Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Chairman Lichtenfeld questioned whether the interior HVAC system will be replaced.

Dr. Williams – noted he anticipated that all 3 a/c units would have to be replaced but wasn’t sure at this time. Carolyn Gaidis – no comments George Hettich – no comments Hele DiFate – no comments David Gipson – no comments Dr. Williams noted he was aware of the staff conditions in the staff report and was in agreement with the staff conditions. Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Carolyn Gaidis made a motion to approve the project with the three staff recommended conditions, George Hettich seconded the motion and the motion was unanimously approved by the Board. SITE PLAN REVIEW- REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 7539 MARYLAND AVENUE Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Jim Bulejski, Architect, was present (JB) Jeff Preichter, Developer, was present (JP) Steve Lichtenfeld (SL) asked the Architect to explain where the water on site was being routed to or how it would be contained. JB – noted water containment is in the front yard. Existing site slopes toward street. Finished product will continue to slope towards street. Area inlet located at bottom of driveway. This water will be pumped up into the front yard containment system. SL – asked if containment system will capture all water. JB – noted, yes, it will capture all the water. Carolyn Gaidis (CG) questioned the grading plan and a swale shown on the plans that appears to go into street? JB – noted in front of containment system a little would go to street onto the grass in that area. CG – questioned tree selection. Number 1 says “unknown” – no label as to what they are on the proposed tree schedule on three large shade trees. Jeff Preichter – Noted that Public Works will pick trees out in that location for street tree. CG – Noted creeping jenny and butterfly bush are invasive. Helen DiFate (HD)- likes the way garage is tucked under and is glad there is enough room to maneuver. Has concern over length of retaining wall. Asked if at the rear the wall could be narrowed and planted

Has concern over length of retaining wall. Asked if at the rear the wall could be narrowed and planted

with hedges to visually soften and assist with noise up at grade level. Noted that the two driveways are close and to have one high and another other drop down is visually disconcerting. Ira Berkowitz – no questions David Gipson – asked if the railing shown on sheet C-2 is that the accurate location based on the code requirements for walls over 30 inches? JB – confirmed the drawing is accurate as to the location of the railing. SL – asked if the applicant was aware of and in agreement with the staff conditions. JB – confirmed they were aware of and in agreement with the staff conditions. Public Speakers: Cheryl Breigallen – lives to the east of the proposed project and they live at 7535 Maryland Ave. Has concern over location of proposed wall on project site. It will interfere with their ability to park their cars in the driveway safely and open their car doors on the driveway. Discussion ensued regarding the close proximity of the two driveways and the possibility of the developer improving the neighbor’s driveway by widening it with asphalt. Driveway to be widened for approximately 45 feet to make it a 10 foot wide driveway for neighborhoods driveway. CG – felt that it was setting a precedent to required that someone else’s project improves another’s house/site. Feels that the Commission should have further discussion about it. SL - noted this is a unique situation but agrees it may set a precedent. GH – agrees with Carolyn and appreciates that both parties are in agreement but doesn’t feel that we shouldn’t be voting on a condition to construct a driveway for the neighbors. IB – doesn’t think they can make this a condition of this project. But if parties agree, they can do that. Uncomfortable making it a condition. Perhaps explore the option of both parties coming up with a written agreement and having the PC look at that. Kevin O’Keefe – noted that trying to get these two parties to compromise claims they may have against each other and the City’s interest in resolving that is tenuous. Perhaps require developer to report within 30 days or so if some settlement has been reached between applicant and neighbor with respect to the resolution of the neighbor’s driveway currently on the subject property and leave it to them to decide as to what that is going to consist of. Merely require them to report to the PC if they have reached some accommodation. It would allow you to proceed with site plan review at this point. JP – noted both parties have an understanding right now and we can resolve it outside of this forum and would work with neighbors on repairs as a result of construction. CG – sounds like you have an agreement. My objection is putting it into the record that it is required and agrees with Kevin’s recommendations. SL – agrees Kevin’s recommendation seems to be best for all parties and would allow the PC to move forward with two conditions in staff report.