HomeMy WebLinkAboutHISTORY clubhouse conditional use permit February 24, 1986• clubhouse
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 24, 1986
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to expand the Vail Golf
Course Clubhouse. Applicant: Vail Metropolitan Recreation
District.
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
The VMRD proposes to remodel the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse. The
building currently contains 10,002 square feet and the proposal would add
5,630 feet for an end product of 15,608 square feet. The major element
of the expansion is a new cart storage facility which will accommodate a
transition from gas to electric golf carts. Other significant changes
include expansion of the existing bar and dining area to the south and
east while eliminating the use of the pro shop for dining in the winter,
a new meeting room, an expanded kitchen as well as a remodel to the
locker rooms and a new entry way scheme. The parking area would remain
unchanged with the exception of the addition of the required 8 spaces for
the additional meeting room and bar/dining room .
• II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends
approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the
Town.
The golfcourse clubhouse is an important public building to the
community in that its design and function should reflect a high
quality consistent with other public and private buildings in the
community. The existing building is in dire need of upgrading and
repair and the proposal will serve to not only allow the building
to function in a superior manner, but will provide a high level of
service to our guests. In this regard, the proposal is consistent
with the development objectives of the Town.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
Utilities will be upgraded as a part of the proposal. The proposal
itself is a significant improvement to a recreational facility and
will reflect positively on the community, especially with respect
to the summer guests. No effect upon the other factors are
anticipated.
• 3 . Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and
control! access, maneuverability and removal of snow from the
street and parking areas.
Although the VMRD recognizes the need for an additional 25 to 30
parking spaces to more comfortably accommodate some of their peak
demand days, the proposal at this time is to leave the parking
situation as is with the exception of the addition of 8 spaces
required for the expansion. The proposed meeting room requires 4.8
parking spaces, while the additional 308 square feet of permanently
enclosed restaurant/bar area requires 2.6 spaces for a total
additional requirement of 8 parking spaces. The applicants feel
they can easily accommodate 8 additional spaces without a major
redesign of the parking lot.
Last year the VMRD worked with the Public Works/Transportation
Department in improving the bus circulation situation by relocating
the ingress/egress points to the parking lot. This solution has
been successful and will be unchanged with this proposal at this
time. The VMRD is desirous of increasing the number of parking
spaces provided by expanding toward the east and it appears that
this can be done without any significant impacts upon the 18th
green.
• There has been discussion between VMRD and the Fallridge
condominium/office building about the possibility of leasing 20-25
spaces in the Fallridge complex for the employees of the golf
course. The leasing of the spaces requires approval under the
Town's lease parking program and if successful, could allow better
utilization of the existing parking spaces by the summer guests.
The Community Development and Public Works/Transportation
Departments will continue to work closely with the VMRD on any
parking lot remodel proposal to assure smooth and efficient bus
circulation as well as the maximum parking useage for this lot.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use ;s
to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
The design proposed includes only minor changes in scale and bulk,
so there is little change with regard to this factor. No negative
effects upon the character of the area will occur.
B. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the
proposed use.
C. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an
environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56.
• None required .
... ,
• III.
Under Community Design, Policy No.2, upgrading and remodeling of
structures and site improvements ld be encouraged.
IV.
The Community Development Department that the conditional use
permit roved based on the llowing findings:
That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of
ordinance and the
main
or
detrimental
inj ous
di ict in which the site is
itions under whi it
would be operated or to public
heal ,safety or welfare to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable prov; ons
this ordinance.
v. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
• Community Development Department recommends approval of lf
Course Clubhouse remodel. The proposal meets the criteria for a
tional use permit and will t in a positive impact upon this
most important community 114 Our recommendation for approval is
tional upon the provision 8 additional parking spaces.
icant shall propose an 1e ution for adding
a building permit is i additional spaces be
install prior to the issuance a temporary certificate of occupancy
for the remodeled structure.
highly encourages VMRD continue studies and to work with
our staff in expanding the parking lot to maximize the number of cars
can k on this site.
