HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.Spring St.SU-1977-1
,....
f"'""\ro.
}
.,
~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stacyl Standl ey
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 wi11 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.
(P. >>..-r-f.- ~ ~~ 01:
r€
-.
,-
-rH E. lJ /J 0 f: R.. 51<;,0 ED A<:. k.. IV 0 W L..E D (,s.
R.r=:.c. f-..\VIN& 8Y' HAND DEI-... \VE.R.Y
Lr=...GA,- fJoTIc..C. FoR.. PUbL-I'- Ht::AR/NG-
o IV e,..J E. D U IV\ - H Y M ^ tV p, LJ, D. ) F () R..
rcB... 3/ li7~ AND ~Al()E:-
IN E 10 0 A Y MAIL... l::..D
(l}oT (F (c--A.T/o/V RE QU 1R.E...(lI\F-NT,
v~53z ~1/02--~
vA_f <-:";" Af"''''''t:
.ji;'"
vr-~ 771~
-I 1 4;;1jI
/ l- I, "
~' 'tttft!~ 1.,,/~;,0;' "1"(/'/" ,
1'./ ." u"~
',-'" - /
'" {.' ",J , ""(."
,;~;
,
~. 333
~
I?
/&'&!J~P&7
v
~~~
fi~ Dr
~/~
!Z~ 4-.-,_~
U~~7
/1I5
~.
" ."..,.
0"".
"
I"7DC> ~ "
. ~~rJr;;&~~-
~
~"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
PLANNING STAFF (HC)
RE:
WE DUM-HUMAN P.U.D. SUBDIVISION PLAT AMENDMENT - FINAL PLAT
DATE:
JANUARY 20, 1977
Thf,s 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 viallile 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 pr perty, since it
is owned in two separate parcels, will m st probably
be developed with two building sites. 0 e site will be
located on the lower level in Oklahoma Fats.
7. Your motion, should it be approved, shou d include the
representations of the Subdivision Impro ement Agreement
previously presented.
,-.,
^
MEMORANDUM
,
TO: Aspen '€it~' CQ'ln,.il _ fd./z, ~
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: Wedum-Hyman P.U.D. Subdivision Plat Amendment - Final Plat
Reapproval
DATE: Qctallel 6", 1976
6J-tG I"
.. .';0
('",1,::",-,
,~ ,,-.,1"
I~
This is aVrequest 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
~\ Regulations which require reconsideration of the plat by the Planning
uf' and Zoning Commission and City Council.
~3 &--
U1'\; 1A The comments of the Planning Office are as follows:
tI> ( R,b.l
r It(. J i" Ifl. Parcel 3 will retain approximately 7,500 square
J ~ J feet which we feel represents a viable common area.
l--~ -.;11 ,,,,' 0'" iJ) This size is too small to facilitate a tennis court
tk"'" ,\. " I)' ~ l which the Planning Office has previously opposed.
"" {l'- \7, i' .{ ~
V\y ~ ~\ 2.
\fI,lb ....fV
,,;/'1\' 1,,\ "
'" ,,1<'" '}.\'" '\
\1" \cJ ".rJ
\-~ '7"' ,yO
I} )'v ~-"I 'Q'-
~<f ~;-'\~ f ~ ~
Q,,"C\l '-t!:;'\ /
~ ~tij Q.. ,}'
\"""'\'Qj 0~y'j;
~ v j1 0(
Q,:~ '\~ r,
~ .....~ if';' oJ..!\D I
vD y\ "::~ 'V
~ ,,,It, "' "<
~:~~~
\;~ '" \i
~
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-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#
b/Your motion, should it be approval, should include the
1 representations of the Subdivision Improvement
I Agreement previously presented.
7 tmf'Q. 7'h/-e ~ /,$ ,~db..:-.., .<< ~A.
~ ~ u(tt.. C.IfI'i'M p>~ ()& ~ ct
AI2, Cuecltth?
t""\
,.-,
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
~~.~~
JRW: abs
182-REV. 1.73
Summo~ Chil Action
The C.I-" Hoeckel BlankBook & Litho. ~ll\'er, Colo.
/~
.(
IN THE . uuPi.f>t:J::ig:t
..,...COURT,
STATE OF COLORADO,
County of......,pitkin"........................
..jss,
DIV,............"""....u,.."
CIVIL ACTION No,..~~9?
I
I
I
f
t
!),lIlllg gJ.'?.:r.:::p.llJ:: Cl.Ilt:..~J!l.i.ll,g ...9.9..:r.P.,........, ...............
~
.Cl....H'?~...X9.r:l5:, ..<::9J:'.P.9r: <3, t:i.9.1l', ................ ......................
W,.II.,...~.9.\lg hr: <':l1l..Cl..Il.4... R<':lI1,ClY.. ..W,'?Cl1J!!l................. ,...
PLAINTIFF.f>...
vs,
C.i..t:Y,.9.J:",:A..:;;P~I1" ..~.9.,1.9J::Ci<i().....u....
SUMMONS
..
,a .M\1!li..c:.i. PCi,1.". ~.9.:rP9.r: Ci :t:;1:'?Il,.,.,.,
UU__, n ....._.. . u n" .... nn.......... ._______.......... .h'h_'"' u ',U n_n..._______."..
Warning: If this summons does not contain
the docket number of the civil action. then
the complaint may not now be on file with
the clerk of the court. The complaint must
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 ciyil action may not be av~il-
able until teit days after the summons is
served.
\
I
!
. Cind ..t:J;l.'?.. ..C.i. t:Y... ~.9\1IlC:.il.... 9J:...,
t:11.~...~i.t:Y..u9.J:...!>13.P~Il.. ' .
r
DEFENDANT,l3...
,..,
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
TO THE DEFENDANT....,'uABOVE NAMED-GREETING:
You are hereby summoned and required to file with the Clerk a.n answer to the complaint within 20
days after serviee of this summons upon you, If you fail so to do, judgment hy default will be taken against
you for the relief demanded in the complaint,
If service upon you is made outside the State of Colorado, or by publication, or if a copy of the com-
plaint be not served upon you with this summons, you are required to file your answer to the complaint
within 30 days after service of this summons upon you,
This is an action *
.
Under Rule 106 C.R.C.P. as more fully stated in the attached
Complaint
"
\
I
I
r
,
f
f
I
,
I
I
I
!
!
,
,
!
I
r
CLERK OF SAID COURT,
."" ..u,.........4....,'~.............,
ruce Kistler ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF,
212 S. Huntex street
As p.en.,."Color.ado. u.,.8.16.11"" . ,.......".......
ADDRESS OF ATTORNEY.
~
Dated.....N9.Y.~I\l.P..~;J;::....U.... .....,..,.........., 19...'Z.<i..
By........,.............,.....
DEPUTY CLERK,
NOTE,-This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4, Colorado Rules Civil
Procedure.
(SEAL OF COURT)
-If the summons is published or served without a copy ot the complaint, after the word Haction" state the relief demanded.
If body execution is sought the summons must state "founded upon tort/'
~7~~;~.-~;;-[i:;..,~;~, '.....,>~'"".#: ll;f:r;'/.;:~"'SZF,,~~~.
'--",
1::,
,'.
~
,-.
i-I"
.
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,
COMPLAINT
v.
