Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Lot 4 Trueman Subd.1977 ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 Box 300 Aspen. Colorado B 1611 Richard W. lee tel. 303-925-2972 superintendent of schools November 9, 1977 Ms. Karen Smi th City of Aspen Planning Department Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Karen: At its meeting of October 17, 1977 the Board of Education voted to express no interest in acquiring that portion of Lot 4 of the Trueman Subdivision which the Reynolds and the Everest Estate wish to purchase. Y<;.u~ . v.ery_~.y., l~::;::~(d ;/ William E. Clark~ Legal Consultant Aspen School District WEC : bw MEMO TO: KAREN SMITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT DAVE ELLIS CITY ENGINEER ~ FROM: DATE: September 29, 1977 RE: SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION REQUEST - LOT 4, TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERICAL PROJECT In reviewing this requested exemption my primary concerns have been with regard to assuring compliance with all previous commitments of the original subdivision and to assure that the public land record is adequate. In that context, and considering that the property was throughly reviewed for engineering matters six months ago, I re- commend that the exemption be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) An amended plat be filed for record with the ~. County Clerk showing all boundary modifications' of Lot 4. 2) An amended SPA plan be filed. 3) That all dedications of ROW, grants of easements and commitments in the original subdivision agreement remain in full force and effect. 4) That the school district be given a chance to make comment since Lot 4 was intended for fiuture acquisition by the school district. As an informational item the affected portion of Lot 4 is presently subject to a joint utility and trail ease- ment, easements for existing buried power and transformer and easements for aerial power, telephone, and cable TV. ,,-- '- -'*"'-"--~- _w"_,,~,,,,_,'^.__,...._._..._~.\-_~ RICHARD CUMMlINS ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 4576 ASPEN,COlORAD081611 (303)92&-8166 OFFICE: BENEDICT BUilDING 1280 UTE AVENUE October 25, 1978 Mr. James Trueman J.R. Trueman & Associates, Inc. 523 South Third Street Columbus, Ohio 53215 Re: Subdivision Exemption for Lot 4, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project Dear Jim, I have recently had discussions with Dave Ellis and Karen Smith regarding final approval as per the conveyance of a portion of Lot 4 to Marvin Reynolds. The conveyance was such as to leave Lot 4 cut in three (3) pieces. Apparently, Dave Ellis and Karen Smith feel that the intention was that only two (2) parcels be created. one (1) of those being the parcel conveyed to Mr. Reynolds. As you can see from Dave Ellis's letter, a copy of which I have enclosed, it is recommended that you convey the small easterly chunk of Lot 4 to Mr. Reynolds or, in the alternative, combine that most easterly parcel of Lot 4 with either Lot 2 or Lot 1. I would appreciate hearing your position on this matter so that I can have the appropriate plats drawn in accordance with your intentions. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly'. COPY = RICHARO CUMMINS Richard Cummins RC ch Enc1jtsure cc vMs. Karen Smith Mr. Dave Ellis Mr. Ron Stock Mr. Marvin Reynolds Law Firm of Wendt, Grueter and Peterson CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena aspen, colorado s t re e t 81611 ,.~.t .. October 19, 1978 Mr. Richard Cummins, Esq. P.O. Box 4576 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Subdivision Exemption for Lot 4, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project Dear Richard: After our discussion yesterday I checked with Karen Smith on her interpretation of the subdivision exemption granted on Lot 4 of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project. Her files contained a different sketch than mine, but the configuration of the lot split was the same - i.e., there were only two parcels shown. She did not have a copy of the legal description prepared by Tri-Co on October 3, 1977. Karen and I concur in our opinion that the intent of the staff recommendation was that only two parcels be allowed, and unless further documentation to the contrary can be obtained from the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Coun- cil minutes, it is our position that the exemption approval did, in fact, allow only the two parcels. Since it is still necessary for you to proceed through the SPA amendment process which involves a public hearing before both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, I would recommend that you first check with Jim Trueman to see if he is willing to convey both Lot 4A and Lot 4B as shown on Harold John- son's current plat. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, I see two possibilities for resolving the problem. The first would be to combine Lot 4A with 4B, which would then make the conveyance from Trueman coincide with the City's interpretation of the exemp- tion approval. Should Trueman wish to retain Lot 4A as shown on Harold Johnson '.s plat, then it would be necessary to obtain a new exemption approval. This second exemption could be processed simul- taneously with the SPA amendment and the City would probably recom- mend denial unless it were combined with either Lot 2 or Lot 1 to avoid future problems with an undevelopable lot. Very truly yours, ~~~ Dave Ellis City Engineer I ~c: Karen Smith Bon Stock Itlh( 'PW! ( , '::---- , (fJ f~ seA iJkbUAf q' &'1 ~ 0_ c:t0~" tuf-a 1 II 115 *- j)l&U{~S" w~. --- 4~cf~ ~ -C~i5/~kS /C:&~ /)7&'l1-(;;'C) ~ KJ% SPA, CGfI/Ul0!C){/ a Itt, lU--fl ~/ ~u1n~ /Jvuv s -ptz u (!) _tJf,J~ 1 ((:; ~J, 4)JW-J. d1 tJ{ t-uJJJJl (}tVJ) ~ ~, 1v0Yt . ~gU\ ~ wLh.. t{,'J1k) 14- __ -1-___ RICJH[ARD CUM,M,1NS ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 4576 ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 (303)925-8166 OFFICE: BENEDICT BUILDING 1280 UTE AVENUE October 1, 1978 Ms. Karen Smi th Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Marvin Reynolds, 222 East Hallam, Lots P and Q, Block 71 Dear Karen, Pursuant to our meeting and conversation on September 29, 1978, I am forwarding this letter to you as per your request. It is my understanding that the status of the sale of Lot 4A of the Trueman neighborhood commercial complex to Mr. Marvin Reynolds is as follows: 1. That both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council have granted the appropriate subdivision exemption pursuant to 20-l9(b). 2. The necessity still exists for an amendment to the SPA plan, with the requisite public hearing of both at Planning and Zoning and at City Council. I would appreciate it if you would schedule the appro- priate public hearings so that we might finalize this matter and present for your approval an amended final subdivision plat and SPA plat. I will, as soon as possible, review the transfer documents to determine the problem regarding Harold Johnson's division of Lot 4 into parcels A, Band C and determine whether, pursuant to Mr. Johnson's plat, parcel 4A was conveyed by Mr. Trueman to Mr. Reynolds. I will be back to you on this as quickly as possible. ~..._,__~,h..,.'_,.~,...,._"_<___.._ .' .~, Ms. Karen Smith October 1, 1978 Page Two If I have misinterpreted or misconstrued anything, or if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. hard Cummins RC ch , /..., , " I' . 'r ; ri , '" ~ M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: Aspen City Counci 1 FROM: Planning Office (KS) RE: Reynolds Subdivision Exemption DATE: October 20, 1977 Subdivision exemption is requested in this matter in order to separate land from the Trueman SPA and attach it to the property now owned by Charles Everst, under option by Mr. Marvin Reynolds. As you will note, from the letter of application, a convoluted series of events led to quiet title on portions of the Everst property, creating a new lot line which separated not only a shed but a section of his house from his lot. In attempting to purchase the property, Mr. Reynolds wishes to correct the awkward property title and boundaries. The disputed lands, however, are owned by Jim Trueman and included within the SPA master plan. Trueman will only sell a .22 acre piece which curves back behind the Glidden orooerty on Hallam Street and involves steep slope. The property is zoned R-6. The size of the lot now is slightly less than 6,000 square feet. With the addition of 9,000 square feet, additional density is possible. However, in view of the steepne?s of the embankment and the single family nature of the area, it would be~ppropriate to add more units. Another concern is that all easements, dedications and other agreements pertaining to the property which were secured in the Trueman SPA plan be preserved as agreements under the new owner. Dave Ellis recommended that the pertinent conditions of the Trueman plan be dealt with by amending the SPA and the filing of an amended plat; other- wise the exemption, which has the effect of changing lot lines, appears to be warranted. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the exemption request while incorporating some of the above concerns as conditions of their motion. Those conditions are: 1. That an amended plat be filed for record with the County Clerk showing all boundary modifications of Lot 4. 2. That the Trueman SPA plan be amended to show the deletion of portions of Lot 4. 3. That all dedications of right of way, grants of easements and commitments in the original subdivision agreement remain in full force and effect. (Agreements involved in the subject portion of Lot 4 include a joint utility and trial easement, easements for existing buried power and transformer, and easements for aerial power, telephone, and cable T.V.). 4. That the School District comment prior to Council action concerning their interest in acquiring the land. . " ....,-# , Asoen City Council Reynolds Subdivision Exemption Page Two October 20, 1977 5. That the Reynolds property be restricted from any further development beyond one single family dwelling (the City Attorney to determine the means for effecting that restriction) . We have received verbal comment from the School District which indicates they have no interest at this time in acquiring the land proposed to be transferred from Trueman, Lot 4, to Reynolds and expect a letter con- firming same prior to Monday's meeting. While we have attached a rather rough map of the intended transfer, we have asked the applicant to provide a clearer map for Monday's meeting. Should you approve the exemption with the recommended conditions, we will follow-up to be sure that the plat and SPA amendments are processed by the applicant. 