Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA June 26, 2018 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:30 p.m. #1 Mission Hills Country Club WITHDRAWN Add 5 parking spots near tennis courts 5400 Mission Drive Continued from June 12th ARB mtg #2 Drake & Patricia Vidrine Horizontal style fence at rear property line 2111 W 70th Terrace #3 Sherry Coughlin * New iron fences around property 5701 Oakwood Road #4 Philip & Janet Groves * Two additions 3416 W 68th Street #5 George & Rachel Cherian Replace existing rear deck 6568 High Drive #6 Tanya Trost Continued to July 10th Substantial addition; new windows; 2520 W 63rd Street new roof; rear yard patio * 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 Mission Hills Country Club 5400 Mission Drive The MHCC is proposing to add approximately 5 additional parking spots to their current parking area at their tennis courts. This project was continued at the 6/12/2018 ARB meeting so drainage could be reviewed and a sealed survey could be presented. Summary of Project: There is an existing 10-stall parking area to the east of the tennis center. The MHCC is proposing to add 5 parking spots at this location. The parking area will be extended 45 ft. to the south as shown on the exhibit. The new parking area is 30 ft. from the property line and will be made of asphalt. 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. June 26, 2018 #2 Drake & Patricia Vidrine 2111 West 70th Terrace The Vidrines are proposing a new 6 foot tall horizontal style privacy fence. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: st At the May 1 ARB meeting, the Vidrines were approved for a horizontal style fence at the fence returns on their property. They are now proposing the same fence style along their rear property line. 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. June 26, 2018 #3 Sherry Coughlin * 5701 Oakwood The Coughlins are proposing several new iron fences around their property. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Countryside Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The Coughlins’ home has a large raised terrace in the front yard. They are proposing a 3 foot iron fence around the perimeter of this terrace. A 4 foot tall iron fence is proposed to connect to the corner of the terrace, return to the south property line, and extend toward the rear yard until it meets an existing rock wall. Another 4 foot iron fence will extend from the east corner of a detached accessory building to the same rock wall. Ordinance Compliance: The project is in violation of city ordinance 5-135 C which forbids fences in the front yard. The 3 foot fence on the front terrace and the portion of the 4 foot fence that connects to the front terrace are in violation of this ordinance. Variances are required. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. * A variance is required. June 26, 2018 #4 Philip & Janet Groves * 3416 West 68th Street The Groves are proposing a new addition at the east side of their home and a second smaller addition at the west side of the house. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates (Traditional) • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The bulk of the new east (right) addition is 1 story. The addition steps back from the front of the house and in height as it gets closer to the side property line. A single dormer has been provided near the main mass of the house. All materials and detailing match the existing house. The west (left) addition consists of a simple 1 story bump out at the side of the house. A triple casement window is centered in the new addition. This will be the only casement window in the house. Ordinance Compliance: The home is an existing non-conforming use because to the west side of the house sits only 8 feet off of the property line. The new addition meets the minimum side yard setback, but the proposed project is in violation of City ordinance 5-120A, which requires the sum of both side yards to be a minimum of 25% of the lot width. The existing left side is 8.5 feet from the property line and the proposed right side is 11 feet from the side. The sum of the two setbacks is 19.5 feet. Because the lot is 112 feet wide, the minimum total setback required is 28 feet. A variance of 8.5 feet is required. Design Guideline Review: Section 2.3 on pages 64 through 67 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Neighborhood Estates character area. Subsection C recommends side wings located in the conditional building area be clearly shorter than the main mass, limited to 1 ½ stories and 20 feet in height with eaves no higher than 12 feet. This recommendation has been met. Please note, a small portion of the side wing extends into the primary landscape area. * A variance is required June 26, 2018 Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16)/LS-2 Lot Area: 19,331 SF Mean Lot Width: 112’ Ordinance Allowable/Required Proposed Maximum Height 35’ No Change Minimum Front Yard: 65’ Platted 65.3’ (Existing) Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 8.5’ Existing Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 11.0’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: 28.0’ 19.5’ (25% of Mean Lot Width) Lot Coverage: 5,044 SF 3,082 SF (61.1% of Max) June 26, 2018 #5 George & Rachel Cherian 6568 High Drive The Cherians are proposing to replace an existing deck at the rear of their home. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed deck sits between the homes two rear wings. The deck will be constructed of a composite decking material and have a metal railing. A second smaller deck is located along the side of the garage. At the rear yard a 25” tall retaining wall and stairs are proposed to access the rear yard. The material for this wall and steps is not indicated. Clarification is required. 