HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo_9.20.16Page 1 of 15
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: Gorsuch Haus (S. Aspen Street) –Planned Development and Associated Reviews –
Resolution No. , Series 2016 – Public Hearing
MEETING
DATE: September 20, 2016
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Norway Island, LLC
Aspen Skiing Company, LLC
(owner)
REPRESENTATIVE:
Design Workshop, Inc.
LOCATION:
Four parcels, at the top of and
along the east side of S. Aspen
Street (Lift 1A).
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Conservation (C)
zone district. The current use of
the property is as the base of a
ski lift (Lift 1A)
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to
develop a hotel with
commercial, free-market
residential and affordable
housing. Additionally, lift 1A is
proposed to be relocated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission make a recommendation of denial of the
project to the City Council.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning
Commission a recommendation of approval for a number
of land use reviews in order to redevelop the site with a
new mixed use building and relocate the Lift 1A base.
Photo: Lift 1 A
SPECIAL NOTE:
The body of the July 5th memo has been updated to reflect the amended proposal submitted by the
Applicant with updated referral comments and recommendation.
Page 2 of 15
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting a consolidated review, meaning all final decisions are granted by the
City Council and the following land use requests will be recommendations by the Planning and
Zoning Commission:
• Planned Development - Project Review (Chapter 26.445) to establish dimensional
requirements for the project as required for property requesting Ski Base zone district
designation. (The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council.
City Council is the final review authority).
• Rezoning (Chapter 26.310) to amend the underlying zone district for the property. The
Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is
the final review authority).
• Conceptual Commercial Design Review (Chapter 26.412, and the Commercial Design
Guidelines) for construction of a mixed-use development. (As a consolidated review, the
Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. (City Council is
the final review authority).
• 8040 Greenline Review (Chapter 26.435) to develop in an Environmentally Sensitive Area.
(As a consolidated review, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to
City Council. City Council is the final review authority).
• Mountain View Plane (Chapter 26.435) to develop in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. (As
a consolidated review, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City
Council. City Council is the final review authority).
• GMQS Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for residential multi-family, affordable housing, lodging and
commercial development and allotments. (As a consolidated review, the Planning and Zoning
Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review
authority.)
• Major Subdivision for the reconfiguration of the existing parcels pursuant to Land Use Code
Chapter 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority who may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the proposal after considering a recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission).
• Vested Property Rights for the development proposal, which allows the development to be
built after approval without meeting any zoning or land use changes during a prescribed time
period, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.308 (City Council is the final review authority).
The Applicant is requesting a vesting period of five years (instead of ten years from the original
application) rather than the standard three year period.
Planned Development – Project Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission is the first
step in a three step review process. Once heard by the Commission, the City Council will review
the application and recommendations of the Commission at a public hearing. This is the second
step of Planned Development review. If approved by City Council, the Applicant may then make
an application for Planned Development – Detailed Review which is reviewed before the Planning
Page 3 of 15
and Zoning Commission (step three). Additional land use approvals necessary for this project are
consolidated with the Project Review portion of the Planned Development (steps 1 & 2).
The property is currently located in the Conservation zone district and is presently not located in
a zone district that is subject to the requirements of Referendum 1, which requires a public vote of
certain types of projects. Referendum 1 only applies to properties that were located within the CC,
C-1, NC, MU, L, LP, and LO zones on January 1, 2015.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Norway Island, LLC (which has received consent to submit a land use application
by the Aspen Skiing Co., LLC) is requesting approval to redevelop four parcels located at the end
of S. Aspen Street where Lift 1A is located. The city/county boundary crosses one of the subject
parcels (Government Lot 31) as shown in Figure 1 1.
Figure 1: Subject parcels and jurisdictional boundary 2
The Applicant requests to develop the parcels with a new mixed use building that will contain:
• 67 units (compared to 62 lodge units previously) with 81 lodge keys (flexible
configuration)
• 6 free-market residential units (no change)
• 1 affordable housing unit (no change)
• 6,810 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable area inclusive of a restaurant, Aspen Ski Co.
operations and some retail
• 61 parking spaces (compared to 58) located in a subgrade garage
1 When a property is located within two jurisdictions, development may only occur within the boundary of the entity
reviewing the land use request.
