6 24 26 WO PB Draft Minutes

11 - Mr. Petry stated that the project does not create any substantial detriment and does not affect the existing landscape buffer in the rear. - He characterized the improvements as internal and stated that every part of the property that has been touched by the project has been improved. - Mr. Petry specifically pointed to the decision to move the entire restaurant into the carriage house as an improvement because it brings the facility closer to conformance with the ordinance. - Mr. Petry stated that the applicant believes it has met the standard of proof and presented an exceptional project to the board, and he asked the board for its consideration and approval. BOARD QUESTIONS - Chairman Bagoff asked about the latest stormwater management iteration. He asked whether documentation could be provided showing that the proposed changes, including the decrease in impervious coverage and addition of green spaces, would address residual stormwater management from the two-year flood on the site without requiring separate holding tanks. Mr. Petry stated that he believed the stormwater management report already addressed this. - Chairman Bagoff asked how many tree islands would be required if the applicant were to install islands in both parking lots to eliminate areas with more than 20 parking spaces in a row. Mr. Petry explained that the parking row fronting Prospect Avenue, which was part of Phase 1, contains 26 spaces and would require one island. The parking area abutting the driveway in Lot B contains 29 spaces and would require another island. He then explained that the existing parking in Lot C toward the hotel side has a row of 22 spaces requiring one island, another row with 28 spaces requiring another island, and a back row with 23 compact spaces requiring a fifth island. - Mayor McCartney asked if there are other options than the turf. She suggested considering an alternative such as porous damp concrete or another material. Mr. Petry said they could certainly look at alternatives. He stated that he was not aware of porous stamped concrete but knew that porous concrete was available. - Mr. McPherson stated they are willing to look into alternatives - Mayor McCartney wondered whether the apartment might be used by guests, such as a bride or groom, similar to arrangements at Pleasantdale Chateau where a room is available for people attending an event.

yor McCartney wondered whether the apartment might be used by guests, such as a bride or groom, similar to arrangements at Pleasantdale Chateau where a room is available for people attending an event. Mr. Petry explained that, since the last meeting, the owner or a group headed by the owner had purchased the residence property as well, meaning they now control both properties. He clarified that the apartment in question was intended purely for a staff member rather than for event guests. - Mr. Guarino asked about the driveways and whether the project would ensure that sight lines were significantly improved so that drivers exiting the property would be able to see traffic traveling along Prospect. Mr. Petry stated that improving the sight lines had been one of his priorities. He said he had personally found the existing driveway dangerous when leaving the facility and had immediately suggested improving the exit drive to the purchaser, who agreed with him. - Mr. Guarino asked whether sidewalks would be installed along the entire frontage of the property, connecting to Woodland Avenue. Mr. Petry confirmed that they would. - Mr. Guarino asked how people staying at the Residence Inn would access the property now that the owner also controls the Residence Inn. Mr. Petry explained that there has historically been a walkway across the front of the Residence Inn that comes down and