HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19841120 R=IM.__QF.1.PBOSZ�Ei?_T-�L�
ReSLuLar Meeting, Pl=ing and zoning Commission Nompmbar 20-1984
Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5: 05 p.m. with
commissioners Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, David White, Roger
Hunt, Mari Peyton, and Ramona Markalunas (alternate) present.
MDt].QII
Fallin moved to direct the planning office to write a resolution
commending Lee Pardee for his years of service; seconded by Roger
Hunt. All in favor ; motion carried.
Hunt commented the ski company has proposed improvements for the
mountains. When will the Commission see these proposals? Alan
Richman, planning office, noted that "Referral of AF-Rec zone" is
scheduled on the December 4th agenda. The rezoning of Aspen
Mountain and Buttermilk Mountain is now before the county. The
Commission should not be concerned with the zoning designation,
it should be concerned with the improvements. Fred Smith ,
representative for the ski company, will make a presentation
before the Commission. The project will be referred to the
Commission when the improvements are in project form and before
some body. The planning office is attempting to better refer to
the Commission issues involving the city' s fringe areas, especially
issues involving annexation. The planning office has been
negligent in the past on these issues. The ski improvements are
months from being in the form of a land use project.
UL3=
N e ber __f<__?984: Pat Fallin moved to approve the minutes of
November 6, 1984; seconded by Mari Peyton. All in favor; motion
carried.
ASPEN ART LFjV(aTNEg TR�N .PRESFNTATIQN
Harvey reported on phone calls with Hal Schilling, city manager,
and others. It is the considered opinion of city attorney Paul
Taddune, Hal Schilling, and Council that the Commission' s stream
margin review that denied the city the right to temporarily store
fill within the one hundred foot mark of the river is of no
consequence. Jay Hammond, city engineer, interrupted. He
explained the previous discussion centered around a plan for
permanent placement of the fill. That plan involved relocating
the impound lot, placing fill in that area which is well within
one hundred feet of the river, and sculpting a permanent landscape.
In response to concerns, the present plan temporarily stores
the fill in the absence of a SPA plan for the property. Until SPA
is adopted, the city prefers to store the material temporarily.
Harvey asked if the city' s original intent was to use this action
to initiate a permanent landscape plan, a plan the Commission has
never seen. Hammond said that is correct.
Hammond attempted to address some of the stream margin issues in
M_QQRD,.OF_ PRACEEDZ=
_&gU l,ar__MentinQ _. P nn'Ag_A&d..1oniRg. Cpmminnign _No.V. mher_,20,�_1_9$4
this area in the memorandum dated November 16, 1984. The bottom
line is there is a severe problem with the river. The flooding
last spring created a distinct threat to a property that the city
owns. The flooding demolished the bank and threatened the
building. In response to that flooding and in response to public
and property safety concerns, the city is endeavoring to remove
fill along the river. The removal of the fill will open up the
river way and will improve the situation on the opposite embank-
ment. The river will be directed away from the embankment. This
action will deflect any aggravation to the bank by another
potential high run off next year.
The second problem is what to do with the fill . Council is
adamant about keeping the excavated fill in the area of the Rio
Grande and using the fill for landscaping. Hammond agreed with
the Commission that in the absence of a plan the fill should be
removed from the area. However, the location of the fill on the
Rio Grande is a given at the moment. The fill will be stored not
to aggravate any direct stream margin considerations. There will
not be sedimentation. The fill will not be placed in the flood-
plain. The fill will be deposited far enough back from the river
that even if there were a high run off the water and fill would
not meet.
Hammond requested the Commission, despite its feelings or objections
to the storage of the fill, acknowledge the first problem, the
fill needs to be removed from the river. He argued that the
existence of fill will encourage the process of moving ahead with
the SPA and with the adoption of a permanent plan for the area.
Hammond advised the Commission to take a stand at this time.
State that the fill in this area needs to be dealt with and
in one year the fill needs to be removed in the absence of a SPA
plan. Use that position to encourage the development and adoption
of a specific plan for the area. Require a specific plan in order
to keep the fill in the area. In the absence of that plan
the fill will be removed from the area. Hammond encouraged the
Commission to endorse this approach at this time in recognition
of the present emergency. It is necessary to open the river to
protect the art museum ad the upstream properties. The attempt at
the present is not to create a permanent solution for the fill on
the Rio Grande. The fill may be the impetus for the city to
develop a permanent plan for the property.
Harvey understood the problems with the river . But he also
understood that the Commission has final say on stream margin
review. It is galling what is going on.
Hunt asked if there is an ordinance addressing temporary dumping
of dirt on property. Did Cantrup not do this around the Koch
Lumber area? Hammond explained there was a building code ordinance
for that specific property. The ordinance stated that removal of
fill, which was defined as fill which was removed from other
sites where he was undertaking construction, in specific quantities
IN
R MRD .OF, PROCEEDINGS
R��.u1ar._Megt;ng__ _Plann g..and .Zo*+ina. n._._ November-20- 1984
required permits through the building department. Hunt asked if
there is no city ordinance addressing the dumping of dirt,
debris, or fill on property. Colette Penne, planning department,
remarked there is a requirement in the building code for an
excavation permit. Perhaps the building code also addresses the
deposition of removed fill . It is Paul Taddune' s opinion with
respect to this case that the temporary storage of materials does
not constitute development in terms of the SPA. Hunt asked for
clarification of Taddune ' s definition of temporary. Penne
repeated Taddune has determined that the temporary deposition of
fill does not constitute development. The SPA amendment directs
the Commission to review development and/or the appropriate use of
the land. She questioned the phrase "the appropriate use of
land. " This solution is only temporary. If the solution were
permanent then the solution would be reviewed.
Hammond indicated on a site plan the location of the fill. The
shaded area is the southeast corner of the area used for the snow
dump. The few existing trees will not be impacted by the fill.
Hammond indicated the one hundred foot line on the site plan.
The line runs approximately through the center of the shaded
area. Harvey concluded that more than half of the fill will be
within the one hundred foot line. Hammond agreed.
Harvey directed his statements to Barry Edwards, city attorney.
The Commission is the sole authority on stream margin review.
The Commission reviewed this application and approved a motion
which stated that fill not be placed within the one hundred foot
high water line. This action by the city is not an appeal. This
action by City Council and the city manager overrides the Commis-
sion's decision. The city is stating it will locate the f ill
where it wants to. what is the Commission' s legal position on
this action? Edwards replied the Commission is asking Edwards to
criticize and to change the advice of his legal partner, the city
attorney. Edwards will not do that. Edwards cannot do that.
There is an inherent conflict of interest in this situation. The
city attorney has made a decision and has advised the City
Council and the engineering department that the city can do
this. Edwards cannot vary that decision today.
