Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19931116 (' '- - r " '- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16. 1993 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Roll call: Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Bruce Kerr. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger asked when P&Z would be seeing Highlands again. Leslie: When staff sees it-- Leslie: I have scheduled a meeting on the 30th. It is a work session on Moore GMQS and Benedict stillwater County referral. Roger: FYI I did respond to the EIS concerning CDOT's treatment of Shale Bluffs which I protested because they show the most obtrusive possible way of cutting Shale Bluffs. STAFF COMMENTS Kim: Presented reso on Richard Compton which Bruce read into record. (attached in record) MOTION Roger: Compton Jasmine I move to adopt Resolution #93-24 commending Richard for his term on P&Z. seconded the motion with all in favor. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. MINUTES OCTOBER 5. 1993 OCTOBER 19. 1993 MOTION Jasmine: I move to approve minutes of October 5 and 19, 1993 as amended. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. SBARBARO CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 2. 1993 Bruce re-opened the public hearing. David stepped down from this hearing because of possible conflict of interest. Mary Lackner, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. I "-- /""" ',- I' PZM11.16.93 Bruce then asked the applicant if they had any problems with the conditions. ?: We just wanted to point out that the stairway to the unit was enclosed and heatei and there is not snow shedding on the doorway. Other than that--n problems. Bruce asked for pu lic comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of he hearing. MOTION Jasmine: I move to approve the conditional use review 320 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit for the Sbarbaro residence at 101 East Francis with the conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated November 2, 1993. (attached in record) Roger seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes, Bruce, yes. ASPEN CLUB LODGE TEXT AMENDMENT. GMOS EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW continued from November 2. 1993 Kim: If and when this comes back it will be such a dramatic change that it will have to be re-noticed. Bruce re-opened this public hearing. There was no comment from the public and he closed the public hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to remove the Aspen Club Lodge proposed code amendment from our agenda at the request of the applicant. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor except David. KRAUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION TEXT AMENDMENT. GMOS EXEMPTION SPECIAL REVIEW AND CONDOMINIUMIZATION Leslie made presentation as attached in record. 2 (' , '- (' "- /"'" '- PZMll.16.93 I have several changes or clarifications to the conditions of approval. On page 17 of my memo Condition #13--I would like to just clarify my last sentence. I say this would include Hwy 82. I want to say "This would include Hwy 82 but not East Hyman or the alleyway". And then Condition #15--I say "During the time of construction, the project shall be surrounded on 3 sides of the covered pedestrian walkway". 2 sides--East Hyman and Original street. And then on page 19 for the conditional use staff recommends conditional use approval for 29 below grade public parking spaces on the Kraut property. And then your 4th recommended motion I need to approve the conditional use for 29 public parking spaces. Jim Curtis, project manager then made presentation using model of proj ect. Bruce opened the public hearing. Leslie then read a letter from Mickey Spalding expressing his concerns regarding this application. (attached in record) Roger: I read that in effect there is going to be 27 new parking spaces for a new use there. That's the affordable housing. And you are planning for an additional 29 for a total of 56 spaces. So we will be losing 57 spaces. The problem is we are falling short by 28 spaces with this present plan. Curtis: The first level of parking you see using both the Kraut property and the A-Frame property. If you use the Kraut property on one level you get 56 spaces and that comes to a double load the parking that comes 9 feet underneath East Hyman Street. Using the one level on the A-Frame property will give you an additional 20 spaces. On 2 levels using both properties you can go to the maximum 146 spaces and 2 levels only using the Kraut property you can get up to 107 spaces. Roger: amount vicenzi If it was decided at this point just to build just the 56 can it be later integrated into an expansion into the property? Teague: Yes if the level was built to 56 the configuration would not be altered. It would be suitable to that expansion to that next-- Roger: You would make the connection under the ramp. 3 /" PZM11. 16.93 ....