2Subsequent images will only show Government Lot 31 to the Pitkin County/City of Aspen jurisdictional boundary.
Page 4 of 15
Figure 2: Original and proposed site plan
Typical lodging amenities are proposed such as a flex/meeting room, spa, and fitness room as part
of the lodge. A new, relocated chair lift is proposed and a number of rights of way are requested
to be vacated. Overall 70,134 sq. ft. of Floor Area (and 127,525 sq. ft. of gross area) for the entire
development is proposed.
KEY ISSUES: There are eight different land use review processes related to the current
application, as listed on page 2 of the staff memo. Many contain the same or similar standards; for
example, criteria for a Planned Development (PD), a Rezoning and a Subdivision all require
adequate public facilities be available to serve the development and consideration of the natural
environment in the review. Rather than go through each review process one at a time, this memo
is written in a more narrative form, focusing on the “Key Issues” that staff has identified. The
memo will reference various standards of review. Complete responses to review criteria are
included as exhibits to this memo.
(1) Site Planning:
The property is currently comprised of four parcels, with various existing easements on the
properties (for example there is a fire access/drainage easement along the Mountain Queen
condominiums). The four parcels equal a total of 278,162 sq. ft. (over 6 acres) within the municipal
boundary. The applicant is now requesting to reconfigure the four existing parcels into two lots
(rather than maintaining the same number of lots). Besides existing easements, there are three city
Page 5 of 15
rights of way that the applicant requests be vacated: the southerly half of Hill Street, all of Summit
Street, and the easterly half of S. Aspen Street. Proposed Lot 1 will contain the hotel with amenity
areas such as exterior terraces, walkways, stairways and underground building structure. The new
ski lift will also be located on lot 1.
Since the Commission initially provided feedback to the Applicant, changes have been
incorporated into the site plan and hotel proposal. As mentioned in the August 16th staff memo,
the lower ‘hook’ portion of the building has been removed and some of the massing has been
reconfigured into the remaining lower portion of the building by widening it and including a
portion of the building that cantilevers over the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac has been enlarged. It
appears that the previously proposed roof /porch overhang on the restaurant (when it was proposed
at the southernmost portion of the building) has been filled in with building mass. The exterior
terraces and stairs have been substantially reduced. The location of the lift has been brought
downhill about twenty feet. A wider skier return is provided in the area of the Mountain Queen
and Caribou condominiums. A more direct access is provided to the ski lift.
As noted above, the lodge is proposed to cantilever over the cul-de-sac. The entry façade is four
stories with the 3rd and 4th stories cantilevered over the cul-de-sac. The building then steps up the
site for approximately 330 feet in two to four story modules depending on the elevation (similar
to the original proposal). A series of terraces step up the slope on the eastern side of the building
(about 115 feet in length) and public access to the relocated ski lift is from the cul-de-sac by
walking along a series of stairs. A pull-off for arriving guests is near the lodge entry, while a
transportation stop is proposed along the cul-de-sac. The ski lift is to be moved slightly to the east
from its current location and uphill (but is now slightly lower than originally proposed).
Extensive grading is proposed along the eastern side of the building to provide for a gentle skier
return to the lift and continued skiing downhill, through the Lift One Lodge site, terminating at
Dean Street. Some of the grading requires retaining walls on the lower part of the site by the
Caribou condominiums, Lift One Lodge, the stairway to the lift, as well as around the proposed
building. The current summer access road that is used by Ski Co. is proposed to be relocated from
the western side of the site to the eastern side which is also the area designated for the skier return.
Staff Comment: Overall, staff recognizes that a lodge development is an appropriate use at the
base of Lift 1A. However, staff is still concerned with some of the fundamentals of the site plan.
Although the ski lift has been moved a bit lower on the site plan it is still 66 feet from its current
location. Add to that the walk up the stairs to get from the cul-de-sac to the original queuing area
and one has a longer walk. Public access for someone with a disability has been improved with
an elevator that has direct access from the exterior of the building and directly unloads onto an
exterior terrace.