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
\ corner of said section 7 bears N55027'55" W 2369.32
feet; thence N89020'00" W 3.47 feet along said property
line; thence N15030'00" E 45.39 feet; thence N74030'00"
W 125.0 feet; thence S15030'00" W78.49 feet; thence
N89020'00" W 87.22 feet; thenceN04012"54" W 160.88 feet;
thence N19015'00" E 92.00 feet;
thence N43045'00" 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 S72030'08" E 208.26
feet;
thence S55059'26" E 33.10 feet;
thence S59003'29" E 99.40 feet;
thence S55029'50" E 69.80 feet;
thence S50044'15'' 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 ~urve bears S15050'28" E ]1.33 feet;
thence N89020'00" 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 S22052'46" E 87.11 feet;
thence S29018'13" 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 N89020' 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 ~xecuted
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.
~/2~
B ce Kistler (Reg. No. 931)
A torney for Plaintiffs
W.H. Loughran and Randy Wedum
212 S. Hunter
Aspen, Col,prad
925-103 .
. Ware (Reg. No. '-
to Plaintiff
Smuggler Durant Mining
117 S. Spring
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925-1216
J')
Corporation
,..
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. )
)
City of Aspen, Colorado )
a Municipal Corporation )
and the City council of )
the City of Aspen )
)
Defendant. )
AFFIDAVIT
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.
12~'7 lJ~
Randy W,gdum
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
subscribed and sworn to before me this 11th day of
November, 1976, by Randy Wedum.
~J
--,
~
~
.
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.
Ie
1)
Wedum
1611
. Wa e ., 3'3'!-
E!y to Plaintiff
Smugg 4r-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
requirement~ 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
compl ied with.
~
,!'P,
.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
~
,~
n
'Ij ;
~,:
.i
'.
,
tf::\--
"5U
MEMORANDUM
't
\
\I.
Aspen City Council
Planning Staff (HC)
~edUm-Hyman P.U.D.
Reapproval
\.
Subdivision Plat Amendment - Final Plat
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
Sp~ing 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 approximately 7~500 square'
feet which we feel represents a viable common area.
This size is too small to facilitate a tennis court
which the Planning Office has previously opposed.
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-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.
~~
,..
i-^'-'
"':"';;
1;.,
,'c.''-''
-
.,
Ii
',.'.
1 '
i~
:1,,':'\'-"-
<..~"....
I""'. I""'.
I,
!~t
't-,'i."..<'}
. ;
CITY/.OF"~'ASPEN
130 SOt~th galen~ street
aspen, '~?'lora~~..'" 81611
......~\-..;.~.;:j....~t4';"~ "V
~
~MORANDUM
DATE: September 10, 1976
TO: Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM~ndra 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 ~onceded 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 o~ record '"
I"'-
"""'"
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-
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 Hr. Lucas' claim to Lot 7.
11rs. 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 nave 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
Place~, df 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:
~o 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
.
,-,
1--
Memorandum to Planning and Zoning Commission
September 10, 1976
Page 3
J
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-
~rawing 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 S~lOtion 7, Township 10 South; Range
84 West of the 6th P.M. and a tract"of land begir;mimg 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 buil di ng coul d more eas ily be located, as we 11 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 unto Spring Street would be of minor impact
as the road is a dead end road now and in future with a cacul atab 1 e and mi nima 1
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 Oklahom~ Flats.
Forty feet of road was didicated to the City of Aspen for public right-of-
way by the subdividers to make the road 2~ 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-
je~t property to Gibson Street with no other access located on it.
The traffi~ 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
Subdi vi ders feel the change of this i ntersecti on, does not outwei gh thedi sad-
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 ~aised 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.
"'"^""''''...~" .~,
, '''''',-,,,,,",,'. "'~
. "'''''''''';", ";"',<<~~;"
-F"'" ", "A
~,,,,,,,,,.,.,.'~~~. ""'~'l<fr"..",~:......,;..,--,:;:,,::~.
- '-~.....~..._, ~
r '''\ ' ~<'",v.'~" '
" ' '., ,,-"r.
::-- ",.,
.
I'"
.;...,.,..,,-,",.~--,.,
.. -,-., "~,,.'
'''. -'''..... ~,',,;.;~"-"
-,;..
..r;.,,,,
, ,.~.",...
'..,.
"""~....~.
i
INDEXEJ) f ,,"
~':',~~};!!i
I
1!>::'~i~1
I
,.r
m~ iI.;~r.'\.~"1
.
ST"',r~, "I"
?1:: ~~~::::'.'~:'
;!~:~;~~:}~~,;..~;,~, _, i, '.....
""', .;!....
"_4...~"': ~:~.~~
"
<.,-"
',>',
"".
..
.
/
/'
---,-_/
.
~'~7
MAP
LUX
OF
PLACEf-1
/
.,,\,
,
""\
,
SHOW/IIi;
OKLAHOMA FLATS All?
,~ ' ~.r.iJ~,;
,\" -,,-, " ,:,'
8-:/.51'.40-;'
~":;';':.~
,
.~'~" ~'..~'~.~,;' .~'''-':::<",'": ~'7. .--;'
""", ","'~:
'''~'-''';';''':'_::H'"J::,~.'-'':-;i1 '
'"
~',~, ''''''''~'''''C~:'''h'''; ~.",,,,,:'
--
. ,.. . ,< ','~'
,
"':";"""~""
"",~,;.;;;, f~
''':-r:'''''''''"''':.~,
-.',.....
. "'",..n"
'i'.' , '';,
1:;-<
"
\ 'k~,": ~'"~.~1">> '
:~
.'" ~i...{;
";'
,
1
j
,
i
,
i;:
!
,~
:-.;
'_,,"I
'.
~"
.}
,'I
:'",1
i
I
I
;
j
"
.~'
",
" ~
~
~
,!"
"~':
,:,
.~~ : ;..
'.
~,
"""'"
August 19, 1976
The owners and subdividers of the Wedum-Hyman
P.D.D. Subdivision request a 3D-day extent ion of
time to the 90-day requirement for recording
their Final Subdivision P.D.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 3D-day extent ion is needed
in order to process the amendment to the Final
Subdivision and P.D.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 th~ subdivision at the tim~ 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 understand~ng 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 unt~l
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 Gast 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 r~quired 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.
!"""\
t""\
MEMO
TO:
BILL KANE
PLANNING DEPT'~
LOUIS BUETTNER
ENGINEERING DE .
FROM:
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 dedicated in this subdivision.
pel~r~~ /
'713/,66 '7
8"1 09&', SSy.ar I
"""'"
,~
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.O. pl an.
The comments of the Planning Office are as follows:
1. Additional access on Spring Street would not be
consistent with the cluster P.U.,O.. plan for
development. It would also contribute to traffic
congestion on Spring Street which already has poor
width; poor surface cOlldTtions;; 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.,O. plan negates the value of the plan to
~:the extent that a new development proposal sho1.l.Jd
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.O. once given final approval.
"""'"
"""'"
CIT
aspen,
PEN
box v
MEMORANDUH
TO:
HAL CLARK
MICK MAHONEY~)
MAY 21, 1976
FROI<l:
DATE:
T)'!'j' .
""" .
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
1<,
,
~ e.
."""'"
~
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.
,
. '
, "
t""\
-
-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 ri ver.
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.
. ,
i""'"
"""'"
MEMO
TO:
HAL CLARK
PLANNING DEPT.
DAVE ELLIS ~
CITY ENGINEER 1?~
DATE: May 19,1976
FROM:
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.
p
"'. . - "
1"""'\
"""'"
,
Landscaping and soil stabilizing for Wedum-Hym:m Subdivi~ion
and P.U.D. site.
J'
May 18, 1976
v.,
il("..,
It-dC;h
,
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.
S. Re-seed with native grasses/flowers.*
Problem B.
Restore growth of vegetation on slope as existing on other
areas.
1.
2.
3.
Spread top soil by machine and hand.
*
Seed with appropriate grasses.
