECKEL 8.8. a L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 16, 197 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Jack Jenkins at 5:10 p.m. with members Roger Hunt, Patrick Dobie, Chic Collins, Danny Abbott and Brian Goodheim present. Also present was City/County Planner Bill Kane; and Hal Clark from the Planning Department and City Attorney Stuller. pold Business City Attorney Stuller explained that Randy Wedum had Wedum-Hyman previously been in for conceptual subdivision to the Preliminary Planning and Zoning and was given approval for the con- Plat ceptual subdivision for 8 units. Wedum would like to be exonerated from the mandatory PUD and would, instead of building the 8 units and do an entire PUD complex, build 4 lots one by one and sell them. City Attorney Stuller continued explaining that there is an amendment for doing that and if the Planning and Zoning make a determination that all of the objectives of the PUD determination have been satisfied in his plan then the Planning and Zoning may exonerate him from the mandatory PUD requirements. Before exonerating him from mandatory PUD the concerns are that there is correct location of building for slope stability, correct location of entries, driveways, access roads etc., determination tha there is sufficient water pressure and otherthings that are itemized in the code. Clark had one hesitiation and that was regarding the access situation to the subdivision. That is that it be not in thelower Oaklahoma Flats Road, but it be from Gibbson Avenue sied. Wedum was willing to go along with the stipulation. Wedum presented his application and reduced the 8 units to 4 lots because of the proposed downzoning which will ' be presented to City Council. Because of the proposed downzoning, City Attorney Stuller explained that the City had legal precedent for making the project conform to proposed zoning once that proposed zoning had been considered by an official public body. The proposed downzoning would change thearea from R-15 to R-30 residential. It was discussed whether the 8 units in thc modified application for preliminary approval would have met minimum lot size requirements of the R-30 zoning on the 2.15 acre property. Jenkins mentioned that he did not object to the concep- tual application for a four-lot subdivision since the commission had previously approved a conceptual plan -- --=--- - - - for 8 units. Motion ~Hunt moved that they exempt the Wedum-Hyman project from planned unit development and recommend conceputal 4 unit. subdivision and one of the amendments would be that no parking be shown on the plat on Spring Street. There is L j a correction for 4 lots and not 4 units; seconded by Abbott. All in favor, motion carried. New Business Clark mentioned that thePardee exemption had been cancelled. Use Determination Clark asked that there was a new request which came in Durant Mall in from the Building Inspector, Clayton Meyring, and Record Shop would like to have it put on the agenda. The request is for a use determination in the Durant Mall. There was no objection. .la.Â¥ i. A trÂ· 1 1 -.KIll -I. N...: I -*.9F# / .. I il-24Â· 2- . . 1 Planning and Zoning Commission December 16, 1975 Use Determination Clark explained that the Durant Mall is zoned neighborhoo Durant Mall commercial and therequest is for a record shop. It is nc (cont' ) listed for a specially permitted use, a conditional use, or under that special agreement for the Durant Mall as one of the uses that is permitted in that zone. The determination is whether a record store fits under the classification of uses permitted in neighborhood commer- cial zone if it serves that function or if it serves a different function it is not allowed in that zone. Clarl. mentioned that the Planning and Zoning could determine if it is a conditional use; however, in doing so a public hearing would have to be set for the public. Jenkins asked what the planning department's recommenda- tion is. Kane respones was that it is not in the scope or intent of the neighborhood commercial use. Jenkins asked Kane where it would go. Kane replied that it would go in the C-1 or CC zones, and that records are not daily kind of shopping needs. Dobie mentioned that what is to be put in the Durant Mall are strictly non-tourist uses and feels that tourists are not going to come and buy records. Kane felt that it is stretching the intent and scope of that zoning designation to put a record shop in it. Motion Hunt moved to recommend disapproval of a record shop in the Durant Mall as a neighborhoood commercial useage; seconded by Abbott. All in favor; Collins, Jenkins, Abbott, Hunt, Otte, Goodheim. Opposed was Dobie. Motion carried. Manual Clark mentioned that the Engineering Department didn't 2 Exemption Request have any problems with theÂ·request as long as the requirements of the City Engineer were fullfilled, and as long as there is a non-waiver of the open space dedication requirements. Motion Hunt made a motion to approve the subdivision exemption of Pitkin Mesa Lot 3, Block 3, conditioned on the requirements of the City Engineer and non-waiver of the proposed open space dedication requirements; seconded by Goodheim. All in favor, motion carried. < Stanford's presen- Stanford explained that the square footage in the tation on downzoning commercial core is 123,000 sq.ft. of commercial allowed, if allot for the bonus in square footage you would have an additional 16,400 sq.ft. of commercial giving a net total commercial of 139,400 sq.ft. with 24,600 sq.ft. of residential. This gives a maximum total square footage of 164,000 sq.ft. which is equal to or a little over 3 city blocks. Commercial-1 we have potential build out of 12,000 sq.ft with maximum total square footage of 18,000 sq.ft. This is equal to 6 town lots. 1 1 .. Office-1 District lot area of 124,500 sq.ft. The Planning Department is recommending .75:1 being office and .25:1 be in residential provided thatitis tied into a county housing program. Total in Office is 88,875 sq.ft. office space residential square footage of 31,125 sq.ft. getting a maximum total square footage of 124,500 sq.ft. Office area gives a total buildout of equal to 2.3 city blocks. That is if you build at one level. Neighborhood commercial-not changed from what it was earlier. There is a lot area of 775 sq.ft. giving a maximum square footage of 44,386 sq.ft. Service Commercial Industrial-includes only the Trueman Property. There is 232,737 square feet of buildout of the same. (+ 0 -0 - . .. % Hal Clark City Planning Office Wedum - Hyman P.V.D. Revised December 1975 The intent of the project is still the same as originally presented. It has been modified as a result of recommendations by the Planning Office and City Engineering Department in relation to access, common area and parking. The revision mainly differs from the original conceptual presentation in that it reduces the density from 8 units to 4. The land is also divided by Spring Street, all land to the south being a lot devoted to common area and the land above to the north divided into the 4 lots. This arrangement follows the "averaged lot area" approach as presented in ordinance 71 for P.V.D. design approaches. The project will have all access and parking from Gibson Street, common area on south side of Spring Street, and the four units arranged on the hillside in the basic positions as the eight unit proposal. This arrangement allows for utilization of the hill for north walls and roofs of the units for good thermal mass as well as visual screening. The solar collectors can then fall below each unit utilizing the fall of the hill for the needed sun angle and orientation. The reason for the revision was to reduce the density in order to proceed under R-15 with the project as presented through final review, yet satisfy the intent of the anticipated downzoning to R-30 as well as comply with the new P.V.D. ordiance No. 71. .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Wedum-Hyman Preliminary Plat DATE: December 11, 1975 This si a request for preliminary plat approval for the Wedum-Hyman Subdivision located in Oklahoma Flats on Gibson Avenue. The comments of the City Attorney are enclosed due to the pending downzoning of this property from R-15 to R-30. The engineering department has encountered substantial difficulties in evaluating this proposal. The PUD and preliminary plats were inconsistent in their information. The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat on Thursday December 11, which shows a different total area, different floodplain, different building configurations, etc. As a result of these significant changes the engineering department is requesting that the consideration of the Wedum-Hyman plat be tabled until the next regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Comm- ission on January 6, 1975. The planning office supports this request for tabling. .. MEMO TO: HAL CLARK PLANNING DEPT. /..' Â·Â·'-42 FROM: LOUIS BUE TTNE Rrâ‚¬34'~- ENGINEERING DEPT. DATE: 12-11-75 RE: Wedum-Hyman Preliminary - Subdivision Public Hearing I find at this time that a preliminary review is not in order for the this subdivision. The reasons that I make this statement are as follows: 1) Property boundary on sheet one differs with the survey plat sheet three. 2) There are two very different layouts of the buildings calling for 8 or 9 units. 3) The acreage on sheet one of 2.35 acres differs with sheet three of 2.15 acres by 0.20 acres or 8712 sq. ft. 4) The difference in property lines will require a refiguring of the density for this property. 5) The engineering department needs a current title commitment for this property. 6) At 11:20 a.m. December 11, 1975 a revised set of drawings were received by the engineering dept. When the density for this property is refigured consideration should be given to the following: a. The square footage of property located in public right-of-way of Gibson Ave. and Spring St. b. The area laying below the flood planes. c. The large area of steep slope located through the middle of the property. 