Harvey quoted from the November 16th memo:
"It is Taddune' s interpretation that temporary storage of
fill does not constitute development of the property. It is
the intention of the city to remove or redistribute the fill
in keeping with an adopted plan by October 1, 1985. "
SPA is one consideration. The Commission evaluated this case
under the stream margin review process. The Commission approved
the removal of the dirt and denied the storage of the dirt within
one hundred feet of the river. That action is within the purview
of the Commission under stream margin review. It appears now
that 60% of the fill is to be stored within the one hundred foot
high water line. The Commission does not recommend action to
�g,L7ar, acting , Zoning..pl annin9: :I Zuni ig Cemm;nsien mb t_20... _.7 191M
Council. Stream margin review is a one-step process. Ignoring
SPA for the moment, it is emasculating for this Commission to sit
and to review something for the city who in turn ignores the
review. If this were a private application, the private individual
could not overturn the Commission's decision.
Edwards said the city attorney has presented a position to the
City Council and the Mayor. Edwards cannot oppose that position.
Harvey asked who is the legal representative for the Commission.
Penne noted that during the Commission' s review, the Commission
denied the application because of the absence of a specific
plan. The Commission said it did not want the city to dump any
fill within one hundred feet unless the city answered certain
issues : the location of the deposition, the height or elevation
of the deposition, a plan for landscaping, and a plan for crushing
the fill. The applicant did respond to those questions with this
plan. Harvey disagreed with Penne ' s comments. The Commission
wanted a landscaping plan for the Rio Grande site.
Gideon Kaufman, interested citizen, commented that the Commission' s
final authority, which is granted in the code, has been denied and
ignored. The Commission has the authority and the ability to ask
that its decisions be enforced. The Commission does have the
legal right to ask that its position be enforced. The Commission
is the final arbiter according to the code on these decisions.
The Commission can deny something and the Commission can ask that
the decision be complied with. Anyone who comes before the
Commission has to comply with the same rules and regulations.
The Commission' s position is well taken. Whether the applicant
is City Council or a private citizen, the Commission is entitled
to have its decision enforced since the code grants the Commission
the right to approve or disapprove this particular application.
Fallin quoted the motion from the minutes of November 6th: "the
Commission denies the city the ability to deposit the fill within
one hundred feet of the high water line. " That is a final
statement. Whether the city provides a plan or not for the area
within one hundred feet of the river is irrelevant. She would
adhere to that motion. White agreed with Fallin. The truth is
if a private individual not the city were the applicant the
Commission would take the private applicant to court. Harvey
said if the applicant were not to meet the conditions of stream
margin review the applicant would not receive a permit.
Hammond expanded Taddune' s interpretation: the basic assumption
under the law is that the governmental entity works for the
public interest; as opposed to the private sector that works for
the private interest. The public sector is undertaking the
removal of fill directly in response to a public safety issue,
to protect not only city property but private property in the
same area. The private owners upstream are affected by the
backwater effect. Private property is protected by this action,
property that was distinctly threatened during the last spring
A
RFC ED OF. PBQC - -nTNGS
R au7 r Neeting Q �a= Qn;n�,.Cn rs?on, .HO AM]aa r Q.=.19BA
runoff.
The thrust of the memo suggests that this fill location and this
temporary storage are substantially in compliance with stream
margin review. The action does not respect the Roaring Fork
Greenway, that is a violation to stream margin review. And the
solution does not create new vegetation. But, the temporary
nature of the solution addresses the concern that the solution is
not in compliance with the Roaring Fork Greenway. Understanding
the Commission's concerns, he advised the Commission to endorse
this approach to deal with the first problem, the removal of the
fill. Harvey replied the Commission has already approved the
removal of the fill from the river . The Commission does not
object to the removal of the fill nor to the improvements.
Fall in replied the Commission did agree to the temporary deposition
of the fill on the Rio Grande property but not within one hundred
feet of the river.
Peyton asked what is the practical problem with depositing the
fill on one side of the line but not the other. Harvey replied
one side of the line is the vegetated stream margin area. The
action could disturL -team margin and could impact sedimen-
tation. Peyton argued that area under discussion is void of
vegetation. Harvey said existing trees and shrubs will be removed.
If there were to be high water next year there could be much
sediment deposition in the river. Hammond explained the area is
not in the floodplain. The area will not be threatened by high
water. Hammond indicated on the site plan the one hundred year
floodplain line. The existing river is thirty feet from the
placement of the fill. The area is well outside the floodplain
line. Placement of fill within the flood zone is a violation of
a direct criterion of stream margin.
Harvey reinforced the Commission' s previous motion which denied
the ability to deposit the fill. He requested that the Commission
review a SPA plan that addresses the fill by August 1, 1985, so
that the Commission can decide on a plan by October 1 , 1985.
Hammond requested an extension of that date in the event that by
October 1 the Commission has not adopted a SPA plan but there is
a plan clearly in the works then that date be extended. Harvey
rejected the extension request.
Kaufman asked if a private applicant were to come forward with a
request to store dirt within the one hundred foot line similar to
the city ' s request, would the private applicant be allowed to
store the fill. Hammond replied that request would be subject to
stream margin review. If the applicant were to meet the stream
margin review criteria then the applicant would be able to store
the material. Kaufman remarked that the Commission did determine
that the storage of fill, the request by the city, did not meet the
criteria. If a private applicant received a similar finding
would that applicant be allowed to store the fill? Should the
code be amended so that same benefits received by the city in this
situation be received by the private citizen? The city engineer
i n9 sign._Novezh !'_20-.._7 9$4
has presented reasons why it -jZ appropriate to store the fill
within the one hundred foot line. Perhaps the code should be
adjusted. If it were appropriate to store dirt within the one
hundred foot zone then what would be the difference between the
city or, the private applicant. Hammond repeated storage within
the hundred foot zone is permitted assuming the criteria are
met. I:n the code the hundred foot mark determines the locations
requiring stream margin review. In theory, one could be one
hundred feet from the high water line and thirty feet above the
river, but still be subject to review.
Hammond asked if the permanent storage within one hundred feet
was denied because the action violated stream margin criteria?
Harvey explained the Commission is authorized under stream margin
review to consider and protect the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan.
The city' s action does not assist but hurts the criteria. The
criteria include : no structures within the one hundred year
floodplain; accommodation of river ' s edge trails; implementation
of the Roaring Fork Greenway plan; no removal of vegetation; no
decrease in channel capacity, etc.
Fallin asked if there is any guarantee that the city will remove
the fill by the designated date. Harvey asked what is the
Commission ' s legal recourse in the event the city does not
respond by the October 1st date. There is no recourse now. The
Commission made a ruling and the city ignored that ruling. Can
the city be served with an injunction or a fine? Edwards responded
the city attorneys are obligated to defend Council even if the
Commission files action against the city.