-, Teague: That's right. After further discussion-- COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ' Sara: I regret that we are unable to do the store and thelroom above the store. That, to me, is the real character of a old town. But I really appreciate that we don't want to get into the commercial landlord bus'iness and for the reason that this was purchased with housing funds. On the other hand I want to compliment on the wonderful design. I like the broken roofs. My one concern about the metal roof is where it sheds. It looks as though it is going to go right down into those wells at the garden level apartments. curtis: That is a problem which we are going to look into. Sara: My concern about moving it out to 9 feet. Extending it out to 9 feet we have a wonderful thing in Aspen still that is like any great city. And that is the vistas all the way down the streets. You can stand way down at East Hopkins and look all the way to Aspen Street. I don't want that interrupted. I don't want you closing in the streets. And then suddenly the street goes out again. We are going to have hour-glass streets. That concerns me. Curtis: Maintaining the vista actually improves by going out the 9 feet because the location of the building doesn't change. This is the open space between the property line and the back of the curb. Just a small green space. If the breaking of the curb line concerns you we would prefer to pay the cost of extending the curb line from corner to corner and still picking up the additional 5 feet of space there. Sara: I am also happy that it is 1 bedroom and studios. That is what is appropriate in the commercial core area. Roger: I agree with Sara just about totally as far as the general plan. But I agree with the Engineering Dept concerning going out the 17 and 1/2 feet instead of the 21 and 1/2 feet. To off- balance that street that far I think is a problem when you are coming mostly in the easterly direction. r I would really prefer to get it balanced and if you are going to have that on that side of the street, eventually I want to see the same more or less on the other side of the street so that there is \~ 4 ,1'" "-- PZMll. 16.93 a nice balance to the street.I prefer seeing Condition #3 17 and 1/2 feet as opposed to 21 and 1/2 feet. I like what you have come up with. David: Concerning parking I prefer option B. I think it is important to keep the consistency going down the street and I think what that does is keep not only additional parking spaces but a clear demarkation between the residential district across 82, original and this block. This project is more of a severe impact to the neighborhood because of the need for parking in this neighborhood. I think it is very important to come up with some creative way to minimize the impact of delivery of materials and construction activities in the neighborhood. /''' There should be a way to keep that alley open for emergency traffic and trash pickup if not 100% of the time at least intermittently. I agree with Sara regarding the snow dumping onto the entries of the units. I would encourage you to beef up the acoustics between the units as much as possible. I would also encourage Some sort of coniferous growth between the alley and the courtyard. I would encourage you to consider using lights that match the historic street lights along Main Street. I think maintaining diagonal parking is extremely important. -- Jasmine: I agree with David I s and Sara's and Roger's decision about the parking along Hyman. Originally, I have to say, I was very much in favor of the additional green space. But their arguments have convinced me otherwise. Additionally since that green space is on the north side of the building, I really don't think it is necessarily as usable as green space that is located geographically differently. I think the preservation of the streetscape is important. I like very much the way you have broken up the mass of the project. I am not concerned about the parking in terms of it being linked to the super block. I really believe that a residential parking and when you try to link up with a municipal type of operation that it really does have a detrimental effect on the residents of this particular project and the residential properties immediately surrounding it. I think that the 56 spaces for the residents and at least operations I think works fine. I don't mind the entrance being on Hyman because of the way you have oriented everything south to the alley. Therefore, as a ,I"""'" project goes, it is really going to be less obtrusive to have the -- 5 r' PZMll.16.93 '-" parking coming on and off Hyman with attention to David's safety factors as far as it's crossing a sidewalk. I think it will make that whole courtyard a lot nicer to not have cars coming in and out of the alley from a parking garage. I think that will enhance that whole experience for the residents. In general I am very favorably impressed by the project. Tim: I would start with the Superblock philosophy. I am still stuck on that and it has always been a bone for me that this isn't connected. I think the whole proliferation of the Superblock concept was not to build a bigger City Market but to put as much parking in this corner of town as possible. To me that meant excavating the Kraut property and excavating the Superblock property at the same time. To go back to other arguments that the Superblock property is probably a 30 or 40 million dollar property--to hold up excavating the site and put maximum parking in here because of $115,000 or a $300,000 utility re-alignment to me doesn't make any sense. I think that that is part of the project--part of the Superblock project. If the Kraut property can't afford it then the Superblock project has to afford it. I