Testing, testing, testing, Oh yeah. money. >> You might have you might have a few of them. You might have a few of them for sale. >> Jesus,
>> how are you? I think. Okay. >> They 28. >> I'm on vacation. >> My phone says July 28. Hi. How are you? >> I didn't see you today. I was over at
your place. >> You didn't work today? I was looking for you. I like the pressure of you watching me. >> Focuses the mind. >> That's it. That's it. >> Who we missing?
>> Who we missing? >> Dennis. >> Yeah. dance. >> Well, then we can start, >> man. How are you doing? >> Okay, we'll start. >> Okay, everybody ready?
>> Good evening everybody. K city planning board is now in session and in compliance with the open public meetings act of 1975 adequate notice this meeting has been provided. Should any member of this board have reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of that notice? They shall so state at this time. Hearing none, we'll start with the
pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Roll call. Karen. >> Yes. Mr. Bizair.
>> Here. >> Mr. Jones. >> Mr. Mr. Riggs >> here. >> Mr. Crowley >> here. >> M Gone >> here. >> Council member Bodner >> here. >> Deputy Mayor McDade >> here. >> Mrs. Reed >> here. >> Mr. Lhome >> here. >> Mr. Bedus. >> Mr. Crippen.
>> Okay. The uh Okay, we have resolution number 72826. Celco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless 1045 Beach Avenue
block 10 uh sorry block 1101 lot 7 motion to approve the resolution. >> I'll make the motion. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Council I'm sorry. Deputy Mayor McDade motions. Mrs. Reid seconds. Mr. Gorgone. >> Yes.
>> Council member Bodner. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. Mrs. Reed, >> yes. >> Mr. Crowley, >> yes. >> Mr. Lholm, >> abstain. >> Mr. Riggs, >> yes. >> Mr. Jones, >> yes. >> Mr. Bizair,
>> yes. >> Thank you. >> We have the minutes of June 9th and 23rd. If there's no objection, we'll do both of them together. >> Okay. >> I wasn't in I wasn't at one of those meetings. >> Well, just just >> I'll abstain from both. >> No, just Okay. >> Say yes to both.
>> Everybody's okay with that motion. Motion to approve both minutes. >> So moved. >> I'll second. >> Motion by Mr. Gorgon, seconded by Deputy Mayor McDeade. Mr. Mr. Gorgon, >> yes. >> Council member Bodner, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade, >> yes. >> Mrs. Reid, >> yes. >> Mr. Crowley, >> yes.
>> Mr. Lhome, >> yes. >> Mr. Riggs, >> yes. On the June 9th and abstain on June 23rd. I was absent. >> Thank you, Mr. Jones. >> Yes. On June 9, abstain on June 23rd. >> Thank you, Mr. Vizier.
>> Yes. >> Thank you. >> We have two applications tonight. Same applicant, two different um items. The first is 11 1317 Beach Avenue, 1146, lot 6 through 24, preliminary site preliminary
and final site plan, waiver of site plan requirements for pergola along with these variance relief. >> Uh good evening, chairman, deputy mayor, councilman, members of the board. For the record, Keith Davis on behalf of Addis Inc. Uh I'm joined by uh George
Andy uh on behalf of that entity. Um as you know, we have been here a few times this year uh concerning the La Mer Hotel. Uh the board previously granted approval to allow for the construction of a new uh banquet center uh on the
property um and to also demolish and replace 51 hotel units together with other facade improvements. >> Give me the pergola first. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. Yep. Um, so we were here on that and we were also here previously to allow for outdoor seating
uh along Beach A uh for guests to um enjoy the outdoors. Um so as you indicated chair there's two applications. The first is uh we are seeking to um establish a pergola structure on top of the outdoor seating
area. That structure would be located within the front yard setback. And then the second application we filed requests an amendment to the prior site plan to allow the project to be constructed in phases. As you'll hear from uh Mr. Andy, he does not anticipate constructing both
the banquet center and the hotel rooms at the same time. Would like to proceed with the banquet center first. In order to be able to do that lawfully and only seek one building permit for the banquet center, we're asking that it be phased so that that can be constructed and then
he can proceed to construct the balance of the improvements. >> That's the nature of it. >> So this was just suggested to me that you might want to do both these in one. >> That was my plan, but that's up to you, chairman. >> If anybody have a problem with that? >> No. >> You'll vote separately. You'll deal with
them separately when you do the voting. But in terms of the testimony, I assume he's going to have the same cast for both. So at the same time, >> all right. So I have Mr. Andy as one witness and then I have Mr. Mccle, our architect. With your permission, I'd like to have those gentlemen sworn in.
>> Also swear in the board engineer, Craig Hurles. Do each of you swear affirm the testimony about the give is the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> I do. >> So George, I know everybody knows who you are, but uh can you just say for the record your role within Addis, Inc. uh
managing partner >> and they own the property that's the subject of this application. Correct. >> That's correct. Entity. >> Correct. >> Um let's talk about the pergola and the planter edition first. >> Just generally, where is it going to be located? >> Uh right in front of what we call the terrace, which is uh adjacent to Beach
Avenue. Uh we newly constructed that two years ago. So it's that little uh shorter building that's adjacent to the restaurant. >> Okay. And what's the purpose of it? >> Uh just more offerings for our for our guests essentially and to kind of change the little Um it's it's more it's an offering for our
guests and transient and overall guests. >> Will it add to the aesthetics of the property as well? >> That's a better way of saying it. Yes. >> Okay. And um it's going to be an open structure in that light and air will be able to pass through. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um
you intend to keep it there permanently, correct? Not seasonally. >> That that would be the idea. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um All right. That's it with respect to the pergola unless you want to add anything else. And there's a there's a planner element too. Correct. >> There is. Yes. Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm sorry.