Mulch. and cover wi th synthetic burlap.
the
leAL EYE
company
Aspen, Colorado 816.11 303 925 9803
BOT A
Box 2383
.
... " . ',. ... "fc
.~y
~"
f"""".
,,-,,
Wedum-Hyman Subdivison,
5/18/76
page two
Problem C.
Remove excess existing fill, regrade and
and native flowers mix.
1. Remove excess fill.
'..
. , -
"'()~
i /(it~, ~C!\
, ",., wz'o, !:
;'''.>....,-,,.,If\''' ~~'o, :'
(\ '\.'.;~t~,' 0 /1
\\ ," 'v~,~~, ""'" i ,
, \0,,- I". <l;.~' _,'
'<~>"-Ol /l:"~:' \:'\\) ,'/.." ,,'.,
seed ilri1;1J"gEs es .
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:
salt grass
crested wheat
red/white clover
perennial rye
aster family (wild daisy~ etc.)
wild geranium
larkspur
lupine
mahonia
Estimated cost for landsacpingtrouble areas as noted:
Problem A
Problem B
Problem C
$400.00
500.00
540.00
$1,440.00
BOTANICAL EYE CO.
Total
By
r;~
(~~)
"""'"
,-.,
".'
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 recommendatfons. 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 ApriF21 - May 3, 1976 this conference has been delayed.
3. TennisCourt:: 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 ni ght 1 i ghting. The Pl anning 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
ri ver.
c. The court is located contiguous to the right-of-way
of Spring Street accom6dating no building setback
(zoning code requires 30 foot setback). Such building
preci pitates a request for a vari ance 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 making and
seeding the desturbed areas and curbing where necessary.
The Engineering Department has contacted by letter Wright-Mc-,
Laughlin and requested additional definitiv~ 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 provi si ons.
3. The residents of the Oklahoma Flats area are
protesting the location of a tennis court on the
lower property ,due to access constrtcttons;,
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 ofa 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:
FROM:
.-...
,-\
HAL CLARK '
PLANNING DE~P,T. ,
LOUIS BUETNER- ,
ENGINEERIN .
DATE: February 3, 1976
RE: Wedum-Hyman Subdivision - Preliminary Plat
Review of Plat revised 1-26-76
3/-I1I~
lo1~
~
d'~~'
'(
~() ,
\.,) ,
\?~~
:;""
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 fpotwater line easement must be 10' each
side of existing line.
4) This subdivision has been changed to a 4 lot
subdivision. A water main extension of at least
100' of 8" will now be required to service Lot 1.
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
area is needed and the curb cuts
~ A sewer easement may be required
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
.@ 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.
common parking
must be located.
across Lot 3 for
^" ^, . ., '.~. <,., ,
,"-';'
LEGAL NOTICE
,-,
Notice is hereby given that i:he Aspen Planning ~nd Z<:,ning Conu;tission shall
hold a public hearing on March 2, 1976, 5:00 P.M., CJ.ty Counc~l Chambers,
to consider the Final Development Plan for the Wedum-Hyman PUD, more
particularly described as follows:
)'
<~
,:.;F'.
~
I
..I'~'
^,.";.. ;,~----.>---~
Ap~rcel of l3nd in the ~~t of the SW~ of Section 7, Township 10
South, R~nge 84 West of the 6th P.M. described as follows:
Beginnin;:; at S 'Point whence theWest! corner of SJ,lld Section 7
be:\rs ,North 55029'West 2,371.8 feet;
Thence ~orth 15"00' -Enst 118 feet to II 'Point;
Thence South 59"30' East 134 feet to a point;
Thence North 43'45' E<!st 40 feet to a point;
Thence 1.orth 46"1S' 392 ,feet to ,; point;
Thence South 43"4S' West :133 feet to a point
Thence South 1,9"lS' West 92 feet more or less to the center of
'the Roaring For1~ River,
ThenceSouthsnsterly ~nd Southerly along the Center line of the
Roaring Fork River to the South boundary line of the John R.
Williams Ranch: , ,
Thence South 89020'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.rJ.rJ/J " ",... .
. . "._.._'u"~~'''''__'''_~~_,__._
A 1::ractof land described as follows:, Begin'lling ata point from
whenc~ the West Quarter Corner of~.section 7, Tmmsllip 1.0 South,'
Range 84 West of the 6th ~.M. bears N.SSoZ9' West a disbnce of
2371.8 feet, thence N. 15 OO'E. n' distance of 113.00 feet ,to 'I
point, thence S. 59.30' E. n dist:mce of 134.00 feet to a point
.tnenc; N. 43045' E. :1 dist:mce of 45.60 feet to a point. Thence'
,H. 46 15' W. a distance of 172.60 'feet to a 'Point 'thence S
59.03'29" E. a distance of 99.40 feet toa pOint,' thenc'e S. . 55.29'50"
E. 8. dista,nCe of 69. SO feet to a point, thence S. 50.44' 1.S" E. a '
distance of 101.S9 feet to a point, thenee.l11034'41" E. a distance
of 62.83 feet to a point, thence N. 89020' 11. a distance of 316.00
feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.
'. It
,
,
I,
I.
\~
,
, .
.
!
Ii
"
.
Propoaal,is
eXamined by
on file in the office of the
any interested person during
City/County planner and may be
regular business hours.
.
Isl Kathryn S. Hauter
City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Times February 12, 1976
\
.~
.-..
ASPEN!PITK
130 so
aspen,
ing Department
s t re e t
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 tbe 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.
1""\
,-,
MEMO
TO: HAL CLARK
PLANNING DEPT.
FROM: LOUIS BUETTN-~
ENGINEERING~"~
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.
'1-<'
.
,
.
"""'"
~
~
'0lUI>> C.,.HOEC/(El8.B.lll,CO,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Re ular Meetin
As en Plannin and Zonin Commission
December 16, 19'
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 Goodheirn
present. Also present was CitY/County Planner Bill Kane; and Hal Clark from
the Planning Department and City Attorney Stuller.
fOld 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. Wedumwould 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. CitYAttorney
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 wquld change thearea from R-15 to R-30
residential. It was discussed whether the 8 units in thE
modified application fOr preliminary approval would have
met minimum lot size requirements of the R-30 zoning on
the 2.15 acre property.
Motion
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.
~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
\ a correction for 4 lots and not 4 units; seconded by
Abbott. All in favor, motion carried.
L
New Business
Clark mentioned that thePardee exemption had been
cancelled.
Use Determination
in Durant Mall
Record Shop
Clark asked that there was a new request which came
in from the Building Inspector, Clayton Meyring, and
would like to have it put on the agenda. The request
is for a use determination in the Durant Mall. There
was no objection,
, '~'-"'-".,"";"" "~..,,.,./,~,.
I
''',.;''P,.,.
-""'k,
"'1',"''''''','
.
I
, ,
.."",
~.