Harvey asked for commissioners' comments on the city's proposal
for reconsideration, endorsement, and ratification of dumping
dirt until October 1, 1985. Hammond reiterated the city will
remove and haul away the dirt in the absence of an adopted SPA.
Hammond is now prevented by Council from removing the dirt from
the Rio Grande, although he has been trying to remove the dirt
from the Rio Grande for some time.
Peyton asked if the location for the excavated dirt is vegetated.
Hammond explained some of the area is denuded because of snow
dumping. Some areas have grass. Harvey noted the area is
already in violation of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. The
city ' s action is compounding an already devastated area; the
city' s action is not supportive of upgrading the area. Fallin
said the snow dump and the impounded cars were to be temporary
situations, they still exist. Peyton asked is there a difference
between fixing up the present situation and fixing up the situation
proposed by the city. Hammond noted that the proposal involves
3, 000 to 4,000 cubic yards. Harvey responded that is the difference
in difficulty.
Harvey reminded the Commission a SPA plan has been proposed for
the Rio Grande property. Councils have reviewed the plan again
and again. This Council acts as if the plan does not exist.
RR[ go OF pR=PPDINOS
42SUW Meeting Alannin0-,and 2 pyiII. -cammigaign__LLNpy_mhor 20. .
Consequently, who knows what the city' s SPA plan will be. The
Council is trying to save money by dumping the dirt on the Rio
Grande.
Hunt said the concept of "temporary" is a concern. What is
"temporary" storage? Who will define "temporary?" "Temporary" may
be interpreted as ten years. That is unacceptable. Harvey said
the Commission can reconfirm the denial of the city' s ability to
deposit the dirt within the one hundred foot mark and the Commis-
sion can determine a date certain that requires the dirt be
removed in the absence of an adopted SPA plan. At that point,
the Commission tries to find an attorney. Should the date be
October 1?
Fallin did not have a problem with the establishment of a date
certain. But, Councils for years have located cars, snow, or
whatever on the property on a temporary basis and then did not
budget for their removal. Consequently, there is an accumulation
of dumped items.
Anderson favored the setting of a date of August 1 for the
presentation of a SPA plan and a date of October 1 for removal of
the dirt in the absence of a SPA plan. On the surface this
action is legally correct, but it is questionable if the Commission
has the power to enforce this date.
Peyton said personally the solution does not bother her. She is
not convinced that the dirt will have to be trucked away before
sodding. She has visited the area. There is nothing to destroy.
The area is already destroyed. As a practical matter she would
rather see the work done. The one hundred foot line according to
the criteria is simply a technicality. Nothing is being destroyed.
Markalunas asked if the October 1st date was requested by the
City Council or Hammond. Hammond replied the engineering department
set the date. Markalunas asked if Council references a specific
date in its resolution. Hammond replied no. The solution of the
temporary stockpiling did receive Council ' s support. This
solution addresses the concern of permanent placement in the
absence of a plan. Council will live with the temporary status,
will deal with a plan, or will remove the fill . Council is
responding to the Commission' s concerns. If the Council were to
adamantly ignore the Commission, Council would have simply moved
forward with a permanent placement plan. The Council is not
suggesting a permanent placement plan. Markalunas asked if the
October date has been presented to Council. Hammond answered
no. This date was presented to Schilling.
Bil Dunaway, publisher for the Ae!*?._.TimeG, reported that at
the meeting that Council opposed the Commission' s decision,
Council did not suggest that fill be dumped within the area under
question. Council recommended dispersal of the fill throughout
the site. It appears the engineering department and city manager
presented the solution to deposit fill within the one hundred
REGARD AF PRACREDTNGS
r_mmi ms on_ N_nv
feet line. Is this a decision by the staff or Council? This
decision was not made in a public meeting. Hammond replied
Council has seen and endorsed this plan. Dunaway understood from
the meeting that Council did not want to deposit the fill within
one hundred feet. Perhaps this is a staff decision. Hammond
said the staff did work on the locational aspects. There is an
added problem of compacting in the case of depositing the fill
over the entire site. Markalunas asked if it is possible to
disperse the fill one hundred feet from the river. Hammond
answered not if the property is to be made usable.
Hunt suggested a motion that reaffirms the Commission' s previous
decision. However, if the Council were to adopt a firm date for
a plan or for removal of the fill, the Commission could change
its decision. Apparently the October 1st date was established by
staff not by Council. Hunt wanted Council to commit. Harvey
suggested that the motion state that the storage of fill is in
violation of the stream margin review, and if there is no SPA
submission by the first meeting in August, 1985, then by October
1, 1985, the dirt must be removed.
i
Roger Hunt moved to send a resolution to City Council stating
that storage of the fill excavated from the Rio Grande area
within the one hundred foot line of the Roaring Fork River is in
violation of the Planning and Zoning Commission's stream margin
review; and stating that if no SPA plan is submitted for consider-
ation to this Commission by their first meeting in August, 1985,
then by October 1 , 1985, the fill must be removed; seconded by David
White. Motion carried with Pat Fallin opposed.
Hammond in response to a query from Peyton said this storage work
has begun and the city is moving toward the one hundred foot
line. He is attempting to keep as much of the material behind
the line. He is trying not to end up any closer to the river
than is necessary. Some of the fill has been located on the Oden
property.
r jj=
rM 1KARGZ�t__REVIEW
Penne presented a site plan of the area. She located the property,
the river, the one hundred year flood line, and the floodway. The
site is at Black Birch. This construction involves a walkway
f rom the second story of the house to the second story over the
garage. The actual construction within the one hundred year
flood line consists of pylons. The construction will be elevated
and supported by pylons. The second story above the garage is an
art studio. It extends out and is supported by two pylons.
She indicated on the plan the actual square footage of construction
within the floodplain. She recommended approval.
Peyton asked when was the last one hundred year flood. Harvey
0
RF[`ARTf f1F PRn(`FFi�TN(�S
aular. 1Kpetin9„, ,,, 7 ninQ_gnd_2•nni� �ommi gn__ Novrsm6Qr=?D_ _1984
explained the Army Corp. of Engineers has determined a line based
on where the water will be dispersed after the the catch basin
absorbs the maximum amount of water.
Robin Molny, architect, was present on behalf of the applicant.
32UM
Roger Hunt moved to approve the Black Birch Estate ' s stream
margin review as presented; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in
favor; motion carried.
ASPS _ MQ[IN3:1 E
gRRi.TMTNARY Pp , i]M17ATTON, A ATTQNS
Harvey briefed the Commission on the history of the application.
Conceptual approval was granted by the Commission and Council.
