HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.202112071
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
December 7, 2021
4:30 PM, WebEx Virtual Meeting (See agenda packet for
instructions to join the meeting)
I.WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
TO JOIN ONLINE:
Go to www.webex.com and click on "Join a Meeting"
Enter Meeting Number: 2559 858 0190
Enter Password: 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
-- OR --
JOIN BY PHONE
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Enter Meeting Number: 2559 858 0190
Enter Password: 81611
II.ROLL CALL
III.COMMENTS
IV.MINUTES
IV.A.November 16, 2021 Meeting Minutes - DRAFT
minutes.apz.20211116.docx
V.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI.PUBLIC HEARINGS
VI.A.809 S Aspen Street GMQS-Multifamily Replacement Review
Memo 809 S Aspen St GMQS MF Replacement Review.docx
Resolution_No.___Series_2021_809 S Aspen St #17 and #18.docx
Exhibit A_Review Criteria.docx
Exhibit B_Memo.Referral.809 S Aspen St.docx
Exhibit C_Application.809 S Aspen St.pdf
Exhibit D_Planning and Zoning Letters of Support.docx
VII.OTHER BUSINESS
1
2
VII.A.End of Year Review - Presentation by staff
VIII.ADJOURN
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant
7) Public comments
8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
Revised January 8, 2021
2
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021
Page 1 of 8
Chairperson McKnight called the regularPlanning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting for November 16th, 2021 to
order at 4:30 PM.
Commissioners in attendance: Ruth Carver, Sam Rose, Teraissa McGovern,and Spencer McKnight.
Commissioners not in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill and Scott Marcoux
Staff in Attendance:
Amy Simon, Planning Director
Ben Anderson, Principal Long-Range Planner
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
None
STAFF COMMENTS
Ms. Simon will send out an email to all members with calendar updates through the end of the year. Ms.
McGovern stated she will not be able to attend the December 7th meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Land Use Code Amendment Resolution – P&Z Recommendation for Single-Family and Duplex
Affordable Housing Mitigation
Mr. McKnight opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff.
Mr. Ben Anderson, Principal Long-Range Planner, stated he would be reviewing a proposed code
amendment in process with City Council at this time. This code amendment originated out of several
discussions with City Council over the last couple of years around growth management and affordable
housing. As part of the outreach for the proposed amendment, staff is asking for a recommendation
from the commission. He reviewed the options for approving the draft resolution provided in the
agenda packet or not making a recommendation at all.
Mr. Anderson reviewed the origins of the proposed code amendment around Council’s concerns
regarding a lot of development pressure in town. He stated staff performed an analysis of the growth
management allotments of which most of the affordable housing mitigation requirements are
connected with the allotment system. The analysis indicated approximately 90% of the allotments year
3
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021
Page 2 of 8
to year were not being utilized for all different types of development even though there is a lot of
development pressure in town. He added as a consequence, the affordable housing mitigation is not
being produced in proportion to the development pressure the community is feeling. He stated the
systems designed in the 1970’s no longer allow for growth management and affordable housing to
function together.
Mr. Anderson stated some changes were made this summer including increases to the fee-in-lieu (FIL),
lodging mitigation requirements and affordable housing credits. He stated Council asked staff to work
on single-family and duplex residential development and mitigation requirements since it is felt this is
currently driving the development context in town. He then explained the areas believed not to
providing expected mitigation. He stated the proposed amendment will eliminate the credit for existing
floor area and move from a net floor area to a gross floor area calculation for the affordable housing
mitigation. This will bring areas including basements, garages and vertical circulation areas of the
development currently exempted from the calculation to be included in the calculation of the affordable
housing mitigation.
Mr. Anderson then identified the review criteria when considering code amendments. He also reviewed
what the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) states. He described the content applicable to the
proposed code amendments.
Mr. Anderson next reviewed the two ways growth management is handled for residential development.
He described the first way uses triggers for the demand for a growth management allotment such as
when a new subdivision or lot is created, a change in development type occurs or when multi-family
units are developed or redeveloped. He noted these types of developments have not been happening in
Aspen for some time even though it has been the community expectation for affordable housing.
He stated the second way the code mitigates residential development is with single-family and duplex
development and redevelopment on existing residential lots. It is currently based on the floor area
calculation in the land use code based on an employee generation study from 2015. The study looked at
impacts of construction on employee generation and looked at operations and maintenance. He noted
the big piece is how the floor area is measured noting when an existing home is torn down, the floor
area is credited towards their eventual mitigation requirements and the calculation utilizes net floor
area instead of gross floor area and excludes basements, garages, and vertical circulation elements.
Mr. Anderson displayed graphics comparing the current code versus the proposed code amendments.
Ms. McGovern wanted to clarify the credit is for existing floor area not existing square footage (SF). She
gave an example of a home that is 2,000 SF, but the floor area is only 1,500 SF based on the excluded
elements such as the garage and vertical circulation. She feels this could be explained better in the code.
Mr. Anderson agreed the definitions are not always clear and different professions such as a realtor and
the Pitkin County Assessor, view the terms differently as well. He added the amendments would look at
gross floor area of all horizontal surfaces between exterior walls of the structure instead of net floor
area.
Mr. Anderson explained examples of the impacts to the calculation based on the proposed code
amendments.
Mr. Anderson then further described the difference between net and gross floor area calculations. He
noted currently, the City is seeing gigantic basementsbeing added to homes, often setback to setback
which have very significant construction impacts. The subgrade areas hold mechanical equipment which
4
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021
Page 3 of 8
have long-term maintenance and operational impacts as well. He then displayed a slide showing an
example of the current and proposed floor area calculations with a basement as part of the example.
He added another amendment would acknowledge the findings of the 2015 Generation study which
showed that as homes increase in size, their long-germ operation and maintenance generation is more
significant. The proposed changes include a higher FTE generation rate for homes over 4,500 SF in size.
Mr. Anderson next displayed a table showing examples of six actual projects between 2015 and 2020.
The table included the mitigations base on the current code and the impacts to the projects based on
the proposed code amendments. He stated construction on these sites can go on for a couple of years
with 20 people on site during that time which he believes the community is stating they feel impacts
from these construction sites.
Mr. Anderson stated City Council has asked staff to work on the affordable housing mitigation parity
between commercial and residential projects. He displayed a graphic providing an example of the Full
Time Equivalents (FTEs) for 6,000 SF of commercial (18.33 FTEs) and the same SF for residential (1.26
FTEs) based on the proposed code amendments.
Mr. Anderson next reviewed the code changes. One change will be in the definition of floor area.
Another change identifies three kinds of development scenarios under growth management in terms
around credit. Another area to be changed includes the reconstruction limitations under growth
management to provide clarity to what happens to allotments and floor area credit for a demolition.
Mr. Anderson then reviewed the deferral of mitigation requirements currently allowed for property
owners qualified as a full-time, local working resident. He also clarified this would not change any other
dimensional rights for a piece of property.
Mr. Anderson concluded stating the proposed schedule for the ordinance review with Council with the
first reading on November 23rd and the second reading and public hearing on December 14th. He stated
staff recommends approval of the resolution as provided.
Mr. McKnight asked for any questions from the commission members.
Mr. Rose asked what Pitkin County has in place for the exact topic.
Mr. Anderson replied the City and County had a unified system which started in the late 1970’s but over
the years, the County’s concept of growth management and affordable housing mitigation has diverged
from the City’s concept. The County’s most recent proposed changes were really about reducing the
maximum home size. The proposed changes did not talk as much about their mitigation requirement.
He doesn’t believe they compare all that much at this time.
Mr. Rose stated he worries about the unintended consequences of doing something like this having it
effects property values and taxes.
Mr. Rose asked where the money generated from the proposed changes would be used.
Mr. Anderson replied the reason they have the study is to help show the impacts on affordable housing
mitigation generated. He noted people may have different opinions regarding if the proposed changes
are fair or not. He also not the City does not currently collect a lot of FIL money because mitigation is
encouraged through affordable housing credits. He added hopefully these requirements incentivize
private sector developers to produce affordable housing units so the City can give them affordable
housing credits which can then be purchased from the developers. Developers may also mitigate by
going to City Council and ask to pay a FIL which if allowed by Council would go into the 150 fund which is
5
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021
Page 4 of 8
dedicated to building and maintaining affordable housing projects such as Truscott, Burlingame, and the
Lumber Yard.
Mr. Rose asked for an example of a private developer buying these credits.
Ms. McGovern noted Mr. Anderson identified the FIL in his examples to simply see the possible changes
in dollars. She added what they’re actually talking about is recalculating the FTE. She added credits are
purchased to offset FTEs, not the FIL.
Mr. Anderson stated the most recent project completed was at 210 W Main St and is a mix of category
units. The project generated 18 FTEs which were handed over when the certificate of occupancy was
issued. The developer may now sell them in a private transaction to other developers who need them
for mitigating their projects. He believes the certificate system is unique to Aspen.
Ms. McGovern stated this is a great idea, but she wants some of the details clarified. She asked with the
proposed increase of FTE load doubling, could it be possible to get into a situation where there are not
enough FTEs available in certificates to offset the development.
Mr. Anderson responded potentially that situation could occur but there are multiple ways to mitigate a
project including deed restricting a unit, buy down a unit to create a mini credits project or the FIL
option.
Ms. McGovern stated she is concerned developers with credits will not sell them in smaller chunks and
will only sell them larger projects. This could make credits cost prohibitive for a single-family
homeowner. It is also costly and time sensitive to go before Council to ask about the FIL.
Mr. Anderson stated the first credits project came online in 2012 and there has not been a single person
come to City Council to request to pay the FIL. He believes the market for credits ebbs and flows over
time and it was an intentional decision to make it difficult to do anything other than credits and to have
the FIL process a little bit arduous so the market could kind of sort it out.
Ms. McGovern feels because we are running out of room to build affordable housing and therefore
FTEs, the proposed changes will tip the balance even faster.
Mr. Anderson hopes the proposed changes would drive a more consistent demand for affordable
housing mitigation. He added developers building for credits are currently having to wait three to five
years to get their revenue back from credits.
Ms. McGovern asked if the code could be updated to clarify the definitions of net floor area, gross floor
area and gross SF. She uses gross SF and floor area.
