apartment units. And approximately how many do you believe would be affected by the proposed
use of the restaurant roof deck? Well, the building, the Chocolate Works building is a
six-story building, similar to what's proposed, I believe, by groom at the Painted Bride,
but it's about 25 feet taller. So about 30 apartments directly overlooking the
um the the the proposed development and therefore visible and would be able to see the the roof
decks but then there are other apartments on that side of of the building as well probably another
20. another 20 so for a total of how many? about 50 on that side of the building
um let's um let's if you could explain to the chairman and the board how if at all you believe
uh the chocolate works uh apartments will be affected and the residents will be affected by
the planned restaurant roof deck. Yeah, I'd be happy to do that. So as I stated, the distance
between the two buildings is only 40 feet. Of course, there's a setback proposed for the roof
decks about seven feet. So the residential roof deck that Shimmy's been talking about is the one
it's directly to the south and directly across from the Chocolate Works. So it's 47 feet
from the building and from apartments. The bar and restaurant side is about 147 feet away
to the north. So, you know, really, you know, I'm not as, I'm not really, I'm concerned about
the size of both of the decks and I'm I'm concerned about the residential but
I'm concerned about the residential, but I'm not opposed to the residential.
I'm not opposed to the residential I think that
I think that that is something that is is normal and standard with projects like this, certainly apartment buildings.
And I guess for these these limited stay type properties, my concern is the size of the roof decks and the close proximity to the chocolate works.
And the size, if we just talk about the residential side, the south side, that size of 100 people is far in excess of what's probably needed for 85 short-term rental units.
So it's the size and the fact that it's 47 feet away from the building.
But my real concern is with the bar restaurant and that use.
And that concern is, again, the size of a 100-person roof deck, but it's the use.
Clearly, the use in this neighborhood with residential all around it, and in the case certainly of the Chocolate Works and some other buildings with residents who look directly down onto these roof decks, will be negatively impacted certainly by the activity on the commercial side with the potential for, I guess, amplified music.
just boisterous activity. Again, we'll be serving alcohol and the hours that it will be in
operation. My understanding through Franklin Bridge North is that the developer has stated
that they will close by 12 p.m. That's just unacceptable. But the use overall, I believe,
is unacceptable and not appropriate for what is primarily a residential neighborhood. I understand
that it's zone ZMX3, but the reality is there aren't very many bars and restaurants in this
neighborhood and it's primarily residential. So again, my concern is the close proximity of the
decks, and then the use of the bar restaurant, and the noise and the potential disruption to
the neighborhood, 100 people in that deck, plus, you know, a restaurant on the first floor
of over 4,800 square feet, which I know is by right, it just seems like an overwhelming amount
of people for this residential location. But it will have a direct negative impact,
significant negative impact to the Chocolate Works building. Mr. Reinhold, you heard
an executive from Saunders testify about a policy that it has applicable to the residential deck.
Isn't that correct?
Yes, that's correct.
And you heard that one of the policies is that Saunders prohibits on the residential deck amplified music, right?
That's correct.
Am I correct that there is no such amplified music prohibition applicable to the restaurant side?
I don't believe that there is, and I don't believe that they're really connected.
The Sonder residential side is separate from the bar commercial side.
Likewise, sir, you heard that there's a policy prohibiting alcohol and partying on the residential deck.
Isn't that right?
Yeah, that's correct.
And am I correct that there's no such prohibition to the restaurant deck use, correct?
far as I know. You also heard Sounders executive testify that there was a late night curfew of
eight o'clock on the residential deck. Isn't that right? Yeah, and I was very, very glad to hear
that. And likewise, that rule apparently doesn't apply to a restaurant, does it?
uh not that i'm aware of now isn't it true that you heard with pride the saunders executive
testifying that these rules are very good in assuring that the saunders building is a good
neighbor didn't you hear that yes sir and the rules applicable to the restaurant that assure
To the restaurant that are sure a good neighbor actually don't apply to the restaurant, as you understand, and it has been maintained by Saunders. Isn't that right?
a good neighbor actually don't apply
But...
That's correct.