0 l . CITY "TAA SPEN 130 so~eni street aspen, MioLa&2 81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 11, 1975 TO: Members of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FRQ*~U andra M. Stuller RE: Theory of Administrative Delay - Wedum Hyman Development Proposal The law has established three techniques to deal with the problem of permit applications being submitted to a municipality during a period in which it is formally consider- ing amendments to a zoning code. A first approach is the imposition of a straight moratorium on any activity within the district for a stated period pending investigation and public consideration. This approach is rarely used and any successful use is usually premised on the fact that the moratorium is over before litigation attackLng it can be completed. Because it is based on raw police power it should not be used when the proposed rezoning is speculative. The second is incorporated in Section 24-11.7 of the Zoning Code which provides that whenever the City Council, P&Z or Historic Preservation Committee has properly initiated pro- ceedings to amend the zoning map, and the P&Z subsequent to public hearing, has adopted a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of the amendment, no building permits may be issued by the Building Inspector which would be prohibit- ed by the proposed amendment for a period of one year following the adoption of the recommending resolution. A third available technique is reliance on the common law principle of "administrative moratorium." This theory was most recently announced in Casey v. Board of Warwick, (Penn. 1974), where the Court said: .. Members of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 11, 1975 -Page 2- "The 'pending ordinance doctrine' (also known as 'administrative moratorium' or 'administrative delay') has been most carefully defined in cases involving zoning modifications vis-a-vis applic- ations for building permits. It is well settled in this commonwealth that a building permit may be refused if at the time of application for such permit there is pending an amendment to a previous- ly permissive zoning ordinance which would prohibit the use of land for which such permit is sought. When there has been a 'sufficient public declaration' of an intent to amend the existing zoning ordinance, it is the pending amendment which governs the issuance of such permits... An ordinance is pending when the government body 'has resolved to consider a particular scheme of rezoning and has advertised to the public its intention to hold public hearings on the rezoning:" The purpose of these comments is to let you know that in the event the Wedum/Hyman proposal is presented to the City Council I will advise them that there has been sufficient advertisement of the City's intention to rezone the land such that no approval need be given to the project if not in harmony with the rezoning proposal. I am advised that if the rezoning initiated by the City Council is adopted, the permissible density on the site is one-half thatproposed by the applicant. In the event you wish to take this position on the matter, please rest assured that such an approach is well supported by the law, and its application in this instance may save everyone a great deal of time. SS/pk 0 1/ . ASPEN/PITK]~ Department 13 0 so arhma Lena street 4~ My-0 1*k..*4= aspen,~ 81611 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Wedum-Hyman Preliminary Plat Hearing DATE: November 25, 1975 The Planning Office recommends tabling this public hearing until December 16, 1975 in order to allow the Engineering Department appropriate time to adequately review the Preliminary Plat. .. MEMO TO: HAL CLARK PLANNING DEPT. FROM: DAVE ELLIS CITY ENGINEER Â£3*+-2~ DATE: November 20,1975 RE: Wedum-Hyman Preliminary Subdivision Public Hearing In order to avoid any last minute hassles, I wanted to notify you of the situation with this review. The engineering department received a plat May 12 for a hearing on June 3 which was quickly cancelled when the conceptual plan did not receive immediate approval. Until two days ago there has been no further submittal to this office. In accordance with Section 20-11 the plat is to be submitted 28 days in advance of the hearing and reviewing agencies are allowed 20 days to make comment; therefore, the engineering department will have no comment for the December 2 P&Z meeting. If other agency notices are adequate, we will be prepared on December 16. .. ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Wedum-Hyman PUD - Oklahoma Flats DATE: August 28, 1975 This is a request to consider the Final Development Plan of the Wedum-Hyman Subdivision for eight condominium units located adjacent to the Oklahoma Flats area. On July 14, 1975 the Aspen City Council approved (5-2) the Outline Development Plan and Conceptual Subdivision. The Council and Planning Office has specifically requested that the applicant construct a model of the project so that the physical con- straints of the property may be fully understood in relationship to the building designs. The model is also important as an aide in understanding the erosion control techniques to be employed on the project. The applicant has agreed to submit such a model, but has not done so as of the agenda deadline of Wednesday, 5:00 P.M. Also, the Planning Office has not received additional Final Development Plan survey maps as required by the PUD regulations. The recommendation of the Planning Office is to allow the applicant to present information at the Final Development Plan hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, but to table a decision on the matter until the next regular meeting on September 16, 1975. 0 4. . C ITYAWFIISPEN aspen,O41orado, 8169 box v MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Staff RE: Wedum-Hyman PUD - Oklahoma Flats DATE: July 9, 1975 On 26 May, 1975, the City Council tabled the Wedum-Hyman PUD rending resolution of several questions and items: 1. Title - Some question arose as to title to the subject tract. Enclosed is a xerox of the committment page of a title policy issued to Randy Wedum for the subject tract. A copy of the policy and a representative from the title company will be at the meeting. 2. Stake Out Buildings and Collector Locations - This has been scheduled to coincide with your presence at the Hunter Creek Trail Ceremonies on Monday at noon. 3. Redesign Access to Parking Facility - Two proposals will be presented that are in keeping with the Council's desire to limit access to one curb cut and to provide flexibility for the planning process on Gibson and Lone Pine in the Smuggler Mountain area. 4. Identify Lower Property Uses - The Council was concerned with the proposed pool and parking facilities on the lower property. The developer has agreed to limit all lower property development to one tennis court and to not provide any lower property parking. 5. Engineering Schematic for Erosion Control - A soils engineer from Glenwood will be present to discuss this item. 6. Reflection from Collectors - A solar energy expert will be present to discuss this item. 0 40%*wEeld i THE LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY VA, ~2510 Glâ€¢.A..... 0 , MEMBER: A.S.T.M. George D. Morris, P.E. A.S.C.E. 9*!6020 J~ CEC ACI Avon,241.U.1.-4162 2744!iLIL June 20, 1975 Soil Mechanics Foundation Mr. John Randall Wedum, Architect Evoluction , 400 Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Materials Tests Re: Proposed Subdivision at Oklahoma Flats TlOS, 284W, Sec. 7 Pitkin County, Aspen, Colorado Concrete Mix Design Dear Mr. Wedum: Asphalt A geological and soils engineering reconnaissance was conducted on Mix Design June 13, 1975, at the above-referenced site at your request in order to properly define the geological environment of the site and to isolate any Geologic potential problems reflected by the existing soil conditions in order to Interpretation determine adequate solutions and foundation designs that will insure the safety of the proposed structures and will also sat isfy the Pitkin County, as well as the City of Aspen, regulations regarding proposed residential Groundwate f subdivisions. The results of this preliminary investigation are as follow3: Hydrology The- site is located on a terrace well above the floodplain of the by Roaring Fork River. The position of the site, therefore, indicates no Registered probability of flooding. The terrace appears to be composed of thick Professional glacial-fluvial deposits (i.e., glacial outwash silts, sands, gravels, Engineers & cobbles, and boulders which are crudely bedded and poorly sorted derived Geologists from geologically recent mountain glaciation by the interaction of larger rivers and streams which once filled the valley) . Colorado Springs, Colorado In the Roaring Fork Valley within the Aspen area these glacial out- wash deposits have been documented (Bruce Bryant--U.S.G.S. Map I-765-B) Pueblo, to exceed 100 ft. in thickness in many areas. In local water wells Colorado drilled in an attempt to reach bedrock or formation material, Bryant Howard M. Dump recorded many wells exceeding 100 ft. while one well reached 168 ft. without encountering bedrock. These valley fills, due to their granitic Rock Springs, composition, are known to be quite stable (i.e., highly resistant to both Wyoming mechanical and/or chemical weathering), extremely permeable, and to possess, due to the method of deposition, extremely high bearing capaci- ties. Probable bearing values will range from 2400 p.s.f. to 6000 p.s.f. Glanwood Springs- depending on the distribution of the sands, silts, cobbles and boulders. Avon, Colorado