With the amended site plan, the lift is still located to the east of the lodge building, but removal of
the ‘lower hook’ of the building assists in opening up the ski lift to the public right-of-way. The
proposed lodge still encloses the lift but not to the same extant. However, additional views of the
hotel and site access should be shown, via the sketch-up model, at the hearing. To ensure that the
reconfigured skier access “contributes to the identity of the town.” and “Provides pedestrian
ways that accommodate convenient access.”
Page 6 of 15
While staff recognizes that this is a sloped site, staff is still concerned about the retainage that is
being proposed and would like more details in the form of elevations and sections to understand
the scale of some of these structures (including the terraces and exterior walkways) as well as the
grading. Some height measurements have been provided on the site plan but not enough to know
what the height will be from the base to top of wall for all retaining features.
The 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan, developed by Aspen Skiing Co., anticipated replacement
of the Shadow Mountain Lift (1A) with a completely different location for the bottom terminal but
also recognized that if the new location did not happen, the “lift would be rebuilt at its current
lower terminal.” The master plan also contemplated a lower lift from the Willoughby Park location
to create a more convenient access point for skiers.
The applicant proposes that the city vacate 13,234 sq. ft. of platted right of way. Staff questions
the community benefit of vacating the rights of way, especially Hill Street and S. Aspen Street as
city utilities (water and electric) are located within Hill Street and people can currently ski down
S. Aspen Street to the paved road/parking area, which will not be viable if vacated.
Figure 3: Proposed streets to be vacated
Staff still does not see vacation of the
rights-of-way to be in the best interest of the
city, as the proposed site plan limits
pedestrian access options to the mountain
and provides a longer walk to the lift from
the street. The request does not
“demonstrate the right-of-way, or portion
thereof, has no current or future use to the
community as a vehicular way, pedestrian
or bike way, utility corridor, drainage
corridor, or recreational connection.”
Additionally, with regard to the
subdivision, the four parcels are now
proposed to be configured into two lots.
This a more reasonable configuration,
taking into account the proposed use for
each lot; however, a donut hole of lot area
associated with Lot 1 is not actually contiguous to the parcel. This latest configuration,
disregarding the donut hole provide a lot configuration where “the proposed lot lines shall
approximate, to the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite,” Certain
improvements for the lodge are still proposed on the additional lot or within the right of way and
Staff believes it is inappropriate to have improvements associated with the hotel, including some
structural components, on a different lot, as this will essentially create a nonconformity. The
stairway encroachments into the remaining S. Aspen Street right-of way is not supported by staff.
Page 7 of 15
Figure 4: Proposed lot configuration
There are also technical issues that need to be addressed. Currently an easement sits along the
eastern side of the property benefitting the Mountain Queen condominiums. This easement, which
is a dirt roadway, provides fire access and is plowed in the winter. This area is shown as part of
the ski return; however adequate fire protection will need to be provided and the easement
beneficiaries will need to vacate the easement. With the current design of the building certain fire
code provisions will not be met, particularly a requirement that the design of the project provide
fire apparatus access.
Figure 5: Existing zone districts
(2) Dimensions Proposed/Programming:
The applicant is proposing a rezoning from Conservation (C)
to Ski Base Area (SKI) for the existing four parcels.
Development within the SKI zone district requires approval
of a Planned Development (PD) to establish the dimensional
requirements of the project, as the underlying zone district
does not have any dimensional requirements. The Applicant
is requesting Project Review approval which focuses “on the
overall concept and general parameters of a project”.
Through the PD process the dimensional requirements are set
for the project and the neighborhood context should be used
to assist in determining the requirements.
Page 8 of 15
The SKI zone district permits hotels, multi-family residential, affordable housing, retail and
restaurant uses, ski and administrative offices, as well as ski areas. The zone district does not have
any underlying dimensional requirements associated with it so all development is approved
through a planned development to establish the dimensions. Although located within the
Conservation (C) zone district, the site is adjacent to properties within the city that are located in
the Lodge (L) zone district. As the SKI zone district does not have any underlying dimensional
standards, both Conservation and Lodge are provided for reference in Table 1, which outlines the
proposed dimensions of the lodge.
