Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA September 19, 2017 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:30 p.m. #1 CONSENT AGENDA None #2 Kelly & Paxton St. Clair CONT’D TO New pool, pool house, porch extension 2625 Verona Road OCTOBER 3RD and backup generator at rear of home #3 Paul & Theresa Hiemenz Modifications to sunroom and 6557 High Drive second floor alcove #4 Dan & Leslie Hogan Arbor/gate at rear walkway 6840 Tomahawk Road #5 Colleen McPherson Roble Changes to previously approved detached garage 2000 W 61st Terrace #6 Sal & Libby Cessor Roof replacement 2833 Tomahawk Cir #7 William & Angela Hoffman New patio, fire pit, perimeter seat walls, 6925 Overhill Road and outdoor kitchen in rear yard #8 Ron & Kelly Lockton New pool and pool house 2321 W 59th Street #9 Chuck & Leslie Erickson New home and pool 2408 W 69th Street #10 Lyndse & Prentice Hanes Changes to previously approved dormers; 6300 Belinder Avenue new patio and fence * Needs variance. 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 No Items September 19, 2017 #2 Kelly & Paxton St. Clair 2625 Verona Road The St. Clairs are proposing a new pool, pool house, porch extension, and backup generator at the rear of their home. rd The St. Clairs have requested that their project be continued to the October 3 meeting. September 19, 2017 #3 Paul & Theresa Hiemenz 6557 High Drive The Hiemenzes are proposing an interior remodel that includes exterior modifications of a sunroom and a second floor alcove. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Traditional Neighborhood • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The existing sunroom currently has four large clear-view windows, mulled together, on two sides of the room. The Hiemenzes are proposing to replace these windows with 3 window units in the same opening. It is unclear if the new windows will have muntin bars to match the adjacent door. Clarification is required. At the second floor, an existing alcove is adjacent to a roof deck. The Hiemenzes are proposing to enclose this alcove and side it to match the remainder of the house. A small window in the same area will remain. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts with City ordinances. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts with Design Guidelines. September 19, 2017 #4 Dan & Leslie Hogan 6840 Tomahawk Road The Hogans are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved patio project. They are now proposing to add an arbor/gate to the rear walkway. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed arbor is a simple archway with a lattice gate and lattice wing walls. Per the plans, the arbor is to span between two low pilasters. The example photograph shows the arbor connecting to ground and not a wall or pilaster. It is unclear how the arbor and the related wings relate to the pilasters. 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. September 19, 2017 #5 CPM1 Trust (Colleen McPherson Roble) 2000 West 61st Terrace The Robles are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved detached garage. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The overall size and scope of the garage remain unchanged. The original design included a pedestrian door at the west side of the garage, adjacent to the overhead doors, and a second pedestrian door out the rear. These doors have both been eliminated and a new door has been added at the south side of the garage. To create access for this new door, a walkway and stars have been added between the south edge of the garage and the patio. This area was originally a planter bed. Since the rear door has been eliminated, there is no longer a need for the rear stair, and has been eliminated. Similarly, since there is no longer a pedestrian door at the west elevation of the garage, the garage doors have been re-configured on the façade. The scope of the pergola has been decreased and while it does still engage the house and the garage, it is far smaller than originally proposed. At the rear of the garage, two double-hung windows were originally approved. These have been changed to pairs of casement windows that match other windows at the first floor of the main house. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts with City ordinances. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts with Design Guidelines. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(20)/LS-1 Lot Area: 14,941 SF Mean Lot Width: 103.0’ Ordinance Allowable/Required Proposed Detached Accessory Building Minimum 10’ 27’ Side Yard: Detached Accessory Building Minimum 10’ 28.2’ Rear Yard: Detached Accessory Building Maximum 649 SF 648 SF Area: (20% of Minimum Rear Yard) Lot Coverage: 4,220 SF 4,220 SF (46.39% of Max) September 19, 2017 Address Lot Area Lot Coverage Ordinance Limit % max used 1900 West 61st Street 17,287 2,444 4,667 52.37% 1912 West 61st Street 2,272 2,272 1,139 199.46% 2020 West 61st Street 14,027 1,904 4,036 47.17% 2021 West 61st Street 15,560 1,842 4,338 42.46% 2001 Brookwood Road 17,355 2,508 4,680 53.59% 2021 Brookwood Road 15,979 2,148 4,419 48.61% 2031 Brookwood Road 13,730 2,450 3,977 61.61% Average 72.18% 50% Increase 100.00% 2000 West 61st Terrace 14,957 1,934 4,220 45.83% Allowable Lot Coverage as 4,220 45.83% reduced by 150% Rule September 19, 2017 #6 Sal & Libby Cessor 2833 Tomahawk Cir The Cessors are proposing to replace their roof with a new faux shake shingle roof. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates (Transitional) • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed roofing material has not previously been used in the City and as such is not on the list of previously approved roofing materials. A physical samples of the material is available at City hall. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: The Design Guidelines generally discourage the use of faux materials and prefer the use of natural materials. Discussion is recommended. September 19, 2017 #7 William & Angela Hoffman 6925 Overhill Road The Hoffmans are proposing a new patio in their rear yard with a fire pit, perimeter seat walls, and an outdoor kitchen. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed patio is located at the south side of their rear yard. It is constructed of concrete pavers. A fire pit is located at the southeast edge of the patio and will include a low wall. An additional seat wall lines the southeast edge of the patio which terminates at the corners with pilasters that included coach lamps. The outdoor kitchen is located at the south side of the patio. It consists of a counter with a built in grill. The kitchen is integrated into another seat wall with pilasters. None of the proposed materials have the exact product specified. 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: While the exact materials are unknown, the Design Guidelines generally discourage the use of faux materials and prefer the use of natural materials. Discussion is recommended. September 19, 2017 #8 Ron & Kelly Lockton 2321 West 59th Street The Locktons are proposing a new pool and pool house at the side of their home. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The Locktons have acquired a portion of the lot directly east of their home. The new pool and pool house will be located on this piece of property. The pool house is located at the center of the new parcel and is set at the front building line for the lot. The building is all brick with timber detailing. The roof will be slate to match the main house. The pool sits directly behind the pool house and is surrounded on all sides by a flagstone pool deck. A portion of the pool deck will be set in sand due to its proximity to the rear property line. To create a level spot for the pool, a new retaining wall will be constructed along the south side of the pool. The Locktons have requested to defer the exact design of the wall and include it with their landscaping plan. The exact height of the wall has not been provided, but it appears to be approximately 6 feet tall, with the pool located on the low side. An additional wall will be constructed along the west side of the lot where it connects to the Locktons’ existing property. This wall will be an extension of an existing retaining wall. New mechanical units will be located along this wall. A new iron fence has been indicated, but the height and style of the fence are unclear. Clarification is required. Ordinance Compliance: A replat of the Lockton property (adding a portion of the property to the east) has been approved by the City and is being filed with Johnson County. Once the replat is finalized, there will be no conflicts with City Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: Section 2.3 on pages 64 through 67 of the Design Guidelines provide specific recommendations for the Neighborhood Estates Character Area. 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 SF. These recommendations have been met. Subsection E also suggests that there should be no more than 2 accessory buildings located on the same lot. This will be the second accessory building on the lot. September 19, 2017 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’ 23.25’ Accessory Structure distance from Main 10’ >48’ house. Accessory Building Minimum Side Yard 20’ >23’ (When located in the side yard): Accessory Building Minimum Rear Yard: 10’ >77’ Accessory Building Maximum Footprint 920 SF 551 SF (when located in the side yard): (20% of Side yard areas) September 19, 2017 #9 Chuck & Leslie Erickson * 2408 West 69th Street The Ericksons are proposing a new home with a 4,833 sq. ft. footprint. The footprint consists of 3,453 sq. ft. of first floor living space, 891 sq. ft. of garages, and 537 sq. ft. of covered porches. An additional 1,137 sq. ft. is finished space in the basement. The project includes a 100 sq. ft. detached accessory building in the rear yard making the total lot coverage 4,933 sq. ft. The project also includes a large patio and a small pool at the rear of the house. The proposed project is a substantial construction matter and was noticed as such. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The house is a contemporary style. It is one story with low slope roofs. A clearstory has been provided at the central mass. The detached accessory building sits in the northeast corner of the property. The highest roof of the house will be approximately one foot higher than the house to the left and approximately nine feet lower than the 1 ½ story home to the right. The proposed eaves are not comparable due to the differences in design styles; however the home’s lower eave line is slightly higher than the home to the left and slightly lower than the home to right. The proposed house is maintaining the existing topography, with minimal grading, which is in keeping with the rest of the street. The proposed greenspace is also in keeping with the neighborhood. The house is sided with a combination of wood and stone siding. The roof is a low slope membrane material. The garage doors will be clad with wood siding to match the house. Windows are large clear view windows, some with integral sliding doors or casements. The windows are typically floor to ceiling and