Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19880628 K RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 28. 1988 Chairman Welton called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Bruce Kerr, Michael Herron, Jim Colombo, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, David White, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. RITZ-CARLTON GMP/PUD AMENDMENT AND REZONING CONTINUED HEARING Alan: Welcome once again, my friends, to the show that never ends. You will recall that back in April you had just gotten into scoring. You had gone through the Lodge scoring process. Alan showed scores to members. The project continued to meet the threshold the last time it was scored. It scored 61.2 which was slightly lower than what it had scored back in the last amended scoring. Specifically, it scored lower in 3 important areas, architecture, site design and visual impact. We were at a point, having scored the project in the Lodge area-- your next step normally would have been to deal with--OK we scored it, it scored somewhat lower--do we find the changes and the problems with the areas where there are lower scores--do we find those to be appropriate or not? As you know, immediately after your meeting, the Council took up the issue of the proj ect I s extension. That extension was not approved back on April 11th and then Council continued its discussions with the applicant during the months of April and May and the result of that is the so-called Resolution #11. We were at the completion of the PUD portion of the review and we were about to get into the step at which we are ready to set conditions. Basic areas of concern: Can we do something to help break up the length of the Mill and Monarch street facades or break up their scale. Is there something we can do more about the height further beyond what was occurring in the couple months of your review. Should we do something about the open space. We really changed the orientation of that open space. And then there were some questions about employee housing--more in the comments than in the scores. You all gave the same score under employee housing. But your comments indicated continuing concern or discontent with the provision of employee housing on the project. Council in their deliberations in April, and they really did focus on all of those issues with the exception of employee housing. PZM6.28.88 Now the project is back in your hands for the P&Z full and complete review. All issues are on the table for your review. You shouldn't feel hampered in any way--that there are aspects of this project that you shouldn't look at. What they really have done is leave for you to deal with all of the basic questions that we had been looking at. It is very clear that the resolution confirms that the applicant has the right to build the maximum of 292 hotel rooms and a 190,000 sqft of FAR. with that it is very easy for Paul and I to conclude that we are very definitely in the amendment process. That is the way we recommend that you be processing this review. Mari: When the City Council resolution says a maximum number does that mean that that is the upper limit, not the bottom limit as well? Paul: The original approval permitted so many units and this is a reduction of the original approval and the Council at the request of the applicant inserted into the memorandum or into the resolution their rights stating that that would be a minimum number of units. Mari: That is a non-negotiable number--is that what you are saying? Alan: I think it is clear that we have the ability to review the site design and the architecture of this project. If in the review of that site design and architecture the Commission comes to the conclusion that that number of rooms does not or cannot fit on the site in this configuration, the Council would want to hear that. But they are telling you to look at that in the context of an approved PUD plan from the past and the extent to which this is or is not an improvement over that previous approval. Parry: This is the same program that we had all along. If I can count what Council said to us--that 190,000 sqft FAR was there. And if we could get the 292 rooms to work in that--fine. But not to come back and say we can get more than 292 rooms then we need further FAR above that in order to accommodate that. That was the way it was phrased to us. Mari: What is the status of the excavation permit and foundation permit and schedule? ".,,~-, Alan: An excavation permit was issued back on April 15th. No foundation permit was issued. I don't know the status of the <'''"~.,. 