Overall, the project proposes approximately 70,134 square feet of Floor Area which includes the
lodge and the new ski lift. Comparatively, the C zone district permits the development of a single-
family residence on a lot of record, so at the most four residences could be built under the current
zoning. Under the Lodge zone district, based on the density of lodge keys to lot size (which equals
one lodge key per 931 sq. ft. of gross lot area), a maximum Floor Area of 1:1 or between 46,606 -
62,142 sq. ft. would be permitted3 (when deductions for steep slopes are considered). The height
of the building, which still needs to verified, is proposed at 47 feet as a planned development while
the present C zone district permits a height of 25 feet and the L zone district would permit a height
of 28 feet for the lodging density proposed. The Wheeler View plane intersects this lot as shown
in Exhibit G. The applicant has stated that the view plane is minimally infringed upon and that the
building is not visible from downtown.
Table 1: Dimensional standards
Dimensions Conservation Lodge
Current
Proposal
(SKI)
Original
Proposal
(SKI)
Minimum lot size 10 acres 3,000 75,466 (Lot 1) 44,550 (Lot 1)
Minimum net lot area per
dwelling unit 10 acres NA NA NA
Minimum lot width 400 ft. 30 ft. +/- 221 ft. +/- 60 ft.
Front yard 100 ft. 5 ft. 46 ft. 0 ft.
Side yard 30 ft. 5 ft. 6 and 0 ft. 0 ft.
Rear yard 30 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 0 ft.
Maximum height 25 ft. 28 ft.** 47 ft. 49 ft.
Cumulative floor area 5,132 – 6,842 sq.ft.*
(SFR)
1:1**
46,606 -62,142 sq.
ft.*
70,134 sq. ft. 67,781 sq. ft.
Lodging floor area NA
1:1
46,606 -62,142
sq. ft.*
51,268 TBD
Commercial floor area NA
.25:1
11,651 – 15,535
sq. ft.*
8704 TBD
3 The Lodge zone district provides a sliding scale of Floor Area and Maximum Height which increases as the density
of lodge units increases on a lot.
Page 9 of 15
Dimensions Conservation Lodge
Current
Proposal
(SKI)
Original
Proposal
(SKI)
Multi-family floor area NA
.25:1
11,651 – 15,535
sq. ft.*
12,102 TBD
Affordable housing floor
area NA
.25:1
11,651 – 15,535
sq. ft.*
5,910 TBD
Maximum multi-family
size cap NA
1,500
(2,000 with a
TDR)
NA NA
Minimum
off-street
parking
spaces
Lodge NA 81 keys = 40.5 81 keys = 41 81 keys = 41
Residential Max 2 per residence 7 units = 7 7 units = 7 7 units = 7
Commercial NA 6,810 = 7 6,810 = 7 9,111 = 10
Public Amenity Space NA 25% NA NA
* The Floor Area range includes taking no deduction up to the maximum deduction of 25% required by the
presence of steep slopes.
** Height and Floor Area allowances are based on the proposed lot having less than 1 lodge unit per 500 sq. ft. of
gross lot area (81 keys/ 75,466 sq. ft. = 1 lodge key per 931 sq. ft. of lot area).
The project proposes 67 lodge units with a total of 81 keys. This creates an the average room size
per key of 522 sq. ft.. Seven (7) of the lodging units are proposed as 2-bedroom, condominiumized
lodge units with the ability to be divided into three (3) keys each. The seven units range from 1,450
sq. ft. to 1,500 sq. ft. when not divided. The six free-market units (considered multi-family
residential) range in size from 1,500 to 2,000 sq. ft.. In the Lodge zone district, which permits
multi-family, the maximum unit size cap is 1,500 sq. ft. unless a Transferrable Development Right
(TDR) is proposed which allows an increase of unit size to 2,000 sq. ft. previously, the Applicant
has proposed to use TDRs to increase the unit size.
The applicant proposes the following improvements and programming by building level.
Parking Level – 61 parking spaces, mechanical, and circulation.
Level One –Entry lobby, lodge back of house, mechanical, SkiCo ticketing and Aspen Ski Co.
space.
Level Two – Meeting/conference room, 1 affordable housing unit, fitness, back of house and
circulation.
Level Three – 5 lodge units (5 keys), hotel spa, restaurant, bar/lounge, back of house and
circulation.
Level Four – 18 lodge units (18 keys), 3 free-market residences, and circulation.
Level Five –5 lodge units (11 keys), 1 free-market residence, and circulation.
