HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo_St. Regis_PD Amendment_Second Reading
Page | 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Kevin Rayes, Principal Planner
Haley Hart, Long-Range Planner
THRU: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: October 30, 2023
RE: 2nd Reading | Ordinance #18 | The St. Regis (315 E. Dean St.)
Minor Amendment to a Planned Development for Project Review |
Commercial Design Review | Growth Management Review
NOTE: On October 30th, Council is reviewing two separate and distinct
requests relating to temporary/seasonal uses at the St. Regis. The requests
are separated because they trigger different sections of the Land Use Code
– one requires approval via ordinance and the other via resolution.
APPLICANTS:
Aspen Owner, LLC c/o St. Regis Aspen
Resort
LOCATION:
The St. Regis Resort (315 E. Dean St.)
CURRENT ZONING:
Lodge (L) with a Planned development
Overlay (PD)
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
The Applicant is seeking a Minor Amendment
to a Planned Development for Project review,
Growth Management Review, and
Commercial Design Review to allow for the
ability to erect seasonal structures and to
install fencing that exceeds height limitations
prescribed pursuant to underlying zoning.
SUMMARY FROM FIRST READING:
On October 10th, Council approved
Ordinance #18, Series of 2023 on First
Reading and set a public hearing for October
30th.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the request to amend the PD
to allow for seasonal structures and for the
installation of renewable energy equipment
subject to certain conditions. Staff does not
support the proposed request for fencing and
recommends all fence height be no greater
than the minimum height required to meet
building code.
Figure 1: The St. Regis (315 E. Dean St.)
Figure 2: Site Location
Page | 2
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
The Applicant requests approval of the following land use reviews:
Minor Amendment to Project Review (Land Use Code Section 26.445.110.D)
The Applicant requests a Minor Amendment to a Planned Development for Project Review for
the following:
1. Amend the PD to accommodate up to three seasonal structures for up to 150 days
each year.
2. Install renewable energy equipment including solar panels and electric vehicle
charging stations.
3. Install a fence that exceeds height limitations prescribed pursuant to Title 26 of the
Land Use Code along Monarch Street.
• Fences located between buildings and streets shall not be taller than 42 inches
in height. The Applicant seeks a variation from this standard (triggering a PD
amendment) and to set its own dimensional standards per a PD amendment to
maintain existing fencing, erected without permits or land use approvals, ranging
in height from 6 feet to 10 feet.
Growth Management Review (Land Use Code Section 26.470.050)
Applicants who believe the employee generation rate is different than what is prescribed in the
Land Use Code may request an employee generation review. In this instance, the Applicant
believes that the employees generated from the proposed seasonal structures vary from the
mitigation required for commercial uses and temporary uses. Staff will address this topic in the
discussion section of the memo.
Commercial Design Review (Land Use Code Section 26.412)
Temporary/seasonal structures located within the Lodge (L) zone district are subject to
Commercial Design review. The standards are intended to ensure appropriate building mass
and to foster well-designed and meaningful open space that conveys human scale, provides
relief from the built environment, and preserves historic neighborhood context.
Fencing design within the Mountain Base character area of the Commercial Design Standards
is not explicitly called out, but standards around retaining walls and pedestrian experience
along the street apply to this request. The standards are intended to integrate development
proposals into neighborhood context and provide a sense of place for pedestrians.
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL QUESTIONS FROM FIRST READING:
On October 10th, Council approved Ordinance #18, Series of 2023 at First Reading to set a public
hearing date for October 30th. Council requested additional information on several aspects of the
application. Below are preliminary responses to Council’s inquiries. Staff and the Applicant team
will be prepared to provide additional information at Second Reading.
Council requested additional information on the following topics:
1. Seasonal enclosures:
a. Affordable housing mitigation – What units did the St. Regis use as mitigation? Which
of these units are still owned by the St. Regis?
Staff response: The deed-restrictions associated with four of the affordable housing
units – Alpina Haus (935 E. Durant), Copper Horse (330 W. Main), Grand Aspen (400
E. Dean), and Ute City Place (909 E. Cooper) – are set to expire in approximately twelve
Page | 3
years (around 2035). These units represent the mitigation for 129.5 FTEs when the PD
was developed. Following their expiration, only the mitigation from Hunter Longhouse
(101 Lone Pine Road) will remain (representing 69 FTEs). To the best of Staff’s
knowledge, none of the units are currently owned by the St. Regis.
b. Usage of the dome – what uses will be allowed within the dome?