>> We went in front of HPC. There were some comments about you know some vegetation, some vines. Um so we took that into consideration and you know that would be the intent is to have those there as well. Just >> that's the speaker of the microphone. George. >> Yes sir. >> How about now? Better. >> Yeah. >> Sure. Sure. Sure. I'm excited. Bill. Um,
so yeah, so the the feedback that we got from the HPC was to add some more vine uh to add some like mandavils and some vines to kind of spruce it up a little bit. So >> throw up the pergola and add to the aesthetics. >> Correct. >> The vines. Yes. >> And that's why you want to keep it there permanently because it's tough to
replant vines every season and have them established themselves on the pergola. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, >> can I just make a comment on it? There was a note that came to us from the environmental commission specific to what was I think proposed. So I would just ask if you take a look at that to
make sure that whatever is placed should this application be approved that it's in line with what the environmental commission has recommended. >> Yes. Let me see. Um they recommended the use of a native vine. Yeah. >> Such as cory coral honeysuckle or
>> trumpety vine. >> Yeah. So I just want to make sure that you're you're aware of that. That's the recommendation and we'd like to see that. >> We can address that. >> Okay, that's fine. Thank you. >> U now with respect to the phasing, there's different elements of what was approved by the board previously. One is
the banquet center. Correct. >> Correct. >> Uh the other is the replacement of 51 hotel units. Correct. >> Correct. >> And then there's other facade improvements and improvements to the port cashier. >> Uh correct. And uh we're here to ask the board to amend that prior approval in
order to allow you to construct each aspect of the project in three separate phases. Right. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Mccles is going to go over what that phasing plan consists of. >> Yes. >> All right. So why are we seeking to do this in phases? >> Uh it's better to eat a sandwich one bite at a time. It's just too much.
There's a lot of things that have changed since we first got the approvals way back when. Um you know, obviously cost is the biggest thing. you have rates obviously very very much much higher than when when we first uh did all the planning. Um another element is
when our guests go to book especially for events the lead time is much much longer. So for example if a guest comes to book a room that's days out so you know they see what the weather's going to be like h we'll come down this weekend for social for events for weddings for corporate that's months in
advance. So the lead time to book those uh those type of clients uh necessitates a lot more time. So because there's such a long lead time for months uh versus days, the event center is kind of a no-brainer in terms of okay, if you had to pick which one, you'd build that one first because of
how long it takes for to get guests to book ahead of to book the venue. >> And then that'll additionally generate revenue which will allow you to continue with the project beyond. >> Correct. Um so the the sequence that you have in mind is to build the banquet center first and then proceed with the
balance the other two phases. >> Correct. >> Um operationally you have the existing hotel. Is that going to continue to operate during construction of the banquet center? >> Yeah. And that's another Yes. And that's another plus to doing this in phases. We don't lose those 51 units uh while we're
under construction for the event center. So we can still operate, we can still keep that going uh during the season. So that's another, you know, in terms of operations, in terms of cash flow, it's a plus for us to kind of uh we can work, we could do two things in parallel tracks, construct the event center and
still operate the the 51 units that we were planning on uh that was approved for demolition prior. Now, I know Bill's going to talk a little bit about the accessory parking and and its efficiency and consistency with what was previously granted by the board, but during your
construction activities and your ongoing hotel operations, will you be able to maintain uh the same level of parking that was committed to uh on a going forward basis? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, one of the conditions of
approval that was previously imposed is consolidation. There's several lots and I believe several owners that comprise the overall tract of development. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. >> Um, one of the requirements is that those lots be consolidated into one lot. Do you understand that? >> Yes. >> Um, and I know there's existing mortgage
financing and ownership issues that you have to navigate through, but do you understand that that has to occur before any building permit is issued? >> Yes. >> And you'll do that? >> Yes. um and all the other conditions that we agreed to you understand carry forward and remain in effect with this phased
approval if granted by the board. Yes. That's all I have for Mr. Andy. Any questions from board members? Very good. Like to turn to Mr. Mccles. Uh Mr. Mccles I know. Can we stipulate to his qualifications in architecture?
Chairman >> think he's been many times. Great. Um, so I know you were involved in the original approvals for the banquet center, >> correct? >> And for the hotel reconstruction. >> You put the mic Put the microphone.
>> Yeah, let's do that. >> Thank you. So, you were the uh architect of record with respect to what was already approved by the board. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> And um let's talk about the pergola and the planner installation first. You familiar with that improvement? >> I am.
>> Where's that located on the plan? So, if I refer to the plan that was submitted as part of the application package sheet A1.01, you'll see an overall site plan. And in that site plan, we have Beach Avenue along the bottom, the uh hotel
property situated here, New Jersey Avenue across the top, and of course, Pittsburgh along the right hand side. So, the patio that we're talking about is situated right here in front of the restaurant on the lawn in front of the restaurant on Beach Avenue. Um, we were
here, as I'm sure you remember, last year to have paving put in to facilitate the seating that was out there. So, it's safer, flatter, guests are able to enjoy it. What we are contemplating this year is introducing um pre-fabricated or kit perglas.
There's five in total, four that are 14 by10, one that is 10 by 12 if I remember correctly. Those are to be situated over the PA area. So, it's existing coverage that's already there. We're proposing to situate them on top. Um, and as far as
the seating goes, it's the same situation as what it's before, which was we're moving seats from inside to outside, so there's a net uh of zero additional seats. >> Um, Mr. Andy kind of pointed out uh the intent with them. The HPC
found the program to be wellreceived. Uh initially they were intended to be temporary but within a permanent nature it allows us to explore plantings like a trumpet creeper which is actually one of the ones we were considering so they could be there on a permanent basis and
establish that creeping or growing plant onto the pergllos themselves. In terms of lighting the only lighting that's going to be provided are little battery powered table lights for the tables that are out there. Um and I believe yes. So, we've got an enlarged plan that was part
of that original submission as well as the product information that you see here um for the pergola. In addition to that, there is a planter that was proposed out uh on the lawn in front of the pool area and that was really kind
of to tie into um the 250th anniversary. So, it's filled with colorcoordinated um annuals. I noted that HPC conditional approval indicated that that should be removed by midepptember or late September.