Page 10 of 15
Level Six –11 lodge units (17 keys), 1 free-market residence, and circulation.
Level Seven – 13 lodge units (15 keys), 2 free-market residences, and circulation.
Level Eight – 15 lodge unit (15 keys), back of house, circulation and restaurant.
Rooftop –bathrooms, circulation, pool and terrace.
Staff Comment: Staff is concerned with the overall size and height of the building. The Floor Area
proposed is substantially greater than what would be permitted in the C zone district or in the L
zone district as currently proposed. The height of the building is out of scale with the surrounding
context and exceeds what would be permitted in both the C and L zone districts. The building sits
high up the slope and part of the building is above the Wheeler View Plane, which is not to be
infringed upon unless the Commission “determines that the proposed development has a minimal
effect on the view plane.”
3) Design/ Architecture
The proposed lodge is subject to the Mountain Base Character Area of the Commercial, Lodging
and Historic District Guidelines. Key design objectives include: provide a pedestrian friendly street
edge, provide a sense of human scale, encourage pedestrian serving uses at the street level, reflect
natural topography, provide an interconnected pedestrian circulation system, and maintain views
to the mountain and other natural features.
Staff Comment: Overall staff appreciates the materials proposed for the project; however, the
conceptual design review focuses more on placement and massing of buildings as well as site
planning. The subject site is steeply sloped and the proposed development steps in increments to
follow the natural slope, thereby varying the height of the building’s modules; however, the
footprint of the proposed new building is substantially larger than the surrounding development
and has not been significantly modified from the original application. When combined with the
predominantly four story height of the building above grade, the goal of achieving a sense of
human scale is not achieved as the building stretches some 330’ in length and 90’ in elevation up
the hillside. Staff still recommends that, like Lift One Lodge to the south, Gorsuch Haus be broken
into two structures, either completely detached or with a meaningfully sized hyphen or ground
level pass through between the masses. Staff finds that the height and mass as proposed is still
inappropriate given the site topography. As a frame of reference for the size of the building, Aspen
Square Condominiums, sited on a relatively flat parcel in the center of downtown, is a four story
building approximately 270’ in length.
Staff still recommends that the structure be predominantly topped by simple low pitched gable roof
forms, ideally with green roofs installed. The surrounding neighborhood features many examples
of classic alpine architecture with pitched roofs, deep overhangs, exterior balconies, wood siding,
and other features that are typically sympathetic to a site with steep topography and mountainside
vegetation.
Page 11 of 15
Figure 6: Aspen Square
4) Mitigation/development allotments
As a new development, the applicant must request and receive development allotments for the
mixed use project. Allotments are required for the lodging, free-market, affordable housing and
net increase in commercial being proposed. As designed, the following allotments are necessary:
• 81 lodging keys which equals 162 pillows (each lodging bedroom is considered two
pillows).
• 6 free-market development allotments
• 1 affordable housing allotment
• 6,810 sq. ft. of net leasable area (compared to 9,111in the original application)
All of the necessary allotments are available in the 2016 growth management year, except for
lodging, where only 112 pillows are permitted to be granted in a calendar year. There are not
enough lodging allotments in 2016, so the applicant is requesting a multi-year allotment for the
lodging component of the project, as 50 pillows are still needed.
With the lodging, commercial and free-market residential uses proposed, affordable housing
mitigation is required. As proposed staff has calculated the following mitigation requirement
associated with Lot 1 and explained in detail in Exhibit D.
Free Market Residential 8.21
Lodge 29.16
Commercial Net Leasable 15.81
53.17 FTES
The applicant is proposing one onsite affordable housing unit, housing three FTEs, and the
balance of mitigation is to be in the form of off-site units or certificates of affordable housing
credits (AHCs). APCHA has recommended that a percentage of the mitigation be in the form of
physical units.
Page 12 of 15
Staff Comment: Staff recommends additional on-site housing be considered. Additionally, any off-
site housing should not solely be in the form AHCs. Staff concurs with the APCHA board and
recommends that the applicant commit to certain number of FTEs being physically housed by the
construction of actual units.
REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
A number of referral agencies have provided comments (Exhibit H) on the application: Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District, Aspen Fire Protection District, city engineering, city
environmental health, city parks, city transportation, city utilities, The Aspen/Pitkin Housing
Authority and the Pitkin County Commissioners. Appropriate comments from the departments
have been included in the resolution.