Staff response: The St. Regis is located within the Lodge (L) zone district. Staff
supports the request to amend the PD to accommodate seasonal structures – including
the dome – with the condition that use of the structures is limited to those allowed by-
right pursuant to underlying zoning. This condition is intended to ensure that structures
align with existing operations of the resort.
One applicable use that is permitted by-right within the Lodge zone district includes
“Accessory uses and structures. (Food service for onsite lodge guests is an accessory
use)”. Accommodating this use within a seasonal structure would allow an existing
restaurant to supplement operations or allow the resort to accommodate one-off events
such as corporate retreats or weddings.
Conversely, Conditional Uses in the Lodge zone district require additional board-level
review and approval and are not part of this application. One such use includes “Retail
and restaurant uses,” which would allow a third-party retail shop or restaurant to operate
within one of the seasonal structures. Again, Staff does not support seasonal structures
that accommodate uses that are unaffiliated with existing lodge operations without
Conditional Use review.
2. Renewable energy Equipment – please provide more information about the renewable
energy that is proposed.
Staff response: The Applicant is prepared to provide additional information regarding the
renewable energy that is proposed as part of the development at Second Reading.
3. Fence variation – Did the Applicant team contemplate or propose design alternatives for the
fence?
Staff response: A design alternative has not been proposed. The Applicant believes a taller
fence is needed to discourage trespassers and prevent wildlife from entering the property.
With that said, the Applicant is prepared to design a fence that meets the height limitations
established by Council.
Additional Information for Council Consideration:
1. Staffs proposed condition for affordable housing mitigation:
The Applicant team disagrees with Staff’s assessment that additional mitigation should be
exacted for seasonal structures, because as represented in the housing audit, the resort
already meets mitigation requirements.
Staff agrees with the Applicant that housing mitigation has been met for existing development.
However, seasonal/temporary structures were never contemplated when the PD was originally
conceived and are thus considered tantamount to new development. Staff also acknowledges
the temporary nature of these structures – which differs from permanent commercial space or
lodge facilities – and therefore calls for less rigorous mitigation requirements. Short of updating
existing deed-restrictions associated with the original development of the resort, extinguishing
affordable housing certificates, or building additional employee housing, Staff finds that paying
the fee-in-lieu typically required for temporary/seasonal uses to be a reasonable alternative.
Page | 4
Again, Staff appreciates that the St. Regis continues to meet mitigation requirements for
existing development. However, as mentioned in the Application, temporary/seasonal
structures were never contemplated when the PD was originally conceived and thus mitigation
was never assessed. Requiring the payment of fee-in-lieu at the time of building permit is a
reasonable alternative that meets mitigation requirements while also allowing for the ability to
erect these structures for up to 150 days per year without the need to return to Council. Staff
encourages additional dialogue with the Applicant on this topic at Second Reading.
2. Fence update:
It has come to Staff’s attention that the dispute regarding a section of the subject fence has
been resolved. A building permit was duly issued for the portion of fence that was erected
along Juniata Street and no longer requires Council review. The remainder of the fence
proposed along Monarch Street was denied as part of the permit. The Applicant remains
interested in seeking a height variation for this section of fence as it is located between a
structure and the street. Council is asked to make a final decision regarding this section of
fence.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
The St. Regis is located on approximately three acres of land at the base of Aspen Mountain. The
property is in the Lodge (L) zone district and contains a Planned Development (PD) overlay. The
property is improved with a total of 179 hotel rooms, 25 timeshare units and a variety of accessory
uses including conference/meeting space, ballrooms, a spa, multiple dining areas, outdoor pools,
and several retail spaces.
The Applicant requests a PD amendment to make several modifications to the site, triggering a
Minor Amendment to a Planned Development for Project Review. The requests are described
below:
1. Amend the PD to Allow Seasonal Structures:
The St. Regis has traditionally facilitated events associated with a lodge use, such as
conferences/seminars, weddings, Aspen Food and Wine, and corporate dinners. During
winter months, these events are generally housed within seasonal structures such as tents
and yurts, triggering City Council review for compliance with Temporary/Seasonal Uses,
Commercial Design Review, and Growth
Management. These are often Council
review processes to permit seasonal and
temporary uses beyond the 14 days
allowed by code. Figure 3 depicts the
locations where structures have been
approved in the past.