There could be dinner parties where there's alcohol, loud music, boisterous conduct, bright lights, till well after the hours that Saunders normally has its roof deck allowed.
Isn't that right? Well, I would expect from any bar or restaurant that has a capacity of 100 people to have all of what you're speaking of.
um you heard some comments from uh other neighbors that were objecting to the roof decks
um excuse me were objecting to the supposed comparability of the roof decks the hotel
monaco the assembly bach building emmy the positano restaurant um do you agree with the
statements that were made by the other objectors? Yes, I mean, the other buildings are in
commercial areas in, for the most part, with decks that are above other uses, including if there is
any residential use so i am in agreement with with that um that that that is is exactly what
these other decks and that you know how they are positioned within those areas the 400 block of
chestnut street is not a residential location like where this plan site is isn't that right
No, it's clear that it's not. You know, it's an historic area. It's on the corner really at Fifth Street. So, and it has, I think it was already stated by one of the near neighbors that there are screens all the way around that deck. And that's correct. I've been there. I've seen it.
Mr. Somers?
I have no further questions.
Thank you, Ronald.
Is there anything else you'd like to add?
Again, I just want to reiterate because I think it's important.
I am not at all opposed to a residential deck that is used strictly by the residents of the building.
I think that that's a good use.
I do have a concern about its size.
I think it's much larger than it needs to be.
And I'm also extremely concerned that it's 47 feet away from the windows of my residence on that side, the south side of the building, or the north side of the building for me.
So that's what I'm concerned about.
But I am very encouraged to hear from the representative from Sonder about the rules and regulations and their change to an 8 p.m. closing.
That's that's that's that's great. The use of a bar restaurant on this roof deck and with the proximity of certainly the Chocolate Works and other residential, I think is just is is not appropriate whatsoever.
And I am extremely concerned about the impact not only to my building, but to the neighborhood from the use of a hundred seat bar restaurant.
Mr. Reinhold, one other question.
Mm hmm.
Go ahead, Mr. Summers. Please get your question out, please.
One other question, and that is that the Saunders facility has no manager on site, does it?
That's correct. I think we heard that from the Saunders. They rotate people, and as the gentleman from Saunders said, they rotate people. There is no full-time staff on property. That's correct.
And as you understand it, there are managers on site at the Hotel Monaco, right?
Yeah, I would expect so, yes.
And at the Bach Bar and these other locations, isn't that right?
That's correct.
Nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
Is there any other hands in the first audience?
Here, we have two more hands.
The next person is Gary Vernick.
Mr. Vernick, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Mr. Vernick, please unmute yourself.
Mr. Vernick?
Hello. Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Hello.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Gary Vernick, V as in Victor, E-R-N-I-C-K. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Mr. Vernick, are you a neighbor?
I am a near neighbor. I reside at 215 Vine Street and I own 217 Vine Street.
Okay. So, Mr. Vernick, we've had a lot of testimony. We want to know, are you for this
or against the deck? I am. I am opposed. Okay. I suppose to have in the restaurant deck on the
roof. Well, I'd like to make sure that this board understands the difference between the two decks.
Well, I think I think we do, sir. I think we've we've heard a lot of testimony about it. We
understand the difference between the two. Well, Sonder is going to manage this whole building
As to the Sonder deck, I would agree with Mr. Reinhold that as long as it closes at 8 p.m., I don't have an issue.
However, I would like to add a proviso to the Sonder deck that if you do grant the special exception, that that special exception remain in effect as long as Sonder is the tenant.
And I say that for this reason, and this may sound a little bit off, but Sonder came out with an IPO and went public about a year and a half, two years ago at $10 a share or something like that. It closed today, I think, at $0.65 a share.
But, sir, I'm not sure that we...
Well, that's why I'm asking that it remain in effect as long as Sonder is the tenant, because we don't have a problem with Sonder rules.
Okay, thank you very much.
As to what I like to call the other deck or the party deck.
Well, we're not going to call it a party deck.
We're going to call it a restaurant.
So, and if you're against that, please let us know.
I am against it.
And the one thing that I don't have to tell this board is that it cannot regulate behaviors.
And when groups of people come together with alcohol, it becomes a party deck.