2 I ____ PZM6.28.88 excavation yet. We are not processing any additional permits at this point. Mari: There was a date originally by which they would have to have certain things completed. Alan: April 15th is the date that you have in mind. And as of April 15th-- Mari: Not the permit but the completion. John Sarpa: We were given until June 24th to complete the major excavation of the project which included substantial pile driving. We completed the pile driving approximately a week in advance of that schedule and we completed the major excavation of the site on that day of the 24th. There is a small amount of dirt being moved out at this point which is commensurate with what the city had advised us would be acceptable given the heightened season of the music institute. We are right on the schedule of what the City asked us to maintain. Mari: Is this the excavation for the Robert's plan? John: It is the excavation for the Ritz. Parry: The permit was an excavation permit as the first stage on the fast-track building permit process. But it was based on those plans that we agreed in the resolution. Roy: Technically, for the record, it was a building permit issued for the first phase of a fast-track building process. That is what the permit was and it enabled the permit to either do the work that was applied for which it was issued on the strength of the Robert's plans and subsequently there was agreement at the May 5th meeting to not build the Robert's plan. Alan: I think the only other date we need to bring to your attention, the Council and the applicant agreed that the processing of the this proj ect would be completed by September 12th. That is the date we are all striving to work toward. John: We have proceeded .with the architectural drawings you will see tonight based on some new suggested changes that the Council gave to us. We feel they continue along many of the same lines that you all had focused on. The timeliness of the project continues to be extremely important. Obviously the process is now almost 2 months longer than any of us had envisioned. Although we have been able to maintain the time table for the overall project because of the work we have been able to do to date. ,- 3 PZM6.28.88 We feel that what you will see tonight is another level of improvement--whether that relates to setbacks and heights. We have made substantial improvements there. We feel there were some good suggestions raised and we were pleased to be able to respond to them. Parry: In the process we went through the elimination of an 80 foot section in here, shortening of the building wings on Monarch and Mill. Retail space in 24 hotel rooms on the Blue Spruce site connected by an elevated bridgeway to get the guests here into an elevator core down at the lobby. What you see on the Grande Aspen site and on the block that we are requesting for the park is only 27,000 plus sqft here. At this point we are refining both the park and what is called Phase II and those applications will--we will have a full presentation on that on the 12th. And they are tracking through the process behind the Ritz-Carlton Lot 1 but you will be familiar enough with them because especially this is connected with the Ritz- Carlton approval. We are looking now at enlarging the rink from what we had originally come up with. We have got requirements for skate rentals, food service, all of the equipment, the Zamboni. But this is basically--any structures that we put in here, we wanted to put over here closer to the North of Nell Building--keep this flow of open space open through the project. Our design format here is going to leave this corner completely open so that you can get a viewplain through into this area and then from this way coming over here. We have been through the Dean street. Nothing changed there. The plan on this has now been cut by 105 rooms in the overall site. So this will be no more than 50 hotel rooms and residential units. The residential component between this site and the Top of Mill is 47 units. We are looking at the planning on there to see what we want to put on here and what will be at the Top of Mill. This before, if you remember, under the zoning that is about 42,000sqft of FAR on this site. Under the prior approval there was a building there and a little square rink and another building on this end which was commercial. This portion is all Commercial Lodge here which is--there was commercial on the bottom and lodge rooms above. That FAR minus about 12,000 that we reduced it by. We shifted back to this portion of the lot and those plans will be comfng in. That basically in terms of the - 4 PZM6.28.88 overall PUD context, is what we went through in the meetings with Council. Gene Aubrey: This elevation starts with Dean street. The elevation that is drawn is what we are presenting to you and as a result of the meetings that we had previously. The green line indicates the former submission height. That is the one you voted on on April 5th. Now one of the things happened in Council and has happened all the way along for instance was some discussion of variations in the roof height so that we wouldn't have a straight line. When you look at this drawing you will see that some are higher, some are lower. But there is a variation that happens all along. As you go to that particular elevation on Dean street it hasn't materially changed architecturally from the one that you saw before. For instance this corner elevation--the character of the architecture in the style of that corner is not changed. That what you saw before is the same. And that is showing up on this elevation. The material selections which is the brick and the stone have not changed from those. The dormer window details have not changed. So for intents and purposes, the