prior to installation of the construction fence and wash-down station.

Mr. Peeples indicated that lot coverage will be increased to 48%. He noted that grading will be minimal and the building elevation raised 9-inches. He noted that the current flow onto adjacent sites is not being changed. He informed the members that MSD has approved the proposed design including the addition of pop up emitters.

Acting Chairman Reim asked if they will be able to maneuver their vehicle with the wider driveway.

Mr. Peeples replied “yes”.

Mr. Peeples replied “yes”.

7

Acting Chairman Reim asked what storm event the drywell will absorb.

Mr. Peeples replied “MSD 20 minute; 20 year (1 hour)”.

Sherry Eisenberg asked about tree removal.

Mr. Fendler informed the members that the landscape architect is not here this evening, but he will attempt to answer questions.

Sherry Eisenberg asked for confirmation that trees are not being planted where existing ones are removed.

Mr. Fendler confirmed, noting that the required caliper inches are being replaced; just not in the same location as the ones being removed.

Acting Chairman Reim asked if he’s okay with the three staff recommendations.

Mr. Fendler replied “yes”.

Acting Chairman Reim solicited additional comments from the members or the audience.

Jack Hambene, 8330 University, commented that this is a handsome addition to the area and asked that they maintain the grade; noting a potential water problem if a pool is added.

Louis Clayton announced that the approved site plan is included in the building permit set and inspected by the City.

Susan McGowan, 8317 University, informed the members that she has lived here since 1990 and that her property is at the bottom of a hill. She stated that change is good; however, she has incurred water damage over the years, noting in 1997 her back yard was under 6-inches of water. She asked that the sites be magnetically swept regularly as she has had three flat tires in ten years resulting from nails in the street from construction sites. She then wished the new owners many years of happiness in their new home.

Mr. Peeples reiterated that there will be very minimal grading done to this lot.

Mark Winings asked if there are any requirements regarding picking up nails.

Susan Istenes replied “no”.

Ms. McGowan asked if two City trees are being removed.

Clayton Gardens has traditionally been dominated by the use of standard size brick in a variety of red tones, although the original brick has been painted in some instances. The primary building material for the proposed home is limestone colored brick. The proposed roof is clad in grey fiberglass shingles. A black standing seam metal roof will be used on a small portion of the east elevation and above the front entry. Black casement windows are proposed. The proposed 225- square-foot accessory building is located at the southwest corner of the property and is +/- 13 feet tall as measured from grade to the mid-point of the roof. The building is constructed with brick columns, wood-framed screen panels and a black standing seam metal roof. A new exposed aggregate driveway is proposed on the east side of the property. The new driveway will lead to a side-entry, at-grade garage with a wood carriage garage door. A 6-foot tall stained wood and brick fence will enclose the rear yard. No retaining walls are proposed. Susan stated that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District, the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, and the Architectural Review Guidelines; staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and recommends approval as submitted.

No retaining walls are proposed. Susan stated that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District, the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, and the Architectural Review Guidelines; staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and recommends approval as submitted.

9

Mr. Fendler presented a color rendering to the members and material samples to the members. He noted there are a couple of metal roofs and the windows are black frame.

Acting Chairman Reim commented that it’s a handsome house.

Being no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Pepe Finn made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Sherry Eisenberg and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – FRONT YARD RETAINING WALL – 417 OAKLEY

Roger Kepner, contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the subject property is located on the west side of Oakley Drive between Edgewood and Shirley Drives. In September 2015, a new retaining wall was approved administratively and constructed along the south side of the driveway behind the front building line. The retaining wall was constructed using tan-colored, standard size modular blocks. While not an approved material, the wall is located almost entirely below grade and minimally visible from the street and adjacent properties. On October 14, 2015, a city inspector observed a second retaining wall under construction along the north side of the driveway between the house and the public sidewalk. The wall is constructed with the same materials as the previously approved wall. Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Code requires that all front yard retaining walls in residential zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation. The applicant has not submitted subdivision trustee approval. The Architectural Review Guidelines recommend that retaining walls be constructed of brick, stone or stucco to match the main structure. Modular block wall systems have been approved in the past provided they have varying block sizes, varying color patterns and tumbled or rolled edges. The material used in this case has tumbled/rolled edges, but does not have varying block sizes or color patterns. While the previously approved retaining wall was not a permitted material, it was not highly visible from the street. The front yard retaining wall is highly visible from the street and has a stronger visual impact. Therefore, staff recommends that the front yard retaining wall be replaced with a wall constructed with an approved retaining wall material. The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans and finds the placement of the retaining wall in the right-of-way acceptable, but has concerns regarding the new pipe which will discharge water onto the driveway and public sidewalk. If the pipe is connected to a downspout, it should be removed and popup emitters should be installed in the yard. If it is a relief drain for the retaining wall then staff recommends the pipe be removed and the wall be redesigned. Staff’s recommendation is to deny the request as submitted and require that the applicant submit plans depicting an approved retaining wall material and drain design as requested by Public Works, to be approved by staff prior to installation.

Mr. Kepner indicated that nobody informed him that trustee approval was needed, but they have it now.