Mr. Anderson replied to really fix everything would require a fairly major undertaking to pull apart a
huge section of the land use code. He added it is a topic he would like to engage at some point. Mr.
Anderson stated he would look further into it.
Ms. Carver is concerned for the resident of Aspen who has finally afforded to buy a house and wants to
put in a basement that the cost of the smaller homes will be raised for anybody dreaming of buying a
home. She stated she sees the other end of the spectrum every day in Aspen with the large basements
and constant construction and understands why this is being proposed. She asked if residents living in
town for a period of time and were continuing to live in town wouldn’t have a larger mitigation
requirement, even if they were to sell. She doesn’t believe it’s fair to the working class Aspenite who is
able to buy a home.
6
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021
Page 5 of 8
Mr. Anderson responded she has a valid point. Mr. Anderson noted Mr. Mike Maple is attending the
hearing tonight and he made similar comments last week. He added the average single-family home
price in Aspen is now between $10 and $11 million dollars at a conservative SF estimate of $3,000 per
SF. He continued stating staff and City Council acknowledge there are long time working locals who have
contributed significantly to the community. He explained if they want to stay in their homes and never
pay a dollar of mitigation, they can do a huge remodel as long as they don’t add SF. And if they want to
do a bigger project on their property, the deferment program is available to them. He added there’s
been a real transformation of the functions of homes that once dominated the community so it’s
challenging to operate in this economic reality, address the affordable housing crisis and provide
protections for the folks described by Ms. Carver.
Ms. Carver acknowledged there has been a shift but there are still locals who may want to improve their
homes.
Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners for their current positions.
Ms. McGovern thinks it’s a good idea and reiterated her concerns regarding the availability of credits for
homeowners.
Mr. Rose thinks it a great idea but wondered if the mitigation percentages could be scaled more instead
of the 0.16 to the 0.36 based on the SF.
Ms. Johnson wanted to clarify the FTE numbers were developed after several studies were conducted to
look at the impact of development and the numbers correlate to the data.
Ms. Carver stated she can see the point of the proposed changes but wanted to see how the other
members felt about her example of a local homeowner.
Ms. McGovern does not feel this is unfairly burdening the local who already owns their home because of
the deferral program.
Mr. McKnight agreed with Ms. McGovern.
Mr. McKnight opened the floor for public comment.
Mr. Maple does not feel the City is not doing enough to create affordable housing and noted the Lumber
Yard project as an example where only 300 units are planned will be built on an expensive site and
dedicating $20 million dollars for underground parking. He encouraged everyone to demand to be part
of the review of these projects. He does not feel the City has been doing a good job for decades. He
does not believe staff’s interpretation of the 2015 study to apply the mitigation to different numbers is
valid, proper, or fair and probably illegal.
Mr. Maple stated he is an Aspen homeowner, and his family has lived here since 1968. He has owned his
home for 25 or 26 years and his house is now 53 years old. One day he would like to be able to rebuild
his home but feels the proposed changes will push the possibility over the edge. He stated there is no
way he would consider participating in the deferral program because you are deferring what might be
due in the future and the deferment program does not recognize the residents in the house as credit for
mitigating FTE units. He would also like residents to be recognized for the time they have been living in
the home.
Mr. McKnight closed public comment.
Mr. McKnight asked staff if he wanted to respond to Mr. Maple’s comment.
7
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021
Page 6 of 8
Mr. Anderson believes he made valid points with the increasing difficultly for working locals to live in
non-deed restricted housing in this town. Mr. Anderson noted the 2015 study is about new construction
activity and the impacts of this activity in new homes. He noted there have been people who have taken
advantage of the deferral program with smaller additions and in full redevelopment projects.
Mr. McKnight asked if there are some negative impacts of the deferral program he is missing.
Mr. Anderson believes Mr. Maple is most concerned about the uncertainty of future mitigation
requirements but noted if the home is sold in the future to a local, the deferral continues.
Ms. McGovern asked what section of code covers the deferral program.
Mr. Anderson replied it’s in the growth management section. Mr. Anderson added when a homeowner
uses the deferral program, essentially a deed restriction is placed on the property. He continued stating
the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) handles the placement of the deed restriction.
Ms. McGovern is interested to read the language how the agreement is added.
Ms. Johnson stated she is not sure there are more specifics in the code, but there may be some direction
in the APCHA forms and agreements required as part of the deferral program.
Ms. McGovern asked if there was a way to work with APCHA outside of this process to change the
deferred costs calculated based on the time of development versus the time of sale to see if would
provide long-time locals more certainty.
Mr. McKnight feels it is important to have this conversation as well and understands Mr. Maples’s
concerns.
Mr. Anderson responded staff could include an addition to the recommendation if the commissioners
want to add it.
Ms. Carver stated in the past the commission has passed on similar recommendations to Council and
feels the Council only sees the commission approved it. She is not willing to approve the resolution
without these points regarding the long-time owner clarified more.
Mr. Spencer is not sure he wants to move it forward as well.
Ms. McGovern stated because it is not defined in the code, she does not feel she has a position to not
pass it until what is being asked for is defined and she doesn’t believe the commission has purview over
these items. She feels it is appropriate to add it as a recommendation to the condition.
Ms. Simon stated there is language in the APCHA guidelines defining exactly how the deferral process
works. She then summarized the section to the commissioners.
Mr. Anderson stated he has seen three of these agreements in the past six years but understands they
may become more regular under the proposed code changes.
Mr. Rose feels it’s a tough one and feels Mr. Maples’s real life example was very moving. He is
concerned about the negative effects for locals on something that is supposed to be positive.
Ms. McGovern stated although she does not own a free market residence, she considers herself a local.
Mr. Rose responded he does not want to have one good thing at the cost of another.
They both agreed they want a balanced solution.
8
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021
Page 7 of 8
Mr. Rose asked Mr. Maple what he would change about it.
Mr. Maple feels staff’s proposal is fundamentally flawed. He does not feel the study supports staff’s
proposal. He thinks the deferral program should be defined in the code and not in APCHA guidelines. He
believes the deferral program should recognize the occupancy of a local homeowners as mitigation and
mitigation should not be calculated at the time of the sale which is an unknown.
Mr. Rose believes some credit should be available for locals in free market housing.
Mr. Anderson stated he hears those points but noted on all the mitigation requirements, it is for the
generation of new development activity. He added if Mr. Maple wanted to renovate his home without
tearing it down, there would not be a single dollar of affordable housing mitigation. The mitigation
would be assessed on new SF added as part of a redevelopment. Considering Mr. Maples’s suggestions
would necessitate a whole different kind of mitigation requirements.
Ms. McGovern reiterated she believes this is not in the purview of this commission and if changes to the
deferral program are to be deliberated further, it should be done with the APCHA Board.
Ms. Johnson stated the commission could make a recommendation to suggest a study of the deferral
program and the provisions to address certain concerns. The issue before the commission at this hearing
is the proposed amendment by staff and whether or not the commission makes recommendation with
or without conditions for the amendments to be adopted by Council.
Mr. Anderson added his suggestion for a recommendation would be to acknowledge the issue and the
concern.
Ms. Carver feels it is a great start but is not a complete product so she will not recommend it tonight.
Ms. McGovern would vote to forward this to Council with comments to review the code section
regarding the deferral program.
Mr. Rose and Mr. McKnight both agreed with Ms. McGovern.
Mr. Anderson asked to confirm their action will be a recommendation of support with the condition for
staff to evaluate the relationship of the deferral agreement and the notion of the deferral amount being
assessed at the time of the building permit rather than the time of the future sale.
Ms. McGovern feels it is too specific and perhaps it should be an overall review of the deferral program.
Mr. McKnight agreed with Ms. McGovern and wants to evaluate unforeseen consequences of proposed
amendments.
Ms. Carver is concerned Council will approve the proposed amendments and not really consider the
Commission’s conditions.
Mr. McKnight agreed he is frustrated at times with how much Council does or does not listen to the
commission, but this is the process available.
Ms. McGovern stated another condition she would like is to really drill down on the definition of net
floor area versus gross floor area.
Ms. McGovern understands Ms. Carver’s concerns as well.
Ms. McGovern motioned to approve Resolution #12, Series 2021 with the conditions of further review
of the net and gross floor area and the deferral program for housing mitigation. Mr. Rose seconded the
9
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021
Page 8 of 8
motion. Mr. McKnight asked for a roll call: Ms. Carver, no; Mr. Rose, Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight,
yes; for a total of three (3) in favor – one (1) not in favor. The motion passed.
Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. Carver. All in favor and the meeting was
adjourned at 6:30 pm.
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
10
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Michelle Bonfils Thibeault,AICP,Planner II
THRU: Amy Simon, Planning Director
MEMO DATE:November 28, 2021
MEETING DATE:December 7,2021
RE:809 S. Aspen Street, Units 17 & 18, GMQS Review –Multi-Family Replacement
APPLICANT:
Allison and David Ratajczak
REPRESENTATIVE:
Sara Adams, BendonAdams
LOCATION:
809 S. Aspen Street,Units 17 & 18
CURRENT ZONING & USE
This property is located in the
Lodge (L) zone district and is
developed with an existing 21-unit
free market multi-family residential
building.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting a
Growth Management Quota
System (GMQS) Review –Multi-
Family Replacement to allow for
combining of units 17 and 18 into a
single unit.
SUMMARY:The Shadow Mountain Village Condominium
Apartments property is located in the Lodge (L) zone district. The
proposed combining of free market units 17 and 18, both owned
by the applicant, requires affordable housing mitigation in a form
to be approved by P&Z. Mitigation is deemed necessary due to
the impacts of decreasing the City’s overall housing stock and
reducing opportunities for diverse, and in particular smaller
residential units throughout the City. The applicant is requesting to
provide affordable housing credits to satisfy the mitigation
requirement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:The land use code expresses a
preference for mitigation to be in the form of new deed restricted
units on the subject site. Per the applicant, no interior space in
the Shadow Mountain Village Condominium Apartments is
available to locate an affordable housing unit. Expanding the
building to construct an on-site affordable housing unit would
require a change of the existing footprint of the building,creating
some negative impacts discussed later in the memo. Staff finds
the use of affordable housing credits as an appropriate mitigation
in this case.
