August 6, 2014

would be visible to the adjacent condo owners. The Fire Department connection was located in the front of the driveway; the entire building would be sprinklered; and there would be an exterior sprinkler system for the landscaping. Mr. Eben asked if there would be any exterior building mounted lighting. Ms. Hoffman said the details had not been discussed, but there would be some type of exterior lighting mounted to the building; the building signage would be backlit. There would be some sort of lighting above the entrance and there would be pathway lighting; it was still in the design stage. Mr. Gurland asked for details regarding the means of building egress; Ms. Hoffman said the egress would be from the main lobby of the building and the emergency exits. Mr. Weston said the lower level basement plan indicated it would be used for storage only; Ms. Hoffman confirmed the area was for storage only; it would not be an occupied space. Dr. Bagoff asked if the roofing material would be light-colored, and did the building have elevators. Ms. Hoffman said she had no objection to using light-colored roofing material to lessen the heat-island effect; the building would have two elevators, the elevator mechanicals would be located in the basement. She stated the building plan was entirely code compliant including the number of elevators and number of restrooms. She stated she had recently completed a project of similar size; she knew what was required to make the building code compliant. Council President McCartney asked for clarification regarding the 4-ft. roof parapet, was it just on the facade of the building or all around; and did the building have any other green features. Ms. Hoffman said the parapet would be on all four sides of the building. There were four penetrations for rainwater to be directed to the back to roof scuppers and exterior leader drains; the windows were to be energy efficient; she said the plan was to have some of the windows be operable; however, she had not gotten into that level of design detail with Dr. Bezozo. The Public had no questions for Ms. Hoffman. John McDonough, PP, was sworn in and accepted by the Board to be an expert in planning. Referring to Exhibit A-6, Mr. McDonough described the existing site conditions and the surrounding area. The existing structure was approximately forty years old and in need of upgrading; the

lanning. Referring to Exhibit A-6, Mr. McDonough described the existing site conditions and the surrounding area. The existing structure was approximately forty years old and in need of upgrading; the site had an undesirable parking arrangement. The new plan would open up the site; there would be a new enclosed dumpster area; the monument sign would be moved out of the right-of-way; there would be a new side-by-side parking configuration; and new vertical green element. Three trees were to be removed, but there would be over one-hundred new plantings. The proposed plan would improve vehicular traffic flow; create a new pedestrian walkway; and create a new single defined entrance. It was a better alternative for the property; pulling it more in to compiiance; the building would comply with height and use; the lot coverage was de minimus. He stated there was no need for a loading area; the other variance relief was for steep-slope conditions that were man-made. He opined the plan did not create any substantial detriment; he opined many of the goals of the Master Plan were advanced by the project. Mr. Gurland asked for clarification regarding the requirement for rear yard setback; Mr. McDonough said the proposal met the building and parking setback requirements; he said there was a buffer requirement, which was an existing non-conformance to the north. Mr. Gurland asked if the parapets would be high enough to hide mechanicals of a cell tower if it owner decided to have one installed. Mr. 8-6-14 Minutes