Citation in context
May 4, 2015 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
He asked that they be allowed to keep the asphalt driveway. Ron Reim stated that to his knowledge, driveways don’t require a permit.
13
Susan Istenes confirmed that a permit is not required to pour a driveway.
Ron Reim stated that he suspects many driveways have been replaced with a non- conforming material and that enforcement is not consistent.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if verbal responses are common.
Susan Istenes explained that City staff gets hundreds of questions for all types of situations, that all properties are different and that the City doesn’t like hypotheticals. She indicated that the individual who the DeBenedetti’s talked to was located and she is not a Public Works employee; she was substituting that day at the front desk and that she does not give out information regarding other departments.
Chairman Lichtenfeld concurred with the statement about other asphalt driveways being in the neighborhood and wants to be careful not to set a precedent here; he suggested having a discussion at some point about how to prevent changes that are against Code.
Mark Winings stated that the applicant’s presentation was persuasive; that the house looks great and he would be in favor of the work that’s already been done.
Ron Reim questioned if the Board of Aldermen should look at this.
Craig Owens agreed that a policy discussion should take place.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if this should be continued.
Craig Owens suggested it not be continued as discussions could take a long time.
Jeff Nornberg, 328 North Bemiston Avenue, stated that he does not see asphalt as a problem and finds them aesthetically acceptable.
Saleem Rangwala, Clayton resident/architect, echoed the sentiments made by the attorney that the DeBenedetti’s are excellent owners and that maybe some consideration should be given to requiring permits for driveways.
Josh Corson stated that they did approach the City.
Chairman Lichtenfeld called for a motion, as there were no more questions or comments from the members or audience.
Craig Owens made a motion to approve the asphalt driveway. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the members.
Warren indicated that typically equipment is dedicated to each; one for the pool and one for the spa; however, in this case the equipment is shared. The pump serves both units; as there is
11 one filter and one heater, which reduces the amount of equipment by half. He stated that in his opinion, this is the best location. He stated that they could use permeable pavers for the equipment pad if that would help.
Louis Clayton reminded everyone that permeable pavers count towards impervious coverage so that would not make a difference.
Sally Cohn asked the size of the pool.
Mr. Warren indicated it is 18 X 32 (at its widest and longest).
Ron Reim stated that he shares the concern about pushing the limit of coverage.
Sally Cohn stated that it may set a precedent as well.
Mr. Warren reiterated that water is not counted towards coverage in any other city that he is aware of.
Craig Owens asked if there is a Plan B and if not, what will go away if this is denied.
Mr. Warren stated that they will lose part of the patio; there’s no room for a patio table;just two lounge chairs on each side.
Sally Cohn made reference to an existing upper brick patio.
Mr. Warren stated that is a covered porch.
Mark Wueller, 141 North Bemiston Avenue, indicated that they received no notice of this meeting.
Being no further questions or comments, Craig Owens made a motion to approve the request for a 3.3-percent modification to the allowed 55-percent coverage, for a total of 58.3- percent. The motion was seconded by Mark Winings and received the following roll call vote: Ayes: Craig Owens, Mark Winings and Josh Corson. Nays: Chairman Lichtenfeld, Ron Reim and Sally Cohn. Motion fails. Request is denied.
DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 7608 CARSWOLD DRIVE
Steve Leyton, attorney representing owner, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance were the homeowners.
Susan Istenes explained that the subject property is located on the south side of Carswold Drive in the Wydown Forest Subdivision, and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single-Family
Also in attendance were the homeowners. Susan Istenes explained that the subject property is located on the south side of Carswold Drive in the Wydown Forest Subdivision, and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single-Family
12 Dwelling District. The site contains a 1.5-story single family home. The applicant recently removed and replaced an existing asphalt driveway in the same location with asphalt. The City informed the applicant that new and replaced driveways must be constructed with approved material (exposed aggregate, brick paver, or stamped concrete). The applicant has chosen to request approval of the asphalt driveway from the Architectural Review Board. With respect to driveways, the City’s Architectural Guidelines read as follows: “To eliminate the appearance of "a sea of concrete", the driveway should be exposed aggregate, brick pavers or stamped concrete. Aprons are to be constructed to the Department of Public Works standards.” Asphalt is not a permissible material for driveways; consequently the previous asphalt driveway and the newly replaced driveway do not conform to the current Architectural Review Guidelines. Since the adoption of the Architectural Review Guidelines in 1996, the city has required new driveways to be constructed of exposed aggregate, brick pavers, or stamped concrete. However, in the not so recent past, the Planning Department has permitted asphalt and other non-conforming driveways to be replaced with the same material as long as the driveway was not being relocated or increased in size. Approximately 3 years ago after reviewing the driveway/retaining wall replacement practice, it was determined that driveways and retaining walls that were non- conforming to the Architectural Review Guidelines, upon reconstruction, widening or extension, could only be replaced in conformance with the current architectural standards in place at the time. This requirement is consistent with the non-conforming provisions of the Zoning Regulations which serve to eliminate non-conforming situations over time, taking advantage of the opportunity to bring them up to adopted standards when they are changed to a significant degree. To allow the continuous replacement of a non-conforming driveway would only serve to perpetuate the existence of an undesirable single family residential driveway surface theoretically forever, or until a property owner voluntarily brings the surface up to current standards. Existing non-conforming driveways may be repaired and maintained without being required to upgrade to an approved material. To preserve and enhance the visual appeal of the City’s residential neighborhoods, staff is of the opinion that when replaced, non-conforming asphalt driveways should be constructed with an approved material and therefore, recommends denial of the request.
Mr. Leyton indicated that the DeBenedetti’s are also friends of his who take meticulous care of their property and that they’ve even kept up the area in the common island. He noted that there are numerous properties, 41 actually, in Wydown Forest that contain asphalt driveways. He stated that their most compelling argument is that his clients acted in good faith by visiting City Hall and asking about this project and the City representative they spoke with told them that what they wanted to do was fine. At this time, Mr. Leyton presented two photographs of the DeBenedetti’s property at which time he noted that the City would be pleased if everybody kept up their property as well as the DeBenedetti’s do. He noted that the ARB Guidelines to which is referred do not mention asphalt. He stated that they would have patched the driveway had they known an upgraded material was needed, in which case, the City may have an undesired outcome if everyone were to patch versus replace. He reiterated that they acted in good faith and believes it would be harsh to require them to rip it out. He asked that they be allowed to keep the asphalt driveway.
Ron Reim stated that to his knowledge, driveways don’t require a permit.
Craig Owens made a motion to approve the asphalt driveway. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the members.
14
ADDITION/ALTERATION – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 51 RIDGEMOOR
Bob LaRossa, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for review of the design and materials associated with the proposed construction of an addition and alteration to the existing home. The 11,347-square-foot site is located on the west side of Ridgemoor Drive in the Claverach Park Subdivision and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single-Family Dwelling District. The existing two-story home measures 2,824 square feet, and the applicants propose the following improvements:
entryway. Infill the existing front door opening with brick in a decorative pattern.