Figure 1.809 S. Aspen Street, Street view Image
11
Page 2 of 2
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Review – Multi-Family Replacement (Pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.470.100.D): An application requesting a GMQS Multi-Family
Replacement Review requires review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning
and Zoning Commission is the final review body.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The subject properties are located within the 21-unit multi-family free-market housing complex known as
the Shadow Mountain Village Condominium Apartments, located at 809 S. Aspen Street, Units 17 & 18.
The owner of units 17 and 18 seeks to combine both units into a single unit.
The proposed combination of the two units will not change the existing total square footage or floor area
of the building. Each unit is approximately 929 sq.ft. The combining of two 929 sq.ft. units will result in a
single 1,858 sq.ft. unit. The Lodge Zone district restricts single lodge units to a maximum of 1,500 sq.ft.
The applicant proposes to extinguish a Transferable Development Right to increase the allowable unit size
to 2,000 sq.ft. in order to accommodate the proposed 1,858 sq.ft. unit. The process of landing a TDR is
conducted by Community Development during building permit review.
Combination of two multi-family units into a single unit is considered demolition of a unit and requires
affordable housing mitigation. The applicant proposes to provide affordable housing credits to satisfy the
mitigation requirement as is provided for in Section 26.470.100.D.1. While the code indicates that
mitigation should be in the form of an on-site deed restricted unit, the applicant contends that on-site
development is not appropriate within the existing structure, or by means of an addition which might conflict
with the 8040 Greenline Environmentally Sensitive Area regulations affecting this property. Further, the
structure is a candidate for historic designation through the City’s voluntary AspenModern program and an
addition may reduce the integrity of the original design.
Staff finds that the applicant’s request to provide the required mitigation without impact on the exterior of
the building, or an increase in on-site parking demand is consistent with the City’s goals to both preserve
the architectural integrity of the property and to limit development in the 8040 Environmentally Sensitive
area. Additionally, the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority supports the use of affordable housing
credits as mitigation for this project as described in the APCHA Referral Letter (Exhibit B).
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department Staff recommends the Planning and
Zoning Commission approve the proposed request for GMQS Multi-Family Replacement Review
requesting use of affordable housing credits as mitigation for demolition of a multi-family residential unit.
Approval of use of affordable housing credits as mitigation will allow the applicant to then land a
Transferable Development Right to permit a single unit of up to 2,000 sq.ft.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: The draft resolution is written in the affirmative. If the P&Z agrees with Staff’s
recommendation and wishes to approve the current request for GMQS Review for Multi-Family
Replacement, the following motion should be used. “I move to approve Resolution #__, Series of 2021
granting approval for GMQS Multi-Family Replacement Review for the combining of two free-market multi
family residential units into a single unit, and approving affordable housing credits as the form of satisfying
the required mitigation.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #__, Series of 2021
Exhibit A – GMQS Multi-Family Replacement Review Criteria
Exhibit B – APCHA Referral Letter
Exhibit C – Application
12
P&Z Resolution #___, Series of 2021
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION #_____
(SERIES OF 2021)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GRANTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM – MULTI-FAMILY
REPLACEMENT REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 809 SOUTH ASPEN
STREET, UNITS 17 & 18, SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM
APARTMENTS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-131-24-021 & 2735-131-24-019
WHEREAS,the Community Development department received an application from
BendonAdams representing Allison and David Ratajczak, requesting Growth Management
Review, Multi-Family Housing Replacement approvals related to the combining of two multi-
family units located at 809 South Aspen Street, Unit 17 and Unit 18 of the Shadow Mountain
Village Condominium Apartments; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development department reviewed the application for
compliance with the applicable review standards; and,
WHEREAS,upon review of the application and the Land Use Code standards, and referral of
the application to other City Departments for comments, the Community Development Director
recommends Growth Management Multi-Family Replacement Review approval to accept the use
of affordable housing credits as mitigation provided for in section 26.3540 of the Land Use Code;
and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered
the application under the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code as identified herein, in
particular Section 26.470.100.D, reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community
Development Director and took and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing
on December 7, 2021; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that approval of the request is consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare, and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution #___,
Series of 2021, by a ____ to ___ (x - x) vote, recommending approval as identified herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission finds as follows:
13
P&Z Resolution #___, Series of 2021
Page 2 of 2
Section 1: Multi-Family Replacement Affordable Housing Mitigation.
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the following land use review: Growth
Management Multi-Family Replacement allowing for the combination of units 17 and 18 and allowing
for the use of affordable housing credits to satisfy the mitigation requirement for this project. The
final determination of affordable housing mitigation due shall occur during building permit review.
Approval of the landing of a TDR to increase the unit size above the maximum net livable area stated
in the zone district will also occur as part of the permit process.
Section 2: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented
before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an
authorized entity.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on December 7, 2021.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
_________________________________________________________________
Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Attachment:
Exhibit A-Existing and proposed floor plans (applicant not bound to proposed unit interior
layout)
14
1
Exhibit A
GMQS Review – Multi-Family Replacement
809 S. Aspen Street, Units 17 & 18
GMQS – Multi-Family Replacement: 26.470.100.D.1.b
The combining, demolition (see definition of demolition.), conversion, or redevelopment of
multi-family housing shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The applicant may select one of three methods for mitigation and P&Z
conducts a review to determine compliance with the requirements.
To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of local working residents,
no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed
development shall be allowed. The method of mitigation proposed for the combination of subject
two multi-family units is:
Fifty percent (50%) replacement.In the event of the demolition of free-market multi-family
housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of previous
units, bedrooms or net livable area as described above, the applicant shall be required to construct
affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the number of units,
bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed-restricted as
Category 4 housing, pursuant to the guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
In summary, this option replaces the free-market units - with fifty percent (50%) of the new
units, bedrooms and net livable area allowed as free market units and fifty percent (50%) of the
new units, bedrooms and net livable area required as deed-restricted, Category 4, affordable
housing units. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category
designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100(c),
Affordable housing.
When this fifty percent (50%) standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site
may be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation
is provided pursuant to Section 26.470.080 - General Requirements, and there is no increase in
the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total
number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.100, subsection H
or I, Residential Development - sixty percent (60%) or seventy percent (70%) affordable as
required.
Staff Findings: The Shadow Mountain Village Condominium Apartments property is located in
the Lodge (L) zone district. The combining of free market units 17 and 18, both owned by the
applicant, is defined as demolition of those free-market units. The applicant cannot demonstrate
that these units have never been occupied as full-time residences for working locals, and
therefore, for the proposal to proceed, mitigation of the impacts that a reduction in free-market
multi-family housing inventory and dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen is necessary.
Three mitigation options are provided in the land use code, and the one the applicant has
selected, requires 50% of new units, bedrooms and net livable area to be deed-restricted as
15
2
Category 4 affordable housing units. Given the size of the two units proposed to be combined,
this criterion would be met with the provision of an on-site Category 4, two-bedroom affordable
housing unit of at least 464 square feet of net livable area.
The land use code describes that this mitigation is to be developed on the subject property, unless
an alternative is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
26.470.100.D.3 Location requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-market and
affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the
owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement
of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate
solution due to the site's physical constraints.
When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of
units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can
accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location determined acceptable
to the Planning and Zoning Commission, or may replace the units by extinguishing the requisite
number of affordable housing credits, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, Certificates of Affordable
Housing Credit.
When calculating the number of credits that must be extinguished, the most restrictive
replacement measure shall apply. For example, for an applicant proposing to replace a one-
thousand (1,000) square foot three-bedroom unit at the fifty percent (50%) rate using credits, the
following calculations shall be used:
• Fifty percent (50%) of one thousand (1,000) square feet = five hundred (500) square feet to be
replaced. At the Code mandated rate of one (1) FTE per four hundred (400) square feet of net
livable area, this requires the extinguishments of 1.25 credits; or
• A three-bedroom unit = 3.0 FTE's. Fifty percent (50%) of 3.0 FTE's = 1.50 credits to be
extinguished.
Therefore, in the most restrictive application, the applicant must extinguish 1.50 credits to
replace a three-bedroom unit at the fifty percent (50%) rate. The credits to be extinguished would
be Category 4 credits.
Staff response: Affordable housing is only permitted in the Lodge zone district if it is accessory
to a lodging or timeshare operation, and for employees of the operation. The Shadow Mountain
Lodge is not in fact a lodge, but rather is used as free-market multi-family housing, permitted by
zoning. Given the lack of lodge function on the property, on-site affordable housing is only
permitted through a Conditional Use approval by P&Z.
The applicant has not requested Conditional Use review because they represent that no interior
space in the Shadow Mountain Village Condominium Apartments is available to locate an
affordable housing unit. Construction of an on-site affordable housing unit would require a
change of the existing footprint of the building, which might have negative outcomes, including
impacting the potential for the property to be designated historic in the future as an excellent
16
3
example of Aspen’s early ski era architecture. Designation in the AspenModern program is
voluntary and the HOA has been encouraged to apply for many years.
Another reason why expansion of the existing structure may be undesirable is that the property
is located in the 8040 Greenline Environmentally Sensitive Area and in the mountain view plane.
Staff finds the use of affordable housing credits as an appropriate mitigation in contrast to
potential impacts of onsite construction of an affordable housing unit and associated parking.
Mitigation requirements for the proposed combining of the two subject two free market unit must
be calculated by bedroom and by net livable square feet to determine the highest FTE generation
number:
One 2-bedroom unit = 2.25 @50% = 1.13 FTEs
929 SF net livable @ 50% = 464.5 SF/400 SF per FTE = 1.16 FTEs
The more restrictive/higher mitigation requirement is by calculation of net livable square feet
resulting in a mitigation requirement of 1.16 FTEs.
Staff finds the use of affordable housing credits for 1.16 FTEs is an appropriate mitigation for
the combination of two free market units.
Staff finds this criterion to be met. Please note that the application indicates that approximately
18 square feet of new net livable will be created through the project, perhaps through the
elimination of demising walls. The new net livable space must be mitigated like any expansion
of a free market unit, at a rate of 0.18 FTEs to be mitigated per 1,000 square feet of new
development. This calculation will be confirmed during permit review but may very slightly
increase the required mitigation.
Finally, the combination of the two units exceeds the maximum unit size allowed for free-market
multi-family units in the Lodge Zone district. The cap can be increased from 1,500 to 2,000
square feet from through the landing of a Transferable Development Right removed from a
landmarked property. Landing of a TDR is an administrative review and does not require
approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The TDR is to be provided to Community
Development during permit review, after all calculations to ensure that the combined units are
within the limits has occurred.