•
•
~JY{,
~.fPl2--UoM. S .
Vail Metropolitan Recreation District
Golf Course Clubhouse Remodel
Area Tabu1ations:
Space Description Difference Existing New
Existing Cart Storage + 2,734 3,866 6,600
Existing Service/Storage + 40 760 800
Existing Bag Storage <35> 333 300
Existing ~ien's Locker Room + 485 350 1.200
•
Existing Womens locker Room 365>
Existing Pro Shop Storage <20> 250 230
Existing Pro Shop + 64 936 1.000
Existing Office + 184 156 340
Exi sting Kitchen + 304 396 700
Existing Bar/Dining Room + 1,244 1,100 2,344
Existing Terrace -<386> 1,166 780
~lcet1ng Room + 576 -0-576
11ens & Womens Toilets + 30B -0-308
Entry + 106 324 430
Total 5,630 10,002 15,608
•
12:00 pm
2:15 pm
3:00 pm
1.
2.
! ~
3.
4.
5.
6.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 24, 1986
Site Visits
Work Session on Eagle County Airport
Public Hearing
Approval of minutes of February 10 and January 27, 1986.
A request for an exterior alteration of the Hong Kong Cafe in
order to construct a two story building, and a conditional
use permit in order to have an outdoor dining patio on ground
floor on Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Hong Kong Cafe Partners
A request to rezone Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing
from High Density Multiple Family to Special Development
District in order to develop an additional 92 lodge rooms, 5
condominiums, and approximately 3,350 square feet of
meeting/conference space as Phase II of the Doubletree Hotel.
Applicant: Vail Holdings, a Limited Partnership
A request for exterior alteration of the Plaza Lodge in order
to expand retail space and remodel existing dwellin9 units
and a request for a conditional use permit in order to
eliminate two accommodation units and one dwelling unit.
Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates
A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct
an addition and remodel the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse
located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Vail
Metropolitan Recreation District.
A request to amend the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines
to include a section on Park Design Guidelines. Applicant:
Town of Vail
A request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for
setback variances in order to enclose an existing deck area
and to add other outdoor dining at Burger King.
Applic~nt: Snowquest
(To be Tabled)
~
I
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 24, 1986
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Tom Briner Peter Patten
Diana Donovan Tom Braun
Bryan Hobbs Kristan Pritz
Pam Hopkins Rick Pylman
Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack
Si d Schultz
Jim Viele
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper . . The minutes of
the meetings of January 27 and March 10 were approved with corrections.
1. A request for an exterior alteration of the Hong Kong Cafe in order to
construct a two story building, and a conditional use permit in order to
have an outdoor dining patio on ground floor on Lot C. Block 5-C, Vail
Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hong Kong Cafe Partners
•
Rick pylman explained the request. He stated that the redevelopment proposal
included a 3,000 square foot freestanding, two story building. He reviewed the
Urban Design Considerations and said that the staff recommended approval. Craig
Snowdon, architect for the project, showed floor plans, site plans and
elevations. He said that the snow removal from the patio would take place
toward the west, not toward Founders Plaza. '
Snowdon then told the commissioners that he had been meeting with the owner of
unit 309 in the Lazier Arcade, Mr. Bleckner, and made some alterations in the
design that had been presented to staff. His firm found that they could lower
the peak 30 11 in order to get the peak below Mr. Bleckner's deck railing and also
could drop the perimeter 18 11 This would improve the sun/shade with the result•
that there would be no shade on Vendetta's deck and no shade on the stairs until
the late afternoon.
Snowdon stated that he found that the restaurant would not have the use of the
alley north of the building nor would they have access to the trash dumpster of
the Lazier building. This would eliminate the door that had been proposed to
access the staircase. He proposed to solve the problem by locating the door on
the southeast corner and putting trash containers in a covered area near the
planters on the east side of the building, with daily pick up. He proposed also
to keep the access to the alleyway open for the Lazier building and build a wall
to match the Hong Kong exterior with a gate to cover the alley.