No expansive materials are anticipated. Randall E. Connolly Eugene F. Lohmon The present drainage flows from east to west across the site and is largely controlled by (1) the site location in relation to the ailacent Gunnison, road (i.e., Gibson Street is located at an elevation approximately 5-7 ft. Colorado -- higher than~â‚¬ie site which presently accelerates the amount of runoff Lee E. Stierwolt received from the road during precipitation) . and (2) by a major_gully_ .. Mr. John Randall Wedum Page 2 June 20, 1975 which cuts through the center of the site. In both instances rerouting or divertion of the existing drainage to avoid problems during future excavation and/or construction would not be difficult. Drainage is a particularly impor- tant consideration; therefore, the recommended drainage system will be designed to keep water away from future excavations, proposed foundations, and existing slopes. We believa that normal precipitation will not propose a vroblem due to the high permeability of the on-site material. The existing slopes appear to be reasonably stable due to both the com- position of the existing soil and to the presence of vegetation which is abundant on these slopes. There are numerous solutions for retaining and assuring the stability of these slopes both during excavation and construe- tion. The proper method, however, will depend upon a closer analysis of the existing soil conditions along with a complete structural analysis of the anticipated loads for the proposed structures. As I previously mentioned to you, geologic hazards studies in this area have previously been done by the United States Geological Survey (Map I-785A through Map I-735F by Bruce Bryant in 1972) and also by the Colorado State Univ-ersity for Pitkin County (C.S.U. Study Maps--Lower Roaring Fork--Series M-102-9). In both instances the proposed subdivision area is documented as being free of geologic hazards. Upon your approval, sir, it is the intention of this laboratory to define clearly the subsurface conditions of the site and to obtain through laboratory testing the data necessary to present a complete and comprehensive soils and foundation report which will insure safe foundations that will correspond to the existing soil conditions. If any questions should arise from this letter, please feel free to contact the laboratory at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, 9492 21444 Josenh R. Iniascelli Professional Geologist mt 60 E DO k - ~2 ...,4-_ p.0.0. W.a)-D-- Reimbursement Agreement The estimated cost of construction of an 8" water line is $15.00 per foot for 85 feet or $1,275.00. The estimated cost of construction of an 3/4" water line to service one lot for 85 feet at $3.50 a foot or $297.50. The difference in cost between construction of a 8" line and a 3/4" line at $977.50 shall be credited to the Developer John Randall Wedum applied toward his future plant investment fee. ~1 2-4 (2*4-6* 1 4_k/) I J, f 211 "L kiÂ»4 fgÂ·Â·Â· 4,2 7 4 6/ 9 Â«>0 L/1- L.-4 J 4/74:*/1 a~ L, Odd- -eis--/49 1--643-0 1-7 i.f.Â£::7,<>el Â£-2-----i- 72 L 494,Â£,1 -Â£-l ..T-t #L,20>1 p V 01 -41 ~u-al "-)~ jo--tÂ«i--0- / 74 - ju~Â· -,4,44 f U Â»k-' 41,/6- ~ 3.4 6 4/ 0 0 Aspen, Colorado May 22, 1975 To be read before the City Council Hearing May 27, 1975 Subject: Wedum-Hyman PUD. The Oklahoma Flats area cannot take any more traffic. The traffic caused by this development will be beyond belief. When one unit is occupied, first there are the "pad crashers" who inevitably show up with their cars during the season. Then there are masses of friends and buddies coming and going at all hours, day and night. Parking areas are planned for Spring Street in Oklahoma Flats. These will in no way handle the traffic, which will be strung out along the road, blocking snow plow service and, in case of fire, blocking passage of fire equipment. This has already been a headac he for the residents of the Flats. On the side of Spring Street 9Posite the proposed units, the developers plan a swimming pool plus tennis courts complete with dressing rooms and rest rooms. This alone will generate tremendous traffic, as friends and friends of friends will arrive daily (and nightly) with their cars and motorcycles to use these facilities. The majority of the residents of Oklahoma Flats do not want Spring Street paved or widened, as this will only increase traffic nightmares (speed, noise, pollution). It would also mean the loss of many big trees, plus other side effects that would be detrimenta 1 to the area. Stairways and pathways leading down from the buildings will cause visitors and occupants of the buildings to park along Spring Street. Plans show one stairway coming directly down from Gibson Street. Thi s will bring pedestrians down from the Silver King and Smuggler trailer court who would have otherwise used another route. All this adds up to every kind of pc*Lution. The plans call for many sun decks. Besides the noise of cars and motorcycles, there will be the din of stereos and hi-fis from early morning till late at night. Especially on Sundays, the only day many of us have for peace and quiet. From the sun decks, beer cans and other refuse will be flung out into Oklahoma Flats. My wife and boy have taken the responsibility of keeping the area along Spring Street clean, but with this development, it will be impossible. For the most part, these units will be filled with people who care noth*ng for the nlighborhood or for the natural setting. In an age that is afraid of silence, their passion will be for noise-making gadgets. Loud cars, loud motorcycles, loud stereos, loud voices, without giving a thought to what it does to the quality of life in the neighborhood. We will hear the worn out argument that "now that you have moved in, you don't want anyone else to", etc. This is not so. We wilcome good neighbors. The kind who buy their own houses and live in them and 0 . 94 -2- Subjects Wedum-Hyman PUD (continued): sare for them, and have regard for their neighbors and neighborhood. Nhat i s wrong with single family dwellings occupied by si,gle families, which is what the zoning calls fort I' 11 tell you what is wrong--- not enough profit for the developers. A development such as this is utter disaster for the surrounding area. The name should be changed to *Little Silver King" for this is exactly what it is. Even if these units are sold as condominiums, they quickly become rental units under the new (mostly absentee) owners. And when the damage is done and another good neighborhood goes down the drain, where will the developers be? Off looking for another place of beauty on which to wreak havoc at great profit to themselves while we are left with the wreckage. A recent gimmick of developers is to claim they are going to live on the property. This is to imply that they are going to take some responsibility and interest in the neighborhood and its welfare. This is supposed to create a more favorable atmosphere and assist them in getting what they want. We. in Oklahoma Flats, have heard this before and are living with the result. Any of the permanent residents surrounding the Silver King complex will more that verify what I have outlined in this letter. What we are being asked to accept is & little Silver King and all that goes with the big one. The developers claim they are leaving eighty percent open space. One look at the plans shows that most of the "open spaceÂ» will be occupied by automobiles. And what does the developer offer the community in land dedication? In return for destroying a neighborhood, increased traffic and polution, increased policing by both city and county. What do they offer for thisT This terrible damage and the great profits they will receive? They offer absolutely nothkngl We ask that this development be stopped and recommend single family dwellings. Signed ....... ~jÂ»+L~YÂ»~Â·'~061 4 0 CITY#PHYO PEN aspen,cqlorado, 81611 box v MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Wedum-Hyman PUD - Outline Development Plan and Conceptual Subdivision Review DATE: May 20, 1975 This request is to consider a cluster development of nine (9) units, containing two and three bedrooms in the Oklahoma Flats area. The proposal is to cluster the units at the top of the bank on Gibson Street starting at the intersection of Gibson and Lone Pine Road and moving to the west. The nine units will be located in four structures, three containing two units, and one containing three units. The tract under consideration contains 95,200 square feet with an average slope of 17% measured in accordance with Section 24-8.13 (C). Applying the density reduction as prescribed by Section 24-8.13 (C)(b), the tract is reduced 1,000 square feet for every percentage over 10%, or a total of 7,000 square feet. This leaves a developable tract for density purposes of 88,200 square feet. The zoning in the area is R-15, Mandatory PUD, which requires 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit on unsubdivided land. The Mandatory PUD section of the code allows for the construction of more than two units per structure if not otherwise permitted by the zone (Section 24-8.5). .. WEDUM-HYMAN PUD May 20, 1975 Page Two On Tuesday, May 6, 1975, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Outline Development Plans and Conceptual Subdivision for the Wedum-Hyman PUD. Preliminary analysis by the planning office and Planning and Zoning Commission indicates that nine units are appropriate for the site and that project complies with the intent and purposes of the PUD designation. In arriving at this conclusion, we found and considered the following: 1. The project provides an alternative living en- vironment to the standard subdivision tract. 2. There is ample open space within the develop- ment and suitable recreation areas have been set aside and planned. 