17
1
LAND USE MEMORANDUM
TO:Michelle Thibeault, Community Development Department
FROM:Cindy Christensen, Deputy Director -APCHA
DATE:September 21, 2021
RE:Proposed Mitigation for 809 South Aspen Street
PROJECT
The applicant for the property located at 809 South Aspen Street, Shadow Mountain Village
Condominiums, is requesting to combine Units 17 and 18 into one unit.
BACKGROUND
The City requires affordable housing mitigation when multi-family residential units are combined.
The code considers the reduction as a demolition of a unit and requires provisions of replacement
unless the unit qualifies for an exemption.
DISCUSSION
The City adopted amendments to the multifamily replace code section of the Land Use Code in
2021.
26.470.100.D.1.b Fifty percent (50%) replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-
market multi-family housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the
number of previous units, bedrooms or net livable area as described above, the applicant shall
be required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%) of
the number of units, bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The replacement units
shall be deed-restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority. In summary, this option replaces the free-market units - with fifty
percent (50%) of the new units, bedrooms and net livable area allowed as free market units
and fifty percent (50%) of the new units, bedrooms and net livable area required as deed-
restricted, Category 4, affordable housing units. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved
pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100(c), Affordable housing.
When this fifty percent (50%) standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the
site may be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing
mitigation is provided pursuant to Section 26.470.080 - General Requirements, and there is no
increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in
excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section
26.470.100, subsection H or I, Residential Development - sixty percent (60%) or seventy
percent (70%) affordable as required.
The property is located in the Lodge (L) Zone District which does not allow affordable housing
units within a free-market multi-family residential building as a permitted use and are allowed in
18
2
the Lodge Zone District if specifically associated to a lodge use; therefore, the applicant is
requesting the ability to use the provisions of affordable housing credits as mitigation pursuant
to Section 26.470.100.D.3.
In calculating the required mitigation it is the most restrictive of the two methods as shown
below:
When calculating the number of credits that must be extinguished, the most restrictive
replacement measure shall apply. For example, for an applicant proposing to replace one
thousand (1,000) square foot three-bedroom unit at the fifty percent (50%) rate using credits,
the following calculations shall be used:
Fifty percent (50%) of one thousand (1,000) square feet = five hundred (500) square
feet to be replaced. At the Code mandated rate of one (1) FTE per four hundred (400)
square feet of net livable area, this requires the extinguishments of 1.25 credits; or
A three-bedroom unit = 3.0 FTE's. Fifty percent (50%) of 3.0 FTE's = 1.50 credits to be
extinguished.
Therefore, in the most restrictive application, the applicant must extinguish 1.50 credits to
replace a three-bedroom unit at the fifty percent (50%) rate. The credits to be extinguished
would be Category 4 credits.
Based on the applicant’s calculation, by combining two units, the mitigation requirement is
calculated as follows based on the Code and is the greater of each number:
1. One 2-bedroom unit = 2.25 @ 50% = 1.13 FTE’s, OR
2. 929 square feet of net livable @ 50%= 464.5 square feet ÷ 400 square feet per FTE =
1.16 FTE’s
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the Land Use Code, the applicant has the right to mitigate via the Affordable Housing Credit
Program and APCHA Staff is recommending approval withthe following conditions:
1.The applicant’s required mitigation is 1.16 FTE’s, of which needs to be verified by
the Community Development Department prior to building permit approval.
2.Proof must be provided of the required mitigation to the Building Department
prior to building permit approval of the verified mitigation requirement at
Category 4 has been satisfied.
19
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
July 26, 2021
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
c/o Jeffrey Barnhill
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Request to combine units at Shadow Mountain - 809 South Aspen Street
Dear Jeffrey and Aspen Planning & Zoning,
We respectfully request the ability to combine Units 17 and 18 of the Shadow Mountain Village
Condominium located at 809 South Aspen Street. The property is zoned Lodge (L) which allows
free market residential uses. Within the Lodge Zone District, net livable area (essentially interior
heated space) has a cap of 1,500sf that can be increased to 2,000sf per residential unit. The 500sf
net livable increase is achievable through the purchase and extinguishment of a Transferrable
Development Right (TDR). TDRs are sold on the open market in increments of 250sf of Floor Area
or 500sf of n livable area.
Units 17 and 18 are roughly 927 sf and 929 sf of net livable, respectively. The combination of these
units with a total of 1,874 sf is achievable through the purchase and landing of 1 TDR and approval
of housing mitigation via affordable housing credits for multi-family replacement (aka growth
management review).
Figure 2: Lower level of units 17 and 18 at Shadow Mountain
Village Condominium Plat recorded in 1965. Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder, Bk 3, Page 33.
Figure 1: 1965 photograph of Shadow Mountain just after construction.
20
Page | 2
Background
Lift 1 opened in 1946 along South Aspen Street becoming the world’s longest chair lift. The
neighborhood was transformed into tourist centered development around the ski lift. The Shadow
Mountain Village Condominium Apartments (then Shadow Mountain Condominiums) is located at
the western end of South Aspen Street, across from the Lift 1 terminus. The condos are built into
the hillside, stepping up the steep mountain slope. Designed in the Modern Chalet style by Donald
W. Kirk of Texas, the iconic condos have a traditional chalet aesthetic mixed with modern
construction techniques such as large windows in the gable end. Shadow Mountain was originally
condominiumized in 1965 and contains 21 individually owned units.
Growth Management/ Multifamily Replacement
The City requires affordable housing mitigation when multi-family residential units are combined.
The Land Use Code considers the reduction of overall density or number of units as the
“demolition” of one unit and requires the provision of multifamily replacement unless the units
qualify for an exemption.
The Land Use Code (26.470.100.8.c) exempts units that have been used exclusively as tourist
accommodations or by non-working residents. Occupancy records, leases, affidavits, or other
documentation to demonstrate that the units never housed a working resident are not available
to the current owners. Considering the 50+ years of occupancy on the property it is virtually
impossible to prove exempt status – the documentation just is not available.
The newly adopted 2021 amendments to the multifamily replacement section of the Land Use Code
are addressed below.
26.470.100.D.1.b Fifty percent (50%) replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-
market multi-family housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent (100%)
of the number of previous units, bedrooms or net livable area as described above, the
applicant shall be required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty
percent (50%) of the number of units, bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The
replacement units shall be deed-restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the
guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. In summary, this option replaces
the free-market units - with fifty percent (50%) of the new units, bedrooms and net livable
area allowed as free market units and fifty percent (50%) of the new units, bedrooms and
net livable area required as deed-restricted, Category 4, affordable housing units. An
applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each
replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100(c), Affordable
housing.
When this fifty percent (50%) standard is accomplished, the remaining development on
the site may be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable
housing mitigation is provided pursuant to Section 26.470.080 - General Requirements,
and there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-
market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed
pursuant to Section 26.470.100, subsection H or I, Residential Development - sixty percent
(60%) or seventy percent (70%) affordable as required.
21
Page | 3
Response – This project proposes to combine 2 units, 4 bedrooms (2 per unit), and 1,856 sf of
existing net livable area. The Lodge (L) Zone District does not allow affordable housing units
within a free market multi-family residential building as a permitted use. As such, this application
requests the ability to use the provision of affordable housing credits as mitigation pursuant to
Section 26.470.100.D.3.
26.470.100.D.3 Location requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-market
and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred,
unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines
that replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would
be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints.
When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum
number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the
site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location
determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission, or may replace the units
by extinguishing the requisite number of affordable housing credits, pursuant to Chapter
26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit.
When calculating the number of credits that must be extinguished, the most restrictive
replacement measure shall apply. For example, for an applicant proposing to replace one
thousand (1,000) square foot three-bedroom unit at the fifty percent (50%) rate using
credits, the following calculations shall be used:
Fifty percent (50%) of one thousand (1,000) square feet = five hundred (500)
square feet to be replaced. At the Code mandated rate of one (1) FTE per four
hundred (400) square feet of net livable area, this requires the extinguishments
of 1.25 credits; or
A three-bedroom unit = 3.0 FTE's. Fifty percent (50%) of 3.0 FTE's = 1.50 credits
to be extinguished.
Therefore, in the most restrictive application, the applicant must extinguish 1.50 credits
to replace a three-bedroom unit at the fifty percent (50%) rate. The credits to be
extinguished would be Category 4 credits.
Response – Shadow Mountain is located in the Lodge Zone District which does not allow
affordable housing in a multi-family residential project as a permitted use. This area has
historically always been intended for Tourist and Lodge accommodations (a complete zoning
history for the neighborhood is provided as Exhibit A). As such, multi-family affordable housing
units are only allowed as a Conditional Use.
Conditional Use review standards address consistency with the intent of the zone district,
compatibility with surrounding land uses, visual impacts, parking, and infrastructure impacts.
Affordable housing units in the Lodge Zone District are specifically only permitted when
accessory to a Lodge Use. The purpose of the Lodge Zone District is to “encourage construction,
renovation and operation of lodges, tourist-oriented multi-family buildings through short term
vacation rentals, high occupancy timeshare facilities and ancillary uses compatible with lodging
22
Page | 4
to support and enhance the City's resort economy. The City encourages high-occupancy lodging
development in this zone district.” Onsite affordable housing for a residential multi-family
building is inconsistent with the purpose of the zone district.
The existing free market building is condominiumized and there is no available limited common
element to construct an onsite deed restricted affordable housing unit. It is physically
inconceivable to add another unit to this condominiumized property which is perched on the
side of Aspen Mountain with high visibility, extra layers of review as an identified Environmentally
Sensitive Area through 8040 greenline and mountain view plane, and lack of parking and
circulation.
David and Allison propose affordable housing credit certificates as mitigation for the combination
of two free market units equal to 1.16 FTEs which is the higher mitigation requirement as shown
below.
Option 1) One 2-bedroom unit = 2.25 @ 50% = 1.13 FTEs
Option 2) 929 sf of net livable @ 50% = 464.5 sf/400 sf per FTE = 1.16 FTEs
The affordable housing credit certificate program supports offsite affordable housing projects
that meet APCHA and citywide goals. The Lift One neighborhood has focused on tourist
accommodations through free market residential unit rentals or lodge rooms. Affordable
housing units in this neighborhood within a wholly free market residential building conflict with
the purpose of the Lodge Zone District and APCHA’s preference for rental affordable housing
units in 100% deed restricted buildings.