think that because of special events, because of the demand for parking we have to have the maximum amount of parking that we can have underneath the Superblock project in that core of town. And that, to me, links the Kraut property with the Superblock project. I think once we start digging, we should dig one hole. We should dig it once. We should have as far-reaching, farsighted purpose as we can have. And that means to spend whatever we have to spend now to create super parking in the Superblock. I think that they should be connected. I think that we have to say to the people who are doing the Superblock project "This is what the City needs from you in order to build a bigger City Market--in order to get commercial space in the Bell Mountain Lodge--in order to expand the Buckhorn. The City has some needs here and the City's needs are parking. This is the way project is going to go for you if you want to go forward. It includes digging a big hole and connecting these parking lots and re-aligning the utilities that are down the alley. It is ridiculous to hold that up for the utilities. They are going to come for changes in zoning, changes in everything. The City's needs should be presented. We should get our heads together and I~ really design the project once and for all. "- 6 ,...' PZMll.16.93 -. I think that if you do that then this parking level underneath the Kraut property becomes residential only and it has an alternate entrance. Maybe some of the residential people will be coming through the commercial parking area and driving through the lot and using their cards to get in. Maybe it is going to be more convenient than crossing the sidewalks and using Hyman. I like this Hyman exit for the residential parking spaces but I think it is going to be obviously easier for even the residents to use. If we have a main Superblock parking entrance they are going to be using that more than they are using this. I am not in favor of eliminating the angle parking on Hyman for green space. Obviously we are surrounded with millions of acres of green space. This is a dense downtown property. There are 1 bedrooms. It comes with the territory that the cars are on the street and I just can't see designing again a parking complex and then allowing a Superblock to be attached to it and then the Kraut property being attached to it and giving up parking spaces on the street. I think our net gain is what we should be looking at and I think that once you eliminate parking on the street it just doesn't work for me. ,4.' I could never go along with having the block end at the garage entrance here and then having vicenzi's curbline come in and go down. That makes no sense to me. - I really appreciate the design except for one thing. I think that traditionally there has been brick in the downtown area. For us to bring in a gray wood-sided building like we have at the end of Hopkins is going to drive everybody crazy. It just makes it look like a barn. It enunciates the little windows and I just think that there has to be some kind of brick appointments. Even the condominiums across the street aren't all brick but there is some brick in them and it blends them with the downtown area. Again I know you are trying to minimize the cost and bring in a real efficient construction cost but it goes with the territory. The people who are going to live in this building downtown are going to be more urban than not and I think that they are going to have to pay just a little bit more to keep the building compatible with the neighborhood to make it part of the downtown type design and keep the traditional victorian appointments to it. I hope it as energy efficient as possible. Bruce: It sounds like we are almost unanimous on not eliminating the angle parking on Hyman. If we were looking at an application that was providing 146 spaces '--- 7 t"" PZMll.16.93 -' I would say yes, make it all parallel. But we are not. We are looking at this application which is for 56 spaces. And we are trying to deal with an already tough parking problem and trying to keep as many parking places as we possibly can. I share some of Tim's thoughts about co-ordination between this property and the Superblock. I have expressed those at previous meetings. The fact of the matter is we have in front of us an application. And we must deal with this application as it stands. I very much, Tim, share your concerns about that. It is also a fact that this is going on to council and even though we may be a few weeks or even months apart on the timelines of the 2 different projects right now, perhaps those timelines will come together and Council can appropriately deal with some of these issues about connecting the parking garages. But we must deal with the application as it exists right now. Generally I like the look of the project and the mix of the units. Is there a current thought about whether these units are going to be rental or for sale. Tom Baker, Housing: preference for sale. At this point council has They haven't finally decided. indicated a t'" '-- Bruce: Therefore this project would become condominiumized. How would the garage be dealt with and who would be the owner or manager? Baker: The homeowner's association would be responsible for the public parking. So there would have to be city ownership there as well as condominium ownership. It will have