3. The pattern of development for the tract is sensitive to the natural topography and utilizes rather bulldozes the geologic features of the site. 4. The project represents a creative approach to the use of the land. 5. By utilizing the cluster concept on top of the bank adjacent to Gibson Street the project mini- mizes the need for a network of streets and utilities and represents a more efficient and economical use of resources. 6. The surrounding area development is of a low key residential nature. The proposed project is in keeping with this established pattern. 7. The proposed development creates a more desirable environment than would the application of minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and standard tract type property division. 8. There exists ample water pressure and other utilities to serve the proposal. The primary water main for the area to the north passes through the proposed site. .. WEDUM-HYMAN PUD May 20, 1975 Page Three 9. There exists adequate roads to insure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance, and the proposal will not add to the City's road system. 10. The site selected for development is the most suitable within the tract. Proper engineering and construction practices should limit what little danger there is from ground instability and the possibility of mud- flows and rock falls. 11. It is anticipated that the effects of the de- velopment on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent effects on water pollution will be minimal and controllable. 12. The possible effects on air quality in the area and city wide is negligable. Due to the minimal incremental increase in the number of auto in the area or city. 13. The design and location of the proposed structures, driveways and trails is compatible with the terrain and sensitive to the limitations imposed by it. 14. Proposed grading and the utilization of an ex- isting foundation will minimize disturbance to the terrain and other natural land features. 15. The placement and clustering of the structures and parking areas results in aprpoximately 80% of the site being left open and undisturbed, preserving the natural features of the terrain. 16. Consideration should be given to plans for stabilizing the slope and controlling erosion. 17. Curb cuts on Gibson should be minimized, but adequate parking must be maintained with access from Gibson. .. WEDUM-HYMAN PUD May 20, 1975 Page Four 18. Utilization of Spring Street by vehicles should be minimized so as to reduce vehicular impact and vehicular/pedestrian conflicts in the Oklahoma Flats area. It is the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission that the project be given Outline Development Plan and Conceptual Subdivision approval. 1193/ *3 % / do(, . VI , Spenc~r Schiffer, Chair~~ ASPE# PLANNING & ZONING kOMMISSION WEDUM-HYMAN PUD & SUBDIVISION -.-- -- CIT~ WATER DEPT. ~ Preliminary Plat P&Z Hearing June 3, 1975 SUBDIVISION PLAN CHECK FORM Date May 12, 1975 Gentlemen: Accerding to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, the enclosed plat constitutes a subdivision and must be processed in accordance with said Regulation. This form with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company and public agency may inspect the plat and the site, making comments, concerning the placement o f easements, etc., and where necessary 2 sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat. This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com= mission no later than June 30, 1975 4 No response will be interpreted as approval with no comments. Remarks: /(/0 84 =(,;.A 9\n-/ 3. *- fV ~ C~AZZ--=. Signature of Agency A 9â€¢J *4-6 ASPEN METRO SAN *RICT ~ WEDUM-HYMAN PUD & SUBDIVISION Preliminary Plat P&Z Hearing June 3, 1975 SUBDIVISION PLAN CHECK FORM Date May 12, 1975 Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, the enclosed plat constitutes a subdivision and must be processed in accordance with said Regulation. This form with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company and public agency may inspect the plat and the site, making comments, concerning the placement o f easements, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat. 4 This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be , returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com= mission no later than June 30, 1975 No response will be interpreted as approval with no comments. Remarks: ASPEN METRO SANITATION DISTRICT approves as long as the present alignment of Spring Street is not changed. 9 1 1 ~,LL-LLE A Lk&-2&-1.-* -t -% Signatdre of Agency r tfi,-11 57/2,Â»-- d/l,4 -r + P c> 25 ca N . 13.--_LMT; t-T- ROCKY MOUNTAIN NAT~~L GAS WEDUM-HYMAN PUD & SUBDIVISION Preliminary Plat P&Z Hearing June 3, 1975 SUBDIVISION PLAN CHECK FORM Date May 12, 1975 Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations. the enclosed plat constitutes a subdivision and must be processed in accordance with said Regulation. This form with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company and public agency may inspect the plat and the site, making comments, concerning the placement of easements, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat. This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com= mission no later than June 30, 1975 No response wi 11) be interpreted as approval with no comments. Remarks: ~Iy,/42 ---d'~~~ : -t al- t-4-Â£-~ZE;t31 Â«'' --tf~ 1 -\ C ~Â£ r Â£ . 3,- -â‚¬.t/fl ~ /7 2 t-~ --,7%51-- 644 1 -1~ 7- ~ --02<4 e . :2 Y 0 0/7, Â£367%-3> d *%6- 1 9 2 1 0 -Q o -VE* 0-Â« ri~,p#* f. . *' 9 - 4 "4 D 5 64=:. 4 l,/ U : 17#f/ _, 0,A _-625(L- 72.-Â«4--Â« _--0.22â€ž~-<d.,Â«- Â· e L ~ ~--0 24 70(:= 99 Â«t.. 91.0 53ignature of Agency 9 4- j_14.1 e - ffÂ©~fr- HOLY CROSS ELECTR~ 1~,JEDUM-HYMAN PUD & SUBDIVISION Preliminary Plat P&Z Hearing June 3, 1975 SUBDIVISION PLAN CHECK FORM Date May 12, 1975 Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, the enclosed plat constitutes a subdivision and must bo processed in accordance with said Regulation. This form with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company and public agency may inspect the plat and the site, making comments, concerning the placement of easements, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat. This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com= mission no later than June 30, 1975 . No response will be interpreted as approval with no comments. Remarks: Holy Cross has power lines that cross the lot indicated in the prints. Any buildings under the power lines must maintain twelve (12) foot minimum clearance for our lowest wire. No arragnements have been made to relocate the power lines. The proposed relocation would require extra poles and anchors as indicated on the print. 6_~4~ 4-4< %194 ~ 1 L. Sipnature'of Agency ~,EDUM-HYMAN PUD & SUBDIVISION CITY FIRE MARSHAL ~ Preliminary Plat P&Z Hearing June 3, 1975 SUBDIVISION PLAN CHECK FORM Date May 12, 1975 Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, the enclosed plat constitutes a subdivision and must be processed in accordance with said Regulation. This form with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company and public agency may inspect the plat and the site, making comments, concerning the placement of easements, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat. This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com= mission no later than June 30, 1975 No response will be interpreted as aDproval with no comments. Remarks: 9620/1,727>49 IN 5-TF? 6 0 8-1-to,J oF M DDIT L 1[ <11?4,1â‚¬,1_ BY ORAPT AT THâ‚¬. A Ff>â‚¬O*1,1,91 â‚¬ woe 87/0 4 : \POICATZe 04 PLAT Siggeture of Agency 7>Urr-6,0 04 501 As73â‚¬_ . .. WEDUM-HYMAN PUD & SUBDIVISION REFERRALS Mailed May 12, 1975 Mailing: City Water Dept. V City Parks & Recreation City Fire Marshal I X City Electric Rocky Mountain Natural Gas (Willard Clapper) -- ----' Â¥ Mountain Bell (A&Â·pen--Of.f-iÂ·â‚¬e) 570.,4'6 (~ck- . 1 School District RE-1 (Richard Lee) -- Holy Cross Electric - x Aspen Metro San District --- .. --------- ---,C Labeled: WEDUM-HYMAN PUD & SUBDIVISION Preliminary Plat P&Z Hearing June 3, 1975 }n PH Return Expected: 30 *404* 1975 No resoonse will be interpreted as approval with no comments. 9-a rv 2) O.198 I . 1/A . MEMORANDUM To: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Wedum-Hyman PUD - Outline Development Plan and Conceptual Subdivision Review DATE: May 1, 1975 This request is to consider a cluster development of nine (9) units, containing two and three bedrooms in the Oklahoma Flats area. The proposal is to cluster the units at the top of the bank on Gibson Street starting at the intersection of Gibson and Lone Pine Road and moving to the west. The nine units will be located in four structures, three containing two units, and one containing three units. The tract under consideration contains 95,200 square feet with an average slope of 17% measured in accordance with Section 24-8.13 (C). Applying the density reduction as prescribed by Section 24-8.13 (C)(b), the tract is reduced 1,000 square feet for every percentage over 10%, or a total of 7,000 square feet. This leaves a developable tract for density purposes of 88,200 square feet. The zoning in the area is R-15, Mandatory PUD, which requires 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit on unsubdivided land. The Mandatory PUD section of the code allows for the construction of more than two units per structure if not otherwise permitted by the zone (Section 24-8.5). 7 .l! Preliminary analysis by the planning office indicates that nine units are appropriate for the site and that project complies with the intent and purposes of the PUD designation. In arriving at this conclusion, we found and considered the following: 1. The project provides an alternative living en- vironment to the standard subdivision tract. WEDUM-HYMAN PUD ~ May 1, 1975 Page Two 2. There is ample open space within the develop- ment and suitable recreation areas have been set aside and planned. 