We look forward to presenting this project. Please reach out with any questions or additional
information to aid in your review.
Kind Regards,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams, LLC
Exhibits
A – Neighborhood History
B – Application
C – Authorization to Represent
D – Proof of Ownership #17 and #18
E - Agree to Pay
F – HOA approval
G – Pre-application Summary
H – Vicinity Map
I - Land Use Drawings
23
Zoning History
These modern chalet style buildings are recognized through the Aspen Modern Program. There is limited
documentation available regarding land use review, zoning, or construction. The building permit file offers
some insight into upgrades and changes but primarily contains documents from the last thirty years.
While the original plats and maps of Aspen illustrate the town’s initial grid pattern (Figure 2), Aspen’s
zoning maps provide further clarification of the intent of use of the terminus of South Aspen Street. The
zoning in this area has changed over time but has kept a consistent intent.
The City of Aspen’s first zoning ordinance was adopted in July of 1956 which focused on separating
industrial and residential uses. Aspen’s first comprehensive planning document was published subsequent
to its first zoning map in 1963 (Figure 3) and focused on lodging and commercial development downtown
in Aspen’s core and at the base of the mountain.
Figure 2: 1896 City of Aspen Map
24
In 1963, the Shadow Mountain Village Condominium Apartments parcel was zoned Tourist. The City of
Aspen formalized its downtown and paved 14 blocks. The zoning was subsequently changed in the 1964,
to Accommodations Recreation.
The 1967 zoning map shows the inclusion of the ski areas across the southern side of town – in response
to the recently published planning documents – all of which was zoned AR-1 Accommodation Recreation
(Figure 4). This includes an entire area surrounding the parcel that would eventually be conservation area.
There is a significant shift in the 1967 map to distinguish between different types of residential,
commercial, and lodging zones.
Figure 4: 1967 Zoning Map
Figure 3: 1963 Zoning Map
25
In 1975, the zoning map indicates that the parcel where Shadow Mountain Village Condominium
Apartments is located was changed to Planned Unit Development Overlay District with a Lodge
Designation. The 1975 map also introduces the 8040 Greenline and Conservation zoning on lands adjacent
to the townhomes. The designation of this land as conservation begins to shift the use at the end of the
South Aspen Street to a restricted access point for adjacent properties and skiers for Lift 1A.
The 1983 zoning map represents one of the more significant changes to South Aspen Street with the
expansion of the Conservation Zone encroaching into the eastern portion of the right-of-way significantly
narrowing the remainder of the street.
Figure 5: 1975 Zoning Map
Figure 6: 1983 Zoning Map
26
The 1993 and 2000 AACP and associated zoning maps identify this narrowed area for year-round trail
access and recreation, which is illustrated by the green line in today’s zoning map below (Figure 7).
The changes to zoning over time create a cohesive narrative of the intent of use for South Aspen Street,
focusing on the tourist and ski economy and offering access points for year-round recreation for the
greater Aspen community.
Figure 7: 2019 Zoning Map
27
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions
Review: Administrative or Board Review
Required Land Use Review(s):
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
Net Leasable square footage Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units
Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage
Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Signed Fee Agreement
HOA Compliance form
All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary
Name:
Address:
Phone#: email:
Address:
Phone #: email:
Name:
Project Name and Address:
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
28
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Complete only if required by the PreApplication checklist
Project and Location
Applicant:
Zone District: Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area:
**Please refer to section 26.575.020 for information on how to calculate Net Lot Area
Please fill out all relevant dimensions
Single Family and Duplex Residential
1) Floor Area (square feet)
2) Maximum Height
3) Front Setback
4) Rear Setback
5) Side Setbacks
6) Combined Side Setbacks
7) % Site Coverage
Existing Allowed Proposed Multi-family Residential
1) Number of Units
2) Parcel Density (see 26.710.090.C.10)
3) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
4) Floor Area (square feet)
4) Maximum Height
5) Front Setback
6) Rear Setback
Existing Allowed Proposed
8) Minimum distance between buildings
Proposed % of demolition
7) Side Setbacks
Proposed % of demolition
Commercial
Proposed Use(s)
Existing Allowed Proposed
1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
2) Floor Area (square feet)
3) Maximum Height
4) Off-Street Parking Spaces
5) Second Tier (square feet)
6) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)
Proposed % of demolition
Existing non-conformities or encroachments:
Variations requested:
Lodge
Additional Use(s)
1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
2) Floor Area (square feet)
3) Maximum Height
4) Free Market Residential(square feet)
4) Front setback
5) Rear setback
6) Side setbacks
7) Off-Street Parking Spaces
8) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)
Proposed % of demolition
Existing Allowed Proposed
29
30
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
Date: March 11, 2021
Subject: Attached Title Policy DAVID RATAJCZAK AND ALLISON RATAJCZAK for 809 S ASPEN ST # 18, ASPEN,
CO 81611
Enclosed please find the Owner's Title Insurance Policy for your purchase of the property listed above.
This title policy is the final step in your real estate transaction, and we want to take a moment to remind you of its
importance. Please review all information in this document carefully and be sure to safeguard this policy along with
your other legal documents.
Your owner's policy insures you as long as you own the property and requires no additional premium payments.
Please feel free to contact any member of our staff if you have questions or concerns regarding your policy, or you
may contact Land Title Policy Team at (303) 850-4158 or finals@ltgc.com
As a Colorado-owned and operated title company for over 50 years, with offices throughout the state, we take pride
in serving our customers one transaction at a time. We sincerely appreciate your business and welcome the
opportunity to assist you with any future real estate needs. Not only will Land Title be able to provide you with the title
services quickly and professionally, but you may also be entitled to a discount on title premiums if you sell or
refinance the property described in the enclosed policy.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to work with you on this transaction. We look forward to serving you again in
the future.
Sincerely,
Land Title Guarantee Company
31
OWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE
ANY NOTICE OF CLAIM AND ANY OTHER NOTICE OR STATEMENT IN WRITING REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO THE COMPANY
UNDER THIS POLICY MUST BE GIVEN TO THE COMPANY AT THE ADDRESS SHOWN IN SECTION 18 OF THE CONDITIONS.
COVERED RISKS
SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND
THE CONDITIONS,OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, (the "Company"), insures, as of Date of Policy and, to
the extent stated in Covered Risks 9 and 10, after Date of Policy, against loss or damage, not exceeding the Amount of Insurance, sustained or incurred by the
Insured by reason of:
1. Title being vested other than as stated in Schedule A.
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title; This covered Risk includes but is not limited to insurance against loss from
a. A defect in the Title caused by
b. The lien of real estate taxes or assessments imposed on the Title by a governmental authority due or payable, but unpaid.
c. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and
complete land survey of the Land. The term "encroachment" includes encroachments of existing improvements located on the Land onto adjoining
land, and encroachments onto the Land of existing improvements located on adjoining land.
3. Unmarketable Title.
4. No right of access to and from the Land.
5. The violation or enforcement of any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting,
regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
if a notice, describing any part of the Land, is recorded in the Public Records setting forth the violation or intention to enforce, but only to the extent of the
violation or enforcement referred to in that notice.
6. An enforcement action based on the exercise of a governmental police power not covered by Covered Risk 5 if a notice of the enforcement action,
describing any part of the Land, is recorded in the Public Records, but only to the extent of the enforcement referred to in that notice.
7. The exercise of the rights of eminent domain if a notice of the exercise, describing any part of the Land, is recorded in the Public Records.
8. Any taking by a governmental body that has occurred and is binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without Knowledge.
9. Title being vested other than as stated in Schedule A or being defective
10. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the Title or other matter included in Covered Risks 1 through 9 that has been created or attached or has been
filed or recorded in the Public Records subsequent to Date of Policy and prior to the recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public
Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A. The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred in defense of any matter
insured against by this Policy, but only to the extent provided in the Conditions.
Issued by:
Land Title Guarantee Company
3033 East First Avenue Suite 600
Denver, Colorado 80206
303-321-1880
Senior Vice President
Copyright 2006-2021 American Land Title Association - All rights reserved. - The use of this form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good
standing as of the date of use. - All other uses are prohibited. - Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY Adopted 6-17-06
forgery, fraud, undue influence, duress, incompetency, incapacity, or impersonation;(i)
failure of any person or Entity to have authorized a transfer or conveyance;(ii)
a document affecting Title not properly created, executed, witnessed, sealed, acknowledged, notarized, or delivered;(iii)
failure to perform those acts necessary to create a document by electronic means authorized by law;(iv)
a document executed under a falsified, expired, or otherwise invalid power of attorney;(v)
a document not properly filed, recorded, or indexed in the Public Records including failure to perform those acts by electronic means
authorized by law; or
(vi)
a defective judicial or administrative proceeding.(vii)
the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the Land;(a)
the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land;(b)
the subdivision of land; or(c)
environmental protection(d)
as a result of the avoidance in whole or in part, or from a court order providing an alternative remedy, of a transfer of all or any part of the title to
or any interest in the Land occurring prior to the transaction vesting Title as shown in Schedule A because that prior transfer constituted a
fraudulent or preferential transfer under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws; or
(a)
because the instrument of transfer vesting Title as shown in Schedule A constitutes a preferential transfer under federal bankruptcy, state
insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws by reason of the failure of its recording in the Public Records
(b)
to be timely, or(i)
to impart notice of its existence to a purchaser for value or to a judgment or lien creditor.(ii)
32
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that
arise by reason of:
CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITION OF TERMS
The following terms when used in this policy mean:
2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE
The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in favor of an Insured, but only so long as the Insured retains an estate or interest in the Land,
or holds an obligation secured by a purchase money Mortgage given by a purchaser from the Insured, or only so long as the Insured shall have liability by reason of
warranties in any transfer or conveyance of the Title. This policy shall not continue in force in favor of any purchaser from the Insured of either (i) an estate or interest
in the Land, or (ii) an obligation secured by a purchase money Mortgage given to the Insured.
3. NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE GIVEN BY INSURED CLAIMANT
The Insured shall notify the Company promptly in writing (i) in case of any litigation as set forth in Section 5(a) of these Conditions, (ii) in case Knowledge shall come
to an Insured hereunder of any claim of title or interest that is adverse to the Title, as insured, and that might cause loss or damage for which the Company may be
(a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to(1)
the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;(i)
the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land;(ii)
the subdivision of land; or(iii)
environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or
limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage
provided under Covered Risk 6.
(iv)
Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.(2)
Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters(3)
created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant;(a)
not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the
Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy;
(b)
resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant;(c)
attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or(d)
resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title.(e)
Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in
Schedule A, is
(4)
a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or(a)
a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy.(b)
Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of
recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A.
(5)
"Amount of Insurance": The amount stated in Schedule A, as may be increased or decreased by endorsement to this policy, increased by Section 8(b) or
decreased by Sections 10 and 11 of these Conditions.
(a)
"Date of Policy": The date designated as "Date of Policy" in Schedule A.(b)
"Entity": A corporation, partnership, trust, limited liability company, or other similar legal entity.(c)
"Insured": The Insured named in Schedule A.(d)
The term "Insured" also includes(i)
successors to the Title of the Insured by operation of law as distinguished from purchase, including heirs, devisees, survivors, personal
representatives, or next of kin;
(A)
successors to an Insured by dissolution, merger, consolidation, distribution, or reorganization;(B)
successors to an Insured by its conversion to another kind of Entity;(C)
a grantee of an Insured under a deed delivered without payment of actual valuable consideration conveying the Title(D)
if the stock, shares, memberships, or other equity interests of the grantee are wholly-owned by the named Insured.(1)
if the grantee wholly owns the named Insured,(2)
if the grantee is wholly-owned by an affiliated Entity of the named Insured, provided the affiliated Entity and the named Insured are both wholly-
owned by the same person or Entity, or
(3)
if the grantee is a trustee or beneficiary of a trust created by a written instrument established by the Insured named in Schedule A for estate
planning purposes
(4)
With regard to (A), (B), (C), and (D) reserving, however, all rights and defensed as to any successor that the Company would have had against any
predecessor Insured.
(ii)
"Insured Claimant": An Insured claiming loss or damage.(e)
"Knowledge" or "Known": Actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge or notice that may be imputed to an Insured by reason of the Public Records or any
other records that impart constructive notice of matters affecting the Title.
(f)
"Land": The land described in Schedule A, and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term "Land" does not include any property beyond
the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenue, alleys, lanes, ways, or
waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is insured by this policy.
(g)
"Mortgage": Mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.(h)
"Public Records": Records established under state statutes at Date of Policy for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property
to purchasers for value and without Knowledge. With respect to Covered Risk 5(d), "Public Records" shall also include environmental protection liens filed in the
records of the clerk of the United States District Court for the district where the Land is located.
(i)
"Title": The estate or interest described in Schedule A. "Unmarketable Title": Title affected by an alleged or apparent matter that would permit a prospective
purchaser or lessee of the Title or lender on the Title to be released from the obligation to purchase, lease, or lend if there is a contractual condition requiring
the delivery of marketable title.
(j)
33
liable by virtue of this policy, or (iii) if the Title, as insured, is rejected as Unmarketable Title. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the Insured Claimant to
provide prompt notice, the Company's liability to the Insured Claimant under the policy shall be reduced to the extent of the prejudice.
4. PROOF OF LOSS
In the event the Company is unable to determine the amount of loss or damage, the Company may, at its option, require as a condition of payment that the Insured
Claimant furnish a signed proof of loss. The proof of loss must describe the defect, lien, encumbrance, or other matter insured against by this policy that constitutes
the basis of loss or damage and shall state, to the extent possible, the basis of calculating the amount of the loss or damage.
5. DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS
(a) Upon written request by the Insured, and subject to the options contained in Section 7 of these Conditions, the Company, at its own cost and without unreasonable
delay, shall provide for the defense of an Insured in litigation in which any third party asserts a claim covered by this policy adverse to the Insured. This obligation is
limited to only those stated causes of action alleging matters insured against by this policy. The Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice (subject to
the right of the Insured to object for reasonable cause) to represent the Insured as to those stated causes of action. It shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of
any other counsel. The Company will not pay any fees, costs, or expenses incurred by the Insured in the defense of those causes of action that allege matters not
insured against by this policy.
(b) The Company shall have the right, in addition to the options contained in Section 7 of these Conditions, at its own cost, to institute and prosecute any action or
proceeding or to do any other act that in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the Title, as insured, or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the
Insured. The Company may take any appropriate action under the terms of this policy, whether or not it shall be liable to the Insured. The exercise of these rights
shall not be an admission of liability or waiver of any provision of this policy. If the Company exercises its rights under this subsection, it must do so diligently.
(c) Whenever the Company brings an action or asserts a defense as required or permitted by this policy, the Company may pursue the litigation to a final
determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and it expressly reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to appeal any adverse judgment or order.
6. DUTY OF INSURED CLAIMANT TO COOPERATE
(a) In all cases where this policy permits or requires the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding and any appeals, the Insured
shall secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide defense in the action or proceeding, including the right to use, at its option, the name of the Insured
for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, the Insured, at the Company's expense, shall give the Company all reasonable aid (i) in securing evidence,
obtaining witnesses, prosecuting or defending the action or proceeding, or effecting settlement, and (ii) in any other lawful act that in the opinion of the Company may
be necessary or desirable to establish the Title or any other matter as insured. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the Insured to furnish the required
cooperation, the Company's obligation to the Insured under the policy shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any
litigation, with regard to the matter or matters requiring such cooperation.
(b) The Company may reasonably require the Insured Claimant to submit to examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company and to produce
for examination, inspection, and copying, at such reasonable times and places as may be designated by the authorized representative of the Company, all records, in
whatever medium maintained, including books, ledgers, checks, memoranda, correspondence, reports, e-mails, disks, tapes, and videos whether bearing a date
before or after Date of Policy, that reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Further, if requested by any authorized representative of the Company, the Insured
Claimant shall grant its permission, in writing, for any authorized representative of the Company to examine, inspect, and copy all of these records in the custody or
control of a third party that reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. All information designated as confidential by the Insured Claimant provided to the Company
pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the Company, it is necessary in the administration of the claim. Failure
of the Insured Claimant to submit for examination under oath produce any reasonably requested information, or grant permission to secure reasonably necessary
information from third parties as required in this subsection, unless prohibited by law or governmental regulation, shall terminate any liability of the Company under
this policy as to that claim.
7. OPTIONS TO PAY OR OTHERWISE SETTLE CLAIMS; TERMINATION OF LIABILITY
In case of a claim under this policy, the Company shall have the following additional options:
(a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Insurance. To pay or tender payment of the Amount of Insurance under this policy together with any costs, attorneys'
fees, and expenses incurred by the Insured Claimant that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment or tender of payment and that the Company is
obligated to pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of this option, all liability and obligations of the Company to the Insured under this policy, other than to make the
payment required in the subsection, shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation.
(b) To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other Than the Insured or With the Insured Claimant.
8. DETERMINATION AND EXTENT OF LIABILITY
This policy is a contract of indemnity against actual monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred by the Insured Claimant who has suffered loss or damage by
reason of matters insured against by this policy.
(a) The extent of liability of the Company for loss or damage under this policy shall not exceed the lesser of
To pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or in the name of an Insured Claimant any claim insured against under this policy. In addition, the Company will
pay any costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred by the Insured Claimant that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and that the
Company is obligated to pay; or
(i)
To pay or otherwise settle with the Insured Claimant the loss or damage provided for under this policy, together with any costs, attorneys' fees, and expensed
incurred by the Insured Claimant that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay. Upon the exercise
by the Company of either of the options provided for in subsections (b)(i) or (ii), the Company's obligations to the Insured under this policy for the claimed loss
or damage, other than the payments required to be made, shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation.
(ii)
the Amount of Insurance; or(i)
the difference between the value of the Title as insured and the value of the Title subject to the risk insured against by this policy.(ii)
34
(b) If the Company pursues its rights under Section 5 of these Conditions and is unsuccessful in establishing the Title, as insured,
(c) In addition to the extent of liability under (a) and (b), the Company will also pay those costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred in accordance with Sections 5
and 7 of these Conditions.
9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
(a) If the Company establishes the Title, or removes the alleged defect, lien, or encumbrance, or cures the lack of a right of access to or from the Land, or cures the
claim of Unmarketable Title, all as insured, in a reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of any appeals, it shall have fully
performed its obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused to the Insured.
(b) In the event of any litigation, including litigation by the Company or with the Company's consent, the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there
has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals, adverse to the Title, as insured.
(c) The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to the Insured for liability voluntarily assumed by the Insured in settling any claim or suit without the prior
written consent of the Company.
10. REDUCTION OF INSURANCE; REDUCTION OR TERMINATION OF LIABILITY
All payments under this policy, except payments made for costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses, shall reduce the Amount of Insurance by the amount of the payment.
11. LIABILITY NONCUMULATIVE
The Amount of Insurance shall be reduced by any amount the Company pays under any policy insuring a Mortgage to which exception is taken in Schedule B or to
which the Insured has agreed, assumed, or taken subject, or which is executed by an Insured after Date of Policy and which is a charge or lien on the Title, and the
amount so paid shall be deemed a payment to the Insured under this policy.
12. PAYMENT OF LOSS
When liability and the extent of loss or damage have been definitely fixed in accordance with these Conditions, the payment shall be made within 30 days.
13. RIGHTS OF RECOVERY UPON PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT
(a) Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this policy, it shall be subrogated and entitled to the rights of the Insured Claimant in the Title
and all other rights and remedies in respect to the claim that the Insured Claimant has against any person or property, to the extent of the amount of any loss, costs,
attorneys' fees, and expenses paid by the Company. If requested by the Company, the Insured Claimant shall execute documents to evidence the transfer to the
Company of these rights and remedies. The Insured Claimant shall permit the Company to sue, compromise, or settle in the name of the Insured Claimant and to use
the name of the Insured Claimant in any transaction or litigation involving these rights and remedies. If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss
of the Insured Claimant, the Company shall defer the exercise of its right to recover until after the Insured Claimant shall have recovered its loss.