to be worked out. Bruce: So how do we deal with parking for guests of the residents of this project? curtis: They would be on the street. Bruce: That is a concern that I have. We have got 27 plus warm bodies living there. They are going to have guests. And the parking in that area is incredibly tight and I don't know where those guests are going to park. Leslie asked for a clarification on the height. curtis: We agree that as part of the City council approval we will record a set of documents that shows heights. The highest height point is here at 30 feet and from that point on various mid-points of roofs vary between 26 and 28 and 1/2 feet. 1"'. '- 8 1""" PZM11.16.93 -- Leslie: I just don't want to see that all of a sudden it comes in as all 30 feet. PUBLIC COMMENT Frank Peters: I asked Tom whether the hypothetical John Doe would be required to replace private parking. I think these gentlemen are in a difficult position because on the one hand they have to act on behalf of the Housing Authority and the City Council on the other hand. I would suggest to the Planning Commission that just as a general principal you offer this project some sort of stream-lined objective review and approval and to some extent stick to the requirements that John Doe would have to provide. $350,000 to put in a connection under the alley is not a lot of money compared to $20,000,000 where it is coming from, what kind of deals are made, what kind of zoning approvals. These are all very difficult issues. And over the 4 years that we have owned the property this property has been burdened by too many possibilities. I would suggest when possible this project be reviewed as a private developer would be reviewed. Bruce asked if there were any further public comments. There were none and he closed the public portion of this hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Leslie: Alternative A is the eliminating of angle parking so you get the maximum amount of green space. Bruce: I think we have all said we don't like alternative A. So we have got to figure out what we put in place of condition #3. Roger: At the 21 and 1/2 feed anyway. I was arguing for alternative A but at 17 and 1/2 feet. But I am very responsive to the arguments for maintaining the angle parking. Sara: Chuck suggest streets cape alternate B shall be implemented by the developer. Leslie: It will be a 6 foot 8 inch setback and then it would be from the property line to the curb 12 feet 4 and 1/2 inches. And within that 12 feet 4 and 1/2 inches you can have your sidewalk. , Roger: Now the only think I would like to point out is that within that alternative B they are apparently going to have to as showing the subgrade on this new sheet here they are obviously gong to have ",,^'.-, -~,~_. 9 /' PZMl1. 16. 93 -. to excavate through the existing curb and replace it. Does that have a factor in anyone's thinking as to where that curb should be replaced? Should it be replaced where it is now which is alternative B or should we move it in any way? I am seeing "NOs" everywhere. OK. So then #3 becomes "Streetscape alternative B shall be implemented by the developer". Then restating condition #13--it will stay "Work in the alleys and the streets of the commercial on Main Street corridors prohibited between June 15 and Labor Day. This would include Hwy 82 but not East Hyman or the alley in this block." And then #15 becomes modified "During the time of construction the project shall be surrounded on 2 sides with a covered pedestrian walkway. The alley may be closed as necessary to all traffic as necessary for construction activity." Re-reading--The alley may be closed to all traffic (except con- struction-related activity) as needed for construction. /"" " Under the conditional use #29 replaces #19 below grade parking spaces and adding (in addition to the 27 residential spaces). MOTION Roger: I move to approve conditional use of the 29 parking spaces in addition to 27 residential spaces to be located in the Kraut development parking garage with the condition of approval as outlined in the Planning Office memo dated November 16, 1993 provided that Council approves the text amendment. Leslie: I will do a resolution forwarding your recommendations to council and we can have a couple "Whereases" in the resolution about how you feel about the connection of the Superblock. MOTION Roger: Then I would move for Planning Office to basically develop a resolution that would come back to us for reviewing Leslie: Is it OK if I put that in the same resolution that I will prepare to pass on to council regarding the entire application. Jasmine: wait a minute. I am getting really confused here. Bruce: Let's deal with what is in our packet and then if we want to send additional comments on to Council let I s do that with a .- separate motion. IO "'.... PZM11.16.93 --- Roger: In other words a motion to incorporate those in your resolution to Council. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend subdivision and GMQS exemption approval for the 27 fully deed restricted dwelling units to be developed on the Kraut property with the conditions of approval for subdivision and GMQS exemption as outlined in Planning Office memo dated November 16, 1993 as amended. Jasmine seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Tim,yes, David,yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes, Bruce,yes. MOTION ,""""""'" Roger: I move to approve special review for open space, parking and height for the Kraut housing development with the conditions outlined in Planning Office memo dated November 16, 1993 as amended. And add the finding that all the review criteria have been met. Sara seconded the motion. Tim,yes, David,yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes, Bruce,yes. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the text amendment allowing public parking as a conditional use in the Affordable Housing zone district. Jasmine seconded the motion. Tim,yes, David,yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes, Bruce.yes. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the conditional use for 29 public parking spaces in addition to the 27 residential spaces to be located in the Kraut development parking garage with the conditions of approval as amended as outlined in the Planning Office memo dated November 16, 1993 provided that Council approve the text amendment. Jasmine seconded the motion. 11 r PZMl1.16.93 ',,",,-- Tim,yes, David,yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes, Bruce,yes. Bruce: I want to compliment the applicant on the fact that we don't have this room full of the public. It is nice to have the public here. But I can recall some of these other meetings where it has been a storm in here and I think that means that you have done a good job with the neighbors and have resolved many of their concerns so that they are not here screaming and hollering about this AH project across the street or down the block from them. So Tom and Jim and Harry--all of you--congratulations on apparently overcoming the public objections to this project. SILVER CITY GRILL CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Rick Neiley, Attorney for applicant: Presented affidavit of public notice. (attached in record) , ",'~ Neiley made presentation as attached in record. He then read into the record letters from B. Lee Schumacher, frequent customer, Fetzer's, an adjacent business, Carol Ann Jacobson Reality, close business neighbor, Mark Friedland, local business neighbor, Brad Walters of Red Hat Produce, food delivery to Silver City Grill and Westman Food Service, delivery service to silver city Grill. All of the letters being in support of the expansion of the Silver City Grill. (attached in record) Bruce: Do you have a problem with the 4 conditions listed in the Planning staff memo? Neiley: No, not at all. Jasmine: You refer to this as an expansion. Yet this is a conditional use approval for a restaurant. Why couldn't they have just applied for an expansion of a conditional use? Leslie: It is not directly connected to the silver City Grill. I wanted this to be all encompassing in case their addition doesn't fly and another restaurant were to go in we have a space there that we have reviewed for it's impacts and it's use. Jasmine: So it doesn't really matter whether this is an expansion of the Silver City Grill or another completely different operation. Is that what you are saying? Leslie: Right. Except for this is only 300 square feet and if ,.... somebody wanted to come in and take over that space and then expand 12 r" PZMl1.16.93 -- that space so we have a full restaurant there that is one of the reasons for a condition __?__ that any increase in the size of this space--any change in the size of the restaurant then that is a substantial change in use and needs to come forward to us. Jasmine: What you are saying is that it doesn't matter whether this is the Silver City Grill or not. What we are doing in this conditional use, although the applicants own the Silver City Grill, we are basically approving a restaurant or not approving. Bruce: A non-cooking restaurant. Leslie: At the pre-application conference with everybody they were arguing with me that this is only a waiting area for people to hang out when they can't sit everybody in the restaurant. And for mitigation purposes, especially employee housing, Tom Baker looked at this as a separate entity. And we had to review it as if it were a restaurant. , Roger: I was looking at this as an expansion of a conditional use. And that means that there is still only 2 restaurants in this building. That, to me, is significant. And I really wish this had come as--I don't mind reviewing it for the purposes of employee generation and things like that as a separate operation. But, to me, it is significant that this is an approval of a 3rd restaurant in this building. I can't support a 3rd restaurant in this building where I can support an expansion of an existing restaurant. Leslie: Seeing that this is a conditional use which requires a very specific review I do not see a reason why you could not include that this is only reviewed as an expansion of Silver City Grill. And if Silver City Grill goes away then this goes away. Roger: Or it can't be spun off as a 3rd restaurant operation in this building. Bruce: Does the applicant have a problem with an additional condition reflecting Roger's concern? Neiley: We really thought that the condition which limited the ability to effectively put in a full kitchen addressed that. And we do have some concern about the success of it. We don't want to be in a position where we can't utilize that space for something else or sell it to somebody else