That approval states, given the master plan, that intensive
lodging at this site makes sense. The infrastructure of the city
can handle the intensive lodging. The hotel is conceptually
sensible. It is the job of the Commission at the preliminary
level to delve into all the particulars : impacts, planning,
service, everything affecting the community good, and specifically
the nineteen conditions attached to Council ' s approval. This is
a public hearing. He will continue the public hearing from
meeting to meeting. There are several areas to be reviewed. The
major items are scale, siting, traffic, pedestrian accesses,
conditional approval items, the growth management plan restoring,
the movement of units, condominiumization, and viewplane.
At this meeting he wants an update on the changes of the proposal
since the conceptual process. He wants to know how the Commission
feels about the applicant' s violation of the first three conditions
determined by Council. He is not eager to review this application
without the applicant' s compliance to the first three conditions.
Council might reject the application because of these violations.
He warned the applicant that it is not sensible to approach
preliminary approval without complying with the conditions.
Richman explained what should be accomplished today. There is no
intention of making a presentation of the entire memorandum.
That is a waste of everyone' s time. And the material will not be
reviewed this evening. Talk about the general approach to
reviewing the project. He will address changes that have occurred
since conceptual. The applicant has requested that the Commission
express problems with the proposed project. Also express the
areas it favors. The applicant needs this feedback as soon as
possible. If time permits this evening the applicant' s architects
will make a presentation that addresses the first three conditions.
They may demonstrate that there is not a problem with the lack of
compliance.
The memorandum presents an analysis of each of the nineteen
RI�C�Rn_,OF_.PRn[ EEDIBi ..S
p��lar Mpsatin�__.m, PlanninQ_and,,2e ina_C'p�ieeAipn._LLNc�npmh�+,�_ _Q_ 19 ad
conditions. He advised the commissioners to thoroughly review
the memo. Highlight areas which are lacking in information. The
memo also identifies the other aspects of preliminary PUD and all
the new requirements for this level of review. The memo addresses
the viewplane, condominiumization, etc.
Be aware of the first few points of the memo that guide this
review. First, remember the Commission is reviewing the lodge
separately from the residential component. The Council has given
the applicant the ability to stage the residential and lodge
portions at different times recognizing that no preliminary
aspect of the lodge is final until the preliminary residential
component is final. The Council and the applicant have agreed to
this. The applicant has not provided specific employee housing
information at this time. The Commission and Council approved
an employee housing solution at conceptual. The applicant
suspects some recalculation to the employee number as the appli-
cation proceeds through the process. The applicant wishes to
address the changes at the residential stage.
The Commission will have to spend a lot of time on the issue of GMP
scoring issue. The applicant and the planning office recognize
an amendment procedure is necessary. The applicant will have to
deal with a GMP amendment. The conditions of conceptual approval
dictate that. Certain aspects of the program that require GMP
amendment are the phasing of this project and the 700 South
Galena project. The Commission needs to guide the applicant.
The applicant will not submit a GMP amendment until he knows the
extent of the amendment.
Phasing is the critical aspect of the project. re commit-
ments which now cannot be met at the early stages. There are inf re-
structure problems. There are phase design issues. Phasing a
447 unit project is not standard. The east wing may now never be
completed. The Commission has to determine whether it can accept
that alternative. The phasing involves the construction of the
west wing and the retention of the units on the east wing, a
remodeled Continental. The net result is still 447 units.
Preliminary PUD is a very different process than conceptual PUD.
Most of the time the Commission is a recommending body. Most of
the time the Commission makes suggestions to Council who makes
final decisions. Preliminary PUD is the middle stage of the
PUD process. It is a distinct review process. The Commission
gives final approval. The Commission' s approval of preliminary PUD
translates to an app.rov_e.d document. Presumably, Council ' s final
plat review conforms with the Commission ' s preliminary PUD
approval. However, if the Commission ' s preliminary approval
were not to meet the conceptual concerns articulated by Council
or were to differ procedurally from Council ' s thoughts, then
Council might not agree to the preliminary PUD. On the one hand
the Commission has to be very concerned about respecting Council ' s
conditions of conceptual approval. On the other hand the Commis-
sion takes final action on preliminary PUD. The Commission has
n
RECORD._,WF,.PRnf'F FnT Nr
eaUlar.Net;n9,.,=__Plannin CU,and nines ('ipmm Qei.nn pv _mhp
the authority to do decide what is right for the community. He
advised the commissioners to balance these two variables or Council
may submit a directive to try again.
The application has an inordinant number of technical issues
which need to be resolved. The applicant has done a good job in
dealing with those issues. The Commission ' s investigation of the
details will take time.
There are three critical questions the applicant will have to
answer. First, the applicant will have to answer if the archi-
tectural concerns, the FAR concerns, and the height concerns
addressed in condition one have been handled to the Council ' s
satisfaction. Second, the applicant will have to answer whether
the issues surrounding phasing have been adequately dealt with.
Is the community adequately protected by the commitments? Third,
there is the growth management amendment. Is phasing an appropriate
amendment to the conceptual scoring? Can the Commission review
changes to 700 South Galena? What is the Commission' s feeling on
those changes?
Harvey questioned the timetable. John Doremus, representative
for the applicant, explained that the schedule is for six meetings
with the Commission. Optimistically, the Commission will sign
off the preliminary just before Christmas. Harvey said that
involves six meetings within less than six weeks . Remember
some of those meeting dates are reserved for case load. He
preferred meetings that are specifically for this application.
Doremus commented that time is critical. The applicant is
determined to initiate construction by April or May, 1985 . Even
if everything works well , meeting that opening date will be
difficult. Every week counts enormously. The following dates are
reserved as special meetings for the application specifically :
November 27 and December 11. The application is also scheduled
for the regular meeting of December 18. A specific item, for
example, phasing, is scheduled for December 4th.
Allan Novak, applicant, remarked that the applicant has spent
much time over the last few months preparing this application.
The applicant has adopted an approach to highlight the potential
issues. The application is in compliance with three conceptual
conditions in question. The applicant expects guidance on the
trade-offs. There are technical solutions the applicant does not
think are in the best interest of the project' s appearance. The
question is what does the community want. The applicant will be
responsive to the community.