3. The pattern of development for the tract is sensitive to the natural topography and utilizes rather bulldozes the geologic features of the site. 4. The project represents a creative approach to the use of the land. 5. By utilizing the cluster concept on top of the bank adjacent to Gibson Street the project mini- mizes the need for a network of streets and utilities and represents a more efficient and economical use of resources. 6. The surrounding area development is of a low key residential nature. The proposed project is in keeping with this established pattern. 7. The proposed development creates a more desirable environment than would the application of minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and standard tract type property division. 8. There exists ample water pressure and other utilities to serve the proposal. The primary water main for the area to the north passes through the proposed site. 9. There exists adequate roads to insure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance, and the proposal will not add to the City's road system. 10. The site selected for development is the most suitable within the tract. Proper engineering and construction practices should limit what little danger there is from ground instability and the possibility of mud- flows and rock falls. . 0 WEDUM-HYMAN PUD May 1, 1975 Page Three 11. It is anticipated that the effects of the de- velopment on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent effects on water pollution will be minimal. 12. The possible effects on air quality in the area and city wide is negligable. Due to the minimal incremental increase in the number of auto in the area or city. 13. The design and location of the prooosed structures, driveways and trails is compatible with the terrain and sensitive to the limitations imposed by it. 14. Proposed grading and the utilization of an ex- isting foundation will minimize disturbance to the terrain and other natural land features. 15. The placement and clustering of the structures and parking areas results in approximately 80% of the site being left open and undisturbed, preserving the natural features of the terrain. It is the Planning Office recommendation that this proposal be granted Outline Development Plan and Conceptual Subdivision approvals. WEDUM - HYMAN OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR P.U.D. PLAN APPROVAL John Randall Wedum i May, 1975 . . .. OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR P.U.D. PLAN APPROVAL THIS PROJECT is intended to provide a cluster development of nine units with two and three bedrooms each. The placement of the buildings will be in three clusters. The first two clusters will be on the top of the hill bordering on Gibson Street. The third cluster will start on top of the hill and step down one level to the existing foundation and terraced levels on which the old mill was built. The remaining land is divided from this area by Spring Street. This area has been left as open space to allow playground areas, recreational activities such as tennis and swimming facilities, and green area, because of its location near the river and heavily treed areas. There are several considerations for this arrangement of open space and building areas. Page Two Our first consideration for building oil the plateau of the hillside concerned our objective, in that the orientation and physical. character of tliis particular.parcel of land made it possible to create an efficient and economical solar collecting system, which would heat a cluster of dwelling units. One collecting system will be used by several units, thus allowing expenditures for dependable equipment and, at the same time, lowering the per unit cost of constructi.ng a solar heating system. The hillside on this parcel is advantageous because it allows direct south, southwest exposures for the collectors, as well as for the window areas used as heat collectors in each unit, with no possible existing or future obstruction of the sun's rays by new buildings or existing dense trees. Because we will build on the plateau of the hill, we will be able to drop the collectors over the hill. Thus, the slope of the hill creates the required tilt for the collector and the heated air can naturally flow (with little apparatus) into the storage areas under the main floors of the units. The heatine circulation of the houses is also handled simply by allowing the required amount of heat to flow up through the house. . l' .. Page Three The project was broken into three clusters because of a water line easement running up through the middle of the hillside. Also, the terraces left by the previous mill create the needed grading for building. By utilizing these terraces, the cut-up hillside, which has no vegetation, will be covered. Another consideration for building on the plateau of the hillside is that all units would be accessible from Gibson Street, and ample parking could be provided. There are at least twenty- seven spaces provided and one covered space per unit is being considered. The parking wou]d be on grade with the road and housing, allowing easy access. The effects of runoff drainage, soil. erosion, and consequent effects on,water pollution would be improved, if anything, on this site by the construction and development of this land where it is graded off and unplanted. Fire hydrants are on the property, below on Spring Street, as shown on the maps provided. The property involved at this point is owned by Donald Hyman and Mark Hyman of the Smuggler Durant Mining Company. Another owner is William Loughran. .. Page*Four The parcel contains approximately 95,200 square feet. The buildings take up approximately 15,000 square feet. The collectors take up approximately 5,000 square feet. This would allow 79% open space on the parcel. The anticipated start of construction is July 1, 1975, with estimated completion being the following year, on November 30, 1976. Water can be tapped from the main line running through the property. Sewer lines are available from Spring Street, below, and Gibson Street, above. Power is also on the site. The ground on the site is mainly rock and, as for the stability of the soil, a soils engineer will be consulted if needed. .. AMOUNT PREMIUM r 1 OWNER $ 50,000.00 $217.00 MORTGAGE $ $ 20,00 ADDITIONAL CHARGES $ COST OF TAX CERTIFICATE $ L 1 SURVEY COSTS $ TOTALS $237.00 Your Reference Smuggler-Durant CC's To: No 46,001,282 C Sheet 1 of _5 COMMITMENT TO INSURE Transamerica Title Insurance Company, a California corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified iii Schedule A, in favor of the proposed insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the conditions and stipula- tions shown on the inside of the cover. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE /~ 1 // U 9 The effective date of this commitment iq .. . .., 1 1 075 b~ , 19-at AT. I I At which time fee title was vested in: AS TO PARCEL A SNECGLER-ITRANT MINING CORPORATION, a Now York Corporatica arie' Ill''PM C. HISEL as her interests may appear. (CONTINUED ON PAGE 2) SCHEDULE A 1. Policies to be issued: (A) Owners': JOHN RANDALL WEDUM (B) Mortgagee's: TO BE DETERMINED Form No. C-142.1 Rev. 4-18.75 .. No. 46,001,282 Sheet 2 of 5 At which time fee ti.le was 'vested in: (CONTINUED) NOTE: There is a gap between the tract of land deeded to Smuggler- Durant Mining Corporation as described in Book 119 at Page 220 and the land deeded to WILLIAM H. LOUGHRAN in Book 235 at Page 671 and RUTH C. BISEL would be the owner of any interest therein. AS TO PARCEL B WILLIAM H. LOUGHRAN .. No 46,001,282 C Sheet .1- of _1 SCIIEI)ULE A-Continued 2. Covering the Land in the State of Colorado, County of Pi tkin Described as: PARCEL A A parcel of land in the NEt of the SW+ of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Gth P.M. described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the West i corner of said Section 7 bears North 55*29' West 2,371.8 feet; Thence North 15'00' East 118 feet to a point; Thence South 59*30' Eakt 134 feet to a point; Thence North 43Â®45' East 45.60 feet to a point; Thence North 46'15' 392 feet to a polnt; Thence South 43*45' West 333 feet to a point Thence South 19*15' West 92 feet more or less to the center of the Roaring Fork River, Thence Southeasterly and Southerly along the Center line of the Roaring Fork River to the South boundary line of the John R. Williams Ranch; Thence South 89*20' East along said South boundary line 220 feet more or less to the point of beginning Except: Any portion of subject land lying outside of the City of Aspen. PARCEL B A tract of land described as follows: Beginning at a point from whoncd the West Quarter Corner of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Gth P,M. bears N. 55'29' West n distance of 2371.8 feet, thence N. 15'00' E. a distance of 118.00 feet to a point, thence S. 59~30' E. a distance of 134.00 feet to a point, thence N. 43Â®45' E. a distance of 45.60 feet to a point, Thence N. 46'15' W. a distance of 172.60 feet to a point, thence S. 59Â®03'29" E. a distance of 99.40 feet to a point, thence S. 55'29'50" E. a distance of 69.80 feet to a point, thenco S. 50Â®44,15" E. a distance of 101.59 feet to a point, thÂ¢mee 41Â©34r41" E. a distance of 62.83 feet to a point, thence N. 89'20' West n distance of 316.00 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Porm No. C-142.2 . 