Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board declines CMU retaining wall at 447 Fir Drive; neighborhood group urges berm preservation
Loading...
Summary
The board denied approval of an 18-inch concrete-masonry retaining wall at 447 Fir Drive after hearing testimony from the owner citing safety and from the Monticello Park Neighborhood Association urging preservation of the earthen berm; staff asked for a revised low landscaping wall in appropriate materials.
SAN ANTONIO — The Compliance and Technical Advisory Board voted April 17 to support staff’s recommendation to deny approval of a concrete masonry unit (CMU) retaining wall at 447 Fir Drive and asked the applicant to submit a revised design using more appropriate, low-profile landscaping materials.
Applicant Mr. Weinberg said erosion and recent rains caused dangerous mud and slippery conditions at his front yard, described a stop-work order issued Feb. 28 and said he had photographed multiple nearby examples of similar walls. “The sloping nature of the yard combined with erosion caused large amounts of dirt and mud to slough onto sidewalks — my children have fallen and my 104-year-old grandfather nearly fell,” Weinberg said, asking the board to consider safety and precedent.
Bianca Maldonado, president of the Monticello Park Neighborhood Association, urged commissioners to affirm staff’s recommendation and preserve the neighborhood’s character-defining earthen berms. “The proposed retaining wall adds a harsh break in the front of the home and seeks to flatten the front yard and remove the berm,” Maldonado said. She noted the neighborhood received bond-funded street work in 2021–22 and that engineers reviewing that work did not recommend new retaining walls.
Staff told the board that the district guidelines favor low stone edging or landscaping walls rather than CMU and recommended that the applicant submit an updated proposal for administrative review. On a motion to support staff’s recommendation, commissioners voted unanimously to deny the CMU wall as proposed and to instruct the applicant to work with staff on an alternate design.
Staff cited guidelines that discourage concrete masonry units in this district and suggested stone or low landscaping edging as viable alternatives.