(
-~-
)
'aUIES atl'l JO
+noPT1nq JO +aaJ a~EnOS L(L'Z(~ s1 a~atlili 'h+~ado~d
uEwan~ili atl'l hTUO sapnT~u1-TE1~+snpuI TE1~~aUIUlOJ a~1A~as
'+J'OS 98('vV JO aOE+OOJ a~EnOS UInUI1XEUI
E OU1A10 '+J'OS SLL JO Ea~E 'lOT E 51 a~atlili '~a1T~Ea
SEM+1 'lEtlM UIO~J paouEq~ +OU-TE1~~aUIUlO~ pOotl~oqtlo1aN
'TaAaT auo
+E PT1nq nOh J1 51 'lEtlili 's~~oTq h+1~ ('~ 0+ TEnOa JO
+noPT1nq TE+O+ E SaA10 Ea~E a~1JJO '+J'os OOS'v~T JO
aOE+OOJ a~EnOs TE+O+ UInUI1xEUI,E oU1++ao '+rOs S~T'T( JO
aOE+oOJ a~EnOs TE1+uap1sa~ a~Eds a~1JJo '+J'os SL8'88
51 a~1JJO u1 TE+oili 'UIE~oo~d oU1snotl h+uno~ E o+u1
pa1+ 51 +1 +EtI+ pap1Ao~d TE1+uap1sa~ u1 aq T:S~' pUE
a~1JJo ouj:aq T: S L' oU1PuaUIUlo~a~ 51 +uaUI:pEdaa oU1UUETd
atlili '+J'OS OOS'vZT JO Ea~E +oT +~1~+s1a T-a~1JJO
'S+OT UMO+ 9 0+ TEnoa s1
s1t1ili '+J'os 000'8T JO aOE+ooJ a~EnOs TE+O+ UInUI1xEUI tI+1M
+J'os OOO/~T JO +no PT1nq TE1+ua+od aAEq aM T-TE1~~aUIUlOJ
's~~oTq h+1~ ( ~aAO
aT++1T E ~O 0+ TEnba S1 tI~1t1M '+rOS 000'v9T JO aOE+OOJ
a~Enos TE+O+ UInUI1XEUI E saA10 S1t1ili 'TEJ+uap1sa~ JO
'+J'OS 009'V~ q+1M '+J'OS 00v'6(T JO TEJ~~aUIUlO~ TE+O+
+au E OU1AJOTE1~~aUIUlO~ JO '+J'OS 00v'9T TEU01+1PpE UE
aAEt{ PTnOM nOh aOE+OOJ a~Enos UJ snuoq atl+ ~OJ +OTTE J1
'paMoTTE TE1~~aUIUlO~ JO '+J'OS OOO'(~T SJ a~o~ TE1~~aUIUlO~
atl+ UJ aOE+OOJ a~Enos atl+ 'lEtI'l paU1ETdxa P~OJUE+S
OU1UOZUMOP UO U01+E+
_uasa~d s.P~OJUE+S
'paJ~~E~ UOJ+OUI '~OAEJ U1 TTV 'UI1atlpo05 hq
papuo~as !s+uaUIa~1noa~ U01+E~1pap a~Eds uado pasodo~d
atl'l JO ~aA1EM-UOU pUE ~aauJoua: };q1J atl+Jo s+uaura~1noa~
atl'l uo pau01+1Puo~ '( ~~OnI/( +0'1 Esaw UP[+Jd JO
uOJ+duraxa UOJS1A1pqns atl+ aAo~ddE 0+ U01+0UI E apEUI +unH
U01+0W
's+uaura~1noa~ U01+E~1pap
a~Eds uado atl+ JO ~aAJEM-uOU E s1 a~atl+ SE oUOT SE
pUE 'paTT1JTTnJ a~aM ~aau10ua: h+JJ atl+ JO s+uaura~1nba~
at{+sE OUOT SE +sanoa~.atl+tI+JM suraTqoidhuE aAEtI
+.uPJP +uaur+~Edaa oUJ~aau1oua: atl+ +EtI+ pau01+uaUI ~~ETJ
+sanoa~ u01+dUIaxa:
TEnUEW
'pa1~~E~ U01+0W
'a1Qoa SEM pasoddO 'UIJat{po05 'a++o '+unH '++oqqV
'su1~uar 'sUJTTOJ !~OAEJ UJ TTV '++oqqV hq papuo~as
!aoEaSn TE1~~aUIUlO~ pOOOt{~oqtloJau E SE TTEW +uE~na atl+
uJ dOtls p~o~a~ E JO TEAO~ddES1P puaUIUlo~a~ 0+ paAOUI +unH
UOJ+OW
'+1 u1 dotls
p~o~a~ E +nd 0+ uOJ+Eu01sap oUJuoz 'lEtI+ JO ado~s pUE
+ua+uJ at{+ oU1t1~+a~+s SJ +1 +EtI+ +TaJ aUE~ 'sp~o~a~ hnq
pUE aUIO~ 0+ OU100 +ou a~E s+s1~no+ +EtI+ sTaaJ pUE sasn
+sJ~no+-uou hT+~J~+s a~E TTEW +uE~na aq+ uJ +nd aq 0+ s1
+Et{M +Et{+ paU01+uaUI a1qoa 'spaau oU1ddotls JO pU1~ hTJEP
+ou a~E sp~o:)a~ +Et{+ pUE ' sauoz JJ ~o T-J atl+ uJ 00 PTnoM
+1 +EtI+ pa1Tda~ aUE~ '00 PTnoM +1 a~atlM aUE~ pa~sE
sUJ~uar 'asn TE1~~aUIUlo~ poot{~oqtlo1au atl+ JO +ua+uJ ~o
ado~s at{+ uJ +ou 51 +1 +EtI+ SEM sauodsa~ aUE~ 'sJ uOJ+
_EpuaUIUlo~a~ s.+uaur+~Edap oU1UUETd atl+ +EtlM pa~sE sU1~uar
'~1Tqnd at{+ ~OJ +as aq 0+ aAEtI PTnoM oU1~Eatl ~JTqnd
E os oU10P u1'~aAaMotl !asn TEU01+1puo~ E sJ +J J1
aU1UI~a+ap PTno~ OU1uOZ pUE oU1UUETd aq+ +Et{+ pau01+uaUI
~~ETJ 'auoZ +EtI+ u1 paMoTTE +ou s1 +1 u01+~unJ +ua~aJJ1P
E saA~as +1 J1 ~o u01+~unJ +Et{+ saA~as +1 J1 auoz TE1~
_~aUIUlO~ poot{~oqt{01au u1 pa++1UI~ad sasn JO U01+E~1J1sSET~
at{+ ~apun S+1J a~o+s p10~a~ E ~atl+atlM 51 U01+EuJUI~a+ap
atlili 'auoz +EtI+ u1 pa++JUI~ad s1 +Et{+ sasn at{+ JO auo
SE TTEW +UE~na at{+ ~oJ ~uaura~oE TE1~ads +EtI+ ~apun ~o
'asn TEUOJ+1puo~ E 'asn pa++1UI~ad hTTE1~ads E ~oJ pa+s1t
~u s1 +I 'dot{s p~o~a~ E ~oJ S1 +sanoa~at{+ DUE TE1~~aUIUlO~
JOt{~oqtl01au pauoz s1 TTEW +uE~na atl+ +Et{+ pau1ETdxa ~~ETJ
( I+UO~)
TTEW +uE~na
U01+Eu1waa+aa asn
SL6T '9T ~aqUIa~aa
U01SS1uruIO::l OUJUOZ pUE oU1UUBT d
..
.
1""'\
,1""'\,
"
Hal Clark
City Planning Office
Wedum - Hyman P.V.D.
Revi sed December 1975 '
'.
The intent of the project i.s still the same as originally presented.
It has been ,modified as a result of recorrrnendations by the Planning
Offi~e and City Engineering Department in relation to access, common
are~ and parki ng. '
/
,
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 ~n 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 downzoningto 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 II, 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 II, 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.
r--
~
MEMO
TO:
HAL CLARK
PLANN I NG DEPT. P./~
LOUIS BUETTNE~Ar'
ENGINEERING DEPT.
FROM:
DATE: 12-11-75
RE: Wedum-Hyman PrelIminary - Subdivisi~n 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
t~rough .the middle of the property.