Dean Street elevation has not changed. This is the corner entrance at the corner of Dean and Monarch. This is the loading dock in this area on Dean and this corner of the building is angling back and this indication right here is the bridge location that ties over to the Blue Spruce site. The bridge connection is set back approximately 60 ft from the curb line. The Mill street elevation is a major change. The roof height was up at this elevation and. we were able to drop an entire floor from this section of the building which made this bump up a little bit. This is down below this height. We are back off the setback some additional footage. The major change happened in this area where I believe it's an 80 ft section of the building has been taken out. Those rooms are relocated on the Blue Spruce site. In its place the 1 story building which is the apres ski lounge and a court yard which is open to the street and there is a 1- story connecter that you see which is that high which ties the apres ski lounge and this portion of the hotel which has its own elevator system to the main lobby of the building which is in that location. Alan: My request for some additional details is being responded to right here which is excellent and we certainly appreciate it. One comment that I could make with regard to some work that has '",...,., 5 PZM6.28.88 been done on the bridge was to try and make sure that the building on Durant street really does stand out. Durant street is obviously a major street in this community and in some ways the building here will be the first building that people will see of the hotel--to not be real prominent and visually distinct. We certainly encourage the approach that the architects have taken in lending a lot of the elements of the hotel with this building. We are not suggesting in any way that it have its own unique elements but in some way be a little bit more distinct. Gene, you mentioned how the heights have been varied throughout the elevations which we think is a very good feature. It seems to happen a lot less on the annex. I certainly have no problem with some variety in the heights on the annex. Certainly in terms of the scale of this building--a 3 story building--that is 1 story less than Council saw. There is absolutely no problem with the scale of the building. But we don't see it breaking apart enough at the bridge. We would like to see the Blue Spruce Building stand out a little bit more as opposed to being quite so connected the way the bridge just seems to connect them at the kind of a vertical basis. As you will recall in some of the earlier reviews, the Planning commission wanted to see the ends of the building move in and it created a kind of a notch on the building. That notch has been traded off and been replaced by a short natural reduction in the length. That is a very worthwhile tradeoff. The benefit of a shorter building exceeds the benefit of setback which you might have achieved with that notch. To me it is more worthwhile in terms of the visual impact. I have had a chance to look at the setbacks from the building. There is no area that I can find on the project that doesn't meet setbacks. It exceeds setbacks in all locations that I have been able to measure. In a number of locations as compared to the previous drawings, it has been pulled back off the street further and it certainly has been reduced at the southern ends of the building. We have not asked the applicant to update the shading studies that you saw before. You might want to do that. On Mill street, heights have dropped significantly since the version that P&Z scored. Mari: At this point what is the highest height from the ridge line to grade. """-" 6 PZM6.28.88 Alan: I have measured it at 60 ft to the peak of the ridge. And that shows up on the Mill street. Mari: Does that show up at more than one place? Roy: I am getting 51 ft from grade. Alan, you may have been getting that off of a drawing that did not show the natural grade. Alan: That is quite possible. Parry: I think it is important to point out that when we took this out of here, there is now the main elevator bank here but of course the people back here have this walkway on the internal side of this apres ski lounge and open area, so we had to install a second bank of elevators to serve this. Mari: Does that have an extra floor--that section of the building compared to the next section over? Parry: Yes. Alan: That is the only 5-story section on that facade. Parry: If you have to do that with the elevators you might as well put the rooms in there because that enables you to play with the rest of the building. Mari: You are saying that it has to be a story higher than the elevator-- Parry: No. If you will remember the original approvals--there was always the--this is the maximum height to the mid point of the roof and this is the maximum height for the elevator towers. It was always because the elevator has gotta go up beyond that anyway. Mari: How many floors of rooms do you have in that corner? Roy: here. south There are 5 guest floors above the back of house areas There are 5 guest floors above back of house on the very end. There are 4 guest floors-- Parry: 3 Roy: Sorry. Parry: On the south end? How many floors? -- 7 PZM6.28.88 Roy: 5--what the grade does to vary those rooms is--obviously it changes--there are 4 levels of guest rooms very similar to what we have done along Dean street, we actually stripped away a row of guest rooms across there. Up here on the courtyard side we had to pull 5 levels of guest rooms on the courtyard side only. So it is a single loaded quarter that runs across the building on the main side so from this point to that point drops down 1 floor. Mari: So what we are looking at there are 3 stories of guest rooms but on the opposite side there is 1 more. Roy: No. What you are looking right there is the same thing that wraps around. What you don't see is on the courtyard side, the levels are straight across. Very similar to what we have done on the Dean Street from the opposite of the project. It is a single loaded corridor. On the 6th level which is actually the 6th guest level, you have got rooms here that go back single loaded corridor this direction and then they come back out in that modular at the end. If you look at the 6th level plan you get a better idea. Mari: What I don't understand--OK--I see that there are 5 stories of guest rooms on that thing. On the next one back, it looks like there are 3 floors. Is that right? Roy: From what you see there are 3 levels of guest rooms. There is a level of guest rooms at that point which remains consistent- Mari: But it is lower. Parry: Yes. It is a lower grade. Mari: It is below grade on the other side, right? The question is if you have only got to serve 3 stories of hotel rooms-- Roy: I am sorry. I don't think we have made ourselves clear. Do you remember the model that showed that as being a courtyard with-- Mari: Yes, I understand that. I am just saying that I don't understand why the elevator tower has to go up 2 extra levels. Roy: It doesn't. It comes to this point to serve this level which extends all the way down--if you look at the plan--this level 6 plan we have got a full row of rooms on the courtyard side that are also being serviced as well as these rooms and those rooms. The elevator only goes high enough to serve the guest floor. 8 PZM6.28.88 Welton: That section is one story higher than the one that is next to it. It is one story higher facing north, facing west and facing south. Roy: That is correct. Welton: But not facing east. David: Could I have an idea of a number of rooms in each. Roy: The last tally we have got 24 rooms in Building. 100 rooms in the south Mill wing. building. That is a rough estimate. The suite through--it has changed since then. the Blue Spruce 160 in the main count as we went David: What is under the Blue Spruce site? Roy: Nothing. We have retail at grade and we have 2 occupied guest quarters above grade. David: But underneath that you have nothing? Roy: We have a small portion of retail that is actually sub- grade at the far--as the site rises through it-- Parry: You are after parking or something below grade? David: Yea. John: Parking is all under the main building. David: Do you have any what might be called an inside lookout? These are all outside looks. Do you have anything that shows what an inside might be of anything? Roy: As you stand in the courtyard this building would appear 1 story taller than this building. It is actually 1 guest floor taller. The inside of this building would remain a consistent height all the way around the interior. But, no, we have not done any interior sketches. Members then requested interior sketches. David: Relating to the predominant--larger and necessarily have to be. bridge: It seems to more predominant than me it fairly would Roy: We look at it as a very critical connecter. We don't have sub-grade connection for service so we are relying on that bridge 9 PZM6.28.88 for all of our guest circulation, all of our room service circulation. Gene: The idea of the bridge, we have to go from here to here. And if we were to stretch the bridge across, it really becomes very, very ominous. So the idea, not unlike your suggestion of breaking the building into smaller parts, we really wanted it to look like a little bridge. So that is why we sort of put this element and this element so that, in fact, the bridge only it breaks it up. This gives variation on the streetscape. John: From an operational standpoint, the Ritz has several other sites where they have rooms that are undesirable like those. Those are not nearly as desirable as what we are going to have over in that main building, obviously even though they are going to have some beautiful views east back toward Red Mountain. still these are going to be the toughest to sell and they have great experience in taking a corridor and making it look like the main lobby as opposed to just a corridor where you could shove a cart down it and get from A to B. They have had tremendous success in making that very much as attractive as that main building. This requires more space and they felt very strongly about that as to what kind of connecter to put between the two. Roger: I think you have done an excellent job with the constraints you have been put to. Looking at the elevation of Monarch and