>> That is my understanding is the planter would be removed after the season. >> Mr. Andy, do you intend to make sure? Okay. Thank you. >> So that is a temporary structure that will be removed seasonally, >> but the pergola is permanent. >> Gotcha. Okay. Is this just a one season thing for that planter box?
>> The 250 season for the 2. It was just for the 250 250 for this season and then it's on forever. Okay. >> Correct. >> All right. So that is located that structure the pergola is located within the front yard setback. Correct. >> That's correct. So the front of the
pergola is approximately 2 feet from the front property property line. >> So we're proceeding uh with this front yard setback variance under the C2 criteria. Is that right? >> That's correct. the flexible C where we have to balance the positive criteria versus the negative criteria. >> What is the material? I'm sorry just
before you move on. The material of the pergula I I see the specs are there but >> yeah it's cedar. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Can you leave that please? Because is that is that part of the application? >> Not that I didn't see that >> product information I thought was included but if not I mean we can
>> why don't we say as um >> A2. What's A1? >> A1. >> A1 was the plan sheet. A1.01. >> Oh, that Well, that's part of the Okay, >> it is A1 just for the record tonight.
And then A2 the spectre sheet for the per structure. >> Thank you. >> So, um you believe any purposes of zoning would be advanced if this front yard setback were uh granted? >> I do. I think that the structures um
obviously in our opinion provide an engaging and v visual environment. It creates layering of space on the front of the building while not blocking or obstructing or creating a mass at that front wall. The pergolas are open on four sides as well as above with some
shading obviously provided from uh framing members but largely open. Um so for that purpose we believe that it's uh promoting a desirable visual environment while also maintaining light air and open spaces. >> It's not in the site triangle. Correct.
>> It is not. >> So two purposes of zoning advance. We also have to satisfy the negative criteria that there's no substantial negative impact to the public good to the zone plan. Do you believe that's satisfied here and why? >> I do actually because I don't think there's any adjacent uh properties that
are impacted by this proposed variance. In fact, I think it creates a positive uh experience along the street frontage. As I mentioned, it's an engaging visual environment. It's allowing us to introduce additional landscaping in that front yard, which I believe is contemplated as the reason for, you
know, obviously having a front yard. Um, as well as the planter, which obviously is oriented towards the holiday and and actually physically is oriented or pointed towards the public right away, not towards the hotel. So kind of specifically for the public >> and for those reasons do you believe
that variance is warranted? >> That's correct. >> Um we're also sought a site plan waiver uh for the pergola and planter improvements. Do you believe that is justified given the minimal nature of the development? >> I do. >> Anything else on the pergola that you'd
like to discuss? >> No, I think that covers it. >> All right. Turn into the phasing application. >> Sure. >> Um I know you prepared a plan. Why don't we mark this? We'll first identify the plan sheet. >> So the sheet we're looking at right now is G0.20.
This was actually part of the submission for the phasing application >> and for tonight I just marked that as A3 uh for the record. Um so what is this uh what does this show in terms of the amendment to the site plan we're seeking to construct the project in phases. So
what we're diagramming here is we've provided uh the overall floor plans for each floor of the approved uh site plan and project. Um and what we've done is kind of colorcoded them to define the areas that we see in terms of sequence how the
project is going to be built. So working through that and we can look at larger versions in a minute. Phase A would be the red phase that you see here, which contemplates building the banquet center and all its ancillary support spaces, including loading areas, receiving the
kitchen above, etc. Um, included in that is all of the landscaping and screening efforts that we've put forth in the original application so that any development that's put forward that's fronting on New Jersey will still have the screening and landscaping that was
originally designed um from from that original application. So that's that's phase A. Obviously in doing that we're working around the existing hotel which sits roughly here and the footprint of that existing hotel and its vertical circulation so forth slightly different
from what the proposed was going to be. So we had to make some adjustments within the existing building uh to accommodate that. >> Um and we'll get to that in a minute. So phase B would be the blue rectangle that you see here which is that proposed hotel wing that we proposed in the
original submission and continue to propose to construct today after phase A. And then of course the last component would be phase C which is site improvements in the parking field on the corner of New Jersey and Pittsburgh and facade improvements related to it. Um I
can walk you through because I know there was some question in uh Mr.'s 's review of the nature of >> the impact. >> Let's just mark this. >> Well, there's actually four. So, you would want this to be
>> what did we say? Three. >> So, four through four, five, six, seven. Four through seven. >> A four. And there's seven sheets. >> There's four sheets. >> Four sheets. >> So, what we're looking at is a larger version of the ground floor plan. Again,
this is the floor plan that was uh approved in the original site approval. Um, and again, color-coded so you can see each of the phases. There really is no there's a minimal amount of impact, but I can point it out to you on this level. Prior, the prior plan originally had
bathrooms in this corner and we had this elevator and this stair kind of at this end. the elevator the elevator and stair at this end would be in conflict with the existing hotel footprint where we had to try to build them both at the same time. So what we did was basically swap the
two. So we moved the restrooms over to here within the footprint of phase A and we moved the elevator and this lobby stair here also within the footprint of phase A and allows us to maintain the connectivity that was originally designed for the project for the banquet center without impacting the existing
hotel. So that that's kind of critical because it allows us to build this without impacting this. So uh if we move to the next floor, you'll see here the second floor. So the second floor uh in the original approval
had a number of storage and office spaces in here which obviously we're putting the elevator and stair there. We're no longer able to to locate the offices there. So those offices were relocated over to this area within the future phase. Um >> within what?