RECOMMENDATION: This site is the second portal to access skiing and Aspen Mountain.
Historically people have been able to ski down to S. Aspen Street and access the existing lift
directly from S. Aspen Street and it is important, as the property is considered for redevelopment,
to preserve the mountain as a scenic, accessible resource.
Figure 7: Lift 1 COWOP site plan (never approved)
The Applicant has made some modifications with the site plan and design of the lodge. Staff
believes these changes are starting to go
in the right direction but little has been
done to modify the mass and height of the
building. The requested Floor Area is
greatly above what is permitted in the
Conservation zone district and is higher
than what would be permitted in the
Lodge zone district. The height being
requested is significant on a sensitive
property that climbs up Aspen Mountain.
There has been much debate on a number
of topics. Where should the lift be
located? What is an appropriate skier
return? Should there be a platter lift
developed or at least considered in the
site planning? How does this proposal
relate to its neighbors and the wider
community? What master planning
processes have occurred in this
neighborhood and should they be
considered?
With regard to past master planning
efforts in this neighborhood, the COWOP
proposed a plan that was not approved by
the City Council. As part of the plan, the
lift was proposed to move uphill, but a
platter lift was also envisioned to assist
getting the public to the higher lift location. As a result of the failure of the planning process, some
Page 13 of 15
of the lots have been developed individually, incorporating or not incorporating some of the
COWOP ideas. The proposal before the Commission should be judged on its individual merits.
Mass, scale, neighborhood compatibility, access, and creating a vital base area should be at the
forefront of the Commission’s consideration. As a proposed development at the base of a ski lift,
creating a vibrant outdoor area for the public and private lodge guests is paramount to creating a
successful base area. A sketch-up model should be available at the hearing to see views from any
point of interest and should be used to see multiple perspectives of the building.
Although there has been some change to the site plan, more work is needed. Staff finds the current
site plan and design of the building to be incompatible with the neighborhood as it proposes a
building with dimensions that overwhelm the neighborhood, is incompatible with adjacent zone
district dimensions, and continues to limit the skier access to and around the site. A PD review
criterion requires “The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive
identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns.” Staff cannot find this
standard met with the current proposal. The design does not provide a human scale for the project
and provides building mass above the Wheeler View Plane and views through the property are not
provided. The goal of achieving a sense of human scale is not achieved as the building stretches
some 330’ in length and 90’ in elevation up the hillside with heights that exceed surrounding zone
district allowances.
This is the fourth meeting the Commission has conducted with very little change to the proposed
building’s size and height. Staff recommends denial of the proposal.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to make a recommendation of denial of the Gorsuch Haus.”
ATTACHMENTS: (EXHIBITS IN BOLD ARE PROVIDED WITH THIS MEMO)
EXHIBIT A – Planned Development Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B – Subdivision Review Criteria
EXHIBIT C – Commercial Design Review
EXHIBIT D – Growth Management Review Criteria
EXHIBIT E – Rezoning
EXHIBIT F – 8040 Green Line Review
EXHIBIT G –View Plane Review
EXHIBIT H – Referral Agency Comments
EXHIBIT I – Public Comment
EXHIBIT J – Application
EXHIBIT K – Affidavits of Public Notice
EXHIBIT L – Public Comment, post 7/5/16
EXHIBIT M – Public Comment Sign-up sheet, July 5 and 19, 2016
EXHIBIT N – Applicant’s 7/19/16 PowerPoint presentation
EXHIBIT O – Applicant addendum memo dated 8/8/16
EXHIBIT P – Amended site plan dated 8/8/16
EXHIBIT Q – Applicant’s letter dated 8/15/16
EXHIBIT R - Applicant’s updated drawings for 8/16/16 hearing
EXHIBIT S - Public Comment, post 7/19/16
EXHIBIT T - Public Comment, post 8/16/16
EXHIBIT U – Application: updated memo 9/1/16
EXHIBIT V - Application: elevations, site and floor plans
EXHIBIT W - Application: sketch-up views, subdivision plats, FAR calcs, misc.
Page 14 of 15
Page 15 of 15