height of ten (10) feet as measured from the average grade at the base of the supporting structure to the highest edge of the system.

(including adjacent properties and public rights-of-way) by fencing, walls, plantings, or other architectural feature or any combination thereof; provided however, that the screening shall not be required to be so dense, so tall, or so located as to render the equipment essentially non-functional.

Pepe Finn made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the members.

3 The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.

Louis Clayton stated that he had nothing more to add, except that it is staff’s opinion that the system will have minimal visual impact.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it seems it will be well concealed.

Mr. Glines agreed; noting the large house and small driveway.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked what percentage of electric will come from this system.

Mr. Glines indicated that he did not have that information this evening, but he could get it for them. He added that the home owner, Mr. Scharff, simply wants this as a back-up during a power outage.

Sherry Eisenberg asked for the height of the fence.

Chairman Lichtenfeld indicated that he visited the property and that the fence is a minimum of 5- feet in height; it may be 6-foot tall.

Mark Winings asked what the view will be from the opposite side of the fence.

Mr. Glines stated that one would mostly see the fence; noting that the photos distributed for this meeting are not scaled and are representative only.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the top of the array may be seen from the house to the south; mostly from the second floor.

Bill Reller, owner of 7425 Somerset (behind subject property), informed the members that the fence is 6-foot tall. He asked the total height of the array.

Mr. Glines indicated that it won’t be taller than 7 feet.

Mr. Reller commented that he will see it from his back yard.

Mark Winings asked if he was okay with that.

Mr. Reller replied that it depends; noting that it is sitting on the deck now.

Mr. Glines informed the members that Mr. Scharff purchased the system and then contacted them. He noted that it will be located south of the deck so it won’t interfere with the deck.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the array may shade part of the deck.

He noted that it will be located south of the deck so it won’t interfere with the deck. Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the array may shade part of the deck.

4 Mr. Glines agreed.

Mr. Reller asked about planting a hedgerow between the two properties.

Mr. Glines indicated that due to the setback, it wouldn’t be an issue.

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that there is a utility easement between the two properties.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Chairman Lichtenfeld called for a motion.

Pepe Finn made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Sherry Eisenberg and received the following roll call vote: Ayes: Craig Owens, Chairman Lichtenfeld, Sherry Eisenberg and Pepe Finn. Nays: Mark Winings. Motion carries.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked when installation will take place.

Mr. Glines stated that they have to get one more approval and then they can pull the permit.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - RETAINING WALLS – 7507 WELLINGTON WAY – MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

Magdy Garas, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.

Louis Clayton explained that the subject property is located on the north side of Wellington Way between Glenridge Drive and Westwood Drive, is zoned R-6 Medium Density Multiple Dwelling District and contains a two-story multi-family building. On May 24, 2016, a city inspector observed a retaining wall under construction in the front yard. The partially constructed wall located adjacent to the front driveway consists of tan-colored, standard size modular blocks. Because the wall is over 4 feet in height it requires a building permit. 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 sufficient information to verify whether the proposed retaining walls encroach into the public right-of-way. A Stop Work Order was subsequently issued to stop construction of the walls until the applicant has received the proper approvals. The applicant requests to complete the construction of the walls using the same material on each side of the driveway. Louis noted that 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 does not conform to these standards. The front yard retaining walls are highly visible from the street and incompatible with the red brick and white stone used on the existing building. Staff met with the applicant to discuss the history of the ARB’s policy decision regarding the use of modular block wall systems of varying block sizes, patterns and tumbled edges. During the meeting the applicant identified several walls in the community that were not compliant with the current policy. Most likely these