Subdivision Ordinance requirements after Board of Aldermen approval;

submit proof of filing to the City within 60 days of Board of Aldermen approval.

Mr. Barcus introduced himself to the members.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked what happens at the south end along Carondelet.

Mr. Barcus indicated that the right-of-way is north of where the road is actually constructed and this plat cleans that up.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if this plat takes the landscaped area and parking lot into account.

Mr. Barcus replied “yes”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the owner is okay with the conditions contained in the staff report.

Mr. Barcus replied “yes”.

After soliciting further questions or comments and hearing none, Chairman Lichtenfeld called for a motion.

Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval of the Plat to the Board of Aldermen with staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the members.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – FRONT YARD RETAINING WALL – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 120 LINDEN AVENUE

Scott Runyan, builder, was in attendance at the meeting.

At the May 20, 2013 Architectural Review Board meeting, the applicant requested approval to allow the walls to remain as constructed; however, the request for approval was effectively denied based on concerns regarding the wall material. Following the Board’s decision, a planned inspection of the property by a City inspector did not occur and planned subsequent inspections were delayed due to resource issues at the time.

4 Consequently, the discovery of the illegal wall occurred well after a year’s time and once discovered, action was taken by the City to compel the applicant to comply with the Board’s decision (see attached letters from applicant’s representative and response from the City). In light of those facts and pursuant to Land Use Code Section 400.210 Reapplication, in the event that the Architectural Review Board denies an application, no request for a hearing upon the same application or substantially similar application will be accepted for a period of at least one year from date of denial by the Architectural Review Board. Because it's been over a year, the applicant may request reconsideration by the Architectural Review Board on the same matter. 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 and varying color patterns, but does not have varying block size, and therefore, does not conform to the style the Architectural Review Board has consistently approved in the past; staff recommends denial of the request to allow the walls to remain as constructed.

Mr. Kayira introduced himself, noting that it’s been several years since the original request came before this Board. He noted that the walls meet two of the three criteria as noted in staff’s report and that his client believed that because no building permit was necessary for this project, that no other approval was needed. He stated that he is here asking for a discretionary exception; the walls look good and there are other similar style walls in the neighborhood. He asked that his client be given the same treatment and allow these walls to remain.

Ron Reim asked if the inspector had not followed-up after the meeting.

Susan Istenes concurred; noting that during a recent occupancy inspection, the inspector noticed the wall material had not been changed out as required.

Craig Owens noted that he voted in favor of the walls as constructed at the previous meeting; however, the vote was to change out the material and questioned why his client did not comply.

Mr. Kayira stated that the two walls had been constructed prior to the first meeting and that the owner previously did not have the benefit of counsel; he stated his client was more focused on permit requirements. He suggested that there is no precedence here and noted that Clayton has made exceptions before.

Craig Owens stated that after his client left the previous meeting, he made no modifications to the walls per the Board’s vote.

Mr. Kayira indicated that he is in no position to answer to that.

Joanne Boulton asked what the vote was last time.

Kayira indicated that he is in no position to answer to that. Joanne Boulton asked what the vote was last time.

5 Susan Istenes indicated that the vote to approve as constructed was 3 to 3; that vote failed.

Pepe Finn asked if some of the blocks can be taken out and replaced with different size blocks.

Mr. Kayira replied “no”; adding that they are fastened together and therefore, all of them would have to come out.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that if the wall was new and was constructed with varying size blocks, this would not be an issue; the matter concluded (last time it was presented to this Board) with the understanding that the owner was to take action.

Mr. Kayira informed the members that he reviewed the minutes of that last meeting and the applicant (the father) was frustrated. He is now asking for the mercy of this Board.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he appreciates Mr. Kayira’s comments. He noted that this building is predominate as one enters the neighborhood and that he feels strongly that if there is a vote after an agreement, the agreement should be carried out. He stated that he agrees that this isn’t the biggest visual problem, it’s a procedural problem.

Mr. Kayira referred to similar non-conforming walls on Parkdale (7545 & 7518). He asked to be fair to his client so he does not have to incur costs to replace these walls, as they comply with all requirements except one.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he appreciated his comments and that he agrees with his assessment of the locations of similar walls. He noted that the owners of those properties did not agree to change their walls.

Mr. Kayira reiterated that his client agreed out of frustration and that a comment made by the Chairman back in 2013 was that the wall would comply if permission was sought before the wall was installed. He stated that his client is not trying to hide anything; his client called Jim Willis’ office and asked if the wall would need a permit to which the answer was “no”; ARB was not mentioned.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the staff recommendation before this Board is to deny the request.

William Liebermann asked if bricks are typically uniform in size.

Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “yes”.

William Liebermann commented that the brick wall that was just approved (on Linden) is made up of all the same size bricks.