And understand that as a near neighbor who is sensitive to noise, disturbances, fights in the streets, parking problems, et cetera, this could turn into a disaster.
Mr. Vernick, we understand your position.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for calling in.
We do appreciate your comments.
we have one more hand please bring them on chair the other party dropped their hand there are no
hands as of now okay um mr pressman would you want five minutes to maybe two three minutes to
respond um before we go i'm sorry chair um he just raised his hand may he be allowed to speak
who is it or if i bush sure mr five bush please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Mr. Feinbush, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Ori Feinbush, last name F as in Frank, E-I-B-U-S-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Feinbush, we've had a lot of testimony about this. Could you give us your position on this?
Yes, Mr. Chair. I own 244 North 2nd. It's the same block base, effectively running from 2nd to Phillip, new to Vine.
I'm building a large development at that site, and my residents will look directly at this building, and I am fully in support of the development as proposed here.
I think it will be a wonderful addition by a world-class architect and something that our community absolutely needs, and I just wanted to make sure that potentially the minority opinion here was also stated, and that is that this is absolutely something that would be welcome and my residents would be impacted, and I think positively impacted by these developments, and I do hope that you grant the special exemptions that are being sought here.
Thank you for taking the time to call us in, Mr. Feinbush.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Pressman, would you want to have two minutes to respond?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief as possible.
First of all, this is going to be a restaurant on the roof with Sonder, which will have food service, hopefully, and bar service.
And the key here is that there will be people on the bar monitoring it.
There will be service people.
There will be employees of the restaurant there.
They'll go from the restaurant up to the roof deck by way of an elevator.
So it's going to be a high end restaurant that's going to be serviced and rep.
So it's going to be a high end restaurant that's going to be serviced and rep and also monitored at all times.
When it comes to the chocolate works. Right. If you look at the plan, is that up, sir?
With a site plan up now? Yeah. Can you see that, sir?
We do. Hey, if you go to the bottom where the highlighter is, that's where the chocolate works is.
And as Mr. Reinhold had said, that's where they are.
To go to the roof deck of where the restaurant is, which is over there, is 140 feet away.
So it's not right under his building.
It's far away from his building.
And the restaurant hours will have fully staffed on the roof and supervised.
So there won't be parties up there.
right? We wanted to, we offered to restrict with regards to getting a letter of support
or non-opposition, both the hours and also the number of people. We're willing to go on the
Sonder deck down to no more than 30, but we couldn't get the approval even after all these
concessions were made. If it went to a multifamily building, which it could do at any time, by right,
there'd be no restrictions. There'd be no hour restrictions, right? There'd be no party
restrictions. And we're willing, with regards to the restaurant, to have party restrictions.
No amplified music. This is all speculative on their part. They have put no evidence forward
that the proposed roof decks, particularly the restaurant, with a high degree of probability,
will substantially and detrimentally affect the health law for the neighborhood.
They don't want development there. They've said that from the beginning. All they want is townhouses.
But that's not what's being built. And I thank Mr. Farnbridge for coming on to show support because he knows how to build a building and run something with regards to a high end building like this.
It's an asset to the community. And they try to drive business away. That's what happened with Old City Civic Association.
They didn't want any development. And that's the mindset that you still have there today.
we've met our burden they have not met theirs they've not shown that anything on these proposed
roof decks would exceed what might normally be expected from the proposed uses of roof deck
and we request that the board hold us in advance as we requested until we can get an amended
referral in to the board with regards to the um parking in the basement as it approved by 09
Thank you. I hope I didn't overstand my time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Pressman. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location.
The appellant has shown that the proposed non-residential roof deck will have no detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might be expected.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the special exception for a non-accessory roof deck.
We will need to hold for an amended refusal for underground parking garage added in revised plans appears to have been reviewed by streets, but not L&I.
Revised plans also include reduction in unit count from 110 to 85.
This will be held. The record is otherwise closed.
Thank you, Mr. Pressman, and thanks everyone else who offered input.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience who the 2 o'clock case has not been called?
I see no hands, Chair.
We're going to take a five-minute break and come right back and go through the 3.30 list.
We don't have much on the 3.30 list.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you, Chair.