James Fallin, representing Mr. Bleckner, sated that his client did have
objections to the design as it was originally proposed, but that the changes
were amendable to Mr. Bleckner. He wished to make the changes a part of the
conditional use request as follows:
1. The top of the skylight would be no higher than 611 below the railing of
the deck of unit #309. (The railing is 25" above Wall Street.)
• 2 . The top of the major roof line no more than 611 above floor level of Unit
309.
3. The top of the spokes in the skyl ight no more than 18" above floor level
of Unit 309.
• 4 . The exhaust hood fans will be located on the southwest corner and
screened from view of unit 309.
5. All skylights shall be bronze tint and inoperable.
6. No exit shall be located on the north side of the building on the 2nd
floor.
7. All mechanical equipment placed on the roof shall be hidden from view
from Unit 309.
8. Skylights on the north half of the building shall be shaded at night and
shall be made of dark material.
9. No direct up light shall be used on the second floor.
10. The fireplace flue on the top shall be no wider than 18".
Brian 01Reilly spoke for the applicant and listed some agreements the applicant
had with Robert Lazier. Bob Lazier stated that the applicant came to him and
showed him the proposed building. He had not known the trash plan before that
time, and felt that the proposed solution of the Hong Kong using the Lazier
Arcade Building's trash dumpster was unacceptable. He also did not want an
• access between the two buildings because he wanted this to be a buffer and for
flexibility for future construction .
Steve Simonett, manager of One Vail Place, said that the Owners of One Vail
Place were concerned about the construction to be taking place at the Hong Kong
and at the Plaza Building. Their intention was to redo the paver bricks on
their property in the spring and did not want to allow access for construction
trucks or vehicles in the area between One Vail Place and Vail Ski Rentals.
Snowdon said that he did not foresee using this access, but would access from
the alley or from Wall Street.
Bryan Hobbs liked the building. but was concerned about the alleyway and what
would be constructed in front of it. Snowdon replied that at present there was
a blank wall. The alley would be torn up during construction, and afterward a
wall could be constructed to match the building material of the Hong Kong and
that it would be at least 6 feet high and would tie into the Lazier Arcade.
Hobbs asked wondered if the Town had any problem with a lease agreement with the
Hong Kong and Snowdon replied that the Council had heard the request in early
• 2
trash.
that
on roof would be self-contained.
man
draw;
1;
ag
outside of the commissioners ' juri i
Snowdon replied
two
it placed on the
shortened to two
on
She also
than
the
the
• Patten added that requests in both vill are type
of use, and that the Town would allow encroachment on Town
common
dining
, but not for structures. It was usually done in a lease.
Briner had
trash.
no problem with the alley, but was
He suggested using a compactor or
de.
Snowdon that he had the access problem and
ex1 n9 patio wall. He felt that he could design something to rely hide
e liked the proposal and shared iner's concern about
trash. He asked about buildi
building would be and so
Viele asked about a ng study, and
that he was planning to wait until he had received working
trying to figure out the amount ng
with Viele and also suggested th
owners was
must look permanent.
could handled by the ORB. Donovan was also of
, and would have liked to have seen
would have liked the length of approval
ree.
acent property
so stressed that the wall
• Sid Schultz 1 s concerns were with the alleyway and
Duane Piper agreed and stated that since the location
an 11 hour decision, he would like to see further
1510n. Tom Briner asked if the drawings presented
made in response to the neighbor, and Snowdon
not.
ier stated that currently all trash from the Hong Kong came out of the
without a compactor. He felt that the addi ona1 e who would
with the new building would not result in much more He
the desire to have the project start as soon as ible.
Irish, one
if were
of the owners, felt that the trash dilemma could out,
a lay, there would be a late start on construction.
alternatives: 1, screen the trash on the si, or 2,
side.