The applicant does not consider the issues substantial. The first
issue is architectural differentiation. That is a subjective
question. Leave that decision to the architects. If the city
were to strongly prefer certain architectural solutions then the
applicant would move in that direction. The question of compliance
involves degrees. The applicant wants to work closely with the
city on the best , most sensible solutions. Harvey said the
U ARD F ,M _EED1NQS
Ij�^�!ar L�ieet�Zlg ._ p7 ann i n anr� 2c�ni n (`p
LLUALm.11gympbez,2Q_ 7 9Qa
expression of concern about the lack of compliance to the first
three conditions was for the applicant ' s benefit. The applicant
may convince the Commission that his approaches are correct. But
everyone may be wasting time if Council is adamant about its
conditions. These conditions are similar to the "Ten Commandments : "
"thou shall not exceed, " etc. May be Council should be present
here at some point. Novak said that is not necessary. The
applicant, after it has discussed the items with the Commission,
may mitigate the question of compliance. Remember the issues
are not major . The applicant decided to raise the issues to
better understand how to present the issues to Council. The
applicant really wants guidance on the phasing question. Harvey
suggested the applicant walk the Commission through the changes
from conceptual.
Doremus said the applicant feels positive about the planning
office's submittal, with the content and the response. Doremus
referred to maps on the wall. Information on the maps responds
to the code' s standard for preliminary application. There is a
master plan. The realignment of Galena is new since the conceptual
stage. Remember the Commission made this suggestion. The size
of the project has been reduced to 75, 000 square feet. That
reduction involved two stages : first the reduction of units from
480 to 477 , the Commission' s request; and second the removal of
30 ,000 square feet, the Council ' s request.
The original plan consisted of two monolithic structures. The
present plan involves six smaller structures. The applicant
believes this is a great improvement. The design fits with the
community and the neighborhood. The facade is completely rede-
signed. The height is lowered substantially; he referred to
a set of elevations. The entrance on Durant Street is eliminated.
The entrance is pushed back one hundred feet, it is now on Dean
Street. The result is significant open space in the middle of
Durant.
The realignment of Galena Street precipitated the applicant to
diminish the size of 700 South Galena, a peripheral issue to this
application. The applicant always had a problem with the size of
that residential component. The present design involves two
duplexes, four units instead of twelve units. The remaining
eight units are relocated to the residential element of the
hotel, the west wing. That is a major change.
Peyton asked if the units being relocated from 700 South Galena
are to be built during the first phase of the hotel project.
Richman said yes, during the construction of the west wing of the
hotel. Doremus indicated their location on a map. The units
vary from 1, 800 square feet to 2, 500 square feet. Richman noted
the eight units from 700 South Galena show up as eight three
bedrooms in the west wing. Novak said the total square footage
is 23 ,000. Wells explained the units will be in the configuration
of one, two, and three bedrooms. Some of the square footage
approved for 700 South Galena, roughly 9, 000 square feet, was
�F�m�,_ F.,pRn[_FFnTNrS
Reaular._..H gting- [' VAM%sin , KaYjemh&r„ 2Q-, 1A&4
transferred to the residential component of the lodge. The net
square footage is the same as originally approved by Council. The
relocated eight units are larger units. Square footage has
been borrowed and transferred from other uses. The eight units are
larger than originally designed at 700 South Galena. The square
footage of the residential component of the entire PUD has been
increased. The lodge square footage has been reduced.
Peyton believed the lodge square footage is increased by the
addition of the eight units. Wells explained the square footage
on lot one has increased by the exact amount of square footage
reduced at 700 South Galena. Peyton reiterated the lodge square
footage then has been increased. Doremus said correct. Novak
argued that the lodge has not been increased. The structure on
Mill Street is composed of a residential and a lodge component.
The residential component has increased and the lodge components
has not changed.
Richman said the structure has grown by 17,000 square feet. Richman
asked if the bedroom count is the same as approved under GMP.
Wells answered there are now more bedrooms in the residential
component. Richman said that is an absolute violation of growth
management. Wells said the applicant is filing a new application.
In addition to moving the square footage, there is the transferring
of land from 700 South Galena site to the hotel site. The hotel
site has increased approximately 4, 500 square feet.
Novak remembered the applicant received conceptual approval for
700 South Galena. Despite that approval, the applicant did not
think the design was outstanding. Neighbors were unhappy. There
were clear statements from planning office and others that
straightening Galena Street would be beneficial to the town. The
applicant made changes. The design does not add square footage
to the structure. Additional square footage is attached to the
hotel structure. The addition is only on the Mill Street facade.
The applicant believes this is a beneficial improvement.
Doremus referred to page sixty-five of the application. Under
condition two, the prior square footage and the present square
footage are differentiated. The first column of the chart
indicates what was approved conceptually : 700 South Galena,
19, 260 square feet; the hotel, 310, 275 square feet. The revision
column indicates 700 South Galena at 12,000 square feet and the
hotel with an increase of 7 , 260 square feet. The difference
between 12 , 000 and 19, 260 square feet (7 ,260 square feet) is
listed under item program revision. The two duplexes are 12,000
square feet. The relocated eight units involved the transference
of exactly 7 , 260 square feet from the residential component to
the hotel. Harvey asked if the square footage of the eight units
at the west wing is greater that 7 ,260 square feet. Richman said
yes. Additional square footage was also borrowed from other
places in the lodge. Harvey repeated his concern with the growth
management. Richman noted that the Commission scores on bedroom
count and people. And yes, that relationship has changed.
i 'A
Rp,Q�1 ar_..Me tiny, I, _11111 n mi_Q i nn Nnv mbe 20_ 12A&
Doremus explained the phasing. The west wing is phase 1A. The
applicant wants to move ahead with this immediately. It includes
three structures. The Continental will stay on a portion of lot
one, all other structures on the block are immediately removed:
Hillside Lodge; the old apartments owned by Ken Moore; the Chase
duplex; the Townhouse Apartments; a small structure used as
duplex; House, etc. The site will be cleared. A surface
parking lot will be built to handle -fifty cars. The Durant
frontage will be cleared and landscaped as green open space.
There will be a temporary plaza entrance for the Continental
Inn. The Continental Inn will be cleaned up at a cost of one
million dollars. The clean up will be mostly internal : refur-
bishing, redecorating, recarpeting, new paint. There will be a
reduction of sixteen units; 178 rooms to 162 rooms.
Harvey asked what is the net difference in parking between what
exists and what is proposed. There is a parking lot in front of
the Continental. There is a proposal for fifty parking spaces.
will there be a net gain or loss in parking for the Continental?
Wells explained that parking south of the Continental handles
sixteen spaces for the Woodstone. Richman noted not all of the
underground garage will be built.
The site improvements are essentially the same as the original
commitments except for the overhead through Dean Street near the
existing Continental. The applicant fears moving the overhead
twice. That is very expensive. Today, during a meeting applicant
agreed to improve Galena, to execute the realignment, during the
first phase. Therefore, the applicant will do all the storm and
sewer and water improvements and undergrounding all that which
was originally proposed except for one section of overhead utilities
during phase 1-A. The applicant will follow through with 99% of
the commitments, commitments which contributed to the applicant ' s
GRIP score.
