Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA January 9, 2018 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:30 p.m. #1 CONSENT AGENDA A. Chris & Stephane Cooch – 2040 W 59th Street Changes to previously approved project B. John & Louise Hedrick – 6646 Wenonga Terrace Replace deck C. Stephanie Harper – 2509 W 69th Street Replace basement window D. Charles Payne & Amy Ortman – 3130 Tomahawk Road New retaining wall and stairs E. Keith & Amy Copaken – 5810 High Drive New roof over existing patio #2 James & Laura Goettsch New swimming pool, spa, patios, 3316 W 68th Street equipment pad and pergola #3 Mark & Katie Moreland * New pool, pool house, patio and pergola 3000 W 68th Street #4 Joanne & Craig Scurato CONT’D TO JAN 23RD New residence 2901 W 68th Street ARB MTG * Variance required The Mission Hills Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) provides that the BZA shall determine whether or not an ARB decision was reasonable based upon the evidence presented to the ARB and the record of the ARB proceedings. Testimony at the BZA hearing will be limited to a discussion of the evidence presented to the ARB. No new evidence will be considered. #1 Consent Agenda A. Chris & Stephane Cooch 2040 West 59th Street The Cooches are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved project. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The Cooches are now proposing a large covered porch at the rear of their home. The porch is a simple, flat roofed, structure over their existing rear patio. The roof structure of the existing porch will be removed to make way for the new porch. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. January 9, 2018 B. John & Louise Hedrick 6646 Wenonga Terrace The Hedricks are proposing to replace the surface of their existing deck with new composite deck material. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The size and shape of the deck will remain unchanged and the existing handrail will be reused. The new deck surface is a composite decking material. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. January 9, 2018 C. Stephanie Harper 2509 West 69th Street The Harpers are proposing to replace an existing basement window with a new unit and well, that meet egress requirements. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed window is the same width as the existing and will maintain the existing head height. A new corrugated steel window well will be installed to replace the existing corrugated steel well. The proposed window is considerably taller than the existing window, but only the top-most portion will be visible above grade. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. January 9, 2018 D. Charles Payne & Amy Ortman 3130 Tomahawk Road The Payne/Ortmans are proposing a new retaining wall and stairs in their rear yard. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The existing yard slopes towards the rear of the house. The proposed retaining wall will help to flatten the rear yard and mitigate drainage. The wall is to be a stacked limestone wall and the steps are to be cut stone. The steps will be flanked with cheek walls constructed of the same limestone. At the top of the wall, extensive landscaping is proposed to further aid with drainage issues. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. January 9, 2018 E. Keith & Amy Copaken 5810 High Drive The Copakens are proposing a new roof structure over their existing patio. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The new roof structure will be located at the rear of the house over an existing terrace patio. The handrails for the existing patio will be modified or replaced to allow new columns to support the new roof structure. The roof structure is proposed as a flat membrane roof that aligns with the eaves of the existing house. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. January 9, 2018 #2 James & Laura Goettsch 3316 West 68th Street Mr. and Mrs. Goettsch are proposing a new swimming pool, spa, patios, equipment pad, and pergola structure. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates (Transitional) • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The pool is located in a large patio at the side of the rear yard. A new spa is located at the east end of the pool patio. The pool patio is to be constructed of colored concrete with a bluestone border. An additional patio is located directly behind the pool patio. This is where the pergola is proposed. The pergola is to be constructed of painted wood and stands 9 feet 8 inches tall at the highest point. Two secondary patios, constructed of dry-set bluestone, flank both sides of the pergola. All of the patio areas are separated from one another with a narrow mow strip. Two additional walkways connect the pool patio to the existing patio. The material for these walkways as not been indicated. Clarification is required. The yard is encircled with an existing 4-foot-tall wood fence. The gates in this fence will be modified to meet code requirements. The pool equipment will be located at the northeast corner of the house in a new utility yard directly adjacent to an existing utility yard. Both are enclosed with a wood fence to match the perimeter fence. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. January 9, 2018 #3 Mark & Katie Moreland * 3000 West 68th Street The Morelands are proposing a new pool and pool house, patio, and pergola at the rear of their home. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed pool is located at the center of the Moreland’s rear yard. The pool cabana is located at the west side of the pool. At the east side of the pool is an outdoor kitchen and circular seating area. Directly behind the pool is a secondary patio with a pergola structure. The pool cabana is 340 square feet and open on three sides. Only 110 square feet of the structure is completely enclosed. That area is used for storage and pool equipment. The enclosed area also forms a backdrop for a large fireplace. The eave lines for the cabana are set at 9’-4” which may or may not be comparable to the main house. Discussion is recommended. The cabana is sided with lap siding and a thin-stone wainscot. The open portion of the cabana is support by two round columns under a roof with a gabled end. Half round pilasters have been provided at the opposite wall. At the back of the cabana, the roof has a hipped end toward the neighbors. The outdoor kitchen consists of a stone base with a stone countertop that extends into the seating area. The secondary patio at the rear of the pool is constructed of stone pavers on a pervious base. This construction is considered a landscape feature and is not subject to the 10 foot rear setback for accessory structures which allows the patio to be less than 8 feet from the rear property line. The pergola structure is set at the 10 foot minimum rear setback and will stand 9 feet tall to bottom of the structure. The overall height will be approximately 11 feet. Extensive landscaping is proposed between the patio and the rear fence. A new iron fence has been indicated, but the height and style of the fence are unclear. Clarification is required. Ordinance Compliance: Since a 1-foot gap is proposed between the pool and the pool deck, the City Administrator has determined that the pool deck can be considered a patio and follow the requirements of such. The project is in violation of City ordinance 5-120 G which requires detached accessory structures, such as patios, maintain a minimum 10-foot setback from any side property line. The seating area for the outdoor dining area is not dimensioned, but is clearly less than 10 feet from the side property line. A variance of 18 inches is required. The project is in violation of City ordinance 5-132 E which requires detached accessory buildings be no closer than 10 feet to the principal building. A variance of 1.2 feet is required. Design Guideline Review: Section 2.3 on pages 64 through 67 of the Design Guidelines provide specific recommendations for the Neighborhood Estates Character Area. * Multiple variances are required. January 9, 2018 Subsection E suggests that detached accessory buildings, located in the conditional building area, be limited to 1 story with 10 foot eaves and a maximum area of 720 sq. ft. These recommendations have been met. Section 2.7.1 on page 92 of the Design Guidelines discussed materials. This section discourages the use of thin stone veneer products. Discussion is recommended. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(30)/LS-6 Lot Area: Unknown Mean Lot Width: 230.0’ Ordinance Allowable/Required Proposed Accessory Structure Maximum Height 24’ Unknown Accessory Structure distance from Main 10’ 8.8’ house. Accessory Building Minimum Side Yard 10’ 10’ (When located in the rear yard): Accessory Building Minimum Rear Yard: 10’ Unknown Accessory Building Maximum Footprint 720 SF 340 SF (when located in the side yard): (20% of Side yard areas) January 9, 2018