>> Within the future phase, the next phase, phase B. Um that's the bulk of the impact here aside from again the elevator and stair. If we go to the third floor, you will recall we had prefunction here.
So this has been relocated for reservations because we can't use this as pre-unction um in phase A, right? So we need a phase we need a pre-unction within phase A. So we located that here. So now we have the elevator and stair serving the
pre-unction area the way they were originally intended in the original design. However, is allowing us to cons to construct all this without disturbing the existing hotel. In doing so, as Mr. Randy pointed out that allows us to get the banquet center constructed up online
with a minimal disruption to guest rooms and gets the banquet center open sooner so he can start taking reservations sooner etc. At the top floor again a little more minimal in terms of the impact because this is all basically
ceiling height for the ballroom space below as is this. So really minimal impacts on this level. um some interior relocations, but we're talking about relocating um office spaces, so relatively minimal
impact. One thing I do want to point out, because I think it was a um concern or question on Mr. Hurles's report, was how is the connection maintained between the existing hotel and the event space? We introduced a doorway here to provide for the exiting for the event center.
And we've got an elevator connection here to allow for the guests to circulate between the event space and the hotel as was originally designed. And we continue to maintain doorway connections here on every floor and that
was part of the original design. So on every floor, the banquet center is connected to this wing of the hotel. That's always the way that it's been. So you'll have internal access to the existing hotel rooms, not part of phase B, to the event space. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> And the footprints the same.
>> Footprints the same. Once phase B is constructed, then we can reconnect here and um get closer to the original design >> and the same condition that we approved when this was originally designed that you would be booking rooms at the hotel
so that someone who was staying there and the and the number of rooms that they would be using would be associated with the use of the event space. >> Yeah, correctly. That has not changed. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I just had a question too on that. So it if I'm reading you right, it's your
testimony that none of the conditions of the original approval are affected by this and this is only the phasing of the construction of the property. >> Correct. >> All those arrangements that you agreed to previously are still in effect as as we go forward. >> They're all carried forward. All we're
asking is for the board to allow for phasing lines to be drawn on the plan that Mr. Mccles just testified to so that the banquet center can be constructed first and then Mr. Annie can proceed to construct uh the hotel and the other facade improvements.
>> Okay. And the second question I had was the the perglas up front. Uh what effect does that have on your approved seating capacity for the restaurant? seating is going to stay the same. And we stipulated, I believe, when we got approval for the outdoor seating that we
were going to adjust the indoor restaurant seating on a seasonal basis to make sure it was consistent with I think it's 146 seats. >> So, okay. >> Yep. 146 seats. >> All right. So would be your testimony then that nothing you're suggesting on
that phase of the project would have any impact on parking requirements because they exist under the the current number of seats you have. Correct. Right. >> That's right. We're not changing the seating at all with the pergola edition. It's just that structure with the plan.
>> There was a comment at the beginning of your testimony about trying to make this um be under one permit. Did I understand that correctly? >> So Mr. Mr. Hurles and I had a discussion where I said if Mr. Andy wanted to proceed with just constructing the
banquet facility first, could he obtain a building permit for that? And I think every we both agreed that the safer course was to come back before this board, present it and have the phasing plan that we proposed tonight approved. So with the phasing, if the board
approves of this, then separate permits can be secured for each of the three phases. >> Thank you for the >> probably also separate separate CAS. >> Mhm. Yes. It would be separate cos >> and then I'm assuming this allows you to to the financing a little easier on a phase basis for >> correct. Yeah.
>> Standpoint. >> Yes. The idea is to get, you know, bookings, book reservations, get guests in. >> Uh but yes, that's correct. >> And what would you anticipate, I guess, uh if you're completing phase one that would affect your application for the
second permit? Is there anything that that you see down the future that this might slow your process down? >> Is there any interdependencies that you know >> from like a from a >> construction standpoint? No, they're
physical. No, they're all I mean Bill could probably articulate this better, but >> we probably didn't get into the details of the construction and the original >> submission and application approval. the building just by the nature of the construction um and the design um hotel
buildings really lend themselves to being concrete because there's a repetitiveness to them and regularity the ceiling height requirements things of that nature. This has always been designed as a concrete building and because of the ceiling height
requirements and the long span requirements for the beams and the loading in an event space they lend themselves to be steel. So these buildings have always been really designed as independent buildings and in fact there is an expansion joint between the two that allows them to move
independently. So from a construction standpoint it it very much lends itself to being phased because they are structurally independent. >> Any other questions? I have a question just it's kind of a follow-up question to that during phase A and phase phase A is
going to be constructed and you and during your testimony Mr. Mccle you were indicating that there was some swapping of space going from the phase A building to the phase B building. >> Yes. when phase A is constructed and you
start construction on phase B and you I think you indicated that you'll be reverting some of that space back in building in phase A >> office space you mentioned >> so closer to what we initially saw possibly what what I would say is I
don't I don't really imagine offices are going to move too much but but obviously we created a pre-unction space in that original hotel building and I think we would like to find a way to keep because we had a large if you recall originally
there was a large contiguous space that was designed and simply by the nature of splitting the building into phases um we don't have that to facilitate the phasing so if I we look at the third floor here this originally was all
function room so obviously concession that we're making by constructing this in phases is our function room is smaller Um, and that area for reservations and even a portion of that storage used to be the pre-unction. So, we're stealing pre-unction space out of
what was originally the event space. So, I think what we'd like to contemplate at some point in the future and future plans would reflect that is to get back to that closer to the original footprint for pre-unction and banquet. And >> and I'm asking this for logistical purposes. So, I expect and this wasn't
part of your initial application. That's where a lot of my questions came from is I was not able to evaluate where you what you were moving where and when. So I'm envisioning that we'll get an architecture plan for phase A. >> That's correct.
