He offered a suggestion and slight criticism regarding the most recent proposal for the Maryland School Townhome Project. He noted that meeting room was packed with people both for and against the project and that the members respectfully listened to all the

2 public comments. He noted that letters both for and against the project were also received. He noted that staff approved the project and after 2 hours of discussion, there was a vote taken; 6 opposed; 1 in favor. He stated that Mark Winings was the only member to comment, stating that he felt the project was not right for the area. He urged the members and stated he feels they have an obligation to the citizens to articulate why the project is not right; the reasons for voting “no”. He questions why the proposal was defeated. He reiterated that the reasons for the denial were not articulated and they should be.

Jane Klamer stated that she has similar feelings; there were no reasons given for the denial and she doesn’t understand why. She stated that Mark’s only rationale was that it was too big. She noted the project is now dead and it shouldn’t be. She stated that it makes no sense to have single family residences facing the old Famous Barr building and she is not alone in thinking that single family residential is not right for the site. She stated that she does not believe the Commission fulfilled their responsibility. She noted the months of work that staff put into this project and she does not know what the Board of Education can do with the decision left with them. She added that even though the neighbors are happy and that for them, this is a win, she does not believe this Commission did a good job.

Acting Chairman Ron Reim thanked staff for their work; they provided thorough staff reports which recommendation is based on a tight reading of the rules. He noted that this Commission does not always follow staff recommendations.

AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 53 ARUNDEL PLACE

Jeff LaDriere, builder, was in attendance at the meeting. He asked if there were any questions about the proposal.

Acting Chairman Ron Reim asked for background information.

Mr. LaDriere stated that there were issues with the neighbor’s driveway; there is an easement original to 53 and 51, so they are proposing to relocate the fence to provide the neighbors more clearance space.

Acting Chairman Ron Reim asked if they relocated the HVAC from the side of the house to the rear of the house.

Mr. LaDriere replied “yes”, as a result of the neighbor’s concern of noise.

Acting Chairman Ron Reim asked if there was 5-foot of clearance originally.

Mr. LaDriere responded not initially, but that it was moved to conform but ultimately relocated to the back anyway.

Mr. LaDriere responded not initially, but that it was moved to conform but ultimately relocated to the back anyway.

3

Acting Chairman Ron Reim asked staff if tonight’s only issues are the fence and driveway.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”; noting that the mechanical equipment relocation was administratively approved.

Acting Chairman Ron Reim asked if the revised scheme results in the width of the driveway at the street being the same.

Mr. LaDriere replied “yes”.

Acting Chairman Ron Reim asked if that was discussed with the owners of 51.

Mr. LaDriere replied “no”, noting the amount of contention between the two property owners.

Acting Chairman Ron Reim asked the City Attorney for confirmation that this Board is not here to adjudicate easement issues.

City Attorney O’Keefe confirmed, adding that it is not in our capacity to sort out property rights and regardless, we have to authority to enforce them. He added that nothing this Board does impacts easements.

Mr. LaDriere stated that the requested amendment clears the easements by about 18-inches.

Sherry Eisenberg asked Mr. LaDriere to show her on the site plan the area in question.

Mr. LaDriere explained that the previously approved plan tapered the driveway on the 53 side and the fence followed the taper and ended with a cumbersome gate. They are now proposing that the existing driveway from the front property line to the fence to remain in place and to relocate the fence behind the original rear building line and orient it perpendicular to the property line. He stated that these amendments don’t intrude on the driveway easement and will allow more than 10 feet wide driveway space for the neighboring property to access their detached garage.

Mark Barvian, 51 Arundel Place, commented that he is happy to see this 2-year project coming to an end. He stated that the HVAC units were moved because they were not 5-feet away from the property line. He voiced his concern regarding water run-off due to the overage of coverage; he questioned why the concrete wasn’t removed. He informed the members that they have sandbags to keep water from entering their garage.

Acting Chairman Ron Reim asked if water is their key concern or if there are other concerns.

Mr. Barvian stated that there are other concerns, but they are being dealt with elsewhere. He noted the fence is currently in the wrong place, but where it is being moved to is the approved location.