She respectfully requested approval. Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he, too, had difficulty finding their driveway.

3 Scott Wilson asked if the exceptions the applicant was referring to were made after the new ruling pertaining to materials.

Louis Clayton indicated that one the applicant referenced is on Wydown and the others were requested and granted by the Board after the work was already completed

Scott Wilson asked for confirmation that if the driveway were to be patched or overlaid, there would be no need for this Board’s review.

Louis Clayton confirmed.

Scott Wilson asked under what circumstances approved materials are required.

Director Istenes referred to new construction. She stated that even though there is no permit required for driveway replacement, there are material standards in place. She added that this is not an uncommon request and that if the Board prefers, the standards could be revised.

Ms. Crotzer commented that it could take a century to get conformity city-wide.

Joanne Boulton stated that she would like to see all asphalt gone. She asked if plain concrete is acceptable.

Director Istenes replied “no; not without treatments”.

Ms. Crotzer reiterated that concrete is twice the cost of asphalt and exposed aggregate is even more than that.

Josh Corson asked Ms. Crotzer if they would do the project if their request is denied.

Ms. Crotzer replied “no”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he likes the similarity and that their decision (the ARB’s) cannot be based solely on cost, although he does agree with the statement that concrete and exposed aggregate is much more expensive. He stated that asphalt in this case fits in on the street and he is okay with it.

Rick Bliss, Clayton resident, commented that the rules seem a bit “fuzzy” as the ARB Guidelines state the desire to avoid a “sea of concrete” yet stamped concrete is acceptable. He asked how the City defines a “repair”, noting that he has no immediate plans to do anything with his asphalt driveway, but will in the future.

Rick Bliss, Clayton resident, commented that the rules seem a bit “fuzzy” as the ARB Guidelines state the desire to avoid a “sea of concrete” yet stamped concrete is acceptable. He asked how the City defines a “repair”, noting that he has no immediate plans to do anything with his asphalt driveway, but will in the future.

4 Louis Clayton referred to a brochure the Planning Department prepared over the summer that describes what a repair means, noting that if the subgrade is disturbed, that’s considered a replacement; however, a thin overlay or patch repair is fine.

Rick Bliss asked if that information is on the City’s website.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”.

Scott Wilson questioned where the line gets drawn; he agreed the driveway can’t be seen. He stated that the decision would be easier if the driveway was off Glenridge and not Buckingham.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that may be true; the decision may have been easier. He reiterated that cost is not a factor of consideration by this Board.

Craig Owens noted that here is an applicant coming before us (the ARB) before the project is completed rather than afterwards. He stated that this same discussion took place in 1996 and the ARB had no issue with asphalt; however, there are guidelines in place.

Hearing no further questions or comments, William Lieberman made a motion to approve the driveway as requested (asphalt); the motion was seconded by Josh Corson and received the following vote: Ayes: Chairman Lichtenfeld, Josh Corson, William Lieberman & Scott Wilson; Nays: Craig Owens and Joanne Boulton.

Motion carried; application is approved.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – FENCE - #3 CARRSWOLD DRIVE

Scott Wilson (property owner) recused himself and presented the application/request to the Board. He did not vote on this matter.

Susan Istenes explained that the applicant proposes to install an 8.5-foot tall cypress fence behind an existing accessory building to screen and mitigate the noise created by existing mechanical equipment. Director Istenes noted that height limitations of fences, walls and screens (except when located in front yards in residential districts) are addressed in the Building Code. For residential properties, fence height is limited to 6 feet; however, up to eight feet is permitted if the top two feet are lattice or if the property abuts a commercial property. For this project, the allowable fence height is 6 feet unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed fence will be constructed of high quality materials and that the existing mature vegetation between the fence and the adjacent property will mitigate any potential visual impacts and recommends approval as submitted.

Mr. Wilson stated that he was here 10 years ago for the renovation of his pool house and that all the fans on the 20 ton chiller behind the pool house run on hot days. He added that the decibel level at

Section 405.3620.17 of the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations permits the Board of Alderman to waive or modify the number of required parking spaces through the conditional use process. Director Istenes continued by stating that staff is of the option that the proposed expansion will have minimal impact on adjacent properties and supports waiving the requirement for the seven off-street parking spaces as staff is of the opinion that the combination of nearby on-street and off-street public parking spaces are sufficient to meet any additional parking demands associated with the proposed expansion and therefore, recommends approval as requested.

6 Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he understands the parking issue; he questions how the new space will connect with the existing space.

Mr. VinZant explained that it connects at the south behind the jewelry store and that there is a separate entrance to the east. He added that he hopes to make this a private dining area and they plan to wall in the kitchen to provide a service entrance.

Scott Wilson asked if this is the same restaurant this Board recently approved a platform for outdoor dining.

Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “yes”.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Josh Corson made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen as requested. The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the members.

*******************************************************************************

Josh Corson stated that with regard to the driveway regulations, he fears that people will only make repairs to them and not replace them.

Susan Istenes indicated that the plan is for the ARB Guidelines to be reviewed and codified; however, with the Centene project and other projects this has been put on hold for now. She stated that the driveway material issue is certainly up for discussion.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked that this move forward as soon as possible.

Susan Istenes announced that Louis [Clayton] is leaving us. He will be working for Lake St. Louis as their Community Development Director and that tonight is his last meeting. She then informed the members that she just received two planning-related books and offered to lend them to the members to read.

Joanne Boulton asked when Centene would be coming back to this Board.

Louis Clayton stated that the earliest this Board would see Centene (Subdistrict 1) would be October 17th.

Chairman Lichtenfeld thanked Louis for his service to the City.

The members were reminded that the October 3rd regularly scheduled meeting has been cancelled and that the next meeting is October 17th.

Chairman Lichtenfeld thanked Louis for his service to the City. The members were reminded that the October 3rd regularly scheduled meeting has been cancelled and that the next meeting is October 17th.

7 Having no further business before this Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 6:18 p.m.

_______________________________ Recording Secretary