>> And then we're going to get a a >> completely separate set of plans >> set of plans afterwards for phase A as it reverts back when phase B is being >> to the extent that we're reverting anything in A. That's correct. we would include renovation or alterations within
the original phase. I think that'd be relatively minimal. I think that we've just got to give a little more thought to how we may get back to that original footprint for banquet space that we originally had approved. >> And I believe one of the board members just asked, but I'm going to ask in a
little more simple way. At any point during construction of phase A, B or C, will the parking variances that were approved, the numbers that were associated with that hotel rooms, seats, I think you already
mentioned seats, but at no point will those hotel rooms that are coming offline with the associated parking because there's parking under that, right, >> will not violate or change the parking counts,
>> right? So, uh, we don't see that. I don't I don't see a need for that other than the only kind of caveat I would put to that and I brought it up to our team earlier this week. Obviously, there's u practicalities of construction, right? We've got one, two, three, four columns
supporting the event space that land in this parking field, which is otherwise it's pre-existing parking area. So during a portion of time where we're doing this, obviously you can't park there if we're digging a giant hole and throwing concrete pilings and everything else in it. So the thought is for those impacted spaces, which really is two,
four, six, eight spaces, the thought is to take eight rooms offline to offset that so that we're not in a situation where we have less parking than we had um agreed to in the in the approval. >> And that's a temporary situation. >> That would be a temporary situation. And honestly, I don't think it would last
the duration of construction. will last the duration of putting the steel frame up because once the frame is up, you can go back to parking there. >> Would you uh have any issue with including that as part of the resolution that Okay. >> No, I think I think we're fine with that. >> All right.
And then my final question is just more for the board's education and and just just raising that issue is that um you know if if this applicant were to incur financial hardship at some point you
know phase B may not get built or phase C may not get built. So is there any guarantees that we have? I mean the performance guarantees that are required in our ordinance and with this in the state municipal land use law are really for limited site improvements that
really don't pertain to building construction. So there's no there's no financial catch or incentive for them to get anything done or or or guarantee. Um, so I I just want
to make sure that the board is aware that they could build A and have fi fall on financial hardship and not build B or C. So >> yeah, I and I also >> maybe maybe the applicant can speak to that >> before they speak. But the other side of
that coin you raised is that when you're doing section A, something comes up they hadn't anticipated, which would then require material changes to section B or something happens in section B that would need section C to be materially changed. In other words, are we are we
looking at a project that's locked in for its existence and only stays in phases A, B, and C, or are we looking at a a blossoming flower here? If >> well if there was anything that changes the original approval
>> anything associated with the variances the room that's why I asked the question about the room counts the seats anything material like that they're coming back right immediately back here for >> I don't anticipate that happening but if that does happen there needs to be a venue for >> I I would argue that that violates the
original site plan approval >> me too me too >> and we agree with that if if there's a change from what we've presented tonight and the original approval. Then we'll have to come >> I know you all like seeing us. >> Sure. >> We we would have to come back before the board and get an approval. >> You can dress down in the summertime.
You don't have to go. >> Um to address your u comment, Mr. Herurles, you heard Mr. Andy's testimony and his commitment to seeing the project through. From a legal perspective, you're right. Um each of these phases are to be de developed independently
and land use approvals give applicants the right but not the obligation to build. You can't force a property owner to build something. It's up to them. That gives them the right to do it but not the obligation. So >> you heard the commitment that the
banquet facility is going to be constructed first and then proceed with phases B and C. That is a risk that financially B and C may not be constructed in the future. But Mr. Andy and he can speak for
himself again made a commitment uh that he's to see that through. >> So when I evaluated this for a phasing plan um the way that I looked at this was from a site plan standpoint and how we approved the variances in the in in
the past. So that's why I was asking those questions with regards would would at any point in during this if would would this hotel rooms change? No, it they don't. Um if that if wing B or phase B where that wing is were to never
be torn down and reconstructed, we would still be all right with our original numbers when we considered the site plan parking analysis. >> Okay. So that's that that so I looked at it from that standpoint and that's kind of why my questions are geared that way
>> and the only difference is you'd have a slight offset in the >> you don't have between area and phase >> but you have access inside >> was section was section B the original uh the original uh complex
>> I'm sorry >> was section B is that where the original units were or was that addition >> yeah that's the the 51 >> the original the original construction. Yeah. >> Yeah. The ones that were proposing to demolish. >> Yeah. There's an existing wing there with 51 units in there. 5 has 54 parking spaces underneath.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Could I ask a question? The house that's next to L Mer that you own that was a Airbnb maybe. I'm not sure. >> It that was going to be torn down. >> At what phase is that being torn down? >> B
>> to the first phase of the banquet. That's the exact location where the event center is. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> My my other question is on the pergola. I'm jumping ship here, but let me just ask those pergas when they're up uh and you're putting some vegetation. Uh I
would like to see it opened and not block the view of the people who are dining in your restaurant cuz that's a nice feature. The other thing is do you have any plans of ever putting roll down uh screening or windows like in case of
rain on those pergolas? >> No. No. >> Thank you. I would not want that. Okay. >> Okay. Uh Craig, you want to go over your comments? >> I have two reviews here. So, I'm going to try and
I'll start with the the proposed pergola over the outdoor patio seating area and planter structure. Um, that's the May 26 uh review memorandum. And so on this case, this is the perfect uh
example of a site plan case that where a waiver of the site plan requirements is appropriate. In this case, they showed us a limited site plan only where the affected area is that relates to the existing patio. I don't think we at all
need to see the entire site with regards to this. Therefore, I supported a waiver of all of those requirements. Um, there was just one outstanding item that I had in my in my checklist is that uh when I reviewed this, I had a stale certified list of property owners. I'm assuming
that that we've gotten a fresh one. >> Yeah, we did confirm that. Yes. Okay. So, item number 12 is has been addressed. um items four, five, and all of the details required for preliminary site plan approval. I did support granting waiverss for them and did
recommend deeming this application complete. The pergolas um are within the front yard setback. The requirement is 20 ft setback from Beach Avenue where the pergola is proposed with a setback of two foot and a quarter inch. And then
the planter box which is temporary um has also has that same 20 foot setback requirement and that setback to that structure um it's constructed right I drove past it tonight >> the the temporary >> the temporary the the planter box yeah
the planter box flat for the flag yeah so that's been constructed um that setback is at 13t 7 and 1/4 in those are the two new variances that are required for that aspect of the uh of this um application. Um I did highlight all the
variances that were required before. Um I just my one condition that really is pertinent to this is on page six of seven item number two. I just wanted to make sure that the improvements did not conflict with the existing drainage system at the patio. And I think Mr.