work as entire walls of glass. At the front of the house, the front door is set on a small porch with large window wells on either side. The walls of the window wells extend up 3 feet above grade and project 3 feet into the front yard. The window wells provide light access to the basement level. The front porch bridges between the front yard and the house allowing the window wells to be one contiguous space. The driveway is a narrow direct drive that expands into a small auto-court near the garage. A small hammer head is proposed at the rear of the driveway. At the rear of the house, a large covered patio and outdoor kitchen has been proposed. Adjacent to the covered patio is a 450 sq. ft. pool and an associated stone paver patio. The pool deck is bordered at the rear by the detached accessory building. The pool equipment is located to the side of the house by the AC equipment. The 100 sq. ft. accessory building is designed in the same style as the main house and is clad with the same materials. Like the main house, the building has a low slope roof and a maximum height of approximately 11 feet. September 19, 2017 The home’s air conditioning equipment is located on the right (east) side of the house and sits partially underneath the roof eave. Existing fences cover the rear (north), left (west) side, and right (east) side of the house. New wood fence returns are proposed on both sides to connect back to these fences. The front walkway consists of concrete pavers that connect to the street and the driveway. A new evergreen hedge row is proposed to encircle the rear yard. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts with City ordinances. Design Guideline Review: Section 2.5 on pages 72 through 75 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Suburban character area. Subsection A suggests that the main mass of the house should be between 40% and 50% of the lot width. At 93 feet wide (64% of the lot width), the main mass is wider than recommended. However, the ARB may find this acceptable because the house employs a “scaled-up” massing style (See Page 41) which integrates the main mass and side wings. This section also suggests that the depth of the main mass should not be more than 50% of the width. This recommendation has been met. This section goes on to recommend that the height of the house be limited to 30 feet. This recommendation has also been met. Subsection D recommends rear wings located in the primary building area be subordinate in height and clearly less than the main mass. The rear wing is integral to the house and maintains the same roof height. The ARB may find this acceptable due to the home’s style and massing. Subsection E recommends detached accessory buildings, located in the primary building area be limited to 10 foot eaves and a maximum area of 720 sq. ft. These recommendations have been met. 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. Refer to the table below for more information. Section 2.72 A on page 101 recommends garages be set behind the façade of the main house mass. This proposed garage is toward the front of the house and will be visible from the street. Discussion is recommended. September 19, 2017 Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16)/LS-3 Lot Area: 23,196 SF Mean Lot Width: 145.0’ Ordinance Allowable Proposed Maximum Height 35’ 16.7’ Minimum Front Yard: 50’ (Platted) 50.0’ Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 27.8’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 20.0’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: 36.5 47.8’ (25% of Mean Lot Width) Minimum Rear Yard: 32.0’ (At closest point) 39.7’ (20% of Mean Lot Depth) Detached Accessory Building Side Yard: 10’ (When in rear yard) 10’ Detached Accessory Building Rear Yard: 10’ 10’ Detached Accessory Building Max Area: 928 SF 680 SF Lot Coverage: 5,725 SF 4,933 SF (86.2% of Max) Address Lot Area Lot Coverage Ordinance Limit % max used 2308 W 69th Street 21,647 3,026 5,457 55.5% 2400 W 69th Street 22,382 5,376 5,585 96.3% 2401 W 69th Street 19,965 4,476 5,159 86.8% 2409 W 69th Street 18,923 3,358 4,970 67.6% 2500 W 69th Street 23,999 3,701 5,862 63.1% 2501 W 69th Street 18,481 2,798 4,889 57.2% 2508 W 69th Street 23,554 3,202 5,787 55.3% 2401 W 68th Street 23,419 3,305 5,764 57.3% 2409 W 68th Street 23,425 4,045 5,765 70.2% Average 66.5% 50% Increase 99.8% 2408 W 69th St 23,196 4,933 5,725 86.2% Allowable Lot Coverage reduced 5,711 86.4% by Design Guideline 150% rule September 19, 2017 #10 Lyndse & Prentice Hanes 6300 Belinder Avenue The Hanes are returning the ARB with changes to their previously approved dormers. They are also proposing a new patio and to add a new fence to the property. The Hanes would also like to discuss potential future projects with the ARB on a conceptual basis. That is the reason for their position as last on the agenda. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The style of the previously approved dormers was in error. The updated drawing indicates the actual design for the existing and proposed dormers. The proposed patio is a simple concrete patio with brick edging at the rear of the house. It will replace an existing smaller patio in the same area. The proposed fence is a 6-foot tall wrought iron style with gates at the north and southeast sides of the property. The house has an existing platted setback where the fence will be installed. The conceptual review consists of a potential addition at the south side of the house, and a potential carriage house at the north side. 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. September 19, 2017