Table I provides a timeline of the most
recent approvals Council has granted for
seasonal structures at the St. Regis.
Historically, Staff has supported the
structures represented in Table I. The
impetus of this new request is to permit the
Applicant to move away from yearly (or
semi-yearly) seasonal-use applications
and provide long term predictability to the
operations of the resort.
Fountain
Courtyard
Mountain
Plaza
Mill Street
Courtyard
Figure 3: St. Regis Site
Page | 5
Approval Location Improvement Length of
Time
Dimensions
Resolution #158,
Series 2017
Fountain
Courtyard
One Tent 40 days per year
through 2027
3,960 sq. ft.
Resolution #102,
Series 2018
Chef’s Club
Courtyard
Ten dining yurts 135 days for one
year
Resolution #86, Series 2020
Waived Commercial Design and Growth Management Reviews as a response to public health
orders related to social distancing when COVID-19 infection rates were elevated.
Resolution #128,
Series 2022
Fountain
Courtyard
One tent
48 days (in 2022)
& 40 days per
year thereafter
through 2027
3,960 sq. ft.
Four yurts 140 days for one
year
707 sq. ft.
Chef’s Club
Courtyard
One tent 121 days for one
year
1,000 sq. ft.
Mountain
Plaza
Courtyard
One dome 60 days for one
year
900 sq. ft.
The difference between this application and those of previous years is how this request is
approved. Instead of a “one-off” temporary/seasonal use request, this application seeks to
memorialize seasonal structures as part of the Planned Development via the PD amendment
process. Pending Council approval, the structures will be allowed by-right within the PD on
a seasonal basis (up to 150 days per year) with no expiration date or sunset on the number
of years. Specifically, the Applicant requests to amend the PD to allow for the following
temporary/seasonal structures:
Location Improvement Length of Time Per
Year
Dimensions
Mill Street
Courtyard
One Tent 150 days per year Up to 1,000 sq. ft.
Fountain
Courtyard
Four Yurts 150 days per year up to 848 sq. ft.
(cumulative of all yurts)
Mountain
Plaza
One dome 150 days per year up to 707 sq. ft.
Table I: Recent Approvals of Temporary Structures at the St. Regis
Table II: Proposed Seasonal Structures to be Memorialized in PD
Page | 6
2. Amend the PD to Allow Fencing Ranging from Six Feet (6’) to Ten Feet (10’) in Height
The applicant’s request is in direct response to staff being alerted to the non-compliant
fencing constructed at the St. Regis during the winter season of 2022-2023. Staff requested
the St. Regis submit for Land Use Approval, because the unpermitted fencing exceeded
fence height limitations per underlying zoning.
When the PD was created and approved in 1988 there was not a ‘Project Review’ step.
Rather, the code at the
time provided for a
conceptual and final PD
review, which were then
documented on the
recorded architectural
and site plans for the
hotel. There are no
existing design, height, or
materials recorded for the
existing fence along
Monarch Street. The
applicant requests to
increase the fence and
gate height to deter
human and wildlife along
Monarch Street with an
approximate range in
height from 6’ to 10’ as
identified in Figure 4. The
requested section of
fencing is approximately
290 linear feet along
these two street fronts.
DISCUSSION & STAFF FINDINGS:
Seasonal Structures:
Approving the request as a PD amendment has implications for affordable housing mitigation
requirements that should be considered. Given the seasonal nature of these structures, the
Applicant posits that the number of employees generated is inconsistent with the mitigation
prescribed for new commercial net leasable space. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.470.050.c, Employee Generation Review, any Applicant who believes the employee
generation rate is different than code requirements may request an employee generation review.