if it is not successful. We really looked at the conditions that were proposed which limits the expansion as saying basically a cold kitchen in here--no oven, no grill, no hood as limiting the ability to operate that as a separate full-blown restaurant. /''' - 13 /' PZMll.16.93 ""-,, Bruce opened the public hearing for comment. Pat McAlister, attorney for Garfield & Hecht: I support this application. I don't see that it will have any negative effect on my practice nor on the adjacent zoning district. I have known Dave and susie for several years and am a regular customer in the restaurant and have always known it to be a first class operation. I think this represents a good opportunity for the Planning & Zoning commission to actively support small local business. Lisa Miller: My question is the hours of operation ___. They there is no cooking . Is it a full restaurant secondly trying making it with the space currently that have. I am not sure how much more overhead. I am not how it works out. (She mumbled a lot!) said And they sure Michael McCue: I am chairman of the Restaurant Association, the Roaring Fork Chapter. And Dave has been associated for a number of years. He is on the Board of the Restaurant Association. As a former president and now as chairman I have had a lot of experience with him in that situation. And one of our concerns with the Restaurant Association and with CCLC working closely with Bill Dinsmoor who is the present president to really address the concerns that we as an industry have as well as the City has about trash and about trash maintenance. And Dave along with the rest of the Board has worked diligently to try to aid that process to improve the conditions of the alleys and as far as deliveries and to other issues he has come up with. So I know that David is very aware of those issues and know that he has worked diligently with us through the Association to address those issues. Quite honestly on a different tag I feel that he also represents small business. The more traditional concept of what the restaurateur in Aspen was and hopefully will continue to be in that they have created an opportunity for themselves and provide the service to the community. Right now I see their needs in the new space as being that they will be able to provide their customers an opportunity to sit in a warm, comfortable condition while waiting to be seated upstairs. Also to have a more casual opportunity to dine in that new space as opposed to having to sit down to a full dinner upstairs. I think that the restroom facilities within the building the way they function now are extremely dangerous. People have to literally go into an alley in order to go to the bathroom facilities that exist for them now. They will have an opportunity to expand those facilities and provide their customers with a cleaner and a more comfortable situation. These are serious concerns. ,.. i 14 r" PZMll.16.93 --. Those are reasons enough to give this serious consideration. would hope you will be in favor of this application. I Casey Kaufman: I own Takah Sushi Restaurant and I feel a lot of empathy for David and susie because I also try and make a small and very awkward space work. In a community where you work a lot of hours and off seasons and on seasons it becomes increasingly difficult and even threatening when you hear about all of the different people with very deep pockets that are moving into town. I just must say that I would urge you to approve this application and I join in the feeling that it shows support for some local people--a small business that mostly serves local people and I must add that it seems like there are so many situations so similar in town that have been made to work that it seems rather arbitrary to say that David and Susan can't do their thing. Marty Draper: I am a contractor and have been remodeling that building of and on for the last 6 or so years. I know that David has improved that building almost 100%. I remember when ____ was in there and Dudley's was like--the trash was terrible when they were in there. Since David and Susan have taken over the building it is the best I have ever seen the building. It is cleaner. It is better maintained better taken care of. I highly recommend you approve this application. , -- There was no further public comment and Bruce closed the public portion of the hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger: I see a further reason for tying this off as an expansion to the existing Silver city Grill. That is the restroom facilities in this new area. Actually it improves the conditions of the previous conditional use of the Silver City Grill. To me that by itself--putting these 2 together it would be impossible to separate them in the future by spinning this off as a restaurant separate from the Silver City Grill. This has to be an expansion of the conditional use as opposed to a conditional use review for a new restaurant. Sara: I voted for this application the last time. And I want to re-iterate that the purpose of the C-l Zone District is to provide for the establishment of commercial uses which are not oriented towards serving the tourist population. I want to support what has been said during the public hearing. It also should minimize adverse effects and I congratulate you. I have been watching that alley in the last month and walking home that way and it is a different alley. I" '- 15 PZMl1. 