Iri if could agree to access from the west si in
on west de. Irish replied he could, but needed hear from
scussion, the applicant requested to table the until
ing on March 10. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to table the request
March 10. The vote was 6 in favor with one abstention (Hopkins~ .
perhaps
on
•
3
• 2. A request to rezone Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from High
Density Multiple Family to Special Development District in order to
develop an additional 92 lodge rooms, 5 condominiums, and approximately
31350 square feet of meeting/conference space as Phase II of the
Doubletree Hotel. Applicant: Vail Holdings, a Limited Partnership
•
Tom Braun showed site plans and elevations and explained the request. He said
that the PEG action that day would be advisory only, and the final decision
would be made by the Council on March 4. Braun described the zoning analysis of
the Doubletree. The end result of the request would be a density of twice that
allowed by the underlying zoning and a parking shortage of 50 spaces. He
reminded the board that this was a request for a special development district
and that SDOls had been proposed in Vail to allow for the development of sites
that would be unable to do so under conventional zoning. Braun explained the
criteria to be considered as stated in the memo which included design issues,
pedestrian traffic, open space and landscaping. He also reviewed the zoning
considerations using the underlying, HDMF zoning. Braun felt that it was
unfortunate that the Doubletree Inn was not located within the Vail Village
study area, and that a Town-wide land use plan was only in its early stages of
development and not near completion. This would have provided the staff with a
better understanding of the implications that this project may have on other
development potentials in the Valley. He added that the concern of the staff
was how this request related to Town-wide development issues. For example, what
would a cumulative impact have on the Frontage Road if similar requests for
additional density increases were to be allowed in this area?
Braun showed the setback encroachments on a site plan, and discussed height,
site coverage, landscaping and parking. He explained the method used to
determine the amount of parking necessary for the site. Even with a 5%
multi-use reduction and a 50% reduction for the required parking for the meeting
room space, the result was a deficit of 50 parking spaces.
The staff recommendation was for denial because of the shortage of parking and
because of the amount of increased density requested.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, introduced several employees of the
Doubletree Hotel. Jeff Olson and Anthony Pellechia, architects on the project,
showed site plans and answered questions. Peterson stated that both the staff
and Jeff Winston had expressed no problem with the design of the project. He
added that the basic parking ratio had been retained with the addition. He also
said that at present the Altitude Club was the place for locals to go and there
was no control of parking. He felt that underground parking would not invite
the casual user of the bar or restaurant to use it. Peterson stated that his
stUdies showed that 75% of hotel patrons arrive by automobile and of those 75%.
75% keep their auto with them during their stay, resulting in 55% of hotel
guests keeping their autos. He felt that the existing project worked with its
parking even though much of the parking was uncovered. Peterson went on to
quote the parking study that had been done in the Village. He said that it
stated that there was a 20-70% vacancy rate in private parking lots. He added
•
that Doubletree guests could use the Lionshead parking structure if there were
no parking spaces left on site. Peterson also said that the Marriott had 25%
fewer parking spaces and no parking problem except in summer.
4
• Gary Sheluski of the Doubletree similar Doubletree Hotels and
parking. Peter Jamar, consul Ooubletree, described the EIR.
stated that there was little data up the Town's parking requ; and
th the data was arbitrary. the rd that there was
pedestrian access from the bus repeated Jay's comments
of hotel guests who keep their cars. Jay then addressed the density
ng that the Town wants additional hotel rooms. The Vail Vill
certain areas for it; 1 rooms. Peterson t site
accommodate additional hotel rooms would need additional
rooms with the Mountain intad out that hotels
as well as their
Mike Dougherty, sales manager of Doubl , ke of their need for more
rooms and the additional money would bring to Vail. Oran Pal
spoke for the condo associ on in hotel and as a representative owner
to state that they were very happy with the current owners and felt that the
former owners did a disservice both hotel and the Town.