Harvey asked if the planning office is evaluating the potential
municipal concerns over phasing. Is engineering examining the
utilities? Richman said the project will be reviewed in more
detail when the Commission agrees to rescore the project. The
Commission will receive a referral. Harvey commented the Commission
needs to know some of the trade-offs to evaluate the phasing.
Richman assured him that there will be a report at the time phasing
is discussed. The planning office has reviewed many of the ele-
ments. There is no summary as yet.
Doremus said the applicant is aware that the commitment to the
improvements to the site and the neighborhood contributed to the
applicant' s best scores. The applicant is very sensitive to
this. The applicant knows he will have to redemonstrate again
all the commitments in order to receive the same score in the new
GMP scoring process. Otherwise, the applicant risks not meeting
threshold. Novak explained the applicant' s guiding principal : do
everything for the whole project in the first phase, except the
1 .
PRACEEnTN(.E
u7 ar jl�ne n9y Pl.,- nd._7.,DY±. mi ASAL Dn. N[fnsamhpr 7Q_. 7 9R4
items that would be torn up in a few years. If the governing
bodies were to agree certain of those commitments are stupid,
then the applicant would follow through with those commitments also.
Harvey said there is no way the city can require the applicant to
commit to construct phase two at some specific future time. If
the applicant were to commit to phase one now and to phase two by
1989, how could the city require the applicant to apply for the
building permit for the second phase. Richman argued there are
ways the city can protect itself. Harvey argued the Continental
could be remodeled and the east wing never built. The city is
relying on certain future events. What control and reliance does
the city have over these future events?
Novak presented the reasons for the change from the commitment to
build the entire project all at once to the request for phasing.
Originally, the applicant planned to break ground last summer.
Now the target date is next summer. The process has taken a
year longer than was anticipated. The cost of the bankruptcy is
seemingly endless. The final bankruptcy settlement is more than
was contemplated. The zoning process is more costly than was
expected. The applicant is consequently beginning with a greater
investment in the land and a greater financial burden. When the
applicant contemplated doing the entire project at once, the
applicant was contemplating a particular kind of real estate
financing called condo-tel. Initially the applicant was pursuing
several Wall Street firms to participate in financing the entire
project through a condo-tel offer. The condo-tel offer floundered.
It is clear that Wall Street firms will not in the future be
aggressive in pursuing $400,000 ,000 projects. Firms will more
likely pursue projects costing between $25,000,000 to $50,000,000.
The applicant has abandoned the possibility of condo-tei . �—.—c,ing.
Remember condo-tel allows preselling the hotel; all financing is
upfront. On the other hand, traditional financing for a hotel
requires a large equity contribution from a lender. It is clear
that the only available financing is traditional financing for
a phased project. With today' s financial environment it is not
feasible to do the entire project at one time. It is too difficult
for the applicant to carry the negative cash flow which would
accrue during the early years for such a large hotel.
Novak addressed the question how does one know the entire project
will be built. One does not know. Economic realities are
are ultimate denominators unless someone will escrow $30 ,000 ,000.
The worst scenario is the project provides all the promised
amenities, all the lodge improvement district commitments, the
park, no buildings on Durant Street, and a refurbished and
redecorated Continental Inn. The applicant is prepared to spend
in excess of a million dollars on a temporary building. The
applicant intends to build the first phase, a 285 unit hotel, in
a prime location. Initially, there was the argument that a new
477 unit hotel was too big and too risky. The town will benefit
from the phasing of the hotel.
Reaulgr Me tia pl anninQya�d� ni na m _m_her 20- 198A W.
The applicant believes that Aspen can accommodate new rooms .
Once that is demonstrated, the applicant will move quickly to put
up the new east wing. Remember, the only reason the applicant
would not build the east wing is that if the 285 room hotel, the
west wing, were to demonstrate that there was not a demand for
rooms. In which case the applicant should not have built the 477
room hotel to begin with. By moving incrementally, the same goal
is achieved in a safer way. Originally, the applicant was
comfortable with the 477 unit complex because there was no
debt in a condo-tel agreement. The phasing program is the soundest
way to go for the town. The applicant certainly wants to build
the east wing.
Harvey asked if there will be a net increase in the number of
rooms. Does the 477 room count include the Continental and the 285
room hotel? Novak said yes. Harvey asked if the 285 room
complex includes the residential units transferred from 700 South
Galena. Novak said no. The applicant will discuss residential
figures when the residential component is addressed.
Harvey said the applicant cannot increase room numbers. Does the
applicant intend to attract more nightly rentals? Novak remarked
that there is a substantial difference between the quality of the
hotel of the west wing and the Continental. Given the budget,
the applicant would be throwing money away if the units on the
west wing were not substantially better than the Continental.
Richman said the applicant has to demonstrate that all the
commitments are there upfront and to demonstrate that the risk of
the community is lessened or nonexistent. The Commission has to
make a determination on this and phasing. Harvey said the
Commission needs to see those improvements proposed by Council at
conceptual. The Commission needs to see the changes from that
conceptual program to the phasing program. Novak said the
applicant will walk through that carefully. The applicant
believes all commitments are being met except the commitments
that do not make sense.
Harvey suggested that the utility infrastructure phasing be a
topic at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Richman suggested
at the next special meeting that the conditions be the topic of
discussion.
Harvey opened the public hearing.
Doremus addressed item number one on page two of the planning
office' s memo dated November 20th :
"The applicants are continuing to explore architectural
treatments of the lodge buildings as well as other techniques
which could be employed to give the appearance that, although
under common ownership and/or management, that there is more
than one lodging facility on the site. "
, r-
02_ PRn[. FAN.
�2�nrYt MESA i na Al ann ina s n n i II calm gSi a .,NOXAMber._2Q_.__7 9,�4
The applicant did and is continuing to do what was asked. The
statement does not say make the architecture different. Council
requested that alternatives be explored. Richman may have jumped
ahead in his interpretation that Council is requesting that the
project look like two separate hotels. The architects have
explored techniques. The best technique is to separate the
buildings. That is a thorough response to the issue. One
thought is to apply brick to one townhouse, wood to the next
townhouse, similarly to low end townhouses in South Denver. That
is not what is being asked. Subtle techniques can be used. The
architects can expound on techniques and the materials. The
applicant does not favor gimmicks on the structure. It is
a complex structure. The applicant does not want to add or
change materials just to satisfy this request. The applicant
wants the building to be homogeneous, to be unified, and to
relate. The best solution is to break up the mass.