(b) The Company's right of subrogation includes the rights of the Insured to indemnities, guaranties, other policies of insurance, or bonds, notwithstanding any terms
or conditions contained in those instruments that address subrogation rights.
14. ARBITRATION
Either the Company or the Insured may demand that the claim or controversy shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the
American Land Title Association ("Rules"). Except as provided in the Rules, there shall be no joinder or consolidation with claims or controversies of other persons,
Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the Insured arising out of or relating to this policy, any
service in connection with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision, or to any other controversy or claim arising out of the transaction giving rise to this policy. All
arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured. All arbitrable matters
when the Amount of Insurance is in excess of $2,000,000 shall be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the Insured. Arbitration pursuant to this
policy and under the Rules shall be binding upon the parties. Judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court of competent
jurisdiction.
15. LIABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY; POLICY ENTIRE CONTRACT
(a) This policy together with all endorsements, if any, attached to it by the Company is the entire policy and contract between the Insured and the Company. In
interpreting any provision of this policy, this policy shall be construed as a whole.
(b) Any claim or loss or damage that arises out of the status of the Title or by any action asserting such claim shall be restricted to this policy.
(c) Any amendment of or endorsement to this policy must be in writing and authenticated by an authorized person, or expressly incorporated by Schedule A of this
policy.
(d) Each endorsement to this policy issued at any time is made a part of this policy and is subject to all of its terms and provisions. Except as the endorsement
expressly states, it does not (i) modify any of the terms and provisions of the policy, (ii) modify any prior endorsement, (iii) extend the Date of Policy, or (iv) increase
the Amount of Insurance.
the Amount of Insurance shall be increased by 10%, and(i)
the Insured Claimant shall have the right to have the loss or damage determined either as of the date the claim was made by the Insured Claimant or as of the
date it is settled and paid.
(ii)
35
16. SEVERABILITY
In the event any provision of this policy, in whole or in part, is held invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, the policy shall be deemed not to include that
provision or such part held to be invalid, but all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
17. CHOICE OF LAW; FORUM
(a) Choice of Law; The Insured acknowledges the Company has underwritten the risks covered by this policy and determined the premium charged therefor in
reliance upon the law affecting interests in real property and applicable to the interpretation, rights, remedies, or enforcement of policies of title insurance of the
jurisdiction where the Land is located. Therefore, the court or an arbitrator shall apply the law of the jurisdiction where the Land is located to determine the validity of
claims against the Title that are adverse to the Insured and to interpret and enforce the terms of this policy. In neither case shall the court or arbitrator apply its
conflicts of law principles to determine the applicable law.
(b) Choice of Forum; Any litigation or other proceeding brought by the Insured against the Company must be filed only in a state or federal court within the United
States of America or its territories having appropriate jurisdiction.
18. NOTICES, WHERE SENT
Any notice of claim and any other notice or statement in writing required to be given to the Company under this policy must be given to the Company at: 400 Second
Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612)371-1111.
ANTI-FRAUD STATEMENT: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), it is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an insurance
company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance and civil damages. Any
insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for
the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be
reported to the Colorado division of insurance within the department of regulatory agencies.
This anti-fraud statement is affixed to and made a part of this policy.
36
Order Number: Q62012172 Policy No.: OX62012172.3430946
Amount of Insurance: $1,705,000.00
Property Address:
809 S ASPEN ST # 18, ASPEN, CO 81611
1. Policy Date:
February 01, 2021 at 5:00 P.M.
2. Name of Insured:
DAVID RATAJCZAK AND ALLISON RATAJCZAK
3. The estate or interest in the Land described in this Schedule and which is covered by this policy is:
A FEE SIMPLE
4. Title to the estate or interest covered by this policy at the date is vested in:
DAVID RATAJCZAK AND ALLISON RATAJCZAK
5. The Land referred to in this Policy is described as follows:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 18, SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS, ACCORDING TO
THE CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF RECORDED JULY 12, 1965 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 33, AND AS
FURTHER DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR SHADOW MOUNTAIN
VILLAGE APARTMENTS RECORDED JULY 12, 1965 IN BOOK 214 AT PAGE 28, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE
OF COLORADO.
Copyright 2006-2021 American Land Title Association. All Rights Reserved The use of this Form is
restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other
uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule A
37
This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following:
1.Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be
ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.
2.Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
3.Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that
would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public
Records.
4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by
law and not shown by the Public Records.
5.(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the
issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water.
6.2021 TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS NOT YET DUE OR PAYABLE.
7.RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM
SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN
UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED AUGUST 26, 1949, IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE 208.
8.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT FOR WATER SERVICE BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE RECORDED JANUARY 11, 2063 IN BOOK 211 AT PAGE 158
AS RECEPTION NO. 119704.
9.RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT
OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX,
SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL
ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL
LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY
APPLICABLE LAW, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JULY 12, 1965, IN BOOK 214 AT PAGE
28 AND AMENDED AND RESTATED CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION RECORDED APRIL 1, 2009 UNDER
RECEPTION NO. 557704 AND FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED CONDOMINIUM
DECLARATION RECORDED SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 562681 AND SECOND
AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED AUGUST 26, 2020 AS RECEPTION NO. 667409.
10.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION RECORDED JULY 26, 1965
IN BOOK 214 AT PAGE 178.
11.EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS SET FORTH ON THE MAP FOR SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS RECORDED JULY 12, 1965 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 33.
12.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF NOTICE OF HOUSE RULES RECORDED JULY 30, 1979 IN
BOOK 373 AT PAGE 343.
13.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, BURDENS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN REVOCABLE
ENCROACHMENT LICENSE RECORDED OCTOBER 31, 2007 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 543674.
14.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF STATEMENT OF ELECTION TO ACCEPT COLORADO
COMMON INTEREST OWNERSHIP ACT RECORDED APRIL 01, 2009 AT RECEPTION NO. 557703.
15.EASEMENTS, NOTES, RIGHTS OF WAY AND ALL MATTERS AS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT &
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY RECORDED DECEMBER 20, 2018 IN PLAT BOOK 124 AT PAGE 59.
16.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN NOTICE OF APPROVAL
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 4, 2020 AS RECEPTION NO. 667844.
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
(Schedule B)
Order Number: Q62012172 Policy No.: OX62012172.3430946
38
17.DEED OF TRUST DATED JANUARY 29, 2021, FROM DAVID RATAJCZAK AND ALLISON RATAJCZAK TO
THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO FOR THE USE OF REGIONS BANK D/B/A
REGIONS MORTGAGE, TO SECURE THE SUM OF $1,000,000.00 RECORDED FEBRUARY 01, 2021,
UNDER RECEPTION NO. 673088.
ANY EXISTING LEASES AND TENANCIES.
ITEM NOS. 1 THROUGH 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ARE HEREBY DELETED.
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
(Schedule B)
Order Number: Q62012172 Policy No.: OX62012172.3430946
39
Endorsement 107.12-06
Change Date of Policy
Endorsement
Attached to Policy No. LTJI62009624.992444
Our Order No. 62009624
Issued By Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
The effective Date of Policy is hereby changed from DECEMBER 21, 2018 to
JUNE 18, 2021.
The Company hereby insures:
1. That, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, there are no liens, encumbrances or other matters shown by
the Public Records, affecting said estate or interest, other than those shown in said policy, except:
RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST RECORDED AUGUST 11, 2020 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 666898.
NOTICE OF APPROVAL RECORDED SEPTEMBER 4, 2020 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 667844.
DEED OF TRUST RECORDED FEBRUARY 12, 2021 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 673532.
2. That, as shown by the Public Records, the Title to said estate or interest is vested in the vestees shown in
Schedule A.
ALLISON RATAJCZAK AND DAVID RATAJCZAK
Dated: JUNE 18, 2021
This endorsement is issued as part of the Policy. Except as it expressly states, it does not (i) modify any of the terms
and provisions of the Policy, (ii) modify any prior endorsements, (iii) extend the Date of Policy, or (iv) increase the
Amount of Insurance. To the extent a provision of the Policy or a previous endorsement is inconsistent with an express
provision of this endorsement, this endorsement controls. Otherwise, this endorsement is subject to all of the terms
and provisions of the Policy and of any prior endorsements.
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
By: LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
By:
Craig B. Rants, Senior Vice President
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
From:Sara Adams
To:Sara Adams
Subject:HOA consent for Land Use App
Date:Tuesday, July 20, 2021 1:00:44 PM
From: Susan Spalding <susan@spaldingmgt.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 12:57 PM
To: Karen Hartman <karen@kabert.com>; Allison Ratajczak <allisonratajczak@gmail.com>
Cc: Sara Adams <sara@bendonadams.com>
Subject: RE: HOA consent for Land Use App
Dear Sara:
The Shadow Mountain Homeowners Association understands that Allison and David Ratajczak are
interested in combining Units 17 and 18. The City of Aspen requires verification from the HOA that
the proposed application is not in conflict with the HOA governing documents. While the HOA is not
prepared to approve the combination of Units until the City of Aspen has granted approval for the
project through the land use review process, the HOA is consenting to the application with the
understanding that HOA approval will occur after the City of Aspen review process. The HOA
governing documents do not preclude combining of units, as Units 5 and 6 were combined years
ago.
Please let me know if you have further questions.
Regards,
Susan W. Spalding
Association Manager for Shadow Mountain Homeowners Association
Spalding Management Services, LLC
P.O. Box 49
Aspen, CO 81612
(970) 925-9131 (office)
(970) 948-1044 (cell)
Susan@SpaldingMgt.com
66
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
Pre-21-077
DATE: June 11, 2021
PLANNER: Jeff Barnhill, 970.429.2752
PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: 809 S. Aspen Street | GMQS Review – Multi-Family Replacement
PARCEL ID#: Unit 17 – 273513124021 / Unit 18 – 273513124019
REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, BendonAdams | sara@bendonadams.com
DESCRIPTION: 809 S. Aspen Street is located in the Lodge (L) zone district & within the 8040 Greenline review area. The
property contains twenty-one condominium units and common area improvements including decks, an inground pool,
walkways, landscaped areas and retaining walls. The applicant plans to combine units 17 and 18 at the Shadow
Mountain Townhomes. The applicants expect the combination of units 17 and 18 to require the landing of a TDR.
