6 24 26 WO PB Draft Minutes

12 connects to the walkway on this property. The applicant would continue that walkway directly to the front door. - Mr. Guarino asked whether guests would have access to move their cars from the Residence Inn onto this property. Mr. Petry said they could, but it would not be necessary - Mr. Guarino asked whether the site would have ADA accessibility, including appropriate crosswalks and step-downs for people with ADA needs. Mr. Petry confirmed that the site would have complete ADA accessibility. - Mr. Guarino asked whether there would be greenery and shrubbery along the front of the property to block passersby from seeing the parked cars. Mr. Petry stated that the Phase 1 landscape plan included substantial landscaping throughout that area. - Mr. Guarino asked whether the parking lot under discussion was employee parking only and whether it would be accessible from a separate entrance. Mr. Petry confirmed that it was employee parking and explained that the entrance was already located there and had historically been used in that configuration for as long as he had been visiting the property. - Mr. Guarino asked whether employees would have adequate sight lines when leaving that parking area. Mr. Petry confirmed that they would - Mr. Guarino asked whether trees could be planted along the sidewalks going down Prospect Avenue or whether that would be part of another phase. Mr. Petry confirmed that trees were already included along the Prospect Avenue sidewalk as part of Phase 1. - Mr. Cardoza recalled that Mr. Petry had mentioned an elevator and said he could see the elevator just outside the plans. He asked whether the elevator had been discussed as part of the Phase 1 review. Mr. Petry explained that the elevator had been installed in 2012 when the manor underwent renovation. He stated that the elevator services every floor in the facility except La Dome - Mr. Cardoza asked whether the elevator serves both as a service elevator and a guest elevator. Mr. Petry confirmed that it does and stated that it is fully ADA compliant - Mr. Cardoza then asked about the carriage house and the architectural plans for the proposed second floor. He pointed to a balcony on the left side of the plan and said it was not clear to him how the balcony would be accessed. Mr. Petry stated that there is currently no access to that space. - Mr. Cardoza said the lack of access seemed

left side of the plan and said it was not clear to him how the balcony would be accessed. Mr. Petry stated that there is currently no access to that space. - Mr. Cardoza said the lack of access seemed unusual and questioned whether leaving an inaccessible space could create concerns, such as the space collecting dust or becoming a fire hazard. Mr. Petry said they could either provide a stair to the second-level space within the area or potentially place a stair just outside of it in the new lounge area. He explained that they had not yet assigned a use to the space, so he agreed that the issue should be reviewed. PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONS - Ms. McGovern asked whether the renovated upstairs apartment unit would be restricted to staff, since the notice describes the space as being used for staff, chef, or other employee accommodation or support purposes. She clarified whether the applicant intended to keep the apartment in-house for employees rather than rent it to anyone else. Mr. Petry confirmed that this is how the property has historically operated and stated that the applicant would accept a condition restricting occupancy of the apartment to someone who works for the facility. - Ms. McGovern noted that the notice adequately describes the renovation and that the proposed use fits within the definition of mixed use because a separate