6 .. No 46.001,282 C Sheet 21 _of 5 SCHEDULE A--Continued REQUIREMENTS 3. The following are the requirements to be complied with prior to the issuance of said policy or policies. Any other instrument recorded subsequent to the date hereof may appear as an exception under Schedule B of the policy to be iSS1Ied. Unless otlierwise noted, all documents must be recorded in the office of clerk and recorder of the county in which said property is located. A.' Deed from Smuggler-Durant Mining Corporation, a New York Corpora- tion to John Randall Wedum as to the following described property: A parcel of land in the NE:} of the SWA: of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. described as follows: Beginning at n point whence the West i corner of said Section 7 bears North 55'29' West 2,371.8 feet; Thence North 15'00' East 118 feet to a point; Thence South 59'30' East 134 feet to a point; Thence North 43'45' East 40 feet to a point; Thence North 46'15' 392 feet to a point; Thence South 43*45' West 333 feet to a point Thence Â·South 19'15' West 92 feet more or less to the center of the Roaring Fork River, Thence Southeasterly and Southerly along the Center line of the Roaring Fork River to the South boundary line of the John R. Williams Ranch; Thence South 89*20' East along said South boundary line 220 feet more or less to the point of beginning Except: Any portion of subject land lying outside of the City of Aspen. B. Deed from Ruth C. Bisel to John Randall Wedum, as to Parcel A. C. Deed from William H. Loughran to John Randall Wedum as to Parcel B. D. Deed of Trust from John Randall Wedum to the Public Trustee of Pitkiri County for the use of a Mortgagee to be determined, to secure an amount to be determined. NOTE: As the survey from Tri-Co surveyors becomes available the legal descriptions given under this commitment will be changed to give the exact boundary lines. This is only an interim commitment until said description is received. Foint No. C-142.3 .. . .. No 46,001,282 C Sheet A_ of _5_ SCHEDULE B THE POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER WILL NOT INSURE AGAINST: 1, Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or clainis of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, im- posed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Taxes due and payable ; and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district. ' 6. Easement and right of way for pole purposes granted to Roaring Fork Electric Light and Power Company by John R. Williams by instrument recorded June 21, 1898 in Book 119 at Page 220. 7. Right of a proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted,Â· and right of way for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded December 24, 1902 in Book 55 at Page 116. 8. Rights of Way for what is known as Spring Street and Gibson Street. 9. Right for the continued flow of the Roaring Fork River. NOTE: There will be a possible exception as to the Denver and Rio Grande Railway upon information to be received from Tri-Co Engineering. ' 'N,-1 No. C-142.4 }tev. 4-18-15 . .. AMOUNT PREMIUM r -1 OWNER $50,000.00 S 217.00 MORTGAGE $ S ADDITIONAL CHARGES $ COST OF TAX CERTIFICATE $ 2 1 SURVEY COSTS S TOTALS $217.00 -Your Reference -3-6.-1-00-1 :282-3 CC's To: No, 46,001,282-3 C -5 Sheet 1 of _5 COMMITMENT TO INSURE Transamerica Title Insurance Company, a California corporation, herein called the Company, for a valiiable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the pi ovisions of Schedules A and B and to the conditions and stipula- tions shown on the inside of the cover. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 1 The effective date of this commitment is November 22 ~,19-76 at 4: 30 P M. -~ At wliich time fee title was vested in: SMUGGLER-DURANT MINING CORPORATION, a New York Corporation and WILLIAM H. LOUGHRAN as their interests may appear. SCHEDULE A 1. Policies to be issued: (A) Owners': JOHN RANDALL WEDUM (13) Mortgagee's: D.rm No. C-142.1 Rev. 4-18-75 .. No. 4610-01,-282-3 1 C-5 Sheet _L of -_1_ SCHEDULE A-Continued 2. Covering the Land in the State of Colorado, County of Pitkin Described as: A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NE 1/4 SW 1/4 OF I . f 7, ION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THIS 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN TPACT KNOWN AS THE J. R. WILLIAMS RANCH WHENCE THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7 BEARS Â· N 55Â°27'55" W 2,369.32 FEET; (being the'same point of beginning as the point of beginning in that deed recorded in Book 119 at Page 220.) THENCE N 89Â°20'00" W 220.00 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH-ERLY LINE; THENCE N 04Â°12'54" W 160.88 FEET; THENCE N 19'15'00" E 92.00 FEET; THENCE N 43'45'00" E 40.88 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CEN TERLINE OF GIB SON AVEN UE; THENCE FOLLOWING SAID CENTERLINE 208.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,133.00 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH CURVE BEARS S 72Â°30'08" E 208.26 FEET; THENCE S 55'59'26" E 33.10 FEET; THENCE S 59'03'29" E 99.40 FEET; THENCE S 55'29'50" E 69.80 FEET; THENCE S 50'44'15" E 30.67 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF AN OLD DENVER AND RIO GRANDE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE FOLLOWING SAID RIGHT-OF--WAY LINE 11.33 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 384.30 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH CURVE BEARS S 15Â°50'18" E 11.33 FEET; THENCE N 89Â°20'00" W 5.24 FEET ALONG SAID RIGIiT--OF- WAY LINE; THENCE FOLLOWING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 87.29 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADI US OF 389.30 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH CURVE BEARS S 22Â°52'46" E 87.11 FEET; THENCE S 29Â°18'13" E 0.04 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID J. R. WILLIAMS RANCH; THENCE N 89Â°20'00" W 251.13 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, 7 EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING PARCEL OF LAND: continued next page 7â‚¬ i m No. C-142.2 No. 46,001,282-3-C-5 ~ Sheet 3 of 5 SCHEDULE A-Continued Legal description continued A parcel of land situated in the NE;* SW# of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado being more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly line of that certain tract known as the J.R. Williams Ranch whence the West f corner of said Section 7 bears N. 55Â°27'55" ' W. 2369.32 feet; thence N. 89Â°20'00" W. 3.47 feet along said property line to point of beginning; thence N. 15Â°30'00" E. 52 .39 feet; thence N. 74Â°30'00" W. 125.00 feet; thence S. 15Â°30'00" W. 85.49 feet; thence S. 89Â°20'00" E. 129.31 feet; more or less to the , ~ point of beginning. .. Vo 46,001,282-3 c -0 4 5 Sheet __of ___ SCHEDULE A-Continued REQUIREMENTS 3, The following are the requirements to be complied with prior to the issuance of said policy or policies. Any other instrument recorded subsequent to the date hereof may appear as an exception under Schedule B of the policy to be issued. Unless otherwise noted, all documents inust be recorded in the office of clerk and recorder of the couiity in which said property is located. A. Deed from Smuggler-Durant Mining Corporation, a New York Corporation to John Randall Wedum conveying the property described under Schedule A Paragraph 2, less that land owned by William H. Loughran B. Deed from William H. Loughran to John Randall Wedum conveying the property as described under Schedule A, Paragraph 2, less the land owned by the Smuggler-Durant Mining Corporation. .Porm No, C-142.3 ... No._46,001 +282-3-__C -5 Sheet _ _5_ of ..5_ SCHEDULE B THE POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER WILL NOT INSURE AGAINST: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easenients, or claims or easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, im- posed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Taxes due and payable ; and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer - service, or for any other special taxing district. 6. Easement and right of way for pole purposes granted to Roaring Fork Electric Light and Power Company by John R. Williams by instrument recorded June 21, 1898, in Book 119 at Page 220. 7. Right of a proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, and right of way for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded December 24, 1902 in Book 55 at Page 116. 8. Rights of Way for what is known as Spring Street and Gibson Street. 9. Right for the continued flow of the Roaring Fork River. Form No. C-142.4 . .. i AMOUNT PREMIUM r -1 1 OWNER S 50,000.00 =11 3 1 4 -1,1, An 1 r.7 n n MORTGAGE S $ 20.00 ADDITIONAL CHARGES $ COST OF TAX CERTIFICATE S L J SURVEY COSTS $ ' TOTALS s237.00 Your Reference Sinuggler-Durant CC'S To: No 46,001,282 C * 5 Sheet 1 of D 1 COMMITMENT TO INSURE Transanierica Title Insurance Company, a California corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the prerniums and charges therefor; all subject to tlie provisions of Schedules A and B and to the conditions and stipula- tions shown on the inside of the cover. /1 '1 - AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 0 The effective date of thiscommitmentis "ny 2, 1 07.5 ,19-at M. At wliich time fee title was vested in: AS 7'0 2- Â¥ 11. /-1 -I 'T f 21 j 'Ll].1/ 2 1 SMUCGLER-IMJRANT MINING CORPORATION, 2. Now York CO]-pOR 44, i~~~.'1 221 C. BISEL as her interests may appear. (CONTINVED ON PAGE P ) SCHEDULE A 1. Policies to be issued: (A) Owners': JOHN RANDALL WEDUM (B) Mortgagee's : TO BE n 'TUD"1 NED Form No. C-142.1 Lev. 4-1 Â§ 76 .. No. 46,001,282 Sheet 2 of 5 At which time fee title was 'vested in: (CONTINUED) NOTE: There is a gap between the tract of land deeded to Smuggler- Durant Mining Corporation as described in Book 119 at Page 220 and the land deeded to WILLIAM H. LOUGHRAN in Book 235 at Page 671 and RUTH C. BISEL would be the owner of any interest therein. AS TO PARCEL B WILLIAM H. LOUGHRAN t .. No 46,001,282 C Sheet _1_ of _A_ SCHEDULE A-Continued 2. Covering the Land in the State of Colorado, County of Pitkin Described as: PARCEL A A parcel of land in the NEt