McCleas is revising his plans to demonstrate that that um is the case. Other than that, all of the other conditions in there are our standard conditions for applications of this nature and they should all be conditions of approval. Um, I will note that we did
receive environmental commission review and we've talked about that. That was dated 61926. Um, they recommended the use of native vines and the applicant has agreed to that. Uh, the fire department recommended approval dated 6526 with no
comments. Police Department recommended approval 6920 26 uh no comments. Public works recommended approval with no comments dated 612 2026. And the Shade Tree Commission recommended approval with the comment of no significant trees
uh to the rear of the building will be affected. Um and that was dated June 4th, 2026. And we did receive a notice of conceptual approval by the HPC for the pergola and the planter box. So that
summarizes that review memo. I'll move on to my July 2nd, 2026 review a memorandum. And this one deals with the phasing only. Um so we we've talked about that. On page three of eight of mine, I highlight what phase A, B, and C
consist of. A is the provo proposed event and banquet center. B is 51 new hotel rooms and C is the facade and other related improvements to Portica share. Um at the bottom of that page I dive into
the completeness review and these are the checklist requirements for C and D variances. Um these were carried over from resolution the prior revol resolution. They should all remain in full effect and I did recommend deeming this application complete. Um
there are no variance associated with this. You are granting this phasing approval as part of the amended site plan both preliminary and final. My review comments for the proposed phasing are on page six of 8. Uh
I think uh item number one, they've they've addressed that and provided testimony with that. They did provide a supplemental um description of what the phasing was. Um item number two is where I point out that there needs to be more detail added to the architectural plans
to show us what's happening in what phase. Um and we've Mr. Mccles and I have already discussed that but that should be a condition of approval. Um the item number three has been addressed. Um, and this is my concern with regards
to parking. What was the appropriate parking coming offline when we're demoing phase B? Um, I you've heard testimony indicating that the parking counts will not be violated during this phasing. So, that should be a condition
of approval. Um, and um, comment number five is the next appropriate one to discuss. It's just finally they need more detail on the engineering plans to show us which site improvements are being done in which phase. Mr. Mccle sort of highlighted that in his color
thing, but the engineering plans have not been revised consistent with that. So that should be a condition of approval. Item six, I talked about the performance guarantees for the building um and the concern with that. And then on page seven of eight is all of the
other review comments that you had as conditions of approval during the prior resolution. They should carry forward with this new approval. That is a summary of my report. I'm happy to answer any questions the board has. >> Greg, can I just say one thing? Um, all
right. Just in case this ever comes up later, uh, whether I'm here or not, I just want to make sure I I put this on the record. I'm not trying to dissuade you from approving this. That's not my purpose at all. Um, I know that there's no
variances relating to the phasing. I'm not sure I totally agree with that in this sense. They're not going to grant a variance, but I do think you have to do a variance analysis in your head because you granted the prior variances on all this being constructed at once. There's now a
risk, as you guys have discussed, that they may do phase one and not do phase two. That could happen. interest rate, the the vagaries of the world. Okay? Anything can happen. If that happens, then the project is not the same project
that you approved when you granted the variances because now you will have, for example, if you read the old resolution, we talk about the benefits of getting 51 new hotel rooms that are modern and newly constructed and all that. That was one of the reasons we were given to
justify the variance granted previously. That could theoretically not happen. But there were a lot of other things in that resolution as the reasons why to give those variances. That consideration was directly addressed by Mr. Herurles who said and confirmed with the
applicant that even if they didn't build phase two, let's say disaster struck, interest rates went up to 12% and they don't build phase two, that the parking analysis remains unchanged. that there's still 51 rooms and they were replacing
it for 51 rooms. >> If my my numbers are right, right, Mr. Davis, just >> suppose the other application was they had 51 rooms and they were reducing it down to 43. All right, the new one was only have 43 rooms. They were reducing the number of rooms. Well, then this wouldn't make any sense. Everything
would be wrong. All right, the parking calculations would be wrong. We'd have a project different than the one we approved. But that's not what they're doing. the 51 rooms were before. It'll be 51 rooms now and it won't affect it. Does it affect some of the benefits in
the sense of they were supposed to be all nice new rooms and this and that? Yes. But that was in my view a small part of what convinced you last time. So I'm not dissuading you. I just want to make clear that when we approve a project, we're asked to consider as a whole. We approved it as a whole. And
this risk of not the phase is not coming out that that's a real risk. It's minimal in this one because it's I won't say it's not that big a deal, but the structurally it's the same. It's the same 51. But if this ever comes up again, I don't want this to be pointed to as an example where someone gives us
a big project, then they come, they get a variance, then they come back and say, "Well, we want to do it in pieces." I think we get another bite at the apple on that. I think we get to reanalyze that because the considerations that were given the first time may be substantially impacted when they do the phasing and the risk of not building all
three phases or five phases or whatever. It's minimized in this case. I wanted to make that clear to you so that you have that in your mind. But as I said, I think that they've addressed that. And you know, >> I I would agree with that and I I I I didn't mean that the whole consideration
