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

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

5 the property line is 63; with a normal decibel level during the summer at about 47. He indicated that the County requires no more than 50 decibels at the property line. He indicated that he hired a sound engineer and met with his neighbor and they’ve come up with a solution; this tall fence that will catch the noise of the mechanical equipment. He noted that his house is an “L” shape which funnels and amplifies noise levels. He stated that he does not believe anyone will see this fence, especially during the summer. He informed the members that his neighbor is happy with the proposal.

Joanne Boulton mentioned that her neighbor’s AC unit is loud and it is right outside her bedroom window.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that having lattice on top of this fence would defeat its purpose. He noted that the fence looks good.

William Lieberman stated that cypress is a nice material.

Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Joanne Boulton made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the Board.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – RESTAURANT EXPANSION – LOUIE’S WINE DIVE – 14/16 SOUTH BEMISTON AVENUE

Ben VinZant, restaurant owner, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the applicant is proposing an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of Louie’s Wine Dive into the adjacent tenant space at 14 South Bemiston Avenue, which would result in an additional 1,061 square feet (for a total of approximately 3,531 square feet) and 44 seats (for a total of 123). The hours of operation and all other aspects of the restaurant remain the same. Because the restaurant would be larger than 3,000 square feet and not located in a mixed-use building, off-street parking is required based on the ratio of three parking spaces for every five seats on a pro-rated percentage for all square footage in excess of 3,000 gross square feet. Based on the size and number of seats proposed, 7 parking spaces are required on-site or within 500 feet. No off-street parking spaces are proposed. According to the applicant, there are no available parking spaces for lease in the immediate vicinity. 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.

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