1mk encs. RICHARD CUMMINS Attorney At Law P. O. Box 4576 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-3354 450 South Galena Durant-Galena Building Second Floor Septwmber 8, 1977 Ms. Karen Smith Planning & Zoning commission Aspen, Colorado Re: Subdivision Exemption pursuant to Municipal Code-Section 20-19 Subject Property-Marvin Reynolds 222 E. Hallam, Lots P g Q, Block 71 Dear Karen, My client, Marvin Reynolds, is in the midst of trying to purchase a parcel of land, adjoining his house, from Mr. Jim Trueman. The parcel includes land upon which Mr. Reynolds house lies, his entire back yard, and a steep embankment immediately adjacent thereto. A short history of this property will reveal how this situation developed. In June of 1967, the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company filed an action, I believe to quiet title to their property. At that time, the owner of Lots P & Q, Block 71, was a Mr. Charles B. Everst. Mr. Everest was served with a notice of this action by mail to an address in Pott- awattamie, Iowa. Unfortunately, Mr. Everest lived in Council Bluffs, Iowa and never received notice of the action by the railroad. A default judgment was subsequently obtained by the railroad. The property line dictated by the court decree went through the north-east corner of Mr. Reynold's house, and takes away his entire back yard and shed. I have attempted to negotiate the purchase of this property . page two Sept. 8, 1977 with Jim Trueman, the current owner of the Rio Grande property, and Mr. Trueman has offered us a parcel of land containing .22 acres of land. A chart containing a drawing of the Reynold's property and the .22 acre is included in the file with this letter. The .22 acre parcel consists basically of Mr. Reynold's backyard, and a very steep embankment. For your convenience, I have also included a plat of the Trueman property and a survey of my client's house. As there is a time factor involved in this, I would deeply appreciate it if this could be reviewed at your earliest possible convenience. Thank you. Very truly yours, /) i ~1/' / "~j tit/La/././ " /~ , / / (//'A . .' " ,'.r:/1../P..../::~)~~....,~/'- Richard Cummins P.S. If there are any questions or problems, please don't hesitate to contact me. , / ~" --- ;::::~-~,/--~ . /! / ./ / ! // ,/,,/ I <--=~- ----- -" / " ~ ''--'-, '''-'--'' / ,/ , / .// ,/ --/\/ ~'~'/ ~ ~, ~ i ../ ../ !~ , .~ ~ "\l'l-' ~--- ----, -- --- --- . ~. i I ! , , I , ! i I , j, \---- - \ v ','., '. , I --.. - i..J \\ - j I.. __ LOT .4. ,-J~ \ c . - ~ / / _ " e ~_v / J . ... ~ ,_ >----. ~~~ / \if / ,~ - - - - ---../ ,l .:i! \ I ! , ! ~ N -" 1- . ,-.. -- -...."""" M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office (KS) RE: Reynolds Subdivision Exemption DATE: September 30, 1977 '" Subdivision exemption is requested in this matter in order to separate land from the Trueman SPA and attach it to the property now owned by Charles Everst, under option by Mr. Marvin Reynolds. As you will note, from the letter of application, a convoluted series of events led to quiet title on portions of the Everst property, creatinq a new lot line which separated not only a shed but a section of his house from his lot. In attempting to purchase the property, Mr. Reynolds wishes to correct the awkward property title and boundaries. The disputed lands, however, are owned by Jim Trueman and included within the SPA master plan. Trueman will only sell a .22 acre piece which curves back behind the Glidden property on Hallam Street and involves steep slope. The property is zoned R-6. The size of the lot now is slightly less than 6,000 square feet. With the addition of 9,000 square feet, additonal density is possible. However, in view of the steepness of the embankment and the single family nature of the area, it would be inappropriate to add more units. / Mr. Reynolds does not wish any but you may wish to I condition any exemption on a covenant against further development. Otherwise, the exemption which has the effect of merely changing lot lines, seems appropriate. In view of the complication of the SPA master plan, several conditions should be attached to the exemption. The bulk of those are attached in Dave Ellis' memorandum. Probably, the biggest question is whether the School District still has interest in this property as they did at time of SPA approval. Equally important, is the preservation of various rights-of-way, easements, and commitments made in the SPA agreement. An amended SPA plan must be fil~d and the applicant will have to get the cooperation of Jim Trueman. \ Finally, we recommend that should the exemption be granted an amended SPA plan should be processed along with a rezoning that would rezone the Everst/Reynolds property to R-15. Inasmuch as no development or condo- miniumization is involved, no park dedioation fee is required. lmk enc.