should go away because it's just a phasing plan. But I do agree with you that we do approve these things all comprehensively. >> I I think that the comments that you made, Mr. Hurles, and and Mr. King, I mean, I I think there's a risk anytime anyone ventures into this kind of a
project, and there are no guarantees. And I think the comment was we you know you certainly would you know expect that you're going to move forward with all three but you know there are things occur um and that are sometimes out of your control. Um so for me I I heard
those comments and I've considered them but it's in my opinion only this it's not a reason not to move forward with the consideration of this. The phasing makes sense. I think Mr. King and Mr. Carlos in the future if we have an applicant that's coming forward in what
appears to be a very large scale project that you may want to suggest to them you may want to take a look at this in a phasing manner and come to us with that type of presentation versus doing this you know all so that you know you're not having to come back to the well or any
other future applicant comes back. I the only the only my my only comment to that is >> if you start phasing things and you don't then you then you don't have the whole picture in front of you >> if if they're coming to you peacemealing you're not you're not >> no I I think they should have to come together to show it to us but indicate
at that time in my >> how how they're going to do it yes >> how they're going to do it that they intend to do it the entire project but they are going to be doing it in a phased approach so that we have the benefit of saying okay that makes sense the interdependencies on some of these things are critically important. Yours
just happens to be one that those interdependencies work >> because of existing rooms and u you know adequate parking and the ability to have this event space be accessible that may not be a condition for other properties and other applicants and and so yeah that would be my view.
>> Yeah, I would say that you know when I look I looked at this and was look um considering this I mean we've spent a lot of time talking about parking regarding this particular project. So that gave me pause um in considering how that was going to be affected in terms
of the phasing. And from what I've heard tonight, although um you know I think all the comments that have been made regarding phasing really need to be taken into consideration by others that would be looking at this project. You to me you've satisfied those those issues
and given them proper consideration, but um it really would be dependent upon the project. it works for this project and I suspect it's um that may be an anomaly if anything. >> Hey Rich, um is there a piece of
language that you could suggest to to do like a stop gap to mitigate against that scenario you're talking about happening? >> You mean in this in this instance? >> Um no. >> Okay. >> I mean you're going to approve the phasing. You're not going to approve the phasing. I mean, you can you could start
putting additional conditions on and all of that, but the reality is from a zoning perspective, unless you make them bond for the entire 51 room project, which would be a very ownorous, extraordinary thing to do. Not saying you can't, but what I am saying
is you're either going to approve the phasing or not. You're going to take that risk or you're not. That's how it's presented. That's how you got to vote. And you have to understand that risk and weigh that risk. But for the reasons we discussed, it's not as big a risk as it might be in a different application. And I just don't want us to get in a
situation where every time we grant something, then people come back for phasing. To me, it's a new applica. We got to reanalyze it. We got to see why we said yes. And if we still would say yes with this phasing, if only part of it's built, unless they're going to bond and
let us finish it. But I mean, this is something we're not going to build their event center if they don't build their rooms. So, I mean, it just doesn't make sense. So, you got to accept those risks. But it sounds to me like the group is kind of accepting those risks. And we we've talked about it. Your engineers analyzed it. It's not sneaking up on us. You get it. You may have 51
old rooms instead of 51 new rooms, but it's 51 rooms. And that doesn't affect parking. >> Parking doesn't. >> So, you know, it's not a tragedy. >> Okay. Okay. >> Before we move any further on, we should open up to the public. Anybody in the public care to come up and comment?
Okay. Hearing none, we'll close the public portion. So, I didn't mean to shut everybody off. Any any other comments? Anybody care to make a motion? And if you want to do it, we'll do it collectively. >> Make a motion. >> Well, let's move. Let's let's vote on
the pergola and the planner. >> Okay. >> And then vote on the phasing. >> You want to do all right >> in two two separate things. Two motions. They're two separate applications. Going to be two different resolutions, although they're going to look a lot alike. Two separate votes. Just so we >> I'll make the motion. I'll start with the pergola.
>> Let me just do Let me do what I usually do. Let's stay with our tell us what it is. >> So we'll do the >> the first one is the the May 26 report is the pergola. Correct. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So the motion I recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you as to approve the we always vote as if
we're going to approve it. It's a motion to grant the pergola application which uh includes uh the waiverss and conditions as outlined in the board engineers report dated May 26,
2026 with variances one through seven previously granted on page five and one and two are the new variances for the front se for the setbacks related to the pergola and the planter box. Uh, that's the motion I recommend being me, but how you vote is up to you.
>> Okay. And I'll make that motion. >> I'll second. >> M. Um, Mr. Gorgone. Motions. Deputy Mayor McDade seconds. Mr. Gorgone. >> Yes. Who's that? >> Council member Bodner. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reid.
>> I just want to reiterate that these are opener pergolas that you don't come back to us to close them in in any capacity. And I will vote yes. Mr. Crowley, >> yes. >> Mr. Lhome, >> yes.