unfortunately no one will ever see this elevation from the perspective we are looking at. And this is what is terribly deceiving. You will see that bridge down Dean Street. That is the only place you will see that bridge that way. The optical illusion of the building receding away in the center of Monarch I think is fantastic. No one will never see it. I am going to basically architecturally grade it the same I did before. However I have lost benefits we had from the older building from the perspective angle of those notches and the difference in the plains of the building. So that is where I disagree with the Planning Department. I am not criticizing you for this. I am just saying that you have been put into this kind of constraints so this is what we are getting and I am not going to downgrade you for it because I understand how you got there. But unfortunately from the perspective most people are going to see it, it is going to look like it probably has more of a plain impact along Monarch than it did before. I think the treatment of bridge just will not be Street elevation, again, the bridge is excellent. Virtually that seen from most angles. As for the Mill I understand they pulled out a great big -- 10 PZM6.28.88 notch. But what that has done is, in effect, from a perspective point of view, you are going to see a fairly large building back there up on Mill street and it is going to look like an addition. Again, I am not going to downgrade for that. But given the previous plan and this plan, if I had them side by side, I would really prefer the previous plan. I would just forewarn the community here--OK you play this game with people and this is what you are going to get. I think you have done an excellent job, an outstanding job. Don't get me wrong. My criticism is more for the process that you have come through to get you to this point than it is what you have done. Jim: Does this bridge represent a different coloring or hue or anything like that or materials? John: No. It is the same material. Jim: That might be roof sizing here materials. one consideration. or some variation That and a variation of in the coloration of Jasmine: I disagree with you very strongly. I don't like the idea of too much variation in the materials or the colorations. I think you get too much of a harlequin effect. And I would like to echo what Roger said in that what the applicant has done has been to respond to all the criticisms that were made by all the amateur and professional architects in this community. They have modified their plan and made adjustments here and there to be able to accommodate this wish list that came from various directions, many of which were in conflict with each other. And I think they have done an incredible job. I think we would have been better off letting them do their original amended plan which had a certain cohesiveness in terms of function and style which I found perfectly acceptable. Given the constraints that they had, their treatment of what they have done is excellent. I am not crazy with bridges in general but I think they have done the best possible job they can with it. The Blue Spruce being a smaller element of the building I think in the style they have now is almost sort of a gatehouse or lodge effect that you see. And I think that the idea that it is a little smaller and subdued and not that dramatic is kind of in keeping with that style so I really don't necessarily want to see that changed. Welton: I agree with Jasmine in that I think the addition of the bridge and the Blue Spruce property which, because of its scale, '- 11 PZM6.28.88 doesn't need to have the same kind of articulation as the roof of the larger building. I think it is fine the way it is. It does give you the sense of entry which I thought was lacking without that before. It was sort of a--you drive down Dean street and you go underneath this tunnel and into the building and you are there. I think arriving from the airport this is going to be your entrance experience now. And with the thing set back 60 feet from the street the bridge is great the way it is. And I think the Mill street elevation has responded in a very, very nice way to our earlier concerns and again from the 3/4 view which is what you are going to get, you are going to get a 3/4 view of both of these and never the dead-on that we are talking about. It really solves the concerns that everybody was screaming and yelling over. This is a public hearing: We will take comments from the public. -- Bruce Kerr: I own property across the corner from the Blue Spruce site. I am a little curious as to why it is necessary to have commercial space on the first floor. As I understand it they have taken 24 rooms out of the massive building which I kind of agree with Roger and Jasmine. I was happier with it the way it was before with leaving the Blue Spruce alone, frankly. And I do applaud you for lowering the Blue Spruce from 4 stories to 3. But I am curious as to why we need the commercial space on the Blue Spruce site. Why don't we just put the 24 rooms there, have 2 floors and bring that thing down? Parry: One of the concerns is not to have rooms on the ground floor in that location. The