,~
.-,
130 so
aspen,
SPEN
street
81611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 11, 1975
TO: Members of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FR~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 attacnng 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
,-,
,~
ASPEN/PITK
130 so
aspen,
(
-
..
ing Department
street
81611
~'\' " ,-"
I ~t''':'
'\ \ ' ~
" ":'\..',
"
J
, :
I',
~ '
~.:~..o:.. '~<_.....
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.
DAVE ELLIS
CITY ENGINEER ~
FROM:
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 a.nd Conceptual Subdivision.
The Council. and Planning Office has specifically requested that the
appl icant 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.
-,
^
CIT
PEN
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.
/'
t!.. _
^ ^
THE LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORAT
'Georg_ D. Morris, ~.e.
MEMBER. A.S.T.M.
A.S.C.E.
CEC
ACI
June 20, 1975
Soil. Mechanics
Foundation
Evaluation
J.lr. John Randall Wedu."'ll , Architect'
400 Main Street'
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Materials
Tests
Re:Proposed Subdivision at Oklahoma Flats
TIOS, R84w, Sec.y
Pitkin County, Aspen ,Colorado
Concrete
Mix Design
Dear J.lr. Wedum:
Asphalt
Mix Design
A geological and soils engineering reconnaissance was conducted on
June 18, 1975 ,at th-e above-referenced site at your request in order to
properly define the geological environment of the site and to isolate any
potential problems reflected by the existing soil conditions in order to
determine adequate solutions a..,d foundation designs that will insure the
safety of the proposed structures and will also satisfy the Pitkin County,
as well as the City of Aspen, regUlations regarding proposed residential
subdiVisions. The results of this preliminary investigation are as follows:
G'eol'ogi c
Interpretation
Groundwater
Hydrology
The- site is located on a terrace well above the flOOdplain of the
Roaring Fork River. The position of the site, therefore, indicates no
probability of flooding. The terrace appears to be composed of thick
glacial-fluvial deposits (i.e., glacial outwash silts, sands, gravels,
cobbles, and boulders which are crudely bedded and poorly sorted derived
from geologically recent mountain glaciation by the interaction of larger
rivers and streams which once filled the valley).
by
R~9Is,tete,d
. Professional
Engineers &
Geologists
Colorado Springs,
Co'orodo
.In the Roaring Fork Valley within the Aspen area. these glacial out-
wash deposits have been documented (Bruce Bryant--U.S.G.S. Map 1-785-B)
to exceed 100 ft.. in thickness in many areas. In local. water wells
drilled in an attempt to reach bedrock or formation material, Bryant
recorded many wells exceeding 100 ft. while one well reached 168 ft.
without encountering bedrock. These Valley fills, due to their granitic
composition, are known to be quite stable (i.e., highly resist=t to both
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.
depending on the distribution of the sands, silts, cobbles and boulders.
No expansive. materials are anticipated.
Paeblo,
Colorado
Howard M. Dump
Rock Springs,
Wyoming
Glenwood .Springs.
Av'on, Colorodo
Randall .e. Connolly
'.". E,U.gMUt F. Lohman
The present drainage flows from east to west across the site and is
largely controlled by (1) the site location in relation to the a~lacent
road (Le., Gibson Street is located at an elevation approximately 5-7 ft.
higher than the site which presently accelerates. the amount of runoff
received t.romthe road dur~ng urec' "DJ.tation J~ A.nd(? )nv a. ma.iorgul.lv
Gunnison,
Colorado
Lee E., Stierwalt.
.
'--'
,-'
.~
---,
Mr. John Randall \'Tedum
Page 2
June 20, 1975
which cuts through the center of the site. In both instances rerouting or
divert ion 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 believe that normal precipitation will not propose a problem 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 construc-
tion. The proper method, however, will depend upon a closer analysis of the
existing soil conditions along with a complete structural analysis of the
a.~ticipated loads for the p~oposed 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-T85A
through Map I-785F by Bruce Bryant in 1972) and also by the Colorado State
University for Pitkin County (C.S.U. Study Maps--Lower Roa~ing Fork~-Series
M-I02-9). In both instances the proposed subdivision area is docu.~ented 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 correspo~d 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,
J~I~~~
Professional Geologist
mt
t.;J ~ /J() itA... .~ 1/.,,,.. ;to._
~ ,
/7.(),O'.~~
u/~.P .~. " .
Reimbursement Agreement
The estimated cost of construction of an 8" water line
is $15.00 per foot fDr IS 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.
Jt
'---_..~-"
,-'
-,
Aspen, Colore.do
)fay 22, 1975
To be read before the City Counoil Hearing )fay 27, 1975
Sub jeot I "WedUlll-Hymll.n PUD.
The Oklaholllf1 Flats area C)annot take any more traffic. The traffio
oaused by this development will be beyond belief. ben one unit is
oooupied, first there are the "'pad ore.BherB" who inevitably show up
wi th their oars during the seas(ln. Then there are mll.sses of friends
and buddies ooming and going at aU hours, day and night. Parking
areas are planned for Spring Street in Oklaholllf1 Flats. TheBe will in
no way handle the traffio, which will be strung out along the road,
blooking snow plGW service and, in case of fire, blocking passage of
fire equipment. This has already been a headaohe for the residents
of the Flats. On the side of Spring Street qposite the proposed units,
the developers plan a swimming pool plus tennis coJ1J'ts complete with
dressing roomB and rest roomB. This alone will genere.te tr8lllendous
traffic, as friendB and friends of friends will arrive daily (and
nightly) with their oars and motorcycles to use these facilities.
The mll.jority of the residents of Oklahoma Flats do not want
Spring Street paved' or widened, as this will only increase tre.ffic
nightmares (speed, noise, pOaution). It would also mean the loss
of lIlf1ny big trees, plus other side effects that would be detrimental
to the area.
Stairways and pathways leading down from the buildings will cause
viaitorB and occupantB of the buildh.gs to park along Spring Street.
PlanB show One stairway coming directly down from Gibson Street. This
will bring pedestrians down. fr(lm the Silver King and Smuggler tre.iler
court who would have otherwise \I.sed another route. .11 this adds up to
every kind of p~ution.
The plans call for many Bun decks. BesideB the noise of cars and
I/lOtoroyclea, there will be the din of stereos and hi-fiB from early
morning till late at night. Especially on Sundays, the only day many
of us have for peace and quiet. From the B.Ull decks, beer cans and
other refuse will be flung out into Oklahomll. 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
nothing for the nUghborhood or for the nature.l setting. In an age
that is afraid of silence, their passion will be for noise-making
gadgets. Loud cars, loud I/lOtorcycles, loud stereos, loud voices,
without giving a thought to what it does to the quality of life in
the nei.ghborhood.
We will hear the worn out argument that "nGW that you have moved
in, you don't want anyone IIbe to", etc. This is not so. We welcome
good neighbors. The kind who buy their own houses and live in them and
"
.
t'"'-\
-,
."
~
-2-
Subject: Wedl1lll-iiyman PUD (continued):
...re for them, and have regard for their neighbor$ and neighborhood.
What is wrong with Bingle t'&mily Tllings occupied by si~gle families,
which h what lIhe zoning calls for. I'll tell you whll.t is wrong---
not enough profit for the developers.
. development sueh a$ this h utter disaster for the sl.1rrounding area.
The Il9.meshould be l>hanged to '"Little $ilv!!r King" for thh is eDl>tly
what it is. Even if these units are 1I01d as cO\1dominil1lll$, they quickly
become rental unitB UDder the \1ew (mostly ab$ezxt;ee) owners.
And when lIhe damage is done and another good neighborhood goes down
the drain, where will the developers be? Off looking for ano1lher place
of be&ut;y on which to wreak havoc at great profill to themBelves while
:we are left with the wreckage.
