Hente stated that he’s seen that wall; it is made of natural stone. He agreed that there are some in the neighborhood that were built up to the sidewalk.

7 Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that this Board needs to consider what will look best and that staff’s recommendation would result in this wall not sticking out further than the adjoining neighbor’s wall.

Ron Reim agreed.

Mr. Hente informed the members that the homeowner doesn’t want the wall set back.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the City typically wants walls set back and that it will look better if it is set back.

Mr. Hente indicated he originally had proposed a standard versa-lok wall and had not received a reply from the City for 2 months. He stated that he knows what looks good and this wall looks good.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he agrees that the wall looks good and that it looks natural, but that the appearance with the wall to the west won’t be uniform and that he believes staff’s recommendation is the way to go.

Scott Wilson agreed.

Joanne Boulton stated that if this is denied, the same application can’t come back for a year; however, the applicant can ask for a continuance.

William Lieberman asked if this Board can give staff the discretion.

Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “yes”. He added that the Mosaic system is better as it is a varying size system giving a better appearance.

Scott Wilson asked if there’s a better stone that could be used further back on the property.

Joanne Boulton stated that there should be a stone material that can go back 3-feet and look nice; having varying sizes, colors and tumbled edges as the City wants.

Me. Hente stated he could go with a natural stone.

Ron Reim asked the relationship between this wall and the neighbor’s wall.

Mr. Hente indicated that there’s no connection.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve per staff recommendation and that a change in material be approved by staff prior to installation. The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the Board.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve per staff recommendation and that a change in material be approved by staff prior to installation. The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the Board.

8

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - FRONT YARD RAILING – 26 RIDGEMOOR

Ms. Lynn Kipnis, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the +/-12,540-square-foot lot is located mid-block on the east side of Ridgemoor Drive in the Claverach Park Subdivision. The proposed project consists of the construction of 60 feet of 34-inch to 38-inch tall hand-railing in the front yard, adjacent to an existing front walkway. The railing will be constructed with two runs of 1 inch x ½ inch channel iron spaced 4 inches apart with ½ inch square bar vertical pickets spaced approximately every 8 and ½ inches with a half ring (8 inches in diameter) welded between the channels and pickets. The top channel will be capped with a 1 and ¾ -inch wide molded cap rail and 1 and ½ inch x 11g square tubing posts with welded on cast iron collars. The railing will be primed with red oxide and finished in a bronze color. The railing will provide a measure of safety as one uses the walkway, which is stepped. The railing will be installed to follow the curve of the steps. Subdivision Trustee approval has not been submitted. Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Regulations requires that all fences located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation. Director Istenes noted that due to existing site elevations in this area, there are several properties in this neighborhood that are developed with concrete walkways and steps leading across the front yard from the sidewalk to the front door. Under the City’s adopted building code, hand rails or a railing is not necessary for these walkway/steps due to the limited number of risers and the separation distance between the risers; however, because the railing is going to be a prominent feature in the front yard, not unlike a fence, staff felt that Architectural Review Board consideration was necessary. Staff is not aware of any handrails of a similar length in the front yard, although a nearby property has several 4 foot long metal decorative handrails along their front yard steps, made of similar materials and color. The railing is minimal in design with decorative elements located below the top rail and on the pickets. Although a prominent feature across the front yard, the materials of the proposed railing are of high quality and the color is neutral, therefore staff feels the visual impact is minimized by its design and recommends approval as submitted.

A material/color sample was distributed. Ms. Kipnis informed the members that the railing will follow the curve of the aggregate walkway and because of the color of the railing, it won’t be that visible.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that it is a good color.

Scott Wilson asked if this is being proposed for a safety reason.

Ms. Kipnis replied “yes”.

Joanne Boulton commented that it’s a handsome railing.