of the SWiÂ· of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Gth P.M. described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the West i corner of said Section 7 bears North 55'29' West 2,371.8 feet; Thence North 15Â®00' East 138 feet to a point; Thonce South 59'30' Eakt 134 feet to a point; '.'hence North 43'45' East 45.60 feet to a point; Thence North 46'15' 392 feer tO a polnt; Thence South 43'45' West 133 feet to a point Thence South 19Â®15' West 92 feet more or less to the center of the Roaring Fork River, Thence Southeasterly and Southerly along the Center line of the Roaring Fork River to the South boundary line of the John R. Williams Ranch; Thence South 89Â©20' East along said South boundary line 220 feet more or less to the point of beginning Except: Any portion of subject land lying outside of the City of Aspen. PARCEL B A tract of land described as follows: Beginning at a point from whencd- the West Quarter Corner of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Gth P-M. bears N. 55e 29' West o distance of 2371.8 feet, thence N. 15Â®00' E. a distance of 118.00 feet to n point, thence S. 59*30' E. a distance of 134.00 foot to a point, thence N. 43Â®45' E. a distance of 45.60 feet to a point; Thence N. 46Â©15' W. a distance of 172.60 feet to a point, thence S. 59*03'29" E. a distance of 99.40 feet to a point, thence S. 55*29'50" E. a distance of 69.80 Yoet to a point, thence S. 50*44Â¢15" E. a distance of 101,59 feet to a point, thence 41*34'41" E. a distance of 62.83 feet to a point, thence N. 89'20' West a distance of 316.00 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. yorn, Hu. C. 142.2 .. .. No 46,001,282 C Sheet_.4-of --5- SCHEDULE A-Continued REQUIREMENTS 3. The following are the requirements to be complied with prior to the issuance of said policy or policies. Any other instrument recorded subsequent to the date hereof may appear as an exception under Schedule B of the policy to be issued. Unless otherwise noted, all documents must be recorded in the office of clerk and recorder of the county in which said property is located. A. Deed from Smuggler-Durant Mining Corporation, a New York Corpora- tion to John Randall Wedum as to the following described property: A parcel of land in the NE+ of the SWi of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Gth P.M. described ns follows: Beginning at n point whence the West i corner of said Section 7 bears North 55'29' West 2,371.8 feet; Thence North 15Â®00' East 118 feet to a point; Thence South 59'30' East 134 feet to a point; Thence North 43'45' East 40 feet to a point; Thence North 46'15' 392 feet to a point; Thence South 43Â®45' West 133 feet to a point Thence Â·South 39Â®15' West 92 feet more or less to the center of the Roaring Fork River, Thencg Southeasterly and Southerly along the Center line of the Roaring Fork River to the South boundary line of the John R. Williams Ranch; Thence South 89Â®20' East along said South boundary line 220 feet more or less to the point of beginning Except: Any portion of subject land lying outside of the City of Aspen. B. Deed from Ruth C. Bisel to John Randall Wedum, as to Parcel A. C. Deed from William H. Loughran to John Randall Wedum as to Parcel B. D. Deed of Trust from John Randall Wedum to the Public Trustee of Pitkili County for the use of a Mori,gagee to be determined, to secure an amount to be determined. NOTE: As the survey from Tri-Co surveyors becomes available the legal descriptions given under this commitment will be changed to give the exact boundary lines. This is only an interim commitment until said description is received. Form Nâ€ž. c'-142.8 . t .. No 46,001,282 C Sheet _L_ of _5_ SCHEDULE B THE POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSITED HEREUNDER WILL NOT INSURE AGAINST: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnislied, im- posed by law and not sli own by the public records. 5. Taxes due and payable ; and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district. 6. Easement and right of way for pole purposes granted to Roaring Fork Electric Light and Power Company by John R. Williams by instrument recorded June 21, 1898 in Book 119 at Page 220. 7. Right of a proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, and right of way for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded December 24, 1902 in Book 55 at Page 116. 8. Rights of Way for what is known as Spring Street and Gibson Street. 9. Right for the continued flow of the Roaring Fork River. NOTE: There will be a possible exception as to the Denver and Rio Grande Railway upon information to be received from Tri-Co Engineering. Â·.u No. CÂ·149,4 Iter, 4-18.75 . 6 1 . Tpansamepica Title Insupance 00 Transamepica Title Insurance Co Arapahoe - Douglas < 2000 West Littleton Boulevard 2 HOME OFFICE Littleton, Colorado 80120 3Â§*8 . Commitment (303) 794-4255 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 983-4400 Denver - Adams . lora Denver, Colorado 80202 1837 California Street (303) 534-9066 <000= Northern California Operations ME R . 244 Pine Street C) Boulder 20 3 San Francisco, California 94104 1317 Spruce Street (415) 983-4600 Title Insurance Policy Boulder, Colorado 80302 -0 (303) 443-7160 Southern California Operations Eagle . Third and La Cienega Montaneros Building, Unit A Los Angeles, California 90048 P. O. Box 1700 (213) 655-3000 to be issued by Vail, Colorado 81567 (303) 476-5922 Washington-Alaska Operations El Paso Park Place 418 South Weber Street Sixth Avenue al University Street Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 0 (206) 628-4650 Seattle, Washington 98101 (303) 634-3731 3-ggE i Jefferson Oregon Operations Lakewood, Colorado 80215 ES*22 2 Transamepica (303) 234-1675 1675 Carr Street 9'ZNL 409 S.W. Ninth Avenue -1- Coz Portland, Oregon 97205 â€¢ 0-Ju C- Titla Insurance 151 West Mountain Avenue, P.O. Box 1100 M o 4 0 (503) 222-9931 Larimer a.) 310 * I m Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Arizona Operations (303) 493-6464 114 West Adams Street Company Mesa Phoenix, Arizona 85003 (602) 262-0511 531 Rood Avenue Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (303) 234-8234 Colorado Operations Denver, Colorado 80202 600 East Main Street Pitkin 1837 California Street P. 0. Box 2230 (303) 534-9066 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 07 Michigan Operations Pueblo 20830 Rutland Drive 627 North Main Street CA) Southfield, Michigan 48075 Pueblo, Colorado 81003 3-*EL= - (313) 358-4100 (303) 543-0451 Nevada Operations -4/II A Service of 507 Lincoln Street, P.O. Box 280 Routt - Jackson . 3Â°02 437 South Sierra Street Tran,samerica Corporation Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477 (303) 879-1611 Reno, Nevada 89501 (702) 786-1871 ir Weld 918 Tenth Street Texas Operations Greeley, Colorado 80631 (303) 352-2283 3820 Buffalo Speedway Houston, Texas 77006 â€¢ (713) 622-2611 AGENTS THROUGHOUT COLORADO .. 9 33NV1NOW EVI-d-:E[-I'H-0 Â»N u.110,~ :Molaq Pay)041 e)!110 04 1 a) SELLIO) ssaipplo asoald LL*08 009801 0 dS 1V0HINVKS II9I8 NldSV dul[ileinuednsul al#'1Boldelesuedl .. .. CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS Please read carefully 1. This is a Commitment to issue one or more policies of title insurance in our Standard Form when the requirements set forth in the Commitment have been satisfied. Tlie policy is available and should be examined before this Commitment is used if there is any question about coverage. 2. Only the policies shown are committed to. If there are any changes in the transaction, order an amendment from us. 3. The date on this Commitment is impoiÂ·tant. Nothing after that date has been considered by us. 4. This Commitment is good for 6 months only. Extensions should be ordered from us if tliey are needed. 444, 2 , L . :1444 1 '31,6-W . n 4. '1 - I. ..24<rÂ·. ' ....1*4371: \ \ \ \ rt \ -- . 0. \ \ \ \ FOUND, GIBSON AVENUE \ \ \ 9 1\0\IL IN FFWErvIEI\Ir --- \ \ DID 10 5 0 20 40 Co eD 1(DO \ 70 \ 0 \ lilli lilli OCALE; t=ZON \\ - 8, ---K \ 7 \ \ 0 \ \\ .. 404% I /33(2%%-I-1-%\ \ \ \ 56315 or- BEARINE UOC <65 ASPEN ID /OPEN AZIMUTr-1 65Â£=22'051'E) \ IR) \\ 1 1 \2 212--- --- 2(6&2-~' -- ~ ~ RIGHT- 6 -\ \ L ENG 74' .2/5.22 WAY \ \\ \ 0 ill 00 N \ \ RADIUS'l -3 - \\ ... \\ - tURVENOR,5 CERTIFICATE \1 - . 2. TAKEN flÂ©M /\MCHITEED FLAIv. \ \ \ 1 \ * liJAIVIEDFREDER, HEREBY CERTIFY Trt\TON DECEMBER 26,197-7 AOURVEY 1 1 \ 2,ARD MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION OF A FARCEL OF LAND aTLATED INTHE I.K.MILIN E?%*MRE I 1 NE 1/4 6,91/4 OFÂ©ECTION 7, TOWNSHIP loCOUT-Mi KANG[ 84 WEEECT-THC ' GTH PRINCIPAL MERIDAN ~ Pill<IN COUNEY COLOEVEX) BEING MDRE FULL-y *t Q \ h / \ 2 , 41 61 1 * Â®' -- 1 \ 0553121 5[DAB FOLLOWD; 6- / tENNNINGATA FOINTONITHE ZOUTHEKLY UNE OF-THAE.CERT7\IN TRACT KNOWN 3 264 - I. 415 -- h \ ~0 FOUND: \.--- - 7 DEARÂ© 5155Â°27'55"WZBGÂ¢32 FEET; ( BONS THEDAME FOINT OFNIGINN- \ AS THE U.R.WILLF\M5 RANCH WHENCE THE WEaT 1/4 CORRIEK OrOAD 8[CTON , AQ 4 ' 61 1 -- - - \/O / RK. NAIL IN PAVEMENT-- </ \ OP . ./ - 11. * 6 4.50 \ .f -4 \ ING AD THE POINT OF bEGINN1Ne IN THAT D[IP KEOORDED lEi eCOK 2 W AT / /An L ./3849 .0 PAGE 220). \ - / / ./ V T.9 4 7 1 7 CaL r--- THENCE N 88Â°03'00" W 3,47 FEET ALONe ZAID dOUTHEKLY UNEI .Gel L .\--. 2 // 7 1 n THENCE N IDÂ° 30'00"E 5230FEET,' / 7. E-9 \(20 \294 THENCE N 74Â° 30' 00" W 125,00FEET, THENCE 6 1 50 80' 00'1 W 854Â¢ rEEL \ \ I \ . . N , n-dENCE N 51)Â° 20' 00" W 87 22 FEET; ---:--~-*--/ - .... \% .U 3,79 THENCE NG?121 54"W 12.88 FEETi \ \\ I 1 WIDD flph/E ~44 , \ \ 1/ i \1 \ 07 9/ 3 1 THENCE N 43Â°45'CO'E 4088 fEET; TO AFOINTONTHE CENTERUNEÂ·OF 4 N N + 8'PUTLEVEL THERICE NIEDÂ°15'CO~'E 02,(X> FEET, 2 641- Â· GIBSON A/ENUE, 01\ 9 -<0 ACURVE TOTHE RIGHT HAVING ARADILÂ©00-1183,00 FEELTHECHORED \ I f y i. <Â»\ 1 ----2/ N THENCE rOLLOA/INS 6/\ID CENTERLINE 206. 