Pam Hopkins asked what could be done about parking at a later date if it
that the parking is inadequate. Jerry? of the Doubletree stated that t
ing does prove to be i it would hurt the bar and restaurant
economically. Peterson added that the overflow could go to the onshead
•
rking Structure which ;s usually under utilized Pam also asked about
strengthening the pedestrian link king structure, and Mr. 1
responded that they would work hard improve the pedestrian pathway and
explained that the hotel would had 1i ing to attract pedestrians
the west side to the lighting on the
increased as well as needed in the rm of snow
owing
Sid ltz was for 1 hotel rooms, and felt
rooms proposed might be too small. Mr. Pellechia explained that this size
was felt adequate for a con He lt that how the room was
furn; and planned was more important than size. Donovan asked toward which
group was the hotel marketing ld corporate groups. Donovan lt
the Town of Vail should get some for granting such additional
ity, something broader than landscaping, something that would benefit the
whole Town. She added that though hotel stated they would have adequate
parking, the ice arena did not have any, nor did the library, and all were
dependent upon the Lionshead Parking Structure which would eventually not
any more room. She did not like encroachment onto the stream tract. Donovan
if the Doubletree had to ve access from their property
hosp; 1 and was told that Doubl was willing to dedicate an easement over
their property to the hospital 5i
Braun pointed out that the n9 survey was only for three days and was
done on Presidents ' weekend which was not as busy as had been anticipated.
reminded the board that this was not an exhaustive study. Braun
the Doubletree was advertisi in attracti front
•
ers y all of whom eir Braun pointed out that when
mountain expansion was ni • shortage of 600 parking
in Village and 200 in Lionshead the Town could not afford to
take the risk of allowing proj to not prov;
5
•
parking spaces as required by the zoning code .
Briner asked the representatives of the Doubletree to explain the amount of
parking they had at other hotels they operated, and was told that Doubletree
operates two downtown hotels with no on-site parking and several suburban hotels
with acres of parking. Briner stated that he felt that some parking
requirements have proven to not be necessary, i.e. Vail Spa and Simba Run.
Briner felt that one problem with the density issue was that it was difficult to
have a clear perception of the impact of the density. He felt the impact of the
proposal was positive.
Patten said the staff viewed the proposal as positive also, but without the land
use poliicies being completed, did not know the impact of a decision to add a
lot of density and providing inadequate parking. He stressed that the decision
to increase densities in any areas of Town required extensive study and public
input before going forward on a property by property basis, similar to the Vail
Village Study. He also added that when the Town asked property owners if they
had parking spaces they would like to lease, the Town heard only from the
Ramshorn (who had only sold 2 units). Patten felt that the parking requirements
of the Town were valid, and that yearly there was an increase in the number of
cars coming into Town. He pointed out that reductions were already built into
the number of spaces the code required from the Doubletree (multi-use credit and
50% assessment for meeting rooms).
•
Pam Hopkins asked if it would be possible to ask the Doubletree to put money
into a fund for parking and perhaps in five years time see if their lot and the
Lionshead lot were full, at which time they would have to use this fund for more
parking spaces.
Anthony Pellechia stated that rather than burden a project, the Town of Vail
should be flexible enough to deal with issues as they occur, rather than
speculate in advance. He felt it was unrealistic to deal with problems that
might occur five years from now without knowing what the problem was going to
be.
Peterson stated that Vail had a 20 year history of not providing enough spaces,
but that in winter only 50% of the tourists drove, as opposed to a larger
percentage in summer when the occupancy was also less.
Pam responded that the Town did want to grow, but must look for a way to handle
future parking needs. Patten added that unfortunately the Town did not have all
of the tools in place today to plan intelligently for that growth but that we
soon would have policy guidelines for these requests. Bryan Hobbs also 'liked
the project but had the same concerns regarding parking. He asked if the
parking would be controlled and Jay responded that there would be control,
probably with a gate. Pellechia stated that they hadn't decided on the amount
of control. Braun said that with valet parking, coritrol was needed. Peterson
felt that the lot would not be inviting being underground. Hobbs asked if the
first allotment would be to the hotel guests, then the bar/restaurant, and Jay
said that was correct. Hobbs stated that since the zoning prior to the down
zoning of 1977 was for 50 units/acre, he did not have a problem with density.
• Donovan mentioned that there was talk of charging to use the local buses, and if
that happened, it would put the employees back into their autos, requiring still
6
• more parking spaces. She also stated that historically, whenever Vail had a
"bad" year, the Town depended on the front range skiers who drive cars, and that
the front range skiers were essential for Vail to survive the "bad" years.