A recent gimmick of developers is to claim they are going to live
on the property. This is to imply that tliley are going to take some
responsibilillyand im:erest i\1 the neighborhood and itB welfare. This
is supposed to ~reate a more t'&vorable atmoBphere and. aBBist thell1 in
getting what they _nt. ""e. in Oklahoma Flats, have heard thh before
and are living with the result.
.ny of the permanent reBidentssurro1lnding the Silver King complex
will. more that verify what 1 have out; lined in this letter. lfbat we a.re
being asked to accept is a little Silver King and all that goes with
-the big one.
The developers claim they arEI leaving eighty pe1'llent open Bpace.
One look at the plans shows that mOBt of the "open space" will be
occupied by automobiles.
A.nd what does the developer offer the community in land dedication?
In return for destroying a neighborhood. increased traffic and polut;ion.
increaBed policing by both city and county. lihat do they offer for -this?
This terrible dalllll.ge and the great profits they will receive? They
offer ab$olutely nothlngt
We aBk that this development be Btopped and rel>ommend nngle family
dw!!llings.
~~r
I"""
-,
PEN
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. Th surrounding area development is of a low key
re idential nature. The proposed project is in
ke ping with this established pattern.
7. Th proposed development creates a more desirable
en ironment than would the application of minimum
10 sizes per dwelling unit and standard tract type
pr9perty division.
8. There exists ample water pressure and other utilities
to lserve the proposal. The primary water main
,
fon the area to the north passes through the proposed
si~e.
!
I"'<.
.~
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 negligatlle. 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 vehiculari:mpaCt
and vehi cular/pedestri an confl i cts 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
approva 1.
I""'>
------"CITY WATER DEPT.
,
"....t:.JEDUM-HY~4AN PUD &SUBDIVISWN
Preliminary Plat P & Z Hearing
June 3, 1975
SUBDIVISION PL&~ CHECK FORM
Date May 12, 1975
Gentlemen:
According to tne procedure set fortn in tneCity of Aspen
Subdivision Regulations, the enclosed plat constitutes a
subdivision and must be processed in accordance with said
ReguLation. .
This form with attacned copy of tne 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 c~py 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 wlth no comments.
<\
t
t
~
Rel'llarks:
41
~
("O~~.~
C?~ '..-':-7 "'---0.
>
i
I
r
,.
"
?
l
A~. f.fJ-d
.
-.
ASPEN METRO SAN ~RICT
~.WEDU~-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 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.
~')J e,-A..L'~L~
~e<--",,~
Signa re of Agency
v(j-::J___.. U-e + r 0 5 OIlY - b~.-:.;::t..-. 'W'
.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NAT~L GAS ~EDUM-HYMAN PUD & SUBDIVISION
Preliminary Plat P & Z Hearing
June 3, 1975
SUBDIVISION PL&~ 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 wil,l) be interpreted as app~oval with no comments. ,
Remarks: d).1P---A:.-I~ CL ~~~ L-~r
~/ ~ fP-7;..,A"- - ~- ~ d- '( (if)- a?-3 cJ *
~~~~~;:Z~ ~1l03-
/n~.~ -}, ~/._~ 74'_~A~~~
. ~/7cJ~d
rfJ~ /J1CVYZ~
HOL Y CROSS ELECTR~
~jEDUM-HYMAN PUD & SUBDIVISION.
Preliminary Plat P &Z Hearing
June 3, 1975
SUBDIVISION PLl'.N CRECK FORM
"
Date
~1ay 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 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.
~~i~~7~ency
.
'.
'".-".'''..~'''''..".;..'~...
I""
CITY FIRE MARSHAL
~EDUM-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.
1~
~~
,
.
~.
1
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: (/(eeOrl/'1/i;Je? /)I.57r?# -9T1t)~ CJ/" /'1t?;U-I ff
('TN~r1IPL #Y#I?-9J/r dr Tl/iC I9~P,et:?XI'''''''7€ J.,xo#T/t:7~
/jJP/~dTr.P cuJ p,t/?/
.;;
,
;:.
.~
&
j:,
t::
~,:
t
.'
~,
~"
,
,
~If~/
~g . ure 0 Agency
~l-c7l(61) ON M Ac;~
.
~
~
."""
~
J
~
~
C . t \., t D t ' ...-.----
1 y,a er ep. . .--.-----.-.----.--.--.-.-..-----i )(
City Parks & Recreation..----____.____.__.__.__-1
City Fire Marshal----..--____,.____j X
City Electric----...... ....... ......................... ........_______.__......._.,
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas (H~Jlard. Clapper)------ilc
Mountain Bell (.^.SfleA QffiGe) ~..Q.dr. ------1-
~6~.tO~r~~~t~~~~t~~~~ :RiChar~ Lee)=.1'-~_.._=l"
Aspen ~letro San Dl s trl ct------.--.- ----..--..-.---t)(.
WEDUM-HYMAN PUD & SUBDIVISION REFERRALS
Mailed May 12, 1975
Mailing:
Labeled:
Return Expected:
, . A
WEDUM-HYMAN PUD & SUBDIVISION
Preliminary Plat P & Z Hearing June 3, 1975
30 =, 1975
No response will be interpreted as approval with
no comments.
,,,,,,',;"C~
";;.:;,';;;":~~
!".'. ..'"
.
.'
"'""
,......
\.{
~
b-, ""
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).
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 r,
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 theCi ty' 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.
"
,-,
,-,
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 ci ty.
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 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.
.. ..-"0
,,-.
WEDUM ~ HYMAN
OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR P.U.D. PLAN APPROVAL
,,-
i
,
i
t
John Rando]l Wcdurn
~Ia y, ] 97 5
f
!
f.
:
,
!
i
f
r
..
~
~
-'
.
'-.;
OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR P.U.D. PLfu~ APPROVAL
,
THIS PROJECT is intended to provide a cluster development
of nine uni ts 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 prea 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.
(:
_J' _
<.
. .....
I""
,.-"
P.(geTwo. .
Our first consideration for ~uildingon the plateau
of the hillside concerncd our obj~ctive, in that the orientation
and physical character of this particular. parcel of land made it
possible to create a'n 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 constructing 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 heating
circulation of the houses is also handled simply by allowing, the
required amount of heat to flow up through the hous~.
.
."
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 would 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 "lining Company. Another
owner is Wi11'iam Loughran.
~,
t""'\
.
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.
"
if
~ '" z I
0 0 ~
c ~ ""
~ ~ [ :T 0 ;:r g 51
en ~.' ;:r , ~
:;' ~ ~ ~O> ~
~ n ~ ~Ji,. 0 . ~ ,.~ :; a :; a 0
3: " ~- ~~ Ul , ~ _,0 :I:
Z g . - 0 ...g;: .0 ; ;; .....10-. -, n ~ a.~ 0 i
w .. ~' 0' ,,' .-,:::'-.0 -.. ~!!..a. n "n~
-~ , W ......",. !!.
