Director Istenes explained that the applicant proposes to replace the existing driveway, which is on the Buckingham Drive side, with asphalt. She noted that with respect to driveways, the City’s Architectural Review Board Guidelines read as follows:

2 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. Since the adoption of the Architectural Review Board 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 had 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 Board Guidelines, upon reconstruction, widening or extension, could only be replaced in conformance with the architectural standards in place at the time. This 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. Director Istenes stated that 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.

Ms. Crotzer introduced herself to the members and asked that they be allowed to install asphalt; noting that 17 of the 19 driveways off Buckingham are asphalt and only two on her street are not asphalt. She added that the property across the street has an asphalt driveway as does the condominium next door. She stated that they are proposing a total excavation of the existing material and all new asphalt. She stated the cost of using exposed aggregate or pavers is substantially greater and concrete is about twice the cost. She informed the members that their driveway is almost invisible from the street (Glenridge) and that it can barely be seen from Buckingham. She asked if anyone had any questions.

William Lieberman indicated that he had driven by the property and agreed that there are asphalt driveways everywhere and that her driveway can barely be seen from the street.

Josh Corson agreed and stated that other driveways are much more visible.

Ms. Crotzer stated that she knows variances were made previously and that permits are not required. She respectfully requested approval.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he, too, had difficulty finding their driveway.

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.