56 FEET ALONG THEAKC OF- \-0 47 / / -N f *4. N \ / 63 UNDERCD\]LOT. 4 \ i h \ 1 4 /,IN RECREATION q / W Â»\ / OF- WHEH CURVE BEAR,5 672'Â»05'zE 208.26 FEET;f 1 . s." 4,0 ./. â‚¬1. 40\/ -.1 1 v.*& 9 AREA , . THENCE 5 50Â°59' E" E .ze.10 FECT, mi ' .// ~ ~~~\ ~. ~'* ~*.<34.5'f --- -~19.--- .----- 1 ./ /// , / / / 3, / / 1 1 N THENCE 6 50Â° (13'20" E 83,49 FEET , g. , / 1 THENCE '50UTH lois J FEET, I I. 142.5 Â£ I / ~ r / / / 1 - 1 - -).( 1 N - :V THENCE 6 15Â° 00'00"W 113.GOFEET 10 THE FOINTOr DEGINNING COIN- . \\\ \930% \ ~ ~1 / / 1-MENCE N 59Â° 30100' W 110.32FEET \ 1/ . 4 / 0 4 17\ININÂ® 144 1 ACRE-5 MOREOR(_555 * -- /'< PROPOSED\<\ \ i. 1 C t THE OPUT LEVEL WOOD FRAME DUPLEX WA61:OUND TO BE IDCATED ENTIRE- \ N THIRD O \ LY WITHIN THE EOUNDÂ«YOFTH[ AEOVE [365CRIBED PRDPERTY/\5 SHOWN . - -4,2 4- /9 C \ HEREON. THE LOCATON AND [)~MEN,5101\15 OFALL BULDIN(36, IMPROVEMENTa li \\27 0/0 â‚¬ o h <UNIT -1 8 MENTO 5(OR ONTHESE PREMISED ARE ACCURATELY Â©HOWN , 2-1 . 69 / 1 EABEMENT.51 RIGHTO-or-\AKY IN EVIDENCEL CE KNOWN TOMEAND ENCROCH- 0 ..pts -- / - h all ./ 1 \ ...29\ & - ~ $745Â»66".2----. 1.439\- . + .. ~v ~r, h \ 4 ---/ h.\ O 40' RIGHT- 1 .6 -ago - 4 30 - TRICD MNAGEMENIT dAMEÂ© F RESER LO 9184 \ / 1 -\. P D/TE; 2/10/78 ./1 - ,./. - 1 ----1 1 + ' ' - 1 / -h . f 1 RM t-ffri,#Once>\P - N NQ 3 hqua m 0 \ , I 1 2 g RECREATION AREA 1 (ve , \ 7130 3 1 N / THE EOUNDARVOMOWN HEREON \0,5 COMPLIED FROM DOCUMEN-13 OFREOSER \ 1 #* 1% 1 I /9 , Â·Â· ; / THE DEATON OF TH\B PARCEL 15 6%5ED ON THE FIELD LOCAmoN Or CORNERB ./ w 125.00 / 212 AND 23 Or TRACT A Or THE ADPEN TOM\15'TE -APPITION AND THE MTHE- \ NaTICAL RELATIONÂ©HIP METWEEN THE FATENITED FOKTION OFTHE LUX ~ ./ 7, ~ . PLACER MO 07~ (TIVET A) AND THE TWO FARCELE> DESCRIEEDINBOOR 1%4 440- 1 (9, PAGE 220 AND BOOK 235, PAGE 671 OF THE PITKIN COLNTY RE-CORE)5 l m~ 0 CtiA IT- a TH!5 Â©URVEYDRO OPINION THAT SINCE EOTH TRACT A OF THE LUX FLATER 12 - 44%064 8,0 00 \ & AND THE FARCEL DEISCRIBED IN SOCK 119, FNE 220 WERE DEEDED AND i l[3 8*ed)*c:R DEeCRIBED NEAR T-HE MME [7\TE (TWOMONTHO DIFFERENCE) AND WERE , THAT THE MATHEMTICAL RELATIONOHIP 59-WEEN THEOE TWO EARCEL..5 0 9 BOTH TIED TO THE ONVE WE5[ 1/4 CORNER (FHYOICALLY THE,5AME CORNER) , 4/ / St-OULD 19/9\IN CONOBNT \ / \ 2 8 \ \ \ \ \.9 0 " N 89'20'00'hN 872 2 N89'2000'W 847 REAÂ»LASTIC CAP ... 114 0 ... g. - . JOB NO f 77-82 CLIENT. WEDLJM 4â€ž99,21Â·90 N 5 ACCESS ~ASEMENT ( 01 .. h ' t *97**Fi'#M 9 : I . A. Â· - 1 -''t, 11'.irlr.. = b Â»04'.i,1 f ' ut . ~ t 81*00#.1/1./.#Im' 0/04/*/19"e ,/Il *tullil./16*.a. 1/'ll<19"W/tionâ€¢..ihilib i.6.44'll"*....94 WILL/AM *6 9//mul. W Tria, ..) 3 A /1/ot 02\6~ - i'WN": *IX'W// *t &/** fr- ~ fle -â€¢t QI"aft'Ht 12"*Ilip al ~0tl~ 7. -,-1, 71â€¢ 0-*di, Ilim"I 0* *It 00 til En P M.. bl#l N. 71 M' W. 4 40*009 *Â¢ *70. 71 lot , eall *. 240 07' 45* W. 0 dist-- 01 170.14 foll Â» 0 Itlblt. tllll* 1. 20 26' S./ W. a#..4//la' I. Â»S..3 i./4 Â»4 -1-â€¢ th'll' 0â€¢ NC .4 16. . al.'linG. 41 12..00 *ft to * i.'00 blaol l. 21. 0. 1â€¢ a *104.â€žM of 15,. *1 foot . â€¢ *I,*~Ii.,Ii I.f 10' *t Bâ€¢ 8 8*- 21*.16 2-t to * palit. 0~Inal~ 371 8. 8.ai,td--82 00â€¢26 4-t %* 4, * 104* 26 th# 041â€¢â€¢ 1/~~~~3~4*I/*1 i</2,1,01,/ 1.51 *c- 4,9 A traet 01*land *04*164 - Â¢011*Ii 4*0=41 * a poiat t<MI I'llil:" Ilb 'li'Mt Imil'Qukr t<n"*r of Sictill 115 *Id'd#lill 1* 9'll,Ul' Ill"li " "" 01 tli "'9'4** -M-' N ss' 2'* I,4* 41*%.If- 81 2321~* 4-t. ~ I. 13 I#*.* 41â€¢tan- at 110** 1-t toâ€¢*M. tli,W'*. 11* ll' R. a did-Ce of 134.00 folt - **Â¢iat. tllahci I. 41, 45' 8. a /LIOI~ 0/ 4$.U fllt to a point, *d-* 16 440 15* Il. a /1â€¢t~~ #Ial:lo a point, In*nÂ¢4 8. 5403**15/7. 49##Aa. 64 101.Sl f,/t I. i.*dat, the'l#46/U) 34' 41~'.4 i~~ 02.0 b.4 to 8 + 0 -J Â·- rl@,61 Qi,!5 2 11-KE i Â· -Â»42=CÂ»- . .. - 3:D-fli)# .19=: . till ). 44/.1 -- . lÂ¥< .~.t - - ~t -41/I'll...0. .,a 41*t' Of '* 00 ACIp. 0 thâ€¢- .1. -:4.~9 ,Â·~<1 1 .--,4 :ft '-jilt:,i.?945.. . 1 Â£ 4 ,.. d; l'h.d ' , . 11..'/ I *. 414 ...: , i* 4 *ri * f: - 7 7 1, D . 1, 4*41. 49 W : *.th C, 5 J -4 6 AL# . 4.*./.'.I'./.-9:.I- =72 . 1. -4. Â· -' 40/1 4 ' , ' 7Â· ' 2 +1 4. 41 0.4 ..... .. ar 4:14 * : :Fi # '~ 4N-/ 6 . : 13 '. - C F . .2- <A . B 001< 119 PAGe 2.20 W AMMANTY VE#l).-Meâ€¢lied 1 1â‚¬90.-1044- -â€¢ --tâ€¢ c...r-, M.â€ž...1 ...â€žef~ne 9,â‚¬Na-- allÂ·'~ *his /Merd, M,ide thi .in th.6 vear of 04ht liâ€ž ilied and ' bet, of the Countu of. and State of Colorado, of the Ant part, and...4 l..':......2. 2, *. --*. . of the Count,1 of and State of, Odmude, of the swond part WITXESSETH, flicit ~bc said part..u of the Ant part, for and in, consideration of the sum of 11, r . ,/ /; .Br /-'-.''L . .Dollars, to thÂ£ said part..4 of the #r *U.4, Pula .. 1 part, the receipt whereof U ht.relly r,on.fessed an<1 niÂ·kiu}wlÂ·ecided, lut.... dranted, liarda, ; and conue t~ 1 drant, barinin, sell, convey and con#rm unto the said part.... of the Second part, _ Â·'.1. luirs fo 4,1 th/? followind descril,ed Iot....or parcei...of lalut..., situat,; .Zyine dna beint i,19.the Colint.U of-, an~, :tc of Colorado, to-wit: .9 4 ':/'.., -,f ' v /5 7 '" ' , 4.' 2 f . 1 ...1. A 1., { 0.. 9. // 1 . r.,r ' '~FUT-r-TKIER with, all and stnitdar the l,reditainknts and (ippurtenances th,ereunto belonjind or in an, (LT)pertainin.2, e.Â·19 fIt ,? ' r,Â·eÂ·sions, rr.nzainder and remainder,4, re,Lts, issnes and prolits thereot : Und n.tl, the estate, right, title, i n.teres:, claim, and d ., rer. <if the Mid purt,-AL â€žf the first part, either in Mw or equity, of, inand to the above burtÂ·'alned Â·prentises, teith th.e hered al'!Airtena n,Â·es, TO il.WE .4,N~D TO HOLD the said premises above barialned and described, with the appw'tenance.,s, Unto the so thâ‚¬ secolut pa.rl, L hein and assiens forever. ind the said.----*4 .1.1 ....1..../L_Ct_Lf..1 -:-Â·Â£.. - - _..... . - --yart..... of the Arst part, tor.' - 2 â€¢/ '/ '' /4 1 .J a,iministroton, do.U covenant, grant, bariein and adree, to and with the said part.... of tllâ‚¬ second part. ' 'f_.-- _ tlitit at ihe. time of th.e en.sâ‚¬aline andÂ· detiverv of these. presents, ._- f. f. ''.. . . well netted of tiv prmnue, ~ of Cond. surr. prrfe,Â·t. absolute find indefeasible estate of inheri,tunce, in lau', in fee Kliln:~,lei ind 11,0.2.-' good rijht. fittl 1.u: hority to Cm.nt, bariftin, 8el!. a.nri, ronuey the same, in n1an,Ler an.â‚¬1 form (Lforâ‚¬.said. and tltat the sa.me are free and, el.â‚¬ irt,i other Crants. baricii,Ls, Balâ‚¬8. Litn,8, taxes, assesments and in,cumbrances of Tchctterer kind or natu,re pnever ..-- -/-/ r n. .Â·r 1, f rdained premises in the quift and peaceablp possession of the said part,-1 of the serond prtrt: ' ~4 ' ne,unst â€¢ill und r writ person or persons lawfully claiming or to clai,m the whole or any part thereof, the snid part..9. of t.}u ,:it a.nd will W.Â·litit.4,JV'T .1,1Y1.) F')REVER DEFEND. V WIT.MESS WHEREOF, the :aid part. 2. of the first part ha.... hereunto set...... -.'........---_.-11ctnd... and seal... the day a.nd, iger â€¢OU<' teritt{,i. igned, Scale.1, and Delivered in Presence of ~ .1 7 , , , /* , ,/ }~) ~:Z:h i.'73tg - C~R) -TATIC 01 9 COLOHADO,) /88. ! :Alntil 01 I. .' , 1 in and jor fli. said Countu, in flic State *oresaid . 'St'nÂ·,219 ' 7ZJAF;~fZ "â‚¬ re nie thi8 daU 17,:,1 '771,3 i'Â£ U.uncnt of writind i- 1 - Ch, 0 =. F \ .. -,r- 6 ..'&' Â·Â·-,7-e 'I... 1:, t .1,- .. 4 ilt , I Â£4â€¢ . â€¢ .0,Â·..., I ' . /r 7, 0 ) 1, 1. -,1 1 Â· , 4.4 TOGETHER with, all and singl,le,r the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belondin~ or in anifwise appertaining, and the rn fimt reversions. remainder and r,Â·,hain.(len, rents, issues and prolits theeot ; and al,1 the estate, rilld, title, interest, claim and demawl u \ soever, of th, wid p,trt. U of thâ‚¬ tirst part, either in lau, or equ;tv, of, in and to the above bardained premises, witli th,g hereditum<nt, I appurtenances,Â· 1'011.4 12 .4!AD 70 HuLD the said premises above barizined and described, with the appurtenances, unto tiM said parts the aecond part, ' 4 heirs and assifiu forever. And the said.. A / f ' 1 ' 0 . . ... .... . .-Â·#art--+ of the first part, for.0- feity./.if. .0'/C. 1.irs, executor: adminiÂ«trators, do.1 covenant, r'ant, barjain and adree, to and with the said part..U of the second part--3-21. _--- ..- ..heirs apul *:. that at thâ‚¬ time of the e?,seoli,i,Â¢ ruui, delivery of tlwse presents,_â€ž. 2 -L. 14.. _ . well seized of the pre,):ises abore C{)111, :,t .f 10,4 SUTe. perfect. absolute am. indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and ha.-2.' good rijht, fuu 1*ncer fiwi ift atit}writy to grunt, bardain, sell and convey the same, in manner ad form, aforesaid, and that the same are free and elear front all fo and other grants, barjain.s, sales, tial.s, ta.,ies, asses:ments and inâ‚¬umbrances of whatever kind or nature poever. 1. . / ''7 0,4 thz above bnriained premises in the quid and peacealde possession of the said part-f.'. of th45 second part, .' '4 ---. h assidns. affainst aN and every person or persons lawfully claimin-6 or to claim the whote or any part thereof, the said part.4 of h purt shall (uui will WARIUXT AND FOREVER DEFEND. IN WITXESS WHEREOF, the said part.1:. of the first part ha.Â£.. hereunto set...1-1_1_....._....hand_.. anit 8ecd... the day a'ul year #rit above written. Signed, Sealed, and Delivered in Presence of ~ .t'. - f -AL j M71.tv ~~ t=AL 1 -- 079 MTATIC OF COLORADO,} L 83. , / Count!# 0, r T / in and for the said County, in the State aforesaid, do hâ‚¬reby certify th,at. . persona;ly known to me to be the person... wh<~kname - _-.4-- -- . subscribed to thz, a,1**80â€¢ad deed, appefire befor/' 7,) e thi.v dav in, person, and acknowledged that. 2 1 - - - -- - -signed, sealed and deliuerm the saift instrument of writing as-. -4. - free and votuntary act for thz uses and purposes thtrein set forth. - -- 4. n. u. 2.~ .. I f Given under my hand and..1... '._v ......sealÂ·, this...............day of ,7.--7 '4 7.I' -- - My commiSSion expires . 18..0 1 - -1 M. - 4 1,i.pUty.