reason being that--you have a service access across here on that corner and you have got a real busy corner there so we wanted to get the rooms off the ground floor. Bruce: What concerns me is we are pulling commercial further and further out into the lOdging district. I don't like the idea of having commercial coming up our way. Welton asked if there was any other public comment. There was none and he continued the public hearing to the next meeting. Roger: because already I see no need for another study of the shadowing effect this is well within the previous shadow studies we have seen. David: I think that with nothing being under the Blue Spruce, there is an opportunity for something. I like what you have done with working within the confines that you have. But with the space underneath there, there could be something. More parking or some shifting of parking or whatever. <- 12 PZM6.28.88 A heated road through there might be a good idea in order to solve the problem of ice under the bridge because it is going to be shaded most of the winter. From a height standpoint, I am pleased with the changing of the height. I feel that the bridge is a little bit more than it should be but that is not a majority on this board. SITE PLANNING -"- Roy: From a site planning standpoint we really haven't altered the location of the building to any great extent over what was presented at the scoring. Once we did eliminate a section of rooms we were allowed to re-modulate this wing which effected some shifting in the building. We have maintained setbacks here and we have maintained the additional setback in the south portion exclusive of the elimination of the notch. We have maintained that setback. But the Dean street location has remained primarily the same. The Mill street location has remained primarily the same. We have pulled the majority of the parking and structure 4 ft inside the south property line with the elimination of the module on the south end of the Monarch street side. We actua:lly picked up additional area in the terrace which we have continued the same design concept to assist in buffering the retaining wall in the south end of the property. We are still maintaining the pocket park with public access from an overlook down into a quiet terrace and then on into the more active space and then you make the transition on down some monumental stairs on into a more exclusive internalized courtyard. From the Dean street side the service truck area, the compactor area is all remaining primarily in the same place. The porte- cochere and the way it functions is still identically the same. We do have pedestrian access for the retail space below the Blue Spruce building from Dean Street primarily from Monarch Street and from Durant Street. They load directly into an internalized arcade which is not air conditioned or conditioned in any way with the retail running around the perimeter. similar landscaping concepts all the way around the project as we have seen previously. The ski entrance remains essentially in the same place. And you have seen on the context map how that relates back to all the other activities that are being planned as part of the project. . with the inclusion of the slot we have introduced a public court. We are calling it an atrium garden for lack of a better term. You do pass under a small arcade that signifies a connection between the buildings. But it is a completely open air space that acts as an outdoor amenity to the ,- 13 PZM6.28.88 apres ski lounge and also provides direct pedestrian access into he hotel and further into the courtyard. The entrance to the parking garage on this scheme as we see it here is not consistent with the plans that were submitted in the submission package and we have sent Alan a set of parking diagrams. We have actually moved the entrance a little further north to accommodate some of the grades that we are running into. The building has been pulled back off the southern property line at this point but we are continuing the same design concept from a landscaping standpoint. The first hotel guest floor is completely buried at that point which is where we are putting our hotel health club. The second guest floor will have a small terrace with a seating wall and this portion of the land will be graded back to create a terrace up. We don't have rooms that don't have views. Conceptually we really have not changed the components that we had previously. We do have an employee entrance into the hotel. -..,,- Roger: The only possible problem area I can foresee is the serv~ce area. You have your 14ft 1/2inch clearance you say under the center line of the bridge. But you have to keep in mind you are going to be swinging semis. Are you going to have maneuvering room under that bridge? Parry: We had not brought that up tonight because that was more of a technical issue. Alan: I do have something that they submitted to us. technical issues. that Jay and I have been looking at It is something we will bring up in John: How much total open space just by way of information do we have now? Parry: It is over 40,000 ft. Welton re-opened the public hearing for site planning issues. Mary Martin: I was not here when they brought in the landscaping. I am very much opposed to a formal landscaping. All along Main street which used to be the Cottonwoods, now being replaced by Norway Maple which is really not a very pretty tree. They are in front of everywhere. And to me this is a formal plan and I would like to see more informal plantings to give it a balance. I would like to see it all Aspen and flowers and less shrubs. The snow really wrecks the shrubs around here. Nobody sees them in the winter anyway. 