Briner moved and Hobbs seconded to recommend to Council acceptance of the rezone
and the development plan as requested with the reason that the proposal met the
development standards and design criteria for SOD's as outlined in the zoning
code.
Pam asked that if in 5 years the parking was not adequate, whether or not the
Town could assess the property. Jay said this would make the property difficult
to finance. He suggested assessing everyone a tax for parking to equalize the
burden. He reminded the board that the Sonnenalp was allowed additional density
with the requirement that they pay into the parking fund up front. Pam
suggested advising the Council to perhaps look at some way of assessing all
future projects for a parking district.
The vote was 5 in favor of recommending acceptance, against (Donovan) and 1
abstention (Viele).
3. A request for an exterior alteration of the Plaza Lodge in order to
expand retail space and remodel existing dwelling units and a request for
a conditional use permit in order to eliminate two accommodation units
and one dwelling unit. Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates
• Kristan Pritz presented the request and showed a model~ site plans and
elevations. She explained that the request would decrease the number of units
by 2 accommodation units or 1 dwelling unit, that the density would still be
within that allowed, as would the site coverage. Kristan then reviewed the
urban design considerations and stated that there would be a positive impact on
pedestrianization, vehicular penetration, street enclosure, street edge, height
and service and delivery. Staff stated that the elevator was the one element of
the plan tht had negative impacts in respect to the design considerations. She
said that the staff felt that there should be a large planter on the east side
of the elevator to soften that elevation as well as a decorative cover for the
elevator door.
Peter Patten suggested one more condition in addition to the five listed in the
memo: That the applicant agree to either amend the existing agreement or enter
into the new agreement to void the right to a delivery/pick-up parking space on
the west side of the building in the Founders ' Plaza area. This must be done
before a building permit is issued for the project.
Craig Snowdon, architect for the project~ explained several changes, and added
that the popcorn wagon would still be tying into the Plaza Lodge for utilities
and would be able to use storage at the Plaza Lodge. Sid Schultz was concerned
with the elevator tower and felt that it could be moved to the north. He
wondered if it was justified. Snowdon replied that the owner wanted the
elevator to serve his personal unit. Donovan also felt the elevator tower was a
negative part of the proposal as did Viele~ Hobbs, and Piper. Briner suggested
• a smaller elevator. Donovan was also concerned about the trash situation. She
questioned if Vendetta1s dumpster was really adequate to handle trash for the
entire building. Members also wanted the location of the popcorn wagon
specified.
7
• Snowdon asked to table the item until March 10. Donovan moved and Schultz
seconded to table to March 10. The vote was 6 in favor, none against with Pam
Hopkins abstaining.
4. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct an addition
and remodel the Vail Golf Course clubhouse. Applicant: Vail
Metropolitan Recreation District
Peter Patten explained the request, adding that although the VMRD recognized the
need for 25 to 30 additional parking spaces to more comfortably accommodate some
of their peak demand days, the proposal at this time was to leave the parking
situation as is with the exception of the addition of 8 spaces required for the
expansion. The applicants feel they can easily accommodate 8 additional spaces
without a major redesign of the parking lot. The project will be phased with
the cart storage done first.
After discussion about the parking lot and building expansion, Viele moved and
Hobbs seconded to approved the request. The vote was 7-0 in favor.
5. A request to amend the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines to include a
section on Park Design Guidelines. Applicant: Town of Vail
• Kristan Pritz presented the request. She pointed out the changes that had been
made since the board last looked at the Park Design Guidelines. After
discussion, Briner moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request. The vote
was 7-0 in favor.
6. A request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback
variances in order to enclose an existing deck area and to add other
outdoor dining at Burger King. Applicant: Snowguest
Rick Pylman said that he did receive some plans from the applicant, though not
in time for this meeting, and asked that the proposal be tabled to March 10.
Viele moved and Donovan seconded to table to March 10. The vote was 7-0 in
favor of tabling.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm .
•
8