"'w ... ....g~ ~ .....:::0 ;:r -< w 0 ~o~ Ul ~. , 0 z; ~ 0 !!. ~n" l.Il8::J 3:
o ~ ~ ~[~ <ii' w." a ~F'~ 0 0' . 0 ~~t.~ j. :;; ~!'." ;; :;nlC m ='
-00 "0 ~ 0 g~~ w.?-~ 0 -' ,
0- 0 nO. .-<) f'l:r
""l~lJf 0 O. 0 0- wo.o 0 "-'>:' :Oz 0.;;.2.,.. 0' 0>0 ~ ~ . ~ . woo 0 -
Z;Oc ~ ~Zo 0 ....0:;; 0 0 . wo . w::::;
--2 = -~;: ....~~ 0 N~. > 0 . ~~ a . N -'C"Il ~~o 0 w::::", 0 on -
0 <..1_._ . :::~o 0 . O>No. " ~~'=.g ~ ,on c' ./..O'~ c' ';"0'-. on III
0> ~ a ~i~ 0 . 0 ~Oa " ...~
~~ ~ " . :::~g .... Q :; " , , . ~ 'o~ ~ ~ g ~ " 0 ~~. ~f 0>' . g ~.~ n -
" " , 0.._. ~',. a o :.!a, 0 il
~ ?'Q~ ~ .j,.cga.. ~ ~ aD ~ 00. a 0 o a . 0 m
.:.....~ a g~~ a ~~~ ~~< ::::;g~ O~~ 00 " :f~
- wa a -,,, a ~~g c' " " ~ ~
0>". w~~ g~ ~. "'0;;: c' 00 ~ .. I:
...'''''It c' ,,~. ~ ~ O>~. .. 00 0 -~ ~ a
....o{; 0 O. 0 ~. 0_ a 0 a ii
-g~ 0 0 o~ ~ .. 0
0 -~ 0 o' 0 ~ 0 w- ~ -. w .. c'
O>~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ c' c' =
~ 0 0
0 ~ ~ c::l
~ III
if
...
-.
-
_I -
---.JJ :r CD (")
.. -
.11 - = .. ::I 0
= = 0
= lr t/l 3
'3:0. = - = CIl C .... 3
, = = .. 0
~~ = = iii' S>> .. -.
~, = co ::I AI -
o ~ "= = c 3
~ ~. = CIl n
~~ -= = 0.
. CD CD
..0 ~
0, = -= lr ::I
0 '1J
'"" = - "< -
~ = 0
'ci = = -
0 -.
, =
~ n
-. '<
0
~
:I>
Cl
m
Z
...
'"
...
:I:
'"
o
c:
Cl
:I:
o
c:
...
n
o
...
o
~
c
o
~
"~
00
.~
~-
0"
w;~~
0'1:1:1 c:
~~.~:::
0)"'; I
......."'....
..0' ,"" a
.:..ri:u~
~oO:S
-a' ::s
0.=
00
X
w~
~~
~
I: ~
. 0
"''''"'110
~.? m
~fi9g,:!!
~~r~~
'o..N::I ::s
:::;0"'(11
o-co""-
o-~o~
Q
g
0.
..,.~t';
~h-
""-'::'1:1
:fli~
Wn .
t~~a
~. ,
woo
.~"
=
0;
=:
Q
.
w*'~
o~ =
W'
-fii':e
~f;:!!..
,0 (Ila..
~o..
1\,>0;
e~!t
~
~
~
i~
-~~
Woz
o. 0
~o::z.'"
o ~C
~~3:g.
We" _
~g-5'O
""co~
-oiil
o.
w.
~
"
~,
o.
,~
~o
~.~I.b
....n>~.
~;.g ;
0-0 c"
~g-:
~.
00
~.
~=
-0
x
!l-
.
wfo:
oo.....c...
""o..o.~
~. n'"
tl~~ i'
,p..o......
''''''0
O:~;:::l
~o.
~w.
o
~
~
n
o
;;
o~
0._
Ow
-~~
w. 0
~;.~~
&;~~:
t~g~
~O'
""a'"
-g-~
=.
o
~
o
~
o'
o
~
< g
o .
'W.=:v;
~{;Ip~ m
~[g>~c!
o.o.."ii:ct
boo --.
-oCl:l~~
0..1-0'
0..I~ ;:
~ "
,.
~
o
=8>-
~~;:~
32=-g.
.....n!::o
.....2.;:~
-00" ,
'!'-ooo
,p..Q,.::l 0
~o Cl:Ic:
....mOla
0:'_
-.0
~< .
00
a
=
o
0_
......ii:""
~.-
8':>~CI:I
-n"tl 0
,p..2.;.,c:
,p..oc -
':"0 g t
.....O"C/l..
-0-
~=.
00'
w.
o
~
:r-
,w"
w~~~
o':>n~
~n~lIl
2.;::,;"
~a 3 .
, Q,.-'~
;:go Q D
g:~~~
~.
o.
~
i
il
ail
51
CD
~
i!!i
=
='
-
=-
5"
CIll
I:
ii
=
c:l
CD
==
=
.1""".
.1"""
"~,k.~."".
r
-,
AMOUNT
OWNER $ 50,000.00
MORTGAGE $
ADDITIONAL CHARGES
COST OF TAX CERTIFICATE
SURVEY COSTS
TOTALS
PREMIUM
$217.00
$ 20.00
$
$
$
$237.00
L
-l
. Your Reference Smuggler-Durant
CC's To:
No. 46,001.282 C
Sheet 1 of---1L-
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 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 provisions of Schedules A and B and to the conditions and stipula-
tions shown on the inside of the cover.
'~..
The effective date of this commitment is 'f"y ? J 1 Cl7!; . ,19_at
At which time fee title was vested in:
AS TO PARCEL A
S~;[,GGLER-DURANT ~lINING CORPORATION, a New York Corpora tien and nFrH
C, BISEL as her interests may appear,
(CO~TINUED ON PAGE 2)
SCHEDULE A
1. Policies to be issued:
(A) Owners':
JOHN RANDALL WEDUM
(B) Mortgagee's:
TO BE DETEmlINED
Form No. C-142.1 Rev. 4-1g~75
I""
-,
.
At which time fee title was vested .in:
(CONTINUED)
NarE: 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
'jj.~
. "
r"
-,
. 'No;~6 ,001 ,282
Sheet~of~
'C
SCHEDULE 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 swt of Section 7, Township 10.
South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. described as follows:
Begin~ing at a point whence the West ~ corner of said Sect~on 7
bears North 55"29' West 2,371.8 feet;
'fhence North 15"00' East 118 feet to a point;
Thence South 59"30' East 134 feet to a point;
':hence North 43"45' East 45.60 feet to a point;
Thence North 46"15' 392 fee~ ~o a pOln~;
Thence South 43"45' West 133 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
RO:lring Fork River to the South bo,undary 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
whence' the West Quarter .Corner of Section 7, Township 10 South,
. Runge 84 West of the 6th P.M. bears N. 55029' West I} distance of
2371.8 feet, thenceN. 15"00' E. a d1stance of 118.00 feet to a
point, thence S. 59"30' E. a distance of 134.00 feet to a point
thence N. 43"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.
59"03'29" E.a distance of 99.40 feet to a pOint,thence S. 55029'50"
E. a distance of 69.80 feet to a point, thence S. 50"44'15" E. a
distance of 101.59 feet to a point, thence 41034'41" 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.
Form No. C.142.2
. '.
r
,-..
1<""'\
No. 46 .001 .282
Sheet ~of~
C
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 NEt of the swt of Section 7, Township 10
South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. described as fbllows: .
Beginning at n point whence the West t corner of said SectLon 7
be~rs North 55-29' West'2,371.8 feet;
Thence North 15-00' E~st 118 feet to a point;
Thence South 59-30' East 134 feet to a point;
.hcnce North 43-45' East 40 feet to n point;
Thence North 46-'5' 392 feet to a point;
Thence South 43-45' West 133 feet to a pOint
Thence "South 19-'5' West 92 feet more or less to the center of
the Roaring Fork River,
Thence Southensterly and Southerly along the Center line of the
Rooring 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
E~cept: 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.
Fotm ~o. C~14Z.3
".