14 PZM6.28.88 Parry: Where we have gotten to, Mary, has been through working with the city on what they are doing for the Galena street Improvement District. Mary: Well, whatever you are trying to do is wrong. Parry: We are trying to do uniform planting and I understand exactly what you are saying. Mary: It should be informal. This is an informal town. It is not a formal town. It doesn't have Maples. They didn't start here. There should also be Crabapples because you can see through them. I think R~mona would agree with me. Ramona: I don't know what the City is doing. John: I think it is fair to say there ought to be a use for the Aspen tree. Parry: The street trees--it is requested that they are uniform. That is the way the City likes to have it. Obviously in this area and in here we are doing clumps--Aspen and some Spruce so .~_.- there is going to be that break. Mary: Why does the city have to dictate rows to this hotel? It - is moved back 28 ft. There is not another single building in this whole City 28 ft off the curbing. Why does it dictate trees now? Why does it dictate anything anymore? Why can't it be an informal garden? Welton: Are you trying to dictate an informal garden? Mary, this is a formal hotel. Mary: It is not a formal hotel. John: The applicant will: look at this tree configuration. Alan: The answer is that there is a Lodge District plan that the Engineering Department and City Council along with the consultant has been developing for a number of years--not the Planning Office. And the concept has been to create an identity for this portion of the Lodge District. Mari: Mary, are you concerned about the formality of the interior courtyard plantings. That, to me, is the part that looks the most rigid and un-mountainy and ski towny. It looks more like a formal French or European setting. It looks very regimented. 15 PZM6.28.88 John: We are open to looking at the tree mix and we will do so. Gene: In that area there is some activity in the hotel that has to go on here. And so there has to be some certain regimentation with the way they do things in a controlled area. When you get out to that back area and you get the circular form and it gets much more softer. But I agree with you. The idea of some breaking up of that so it doesn't look like a whole--it is Aspen. I think it is a good suggestion. Mary: I would like to see different trees than the Poplars and the Maples. Jasmine: I think that what you have in a garden is a very subj ecti ve thing. I have no obj ection to a more formal garden because I think that is pretty much in keeping with the architecture and the hotel. But I think the choice of the interior plantings is really up to the applicant. Roger: I agree completely with Jasmine on the internal garden. I think this is the applicant's area to carry out the design of his hotel in what he wants to accomplish with his hotel. As far as the external trees along the perimeter, I agree--a break up in trees would be nice because I don't agree with uniform trees the way they are approaching it. Joe: The code says you will have a street tree every 12 feet. Welton: I agree with Jasmine and Roger. Michael: I agree. Ramona: So do 1. And I question the City's choice of Norway Maples and Poplars because I have a Norway Maple tree in my yard that was some 3 inches in circumference when I planted it 10 years ago. It is maybe 6 inches in circumference now and it has a big split in the side of it. It has had great problems with snow storms tearing off limbs. They are not a tree that is deciduous to the area. I think that we should encourage trees that will grow here and that will survive here because we don't have a Florida climate and we don't have a regimented climate. Jim: I have no problem with the internalization formality of the courtyard. I think you.have done a good job of opening up the open space. I had a real concern about the fact that you had internalized all of your open space and that it was not open to the public at large at all--that is on a pedestrian level. Alan: The commercial definition have to be uses in accessory the Bl ue retail. Spruce building We don't have by any 16 PZM6.28.88 definition at all from the applicant. the applicant to give us some kind of a of retail space this will be. John: They are already defined. The Ritz does have that defined and we can get it for Y04. I would like you to ask sample list of what kinds Welton: In a hotel of this scale you have a lot of internal stuff that is geared not toward outside people but to the hotel guests. I think we have reached a closure on the landscaping so the public hearing is continued. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:38pm. -- .. 17