The application includes a full audit and thorough analysis of the number of employees generated
by resort operations vs. the number of employees housed. According to the First Amended PUD
Agreement from 1988, a total of 331 employees were generated from lodge operations, requiring
mitigation for 198.5 FTEs (33 x 0.6 = 198.5)1. Although some aspects of the development have
evolved overtime (e.g., in 2003 Council approved the conversion of multiple lodge rooms into
timeshare units) the number of employees generated by the development has remained relatively
Figure 4: Unpermitted and Requested Fencing Locations
with Heights
Page | 7
consistent. In 2010, the St. Regis submitted an audit to the City showing employment numbers
from 2006 to 2009. According to the audit, employment at the St. Regis never exceeded 331 FTEs
during that time.
The most recent audit covers employment numbers for winter 2022-2023, which comes to a total
of 330.6 FTEs – 0.4 FTEs below 331 for which mitigation has been provided. Staff agrees with
the application’s analysis that no new FTEs will be generated from the new structures, with two
caveats.
First, the uses allowed within the structures should be limited to those allowed by-right within the
Lodge (L) zone district such as one-off events like weddings and corporate retreats. Such uses
are appropriate as the staff and infrastructure required to host these events are integral to existing
resort operations and comply with underlying zoning. Conversely, using the structures to
accommodate uses unrelated to lodge operations such as third-party retail or restaurant
operations generates additional vehicular and customer foot traffic, employee demand, and other
infrastructure-related impacts without the mitigation typically exacted for adding commercial
space. Retail use is allowed only within certain designated areas of the PD (none of which are
included in this application). If the Applicant wishes to accommodate retail use in the future, a
subsequent application requesting Conditional Use Review, or a PD amendment should be
required.
Second, Staff remains concerned about future mitigation constraints. The deed-restrictions
associated with four of the affordable housing units – Alpina Haus, Copper Horse, Grand Aspen,
and Ute City Place – are set to expire in approximately twelve years (around 2035). These units
represent the mitigation provided for 129.5 FTEs when the PD was developed. Following their
expiration, only the mitigation from Hunter Longhouse will remain (representing 69 FTEs). Without
additional action, the mitigation provided for the St. Regis will fall from 60 percent to 21 percent.
Unless the St. Regis voluntarily agrees to work with the City to amend existing development
agreements to top off mitigation, it will likely be difficult to require additional mitigation when no
development is proposed. Staff recommends follow-up analyses (i.e. audits) be included as a
condition of this approval. If future audits determine that more than 331 FTEs are generated from
resort operations, additional mitigation may be assessed. Given the seasonal nature of the
proposed structures, annual tent permit approval is required. If Council desires, Staff may withhold
the issuance of future tent permits until mitigation is provided. Staff encourages Council to discuss
this topic with the Applicant at Second Reading.
As for Commercial Design Review – although the materials associated with seasonal structures
tend to fall short of meeting Commercial Design Standards, the prominent walls, large courtyards,
and robust landscaping throughout the resort shield these structures from view from surrounding
streets and rights of way. Like previous years, the presence of these structures will likely have
little to no impact on the character of the surrounding area. Staff finds the Commercial Design
Standards to be met.
Renewable Energy Equipment
One of Councils goals is to take meaningful action and provide leadership in reducing the Aspen
community’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing energy consumption and
carbon emissions in all emissions sectors is essential to achieving this goal. Minimizing impacts
from the built environment is particularly important, as 57 percent of Aspen’s carbon emissions
come from the building sector alone. The energy required to heat seasonal enclosures, which are
carbon emissions not counted in the community emissions inventory and not included in the 57
percent attributed to the building sector, is in direct conflict with this goal. Seasonal structures do
not have a thermal envelope, which means heating these spaces is highly inefficient, consumes
Page | 8
exponentially more energy, and emits more carbon compared to a permanent structure. The
Applicant proposes installation of renewable energy equipment in various locations of the resort
to offset the impacts from these structures.
Outdoor events are currently heated by propane outdoor heaters and tented events are heated
by portable natural gas fired furnaces. The Applicant intends to replace existing natural gas
furnaces with electric forced air furnaces. The St. Regis must first replace existing outdoor
receptacles and install additional dedicated adapters for powering the furnaces. To offset the extra
energy load, the resort plans to install renewable energy equipment onsite. The rooftop is currently
covered with abandoned solar thermal tubes on a previously installed steel beam racking system.
The existing system will be replaced with new solar photovoltaic panels which are projected to
produce approximately 80,000 kwh’s annually.