Larry Stricker, architect for the applicant, walked the Commission
through the original plan which involved two u-shaped buildings with
a facade along Durant Street and through the proposed segmenting
of the buildings. In the revised plan buildings will read as three
distinct buildings on Durant. The buildings are two and a half
stories high. He referred to drawings and located the different
components of the project: the residential wing, the west facade
on Mill Street, the hotel, etc. There will be a separate parking
facility for the residential unit. The physical scale of the
hotel is broken down from two to six buildings. The architects
are exploring alternatives for materials. At a subsequent
meeting the architects will bring in samples.
Harvey quoted from the memo: "the application states that the
lodge employs different architectural organizations for the facade,
window, and balcony for each major hotel wing and the exterior
surfaces; and facade details have been designed to accept further
visual demarcation utilizing changes in color and stain, as well
as surface textures. " Harvey is of the opinion a hotel should
read as a hotel. The hotel should not read as a cluster of
different duplexes or fourplexes. Stricker argued the very
nature of the shapes addresses this concern. Eighth scale
drawings will show forty-five different guest room, some with
dormers, some with balconies, some with small European balconies,
and some with seven foot deep balconies.
Larry Yaw, architect for the project, explained many different
elements can compete in a building. The use of a blue room, a
yellow room, etc. , for the purpose of creating an identity may
not be appropriate. Certain unifying elements within the hotel
may cause problems. By breaking the building apart and by
creating spaces, the architect has created spaces exploratory
and pedestrian in quality. The architect wants the hotel guest
to be able to discover a week' s worth of things. The architects
concentrated on the pedestrian amenities, the scale of the
elements at the pedestrian level, how the elements are perceived
by the pedestrian and the town.
�9
RECORD QF .UR(�(
Rp�LI .Meting _,. _'Lp�i paC nmmi s:�ai pn_ _. pVP hEar._20..,..1 454
Richman understood Council ' s concerns were breaking the building
down as much as possible. From a planner ' s perspective, the
project is a PUD. He does not necessarily perceive the common
architectural themes as negative. That is not the question. Unif i-
cation of a PUD is very desirable. Council is asking the applicant
to explore ways to break the building down so the building does
not read as one unified project. He advised the Commission to
get as much information as possible on the materials and the facade
treatment. Then can make a statement to Council. This is all
very subjective. Harvey asked what was Council thinking when it
wrote this condition. Did Council have an opportunity to review
this proposal , the segmented building? Richman replied this
proposal was presented at the end of Council ' s review process.
The Commission continued to discuss Council ' s definition of
"explore. "
Novak informed the Commission that the applicant will submit a
colored perspective. The perspective will provide visuals on the
color of the roof , the combinations of material , etc. The
applicant will try to present a good design by good architects.
The applicant will try to persuade the city that the design is
high quality. The applicant will try to persuade the city that
there is no further need for further individuation of the parts.
White commented that there are five people on Council with five
different interpretations. One interpretation involves the
concept of seven different lodges. One interpretation involves a
common thread . That is the reason for the vague language.
Anderson stated that a request for seven different lodges is a
terrible mistake. There is within the design a great deal of
diversity. There are many things happening at street level .
There is unity within the diversity. Breaking up individual
facades and separating elements provide diversity. He hopes
Council ' s fear is a monolithic structure, not a cluster of
buildings with a common architectural thread. He is not comfortable
trying to figure out Council ' s thinking. Keep in mind Council ' s
intention but do not let the intention dominate the Commission' s
discussion of this project.
Hunt supported the architecture for the lodging facilities.
Looking across Wagner Park three buildings are visible. The
architecture of the two buildings on either side of the plaza is
similar, that is fine. However, another building with similar
architecture located down the street creates the appearance of a
tract development. Change the Durant and Monarch architecture to
allow for variation. Integrate the other two buildings which are
part of an integrated package which flows into the hotel. Stricker
asked if the Mountain Chalet were upgraded, would that be satis-
factory. Or would a material commonality that would link the
buildings together be satisfactory? The entire area can be
upgraded. The entire area can be linked together. A village
experience can be created. Hunt favored the diversity reflected
by the Mountain Chalet architecture; it is not the best architecture
RECQR GS
ga�1a .. pe in� „y _ Plantsin� n[l 2nnina [_ntomi4xsxinn,�,,Npcs�amhsar 7Q_ 74Rd
in town but it is different and breaks up a uniform architectural
wall.
Yaw agreed with Hunt ' s comments on the Mountain Chalet. The
primary reason for the scale is to create a softer street scale
on Durant Street. The intent is to reduce the scale set. The
primary determinant around the highly visible and highly active
pedestrian areas is the street scale. Hunt said that concept
works well for the two buildings on either side of the plaza.
Novak agreed with Hunt ' s comments to modify the Monarch Street
Chalet. Otherwise, Hunt agreed the architecture is quite satis-
factory.
White said Dean Street is the major entrance of the hotel. The units
on Durant Street should be scaled down. The applicant has done
that. He agreed with the comments to vary the architecture on
Monarch.
Peyton questioned the street names on one of the maps. The
southwest corner reads Galena and Dean, the corner should read
Galena and Durant.
Doremus discussed the FAR. The 25,000 square feet is an approximate
number. The square footage count varies with one' s interpretation.
His calculated the FAR at 23 , 340 square feet. The applicant
deliberately raised this issue now. The applicant does not want
a postponement of a building permit because the building department
interprets that the applicant exceeds the allowed FAR.
The issue is differentiating between areas that are necessary for
the function of the building and areas that are amenities. The
benefits make the hotel first class. Other features are for
safety; ramps to access the parking lot. Who wants ramps exposed
to the open? Who wants ramps inaccessible and dangerous to
drive? The code requirement was not meant to penalize a project
of this nature and size. A code requirement that penalizes the
developer for underground parking and covered accesses does not
make sense. Is that the intent of the code? No. He argued that
that the areas which have been raised and identified as issues
are not necessary to the function of the building.
Harvey said it is Richman' s interpretation that the applicant
did assume that the reduced floor area constitutes for all practical
purposes the usable internal floor area. The applicant is now
arguing that the amenities, the covered walkways, for example,
are not absolutely necessary to the function of the building. The
amenities are only enhance the guest ' s enjoyment . Stricker
identified the areas in question. First, two areas involving
covered porte cocheres. Those two areas each incorporate between
5,000 and 6,000 square feet. The open space is fifteen feet high
for both the east and west wings. The colonnade along the three
chateaux buildings, along the park , along the front entrance,
etc. , is open and follows the perimeter of the building. The
other areas are the covered parking ramps, and the accesses to the
^
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Neeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 20. 1984
building. That area is about 4,000 square feet. None of these
figures are included in the interior FAR. There is also the
slight overhang around the perimeter of the building.
Yaw explained the perceptual reasons for this design. Because of
the concern over FAR the design team spent a lot of time struggling
with the reduction of the current mass of the building. Many tools
have been used to achieve the reduction : sloped roofs, etc.