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. June 26, 2018 #6 Tanya Trost 2520 W 63rd Street The Trosts are proposing a substantial addition to their existing 2,247 sf home. The additions will add 1,931 sf of living space, garages and covered porches. The final footprint of 3,505 sf consists of 2,865 sf of first floor living space, 540 sf of garage, and a 106 sf of covered porches. An additional 650 sf are on the existing second floor. The enclosed drawings do not reflect the recent changes required by the Professional Review Panel. Updated drawings will be brought to the ARB meeting. The proposed project is a substantial construction matter and was noticed as such. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The main mass of the house is one story and is proposed to be sided with smooth stucco. Two large side wings extend forward at each side of the house. The eastern (right) wing is an existing 2 story mass. The western (left) wing is the new garage. The eave line and ridge of the garage are set slightly higher than the main mass. The left side wing extends into the rear yard to the rear yard setback line. A small secondary wing is located at the center of the left side wing. All windows are clear-view fixed, awnings or casements. The window arrangement is fairly formal on each elevation. All of the windows are aluminum with minimal trim. At the rear of the house, an aluminum folding door system is being proposed. The garage door is a full translucent glass unit. The roof of the house and additions will be standing seam metal; with the majority of the roof at a 5.5/12 pitch. A shallower 2/12 pitch is proposed at the rear of the house. The two small covered porches are being proposed with either TPO membrane roofing or standing seam metal to match the rest of the house. Two existing skylights at the front of the house are to be replaced. The existing chimney at the rear of the house will be clad with new cut limestone to match the stone of the fireplace at the interior. The proposed cladding will be 2 inches thick. The front porch is a large tile stoop with a small, flat-roof covering. A low cut limestone wall is provided at the front entry that will match the new chimney. The cap on the wall will be cast stone. At the rear of the house, a large tile patio extends the majority of the width of the house. A small, flat-roof porch is proposed at the rear door. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: Section 2.3 on pages 64 through 67 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Neighborhood Estates character area. June 26, 2018 Subsection A suggests that the main mass of the house should be between 40% and 50% of the lot width. At 82 feet wide (72%), the main mass is wider than recommended. However, the house is designed with a horizontal massing which is traditionally much wider because wings are integral to the mass. This recommendation has been met. Subsection B recommends front wings have a width clearly less than the main mass, and a depth not greater than the width. Both of the front wings meet these recommendations. The section goes on to recommend a maximum height of 2 stories and clearly less than the main mass. Both of the proposed wings are taller than the main mass. The eastern wing is an existing condition that is not being modified. The western wing is a remodeled area that is approximately 1 foot taller than the main mass. Discussion is recommended. Subsection C recommends side wings located in the secondary building area be clearly shorter than the main mass, and limited to 2 stories and 30 feet in height. This recommendation has been met, except the eastern wing is taller than the main mass. This is an existing condition that is not being modified. This section goes on to recommend that wings located in the conditional building area be limited to 1 ½ stories and 24 feet in height. This recommendation has been met. Subsection D recommends rear wings located in the conditional building area be limited to 1 ½ stories, 24 feet tall and have eaves no higher than 12 feet. This recommendation has been met. Please note, the rear wing has been set to be parallel to the rear setback so the full width of the rear wing nearly touches the rear setback. Discussion is recommended. Section 2.6.4 on page 89 of the Design Guidelines provides recommendations for lot coverage. The section suggests that lot coverage be limited and should not exceed an increase of 50% over the average percentage maximum lot coverage that is being used by the neighboring properties. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.1 B 2 e states that skylights should not be allowed in roofs that are visible from the street. The two existing skylights, that are to be replaced, do not meet this recommendation. Discussion is recommended. Section 2.7.2 A on page 101 recommends garages be set behind the façade of the main house mass. The existing house has a front facing garage. With the modification, the garage will be moved forward and will be the closest point to the street. This is often an acceptable situation in contemporary homes. Subsection B 2 recommends only direct drives should be used on lots narrower than 150 feet. The Section goes on to suggest that the drive width should not be wider than 12 feet within 30 feet of the curb. The proposed driveway width is not dimensioned but appears to be approximately 20 feet wide for the full length of the drive. June 26, 2018 Lot Information Zoning: R-1(30)/LS-3 Lot Area: 22,681 SF Mean Lot Width: 112.5’ Ordinance Allowable/Required Proposed Maximum Height 35’ 21.0’ Minimum Front Yard: 60.0’ (Average of Adjacent) 69.83’ Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 10.5’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 17.82’ (Existing) Minimum Combined Side Yards: 28.13’ 28.32’ (25% of Mean Lot Width) Minimum Rear Yard: 39.42’ (At Closest Point) 39.42’ (20% of Mean Lot Depth) Lot Coverage: 5,545 SF 3,505 SF (63.21% of Max) Address Lot Area Lot Coverage Formula % max used 2520 West 63rd Street 22,681 2,247 5,637 39.86% 2410 West 63rd Street 18,559 2,941 4,903 59.98% 2427 West 63rd Street 15,433 2,137 4,313 49.54% 2501 West 63rd Street 20,318 2,226 5,222 42.63% 2516 West 63rd Street 24,812 3,602 6,000 60.04% 2509 West 63rd Street 24,843 1,948 6,005 32.44% 2530 West 63rd Street 21,843 2,848 5,491 51.87% Average 48.05% 50% Increase 72.08% 2520 West 63rd Street 22,150 3,505 5,545 63.21% Allowable Lot Coverage as 3,996 87.70% reduced by 150% Rule June 26, 2018