6 24 26 WO PB Draft Minutes

10 - He explained that the gazebo has been relocated to a location within the 50-foot residential setback. - Mr. Petry stated that the relocation was intentional because of the walkway leading directly toward the rear of the property. ○ The walkway had previously been offset in order to accommodate the gazebo. - Mr. Petry argued that, given the existing berm and evergreen trees along the berm, there is more than a sufficient buffer and the gazebo will never be visible from the properties on the rear of Deerfield. - Mr. Petry stated that if the board disagrees, the applicant will relocate the gazebo - Mr. Petry also discussed the request for an increase in occupancy - He stated that if the board is uncomfortable with the requested occupancy or wants additional landscape islands in the parking lot, the applicant will find a way to work with the conditions imposed. - Mr. Petry clarified that the occupancy would apply to both the banquet facility and the restaurant. - Mr. Petry addressed the EV spaces and explained that the applicant expects that the EV spaces will likely all be installed at the same time, although Phase 1 and Phase 2 may be separated if permitted by code. - Mr. Petry then addressed lighting and the variance identified for light spillage into the right-of-way. - He stated that the lighting was designed that way intentionally and that the lighting configuration was part of Phase 1. - If the board determines that the light spillage should be treated as a variance, Mr. Petry argued that good intersection design calls for intersections to be well lit. - He stated that the entry and exit driveways are appropriately lit and that the two entry driveways are the only locations where there is spillage into the right-of-way. - Mr. Petry argued that having a “splash of light” at these locations is good design because it improves visibility at the intersections. - He acknowledged that there is also some light overlap onto the neighboring hotel property, but explained that the parking in that area is part of the facility. ○ He therefore believes that this condition should also be appropriately granted if the board determines that a variance is required. - Mr. Petry addressed signage. - He explained that the intention is for the existing signs to remain and be reused at the same size and in the same locations. - If the existing signs are considered variances

etry addressed signage. - He explained that the intention is for the existing signs to remain and be reused at the same size and in the same locations. - If the existing signs are considered variances despite being existing conditions, the applicant will request those variances - Mr. Petry emphasized that the applicant is not requesting an increase in signage or a general relocation of the signage. - He noted that the exit driveway sign stating “exit only” may be relocated into the new island of the exit driveway because the driveway itself is moving slightly. - Mr. Petry concluded that, globally, the project can be considered under a C2 standard and that there are substantial benefits to the proposal. - He identified the relocation of the driveways as a benefit because it creates a safer transportation route. - He identified the increase in parking as another benefit because it creates a more effective operation. - He also emphasized the reduction in impervious coverage as a major benefit. - Mr. Petry stated that the project globally improves the site while providing renovations that retain its character and history.