Another architectural tool is two skins: an inner wall and an
outer wall. The result is that pedestrian levels are protected
and properly scaled. (Yaw proceeded to illustrate his comments
with sketches. ) He illustrated the original scheme of the
building profile and the proposed scheme that scales the building
down for the pedestrian. Another scaling down device is a
balcony. There is an illusion of a reduced eave line. The
outer skin is different from the inner skin; the former will be a
weathering surface which protects the inner wood surface. The
proposed scheme is carried through the entire building. The
proposed scheme is scaled to be compatible with the pedestrian.
The sidewalk is extended under the building. All this successfully
achieves a reduced scale. The building is more compatible with
the Aspen scale. The scheme protects the building's enrichment,
wood; the scheme protects pedestrian entering and exiting the
building; the scheme protects cars ; and the scheme minimizes the
visual impact of cars on the site. The entry has been taken back
to Dean Street. Vehicular circulation is minimized and the
pedestrian activity is maximized.
Novak said if the applicant were faced with including the square
footage of the porte cocheres in the FAR calculations then the
applicant would be faced with the choice of making less commodious,
less grand, less attractive porte cocheres, or even eliminating
the porte cocheres altogether.
Hunt supported the concept of covered sidewalks and sloped
roofs. The architecture is a welcomed change. Practically
speaking, where there are sloped roofs there is falling snow.
The pedestrian is protected from the falling snow by covered
sidewalks.
Peyton asked were covered sidewalks and porte cocheres were
included at the end of the conceptual approval process. Stricker
explained these elements were included in the discussion but not
in the FAR calculations. There is a reason the applicant has
brought this discussion forward at this time. When the applicant
applies for a building permit the applicant does not want the
building department to make an issue out of FAR. Peyton asked if
there really have been changes from the conceptual level .
Stricker said the covered ramps and the porte cocheres have never
been figured in the enclosed FAR of the building. One interpre-
tation of the code suggests including these in FAR. Harvey said
that interpretation is usually taken by the building department.
Richman agreed the building department is likely to include those
areas in the FAR calculations. The Commission cannot tell the
nn
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning_Commission November 20. 1984
building department not to. But, at the same time this is a PUD
and varying FAR is allowed. This situation is not black and
white. The question is, as suggested by the planning office, the
design. And the design works quite well. The applicant has
presented a design which is in the spirit of Council' s accomplish-
ments. He does not know if the applicant has met the FAR.
Harvey asked if Council reviewed this new plan. Did Council
review this plan and request further cuts? Novak responded that
this issue, which he emphasized the applicant raised, has not
been on anyone ' s mind. The problem is Council in response to
this question may not know what was on its mind. It may have
never measured the FAR. At some point the FAR will be counted.
The planning office and the building department count FAR. The
applicant computed the present figure in response to a design
team member's discovery that FAR figure might be an issue. There
is a provision that addresses balconies and overhangs : up to 15%
of that floor area is not counted in FAR. The applicant computed
that 7% of the building is balconies. 8% remains. The overhangs
are less than 8%. Hunt asked if the 25, 000 square feet includes
covered balconies. Novak said no. Hunt said this discussion then
involves covered pedestrian walkways and overhangs and the porte
cocheres.
Harvey said too many buildings have been nitpicked in this town.
Many great amenities get denied because of the letter of the
law. Harvey asked the commissioners ' attitude on how to treat the
amenities. What should the specific verbiage be?
Anderson said ramps to the underground parking normally are not
counted. The building department may take a hard line and count
the pedestrian colonnades or arcades. These elements are not
necessary to the function of the building. These elements are an
amenity to the building. Richman noted areas under awnings are
counted in the FAR. He cited Aspen Square. Anderson determined
that the colonnades are not a necessary function to the building.
They are an amenity the building. Harvey discouraged a fight
with the building department. Instead, the Commission should
make a statement on the square footage. Anderson encouraged
a comment in a "whereas" or in a condition. Hunt suggested
identifying for the building department areas that could by
interpretation exceed the FAR but are considered essential
amenities. Those amenities are not necessary for internal
function of the building.
Doremus expressed concern over Council ' s perception the Commis-
sion' s decision. This action is a team effort. Try to work
together for the best possible scheme and argument to present to
Council. There are many ways to deal with the building department
to make the issue not an issue. The applicant perceives certain
elements as required by code and as part of the function of the
building. The overhang of a doorway cannot be eliminated because
doorways are essential for entering and exiting. The building
will not function without an egress and igress. The code requires
11,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 20. 1984
so many doorways. None of the cases the applicant has been
discussing fall within these code related, necessary elements.
Harvey said the argument is reasonable. On the other hand, the
applicant could be winning over the Commission for the real
purpose of obtaining more square footage in the building.
Doremus asked how can the applicant prove his good intentions.
Harvey said the applicant cannot. He feels the building has been
cut substantially. Doremus noted that last cut involved 30,000
square feet of internal floor area. Harvey asked if the applicant
is still 20,000 square feet over. Doremus replied may be. Novak
said the number discussed with Council never included the outside
space. The applicant at Council ' s request did cut the internal
square footage by 30, 000 square feet. No one before now considered
the square footage of the external amenities.
Fallin did not have a problem with the overhangs and the 25, 000
square feet as long as the spaces are not used for expanding the
building. Create language that keeps that space as defined in
perpetuity. Novak agreed. Harvey argued if that space were
determined not part of FAR, then the building cannot be pushed
out into that space. Peyton agreed with Fallin. She argued
against a blanket increase in FAR for that very reason. Harvey
agreed. He believed the strategy is to exclude the area from
FAR.
White said it may appear to Council, after it requested reduction
in internal square footage by 30 , 000 square feet, that the
Commission has turned around and increased the external square
footage by 23 , 000 square feet. He favored Fallin ' s idea.
Stricker said the 23, 000 square feet is external space. The
30, 000 square foot reduction is internal space. That can be
documented. Harvey requested documentation on the external
23, 000 square feet. This will help the Commission determine what
areas are amenities and what areas are necessary for the function
of the building.
Yaw summarized Council ' s concerns: scale. Every concern involved
perceptual concerns. Those concerns are difficult to describe.
All changes have been done for the pedestrian. The external
spaces are for the enjoyment of guests and the public. Pedestrian
spaces meander into and under the building. Pedestrian quality
and scale are issues Council focused on.
Doremus reported that at 5: 15 p.m. today the architects advised
him that they had redesigned the roofs. There is now no possible
interpretation that the roof exceeds the height limits.
Harvey continued the public hearing to November 27th. He also
requested an outline on future meetings.
Harvey adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Neeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 20. 1984
Barbara Norri , Deputy City Clerk
11