16.93 "- This should have been presented as an expansion of a conditional use. Philosophically for me it is hard to think of a third restaurant in that building. It is not difficult at all to think of it as an extension. So I support this application again as an expansion of a conditional use and not a new restaurant. Tim: I voted against this the last time. We never really try to attack a local status or disrupt the intent of a local attitude of having a small restaurant. And we by no means felt that the restaurant was ill run or that it wasn't providing a nitch in the community. And we by no means discussed anything that was along the lines of your presentation. We are in favor of this restaurant. We are in favor of a conditional use like this in this building. So your whole presentation basically to me was mute. The things that really are at the essence here are basically what Roger is talking about and it's being not a whole new restaurant and that is the way it was presented. , '--~" The other thing that turned my opinion around that time was not who or what they are selling or where they live or how long they have been here or how many people like them in the community. It is that the accumulative impact of now having instead of Silver City Grill which to me is a sandwich place, now it is putting it's sandwich place in that could compete with them. And if it is a holding pen for Silver City Grill and Bahn Thai then that in itself becomes a bigger restaurant. The impacts become bigger. The trash becomes bigger. The toilets are used more. The noise, the traffic of the conditional use becomes accumulatively much more. And so to put that into a space that is really not zoned for it where you say if you had to go across the street where you have the free right to do that, well that's where Little Annie's is as a full blown restaurant. And we have spaces like that in town and we have needs for those kinds of restaurants in town. If you keep stretching what started out as a good idea into a little space here which then competes with this good idea and impacts this conditional use is where I was at when I voted against this. And to say you have cleaned up the alley or you brought in people who eat there doesn't change what it does to that building. It doesn't change what it does to the noise, to the parking and to the smells, to the traffic for that building. /' Your presentation didn't address any of what is going to happen in the future when you have not only one bigger restaurant there that now has a bar with a waiting area and Bahn Thai being off of it and Silver City Grill serving more dinners. But a third restaurant that basically can stay with that space, can then impact that space separately as having 3 restaurants in there. I am all for the Silver city Grill. I am all for local businesses. I am all for the community plan. But to stretch a conditional use space like 16 PZMIl. 16. 93 this you still haven't told me how it is going to be comfortable for what I see happening there. I am across the street at Mason and Morse and I go there and I like the food. But the cumulative activity of where they are going to make it a different kind of restaurant to make it a full scale restaurant that competes with other full scale restaurants that are in the zone, that do have all the mitigation, that do have what a restaurant really needs to operate, I can't see how it can compete. And I can't see how it is a good idea for that space. David: Is this primarily a waiting room or is it primarily a bar or a restaurant? Neiley: The concept originally arose to create a space particularly for winter time use where the patrons who were com~ng to the restaurant and finding it full and parting, could wait. In conjunction with that expansion we were going to move the bar down there and create some seating which is effectively what is going on down here. We need the ability to serve food or we can't serve liquor. And to put things in a little perspective, how this sort of came to be a separate application is in addition to what Leslie mentioned about employee impact is the City Clerk's office said "You have got to get a separate liquor license because we consider it a separate premises. So when we went to look for a conditional review we just sort of looked at it as separate premises. This is really is an expansion and is intended to be an expansion. It is intended not to compete but to complement. And as you can see it is relatively small. So whether or not a space like this could survive as a separate restaurant on it's own I don't know. It probably could. That is not the intention here. The intention is to really expand an existing operation in somewhat of an awkward location simply because there isn't any other place to do it. It does offer us the advantage of the ability to create 2 new restrooms which are inside and within the courtyard. And it is close enough so that people will wait there to come to the main restaurant to eat. The intention is to use it as an annex to the Silver City Grill. Bruce: Can we add a condition referencing the representations and promises made by the applicant? David: I hear you saying it is a separate restaurant by definition of the liquor licensing board. It is a catch 22. It is really a separate entity. conceivably