The Historic Resources Commission on Sept. 1 approved most exterior site work at 138 East Oakland Avenue but deferred a decision on the applicant's requested solid concrete patio, asking the owners to provide more information and to work with staff before the commission's Oct. 2 business meeting. Staff and commissioners said city guidance favors permeable pavers or other permeable surfaces for stormwater management, and they asked the applicants to show why a nonpermeable patio is necessary.

The split decision follows staff's recommendation that the application comply with the commission's guidance for site improvements and the city's alteration standards. Staff told the commission the proposal to replace existing sidewalks and most site elements is consistent with the code, but the large concrete patio in the rear would require an exception because it expands impermeable surface area.

At the hearing, owners Mary and Mike Steele described an ongoing basement drainage problem and said the contractor proposed regrading and French drains; they also said they have spent about $25,000 on the project so far and that some of the existing pavers are cracked and on a poor base. Commissioners acknowledged those concerns but said cost and convenience alone do not meet the usual criteria for an exception from the permeable-surface preference. One commissioner said a permeable solution might even improve the drainage problem by allowing stormwater to infiltrate rather than flow toward neighboring yards.

After discussion, the commission voted to split the application: Part A (sidewalk and other site work and exterior repairs) was approved to move forward; Part B (the 2,030-square-foot rear patio proposed as a solid concrete slab) was removed from the current approval and continued so the applicants can either revise the patio design to meet the city's permeable-surface guidance or return with more information and precedent for a concrete solution. Staff and commissioners advised the applicants to coordinate with staff on materials and on whether there is relevant precedent in the district.

The owners were told they may withdraw the patio portion and proceed immediately with the approved work; if they wish to pursue the patio later, they must submit a revised application or return at the Oct. 2 business meeting. The commission cited city alteration standards for site improvements and the HRC guidelines on patios and paving in its rationale.

Next steps: the applicants will consult with staff about engineering/drainage details and precedence in the district, and either withdraw the patio or return with revised drawings and additional documentation at the Oct. 2 business meeting.