The resort also plans to install a battery storage facility to capture and utilize the energy derived
from the rooftop solar facility. The battery storage is intended to bolster the resort’s overall energy
resiliency, provide a source of emergency power backup, and allow for a reduction in the resort’s
peak energy demands.
Lastly, the St. Regis plans to install EV charging stations and battery storage facilities in its parking
garage. The St. Regis currently has two EV charging stations onsite. The number of additional
EV stations installed will depend on the final calculations of the amount of energy that will be
supplied by the solar array as well as the availability of garage space.
Installing this renewable energy equipment in a timely manner is integral to Staff’s
recommendation of approval for seasonal structures. Staff will work with the Applicant to ensure
PD dimensional standards and underlying zoning requirements are met. If Council desires, a
condition of approval to install the photovoltaic system and battery storage prior to next Winter
(2024-2025) is included in the ordinance.
Fence Height
The fences along Monarch Street and Juanita Street are existing. The applicant requests to
significantly increase the height of the fencing to deter animal and human trespass. The applicant
proposes a deviation from underlying zoning, resulting in an increase in fence scale and height.
Therefore, Project Review is an appropriate procedure for review to amend the PD. The Project
Review focuses on the general concept for the development and outlines any dimensional
requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. Typically, fence height
greater than what the Land Use Code allows is reviewed as a Dimensional Variance under
Chapter 26.314, yet as this is a PD, a minor amendment through Project Review provides the
review path for dimensional flexibility contrary to that of underlying zoning.
At the time the hotel was approved, in 1988, there were no limitations on fence height. Ordinance
#22, Series of 1995, set height limitations for fences for the first time in the Land Use Code. There
are no existing design, height, or materials recorded for the existing fence along Monarch Street
and Juniata Street within the PD.
Per Section 26.575.020.e.5.q, the fence should be no greater than 42” in height as measured
from finished grade as it is not entirely recessed behind the vertical plane of the building’s
façade and is within a street-facing side yard setback. When a PD is silent on a topic, the LUC
directs Staff to use underlying zoning as a guide to set zoning standards for the development.
Based on the location of the current fencing, the underlying zoning would allow for a fence up to
Page | 9
42” in height. As this fence serves as a semi-
barrier to a pool, staff believes the Building
Code could apply, which allows for a fence to
be up to 48” in height (2015 ISPSC).
The requested fence height, ranging from 6’
to 10’, increases due to change of grade along
Monarch Street. There is an existing retention
wall/planter that currently ranges from
finished grade to 5’-3” in height along
Monarch Street as seen in Figures 5 and
Figure 6, below.
The requested fence height, ranging from 6’
to 10’, increases due to change of grade along
Monarch Street. There is an existing retention
wall/planter that currently ranges
from finished grade to 5’-3” in
height along Monarch Street as
seen in Figures 5 and Figure 6.
The addition of a ‘6 fence in
height on top of the retention wall
as seen in Figure 5 and a 42”
fence in height on top of the
retention wall as seen in Figure
6, in addition to retaining the
unpermitted 6’ fence along the
remaining parameter of Monarch Street and Juanita Street will significantly increase the visual
impacts to the pedestrian experience. The request creates approximately 290 feet of
approximately 6’-10’ tall fencing. This visual impact is clear through the existing fencing as
juxtaposed to the existing retention
wall/planter without fencing, see Figure 7.
The City has set many standards within
the LUC to ensure fences support
neighborhood character and maintain a
connection between pedestrians and
neighborhoods. These standards are
evident in chapters such as the
Residential Design Standards and
Calculations and Measurements. Tall
fences create visual obstructions, which
can negatively impact the pedestrian
experience, undermine neighborhood
character, and diminish a sense of place.
As the St. Regis is a prominent building in
the City’s core, the requested fence
retracts from the historic, cultural, and
visual contributions to the identify of town.
Figure 5: Proposed Fencing along Monarch
Street, 10’ in height
Figure 6: Proposed Fencing along Monarch Street, 8’-11”
in height
Figure 7: Juxtaposition between requested
fencing (right) and current fencing/retaining wall
(left)
Page | 10
Based on the Project Review Standards in Exhibit B, staff finds the height of the fencing contrary
to neighborhood character and the use of the site. Staff finds that the applicant fails to provide
sufficient justification as to why 6’ – 10’ fences are necessary and supported by the Land Use
Code. This property is in the Mountain Base Character Area, which is surrounded by similar lodge
and residential uses that do not need fencing of this height to address for human or wildlife issues.