>> Mr. Riggs, >> yes. >> Mr. Jones, >> yes. >> Mr. Bizair, >> yes. >> Okay. Uh, the next motion is based upon the board engineer's July 2nd, 2026 report relating to phasing. The motion
I'd recommend being made is a motion to grant the application as to phases A, B, and C. subject to the conditions uh as outlined by the board engineer in his report which incorporates the conditions that
were previously part of of resolutions granting the the project as a whole. All of those conditions are following through about parking and reserving rooms and all that stuff that all continues and is incorporated by reference here. Uh and the uh additional condition that addresses number three on
page six of the engineers report regarding parking is that the um the applicant represents and agrees that the project is not to negatively impact the parking calculations as previously agreed to and as set forth in the
resolution. However, there may be occasions during construction, including driving a certain pilings with the event center where some of the parking spaces may be rendered inoperative during that period and they will adjust the usage of the rooms to accommodate that parking so they don't fall below the ratios that
were part of the prior approval. >> Okay. Is that agreed council? >> Yes. >> Okay. Everyone understand that? >> Yes. >> And then there's the additional conditions out outlined by the board engineer. the variances being grant. There are variances previously granted and we'll incorporate those by reference, but there's no new variances
to my understanding. Um, just a sort of a semi- reanalysis of those variances granted in resolution 07092024. That's the application I recommend being granted, but how you vote is up to you. >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second.
>> Oh, sorry. Was that Deputy Mayor McDade? >> Yes. Okay. Deputy Mayor McDade motions. Mr. Jones seconds. Mr. Lenholm. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gorgon. >> Yes. >> Council member Bodner. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade.
>> Yes. And um I hope you get all three phases done. >> Mrs. Reid. >> Yes. >> Mr. Crowley. >> Yeah. This is a a presidential motion that we're taking before us. And
I uh I I feel comfortable that a high a pretty high level of comfort that this will all work out just the way everyone suggests it will. So I will vote yes on this. But with the lingering doubt that I hope we never have another applicant that comes to us with this sort of a
situation in which we have less confidence that it's actually happening. >> So I vote yes. >> Mr. Riggs. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jones. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bizair. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much everybody. Enjoy the
rest of your summer. >> Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Okay. Uh we uh need a motion to pay the bills. >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Mr. Lholm motions. Mr. Riggs. Mr.
Gorgon. >> Yes. >> Council member Bodner. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reed. >> Yes. >> Mr. Crowley. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenholm. >> Yes. >> Mr. Riggs. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jones. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bizair. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay.
>> Please don't forget to leave the uh leave the exhibits. >> Leave the exhibits. >> Mr. Davis. Thank you. >> There goes our evidence. >> Any any other discussion? >> Dennis. Dennis, put your mic on. Thank
you. C >> can I make two brief comments before we adjourn? I don't want to keep everybody long. Yeah. >> But I I have two issues I'd like to raise to the board concerning the master plan. Uh the first of them is that probably the most problematic section of
our current master plan is the the whole section regarding village green and what's going on in Village Green. And I would like to urge the board uh through the chair to uh get some feedback as soon as possible so that we can use some
of our work sessions to hash this issue out so that we can arrive at some sort of concrete recommendation that would solve the problems that were identified in that master plan. So I would urge that I would urge that we spend the next couple of weeks putting together
something that we can chew on at our next and soonest work session. U and the second issue is that that this is 2026. It's soon to be 2027 and our master plan is due for a re-examination in about two
and a half years. And u I I read the master plan. We all read the master plan. And there's so many things in it that to me and to others appear uh stale or uh no longer necessary, no longer important. In fact, maybe worse than we
we think it should be. So, I would like to suggest to the chair that we we put together a small group of people within the count within this planning board and perhaps others to to begin the process of re-examining the master plan. And that gives us two and a half years to do
a thorough and a careful job in that without rushing through and and making it u too hasty a decision to just re reinforce it. So I would like to suggest that we do something internally with a working group much the same as we did with our parking issue which I thought
seemed pretty good and it seemed to work out pretty well uh for this board and for the city because they are considering our recommendation. So, I would I would like to see us put together a small working group to to begin the process of of um re-examining
the master plan and getting it ready for renewal in 2029. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> I I agree with both both points. I'm not sure that we can do a subcommittee on the master plan. That's got to be a full board review, but maybe you want a small
group to formulate a skeleton or framework. Yeah, there's a lot of that >> actually actually more to >> communities are appropriate preliminary work and bringing things to the full board. >> That's where I was going to get to get the process tailored up with enough time
to to really have a good document that we send to the public. >> Right. >> So, I would that's that would be my recommendation. >> This board has done that in the past too. It's not out of >> out of character. >> Do I have any volunteers? >> I'll volunteer. Dennis,
>> I'll uh >> I'd be interested in working. >> Mr. Chairman, I think I I think I have to make sure I'm a part of that conversation. >> No, you can't, Steve. You can't because of members. >> So, although I'd like to, I guess I can't. So, but I but I will
>> represent and make sure that I incorporate mayor and council's comments. Um I will meet with them independently and make sure their comments are brought to that committee. >> You should not be there. I guess I should be on that or
>> there's no requirement. It's you're if you're interested in doing it. >> It's a It's a lot of work. >> I know. >> Anybody else get >> I suggest you wait a meeting to to appoint that just so you can think about it? >> Yeah, sure. Wait one.
>> All right. Then we won't we won't form the think about it. >> Why don't you just set up? Yeah, you can do whatever you want in terms of appointing people. >> Well, I think like Professor Bob wants to think about it before he commits. >> Okay. >> Why don't you say anybody who wants to be on the committee, send an email to Bill before the next meeting so he knows
who's interested, right? >> Well, you can just keep me as Yes, I'll >> serve. I think I part of my obligation. >> Well, you are a guest resource in our parking committee, so that's fine. >> Six. >> No, we can't have more than more than four.
>> Max. >> Yeah. Yeah. Forza's back. >> Anything else for the good of the order? >> Okay. Good night all. >> All in favor? >> Thank you. has to learn.
>> I'm trying to find you.