it could be spun off. I hear other members of the Board talking as if it would be tied to the conditional use or be an expansion of the existing conditional use. "" And that would be acceptable. "-' 17 / PZMl1.16.93 --.._- Is it a waiting room? Because if it is a waiting room it is a whole different life-safety category and I can't do that because of the considerations that go with that. Neiley: It is not a waiting room in the sense that that is all it is. It is an area in which full dinners aren't going to be served. And in that sense it's an area where people can wait until there are tables available in the main restaurant. And hopefully it will get a good lunch business doing cold sandwiches out of there which we really don't do out of the existing location. David: So it would be fair to call it a waiting bar/restaurant. Goldberg: We are not talking about that many people waiting for dinner. We are talking maybe 15 people a night. So I don't think we could make it work if it was just that. David: I am thinking what the exiting requirements are and whether that is going to work technically within the space out the back door to get your second exit. Neiley: I did have a talk with Bill Drueding about that and he looked at it and said he didn't identify any problems such as those. I described it more as a part of the restaurant and simply a waiting area which is clearly what the Goldbergs want to do there. They will be serving sandwiches and beer. Roger: We need to deal with the dumb waiter and delivery. By tying it to the Silver City Grill and if primarily the deliveries are to the Silver city Grill and this is just an adjunct of that operation I have less of a problem of waiving the dumbwaiter or a delivery method into this space. Sara: There is that terrific ramp. Leslie: And it is right next to the alley. Jasmine: I think Roger's point is if this is one operation rather than 2 that makes a big difference. I am willing to go along with not requiring the dumbwaiter if this is going to be one operation. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the conditional use for the expansion of the Silver City Grill operation into a location that replaces Elli's Salon at 308 South Hunter Street with the conditions #1 through #4 as stated on Planning office memo dated November 16, 1"" 1993 and the addition of condition #5 18 ;<""" PZMl1. 16.93 -, Leslie: This conditional use represents an expansion of 600 additional gross square feet for Silver city Grill only. Any change in use, change in ownership and/or change in tenency of the additional space shall require a Substantial Conditional Use Review by the Planning & Zoning commission. Roger: And add condition #6 addressing the dumbwaiter aspect that the dumbwaiter or similar facility is not required in this expanded space at this time because it is an expansion of the Silver city Grill operation. Jasmine seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Tim,yes, David,yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes, Bruce,yes. GALENA PLAZA CC ZONE DISTRICT COMMERCIAL GMOS Kim made presentation as attached in record. ''"- I recommend item #7 is a housing mitigation requirement that is not technically part of this special review approval and motion and is actually covered in the final recommended motion. So I recommend delete #7. -, , Sunny made presentation as attached in record. Bruce opened the public hearing for comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Galena Plaza Special Reviews for reduction of 11 parking spaces and approximately 500 square feet of open space and an FAR bonus of 1.6 to 1 with the conditions #1 through #6 on Planning Office memo dated November 16, 1993. Jasmine seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Tim,yes, David,yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes, Bruce,yes. MOTION Roger: I move to score the Galena Plaza Growth Management project at 27 and 1/2 points as recommended by the Planning Office finding that the required thresholds have been met for growth management 19 ,,,.,...... '~ "~"..... .....~- PZMl1. 16.93 allocation. Sara seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Tim,yes, David,yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes, Bruce,yes. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend to city Council only accept housing mitigation package which addresses the Housing Office's concerns specifically with the employee generation of a project be calculated at 4.375 persons per thousand square feet net leasable and that the deed restricted units meet the housing guidelines. Jasmine seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Tim,yes, David,yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes, Bruce,yes. REBO #93-25 Bruce: Leslie has a resolution which she and I spoke about earlier today which calls on city council in as strong of terms as possible to immediately seek to appoint additional members to our body. MOTION Roger: I move to adopt resolution #93-25 with the change of #3 to indicate that the Planning & Zoning Commission supports the City Charter in preventing the appointment of an individual to 2 commissions because of the time requirements necessary to adequately accomplish one's job and further to relieve potential conflicts of interest. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 8:55 P.M. 20