Staff finds the request to increase fence heights over 6’ and to its highest point at 10’ inconsistent
with underlying zoning and out of context with the neighborhood and goals of the LUC. Although
a PD amendment gives flexibility for dimensions, staff does not find that fences greater than the
minimum height required to meet building code to be appropriate along this pedestrian corridor.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff’s recommendation is broken into three parts based on the request:
1. Temporary Structures:
Staff recommends approval of the request to amend the PD to allow for the temporary
structures represented in the application with the following conditions:
• A building permit is required on each occasion a seasonal structure is erected.
o Affordable housing mitigation shall be assessed based on current code
requirements and fee-in-lieu rates at the time of permit. A credit of fourteen (14)
days shall be applied to one structure each twelve-month period.
o The Applicant reserves the right to reduce the number of structures, size of
structures and duration in which structures are erected each year. However,
mitigation shall be paid as a lump sum for all three structures for 150 days per year,
based on the dimensions set forth below, regardless of changes proposed in any
given year:
Location Improvement Length of Time
Per Year
Dimensions
Mill Street Courtyard One Tent 150 days per year Up to 1,000 sq. ft.
Fountain Courtyard Four Yurts 150 days per year up to 848 sq. ft.
(cumulative of all yurts)
Mountain Plaza One dome 150 days per year up to 707 sq. ft.
• The Community Development Director is authorized to require periodic employee
generation audits to confirm actual employee generation. If future audits determine that
more than 331 FTEs are generated from resort operations, additional mitigation shall be
assessed for sixty-five (65) percent of the number in excess.
o If the total mitigation requirement resulting from an audit is less than 0.1 FTEs, a
cash-in-lieu payment may be made by right. If the total mitigation requirement is 0.1
or more FTEs, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval.
o Mitigation exceeding 0.1 FTEs shall be in the form of affordable housing or
certificates of affordable housing credits as prescribed in Title 26 of the Land Use
Code.
o In the event that additional housing mitigation is required, the Community
Development Director reserves the right to withhold issuing tent permits for seasonal
structures until mitigation requirements are met to the satisfaction of the Director.
Page | 11
2. Fence Height
Staff recommends that Council deny the request for a height variance of ten feet and instead
grant the minimum variance from height required to meet building code.
PROPOSED MOTION:
Two ordinances are included with the packet.
The first ordinance (Option A) reflects the request of the Applicant by amending the PD to
accommodate temporary structures, renewable energy equipment and a fence height
variance up to ten feet.
The second ordinance (Option B) reflects Staff’s recommendation by amending the PD to
accommodate seasonal structures, and renewable energy equipment but reduces the
fence height variance to the minimum needed to meet building code requirements.
If Council wishes to approve the Applicant’s request, the following motion can be made:
1. Option A: Reflects the Applicants request: “I move to approve Ordinance #18,
Series of 2023 for an amendment to a Planned Development for Project Review,
Growth Management Review, and Commercial Design Review, allowing the PD to
accommodate temporary structures, the installation of renewable energy
equipment, and a fence height variation of up to ten feet at the St. Regis Resort (315
E. Dean St.), subject to the conditions listed in the ordinance.”
If Council wishes to approve Staff’s recommendation the following motion can be made:
2. Option B: Reflects Staff’s recommendation: “I move to approve Ordinance #18,
Series of 2023 for an amendment to a Planned Development for Project Review,
Growth Management Review, and Commercial Design Review, allowing the PD to
accommodate temporary structures, the installation of renewable energy
equipment, and the minimum fence height variation needed to meet building code
requirements at the St. Regis Resort (315 E. Dean St.), subject to the conditions
listed in the ordinance.”
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance #18, Series of 2023
Exhibit A.1 | Planned Development – Amendment for Project Review | Staff Findings
Exhibit A.2 | Commercial Design Review | Staff Findings
Exhibit A.3 | Growth Management Review | Staff Findings
Exhibit B.1 | Application