Monte Vista neighbors, applicant to negotiate after CTAB pauses decision on unpermitted wall and rock landscaping at 219 West Ellesmere

Monte Vista residents urged the Compliance and Technical Advisory Board on May 23 to enforce historic‑district guidelines after a retaining wall and rock landscaping were installed at 219 West Ellesmere without a certificate of appropriateness; the board voted to continue the case so city staff, the applicant and the Monte Vista Historic Association can seek a compromise.

The hearing followed public comment from three nearby residents and a representative of the Monte Vista Historical AssociationArchitectural Review Committee, who said the limestone wall and large-format river rock proposed for the front yard did not align with the district's design guidelines and that approval after the fact would signal the rules were optional. Staff presented the application and recommended approval of the work as consistent with the City's adopted design guidelines, noting the proposal retained roughly half the front yard in vegetation and proposed planting Asian jasmine around the perimeter.

Why it matters: Residents said the case raises enforcement questions across Monte Vista, where they said several properties have changed front landscapes and retaining walls without prior approval. Staff and the applicant stressed water conservation and practical maintenance concerns, and commissioners said a negotiated solution with the neighborhood association would carry weight if one can be reached.

During public comment, Ryan Reed of the Monte Vista Historical Association's Architectural Review Committee argued the built limestone wall violated section 5 (site elements) of the design guidelines and said prior OHP compromises usually required a low curved row of stone to mitigate runoff. Anne Van Pelt and Rick Wilson also objected, with Wilson asking whether inconsistent approvals meant guidelines were effectively arbitrary.

Michelle Forry, the landscape contractor for the homeowners, told commissioners the yard had repeatedly failed as turf, that part of the irrigation would be removed for water conservation, and that rocks would be hand-placed and combined with mulch and plantings to create a cohesive appearance. Forry said the planted Asian jasmine border would be about three feet wide and that rock areas would be hand‑installed to avoid gaps and allow percolation of water.

Staff confirmed the work had been stopped after a stop‑work order and that the completed portion was the wall; staff said, based on the City's guidelines and a typical policy recommendation that roughly 50% of the front yard remain vegetated, the proposal could be found consistent with the guidelines. Commissioners and staff repeatedly noted that the homeowner did not secure approval before starting work and that the public hearing was the proper venue to weigh disagreement between staff and neighbors.

After more than an hour of questions and comments, a commissioner moved to continue the case so the applicant, Monte Vista Historic Association and Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) staff could try to reach a compromise; a second was given and the motion carried. The roll call recorded: Davis Aye; Flores Aye; Brigard Aye; Hernandez Aye; Setzer Aye; Fullerton Aye; Pollock Nay; Vasquez Aye. The board instructed the parties to work with staff and return, potentially on consent, at the next hearing in June if they reach agreement.

What happens next: The applicant and staff were directed to coordinate with the Monte Vista Historic Association and report back to OHP; if a neighborhood compromise is reached, the case could return on the consent agenda. If no agreement is found, the commission will consider the case on the merits at a future meeting. Staff noted plants recently installed may be at risk from delay and that some irrigation had already been shut down.