According to the applicant, the units cannot prove that they were only used as tourist accommodation or by non-
working locals so are expecting multi-family replacement requirements to combine units. The applicant states that this
will be an interior only project and will not affect the exterior of the building. An updated condo plat will be included as
a condition of approval.
The maximum allowable net livable area per unit in the Lodge zone district is 1,500 square feet. The extinguishment of
a TDR would allow the maximum net livable area to increase from 1,500 square feet to 2,000 square feet for the unit.
Additionally, the applicant would like to request P&Z to consider the use of housing credits to meet the affordable
housing mitigation requirements. That option is provided for in Section 26.470.100.100.d(4) Location requirement. The
applicant must demonstrate, and the Planning and Zoning Commission determine that the replacement of units on site
would be in conflict with the parcel’s zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site’s physical constraints.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
Section Number Section Title
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.470 GMQS
26.470.100.D GMQS – Multi-Family Replacement
26.710.190 Lodge (L) Zone District
26.575.020 Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations
For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:
Land Use Application Land Use Code
REVIEW BY: Community Development Staff for complete application and recommendation
APCHA for recommendation on Mitigation request
P&Z for Decision
PUBLIC HEARING: Yes
PLANNING FEES: $3,250 deposit for 10 hours of staff time (additional hours will be billed at $325/hr)
REFERRAL FEES: $325 deposit for 1 hour APCHA review (additional hours will be billed at $325/hr)
TOTAL DEPOSIT: $3,575.00
67
2
APPLICATION CHECKLIST – PLEASE EMAIL THESE ITMES IN A PDF FORMAT TO:
JEFFREY.BARNHILL@CITYOFASPEN.COM
Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
HOA Compliance form (Attached to Application)
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating
the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to action on behalf of the
applicant.
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of
a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and
encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all
owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Existing and proposed floor plans including existing and proposed net livable calculations.
A written description of the proposed work.
An explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the project complies with the review standards
relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.
If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:
Total deposit for review of the application.
Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the
application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail requesting
submission of an electronic copy of the complete application and the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the
case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current
zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate.
The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
68
PD
LP PD
LP PD
L PD
PD
PD
LP PD
PD
PD
LP PD
PD
LP PD
DRAIN/TRANS
PD
PD
L
L
L
C
L
L
L
L
R-15
C
L
R/MF
C
AH
R-15
E S
N
A
R
K
S
T
E JU
A
N
I
T
A
S
T
SUM
M
I
T
S
T
S GA
L
E
N
A
S
T
S MILL STS MILL STASPEN MTN CUTOFF RDS ASPEN STGILB
E
R
T
S
T
ASPEN MTN CUTOFF RDS MONARCH STDEA
N
S
T
S MONARCH STS MILL STS ASPEN STS MONARCH STE CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
E DUR
A
N
T
A
V
E
S ASPEN STS MILL STE DU
R
A
N
T
A
V
E
DEAN
S
T
ASPEN MTN RDDEA
N
S
TS GARMISCH STJUAN
S
T
E COOPE
R
A
V
E
S GARMISCH STDate: 7/20/2021
Geographic Information Systems
This map/drawing/image is a graphical
representation of the features
depicted and is not a legal representation.
The accuracy may change
depending on the enlargement or reduction.
Copyright 2021 City of Aspen GIS
0 0.04 0.070.02
mi
When printed at 8.5"x11"
4
Legend
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
Emissions Inventory Boundary
(EIB)
City of Aspen
Greenline 8040
Stream Margin
Hallam Bluff ESA
Historic Sites
Historic Districts
Parcels
Zone Overlay
DRAINAGE
LP PD
DRAIN/TRANS
GCS PD
L PD
LP
PD
Zoning
R-3 High Density Residential
AH Affordable Housing
R/MF Residential/Multi-Family
R/MFA Residential/Multi-Family
R-6 Medium Density Residential
R-15 Moderate Density
Residential
R-15-A Moderate Density
Residential
R-15B Moderate Density
Residential
R-30 Low Density Residential
RR Rural Residential
L Lodge
CL Commercial Lodge
CC Commercial Core
C-1 Commercial
SCI Service Commercial
Industrial
NC Neighborhood Commercial
MU Mixed Use
SKI Ski Area Base
C Conservation
OS Open Space
P Park
Scale: 1:3,535
Shadow Mountain
Vicinity Map
69
70
71
72
1
Planning and Zoning Committee –
I would like to voice my support for Allison and David Ratajczak to combine Units 17 and 18 at
Shadow Mountain Townhomes, located at 809 S. Aspen Street.
My family is an original owner in this complex from the 1960’s, purchased another unit in 1995,
and I have served as HOA Board President for many years. Allison and David immediately
worked to become part of our community upon their purchase of Unit 17 a few years ago. They
got to know their neighbors, and their home has now become a wonderful gathering spot for
our complex. Additionally, Allison now serves on the HOA Board of Managers and has
spearheaded several projects on behalf of our community. We are thrilled they now live at
Shadow Mountain full time.
She and David plan to live in Shadow Mountain for many years and we support combining these
two units to make it possible for them to continue to be our neighbors in a slightly larger
space. Units 5 and 6 in the complex were combined over 10 years ago with pleasing results for
both the owners and the HOA. The combined square footage would be approximately 1800 sq
ft – a fair size for a full-time residence.
Thank you for your consideration. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you would like to
discuss further.
Regards,
Karen Hartman
Units 3 and 4
President
Board of Managers
Shadow Mountain Townhome Association
809 S. Aspen St.
Home – 970-429-8553
Mobile - 630-988-2230
karen@kabert.com
73
2
Members of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Committee;
We are writing to express our enthusiastic support for permitting Allison and David Ratajczak to
combine units 17 and 18 at Shadow Mountain Townhomes. We have owned unit 12 at the
complex for over 13 years.
Since moving to Aspen, the Ratajczaks have become "locals" -- stalwart members of the
Shadow Mountain and larger Aspen communities, joining clubs like the Smuggler Racquet Club
and volunteering their time at local organizations. Allison serves on the boards of the Aspen
Historical Society and our HOA. Unlike many who pop in and out of town seasonally, Allison
and David have truly made Aspen their year-around home.
Aspen draws people like the Ratajczaks to make their home here in part because it is not a
constructed mountain resort town... it is a real town inhabited by engaged, active people
committed to ensuring that Aspen remains first and foremost an exceptional community in
which to live. But that attraction depends in part on the ability of people like the Ratajczaks to
acquire or create a normal-sized home in a town that is increasingly overrun with overbuilt
second and third "homes" for the ultra, ultra rich, which are unoccupied for most of the year.
Allowing Allison and David to combine two tiny condos to create one modest home (one that
will be in the ballpark of 1800 square feet at best) is an entirely reasonable and
smart decision... one that acknowledges the importance of full-time residents in maintaining
Aspen's unique position in the world.
Sincerely,
Kevin Messina and James R. Brown, Jr.
Unit 12, Shadow Mountain Town Homes
809 S. Aspen St.
74
3
Dear P&Z Commissioners,
We understand that our neighbors the Ratajczaks want to combine two adjacent units they
own in our Shadow Mountain Town Homes complex.
We are delighted at the prospect of this! It will go a long way to curing the major downside of
our units, which is their extremely small size!
I’ve owned my unit at Shadow mountain for just under 40 years, and my only regret is it’s lack
of space!
We know we are extremely fortunate to live high on Ajax Mountain; by granting this request we
believe the Commission will enhance the experience of all the owners in the complex by
reducing the number of people living in an extremely limited space.
There is, for example, likely to be a little less pressure on our under-capacity parking lot as well
as other shared amenities of the complex.
But there is more: from day one of their arrival, the Ratajczaks have been active participants in
the life of Shadow Mountain town homes.
Allison has served as chair of our Rules and Regulations Committee, and she and David provided
important analytic counsel as we worked through the economics of a Façade renovation for the
complex.
She most recently won a seat on our Board.
We would hate to lose Allison and David as owners in our complex!
We urge the P&Z to approve their plans to join their two units.
Sincerely,
Alex Biel,
Unit 21
Board Member
75
4
November 23, 2021
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
City of Aspen
130 S Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
To the Commission Members:
We are writing in full support of the application of Allison and David Ratajczak to combine units
#17 and #18 of Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums at 809 S. Aspen Street. We own unit
#16 in the same complex and can truthfully say that Allison and David are exceptional neighbors
who have brought a new sense of community to Shadow Mountain since they moved in.
As some of the only full-time residents of Shadow Mountain, they truly are the “glue” that
keeps our little community feeling connected to each other and that make the rest of us want
to figure out a way to become full-time residents! Having recently sold their home in Atlanta,
Allison and David are definitely committed to making Aspen their permanent home, so we
believe that combining their two small units into a single modest sized unit is extremely
reasonable.
We are unable to attend the public hearing on December 7 but felt it was important to share
our views prior to the meeting. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Rania & Pat Dempsey
Unit 16, Shadow Mountain Town Homes
809 S. Aspen St.
262.719.3037
raniadempsey@gmail.com
pkdempsey63@gmail.com
76
5
To the P&Z Committee:
I am the owner of Shadow Mountain #15 and I am writing on behalf of Allison and David
Ratajczak and their desire to combine units 17 and 18 at Shadow Mountain.
My parents bought our unit when it was under construction in 1963 and my family has been
coming to Aspen for multiple weeks every year since. As such, we are the longest owners at
Shadow Mountain and out townhome and Aspen holds a very special place in our hearts.
I have known Allison, and her husband David, for several years, they are great people and I am
in complete support of their desire to combine units 17 and 18.
Allison and David live year-round in Aspen and each unit is very small (around 900 square feet),
especially for someone living there almost full time.
Allison and David have been great neighbors and Shadow Mountain residents and Allison is a
member of our homeowners Association board, as am I, and she and David have been a great
addition to the Shadow Mountain family.
Being an end unit, combining these units would fit in very well and have just 1 neighbor, as it
does today. One other owner, who also spends a large amount of time in Aspen, previously
combined 2 units (with one unit also being an end unit) and this has worked out very well and
fits in well with the rest of the complex.
For all of these reasons, I am in total support of Allison’s plan to combine units 17 and 18 and
believe that the other residents of Shadow Mountain feel similarly.
Thank you very much,
Bill Seelbach
Unit 15
Shadow Mountain Town Home
809 S. Aspen St.
77