Citation in context
July 6, 2015 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
Sherry Eisenberg questioned future similar issues. Acting Chairman Reim stated that is something that needs to be discussed.
12 Rick Bliss, Clayton resident and member of the Board of Adjustment, stated that he does not know the applicants and that the City tries to accommodate its residents. He stated that stamped concrete versus regular concrete is still concrete; adding that he has an asphalt driveway as well.
Acting Chairman Reim commented that this seems to occur frequently. He suggested revising the language.
City Attorney O’Keefe stated that if a non-conformity is abandoned it can’t go back or if destroyed it can’t be rebuilt without meeting current requirements.
Being no further questions or comments, Mark Winings made a motion to table. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the Board.
****************************************************************************
Ron Reim welcomed Sherry to the Commission.
Josh Corson asked how they are going to handle the driveway issue.
Susan Istenes stated that there’s also an issue of increasing impervious coverage by doing at- grade work.
Acting Chairman Reim suggested revising the language in the ARB Guidelines.
Susan Istenes indicated that the driveway issue has come before this Board two times now and that the City expects a certain look; she stated that the language needs to be clarified.
Josh Corson stated the more people will repair versus replace.
Susan Istenes stated that staff can do a better job getting the word out. She stated that another issue is retaining walls and the materials used for them. She informed the members that in an effort to assist citizens, the city has softened its requirements for securing fence permits as a survey is no longer needed. She stated that staff could reach out to contractors.
Being no further question or comments, this meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
________________________________ Recording Secretary
The transcription of the May 11, 2015 special meeting was presented for approval. The transcription was approved as prepared, after having been previously distributed to each member.
The applicant’s contractor recently began to remove the existing asphalt driveway with the intent of replacing it in the same location with the same materials. The City informed the applicant that new, replaced and expanded driveways must
10 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:
Driveways and Aprons 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. Susan stated that in order 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, staff recommends to deny the request as submitted.
Acting Chairman Reim asked if they received an estimate to do the driveway in exposed aggregate or stamped concrete.
Ms. Heller replied “no”.
Mr. Heller informed the members that they have lived in this home 19 years and that their driveway has been a pile of destroyed asphalt for 3 ½ weeks now.
Acting Chairman Reim asked when the City allowed like for like replacement.
Susan Istenes stated that the like for like replacement policy was re-examined 3 years ago.
Acting Chairman Reim asked when the City allowed like for like replacement. Susan Istenes stated that the like for like replacement policy was re-examined 3 years ago.
11 Sherry Eisenberg asked if that was due to aesthetics.
Susan Istenes replied “yes”.
Mr. Heller stated that 98% of the driveways on Wydown between Hanley Road and Big Bend Boulevard are asphalt.
Susan Istenes stated that this is a challenging issue as permits are not required for driveways. She stated that she knows people do work without City approval or knowledge. She stated that people should check with the City prior to commencing work.
Ms. Heller stated that in that case it may be better to require a permit. She stated that she would be happy to read her memo into the record.
Sally Eisenberg asked if the contractor should check with City requirements before beginning projects.
Acting Chairman Reim stated that the formal mechanism (permit) does not apply here.
City Attorney O’Keefe asked if her client agrees to upgrade the driveway in conformance with the ARB Guidelines at the time if in the future 50% or more of the driveway is replaced and a deed restriction.
Ms. Heller (and Mr. Heller) replied “yes”.
City Attorney O’Keefe suggested tabling this in light of the circumstances as the project is half completed, but not to undermine the policy.
Susan Istenes asked why table.
Acting Chairman Reim stated that it’s the middle of the project that he is sure everyone would like to see completed.
Kevin O’Keefe questioned if this would be better handled by this Board or administratively.
Ms. Heller stated that she can meet with Mr. O’Keefe.
Sherry Eisenberg questioned future similar issues.
Acting Chairman Reim stated that is something that needs to be discussed.
Being no further question or comments, this meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
________________________________ Recording Secretary
The transcription of the May 11, 2015 special meeting was presented for approval. The transcription was approved as prepared, after having been previously distributed to each member.
13
A brief discussion regarding the Ash trees in the City took place.
__________________________ Recording Secretary