~
^
No. 46,001,282
Sheet~of -1L
C
SCHEDULE B
THE Po.LICY o.R Po.LICIES TO. BE ISSUED HEREUNDER WILL No.T 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 furnished, im-
posed by law and not shown by the p)lblic 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, 190.2 in Book 55 at Page
116.
8. Rights of 'ray for what is known as spring Street and Gibson Street.
9. Right for the continued flow of the Roaring Fork River.
o .
NOTE: There will be a possible exception as to the Denver and Rio Grande
Railway upon information to be received from Tri-Co Engineering.
J-':lrlt; No. C-U2.4 R~v. '--18-1&
. t.,
,-'
-,
r
-,
AMOUNT
OWNER $ 50,000.00
MORTGAGE $
ADDITIONAL CHARGES
COST OF TAX CERTIFICATE
SURVEY COSTS
TOTALS
PREMIUM
$ 217.00
$
$
$
$
$217.00
L
.J
Your Reference 46.001,282-3
CC's To:
No. 46.001.282-3 C -5
Sheet 1 of--'L
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 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 provisions of Schedules A and B and to the conditions and stipula-
tions shown on the inside of the cover.
By
,1976 at4~30 PM.
The effective date of this commitment is November 22
At which 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
(B) Mortgagee's:
;Corm No. C-142.1 Rev. 4-13-75
/""',.
~
No. 46.001,282-3 \ C-5
Sheet~ of ~ SCHEDULE A-Continued
2. Covering the Land in the State of Colorado, County of
Described as:
Pitkin
A PARCEL OF L&~D SITUATED IN THE NE 1/4 SW 1/4 OF
SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 w~ST 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 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7 BEARS
N 55027'55" 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 89020'00" W 220.00 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY
LINE;
THENCE N 04012'54" W 160.88 FEET;
THENCE N 19015'00" E 92.00 FEET;
THENCE N 43045'00" E 40.88 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
CENTERLINE OF GIBSON AVENUE;
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 72030'08" E 208.26 FEET;
THENCE S 55059'26" E 33.10 FEET;
THENCE S 59003'29" E 99.40 FEET;
THENCE S 55029'50" E 69.80 FEET;
THENCE S 50044'15" 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 15050'18" E 11.33 FEET;
THENCE N 89020'00" 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 S 22052'4q" E 87.11 FEET;
THENCE S 29018'13" E 0.04 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE
SOU'rHERLY LINE OF SAID J. R. WILLIAMS RANCH;
'l'HENCE N 89020' 00" W 251.13 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY
LINE ~U THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ~~
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING PARCEL OF LAND:
continued next page
Form No. C.14.2.2
I""",
No. 46,001,282-3-C-5
Sheet 3 of 5
Legal description continued
^
SCHEDULE A-Continued
A parcel of land situated in the NE\ SW\ of Section
7, Tow~ship 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 \ corner of said Section 7 bears N. 55027'55"
W. 2369.32 feet, thence N. 89020'00" w. 3.47 feet along
said property line to point of beginning,
thence N. 15030'00" E. 52':.39 feet;
thence N. 74030'00" W. 125.00 feet;
thence S. 15030'00" W. 85,49 feet;
thence S. 89020'00" E. 129.31 feet; more or less to the
point of beginning.
,
-
-,
^
.~.
No. 46,001,282-3
Sheet~of~
C -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 Corporation
to John Randall We dum 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.
Form No. C-142.8
1"""\
.~
~.
.
.
No. 46,001 ,282-3
Sheet---1L of ..L
C-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 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 purposfts 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,
I'f,'--'RIglits'of Way for what is knoj!I!,~s Spring Street and Gibson Street,
. ' ,.,:.....~..,-~-~.,.. - -..--. ------
~-
Right for the' continued flow of the Roaring Fork'Rher',
9.
F0rrn No. C.142.4
...~-,-
'-'.
--
:1
,
Your Reference Smuggler-Durant
j
r
f
. t
I AMOUNT
OW!iER$ 50,000.00
MORTGAGE $
ADDITIONAL CHARGES
COST. OF TAX CERTIFICATE
SU VEY COSTS
TOTALS
CC's To:
I
,
I
f
I
I
f
I
I
COMMITMENT to INSURE
I
Transamerica Title Insurance Company, a Califonilia 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 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.
.,
. ~,
PREMIUM
$217 00
$ 20.00
$
$
$
$237.00
r
L
.J
No.
46,001,282
C
Sheet 1 of.JL
.~;.
The effective date of this commitment is M" y ? ' 075 , 19~ at
At which time fee title was vested in:
AS'TO PARCEL A
SMUGGLER-Eil'RANT MINING CORPORATION, a New York Corpor~ U,m and
C. BISEL as her interests may appear,
'D'.'''''''l:J
..~\. ! ...-,
(CO~TINUED ON PAGE 2)
SCHEDULE A
1. Policies to be issued:
(A) Owners':
JOHN RANDALL WEDUM
(B) Mortgagee's:
TO I3E DETEmlINED
!<"orm No. C-142.1 Hev. 4~18~75
, .
No. 46,001,282
Sheet2-of-lL
,.....,
--
.
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 ~ou1d be the owner of any interest therein.
AS TO PARCEL B
WILLIAM H. LOUGHRAN
.
. .....-'
. '.
1""\
--
No. 46,001,282
Sheet ~ of i
c
SCHEDULE 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 swt of Section 7 ,Township 10
South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. described as follows:
Beglnn'ing ata <point whence the West ~ corner of said Sechon 7
bears North 5S"29' West 2,371.8 feet;
'i'henceNorth lS"OO' East 11.8 feet to a point;
Thence South S9"30' East 134 feet to a point;
~hcnce North 43"4S' East 4S.60 feet to a point;
Thence North 46"lS' 392 fee~ ~o a pOln~;
Thence South 43"4S' West 133 feet to a point
.Thence.South 19"15' West 92 feet more or less to the center of
the Roaring Fork. Rive.r,
Thence Southeasterly and Southerly along the Center line of the
Ron:r:ing Fork River to the South bo,undary 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
whence' the West Quarter Corner of Section 7, Township 10 South
R;Jnge 84 West of the 6th P.M. benrs N..SSe29' West II distance ~f
2371.8 feet, thence N. 15"00' E. a distance of 118 00 feet .to 11
- 0 - - _ - _. _.- - _
point, thence S. 59 30' E. a distance of 134.00 1eet to a point,
thence N. 43"45' E. a distance of 4S.60 feet to a point, Thence
N...46"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"291SO"
E. a distance of 69.80 feet to a point, thence S. SO"44'15" E. a
distance of 101.S9 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.
l"otm No. C~B2.2
. '.
I"'"
^
No. 46. 001 ~ 282
Sheet~of-L
C
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 NEt of the swt of Section 7, Township 10
South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. described as follows:
Beginning at a pOint whence the West t corner of said Sect10n 7
be~rs North 55"'29' West 2,371.8 feet;
'!'hence North 15000' East ]18 feet to a point;
Thence South 59"'30' East 134 feet to a point;
~hence North 43"'45' E~st 40 feet to a point;
Thence North 46"'15' 392 feet to a point;
Thence South 43"'45' West ]33 feet to a pOint
Thence'South ]9"'15' West 92 feet more or less to the center of
the Roaring Fork River,
Thenc~ Southe:lsterlyand Southerly along the Center line of the
Ro~ring 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
E~cept:Anyportion 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 We dum 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.
Form ~o. C-14.2.8
~ '.,
,
. ~ ~ .
1"""\
-,
No~46 .001,282
Sheet..Lof ~
C
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 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 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 inter.sect
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
1~. . .
8. Rights of 'yay 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.
l~,~ryf No. C.U2." Rev. 4.18.75
. "