Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA March 30, 2021 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:00 p.m. Please join the meeting from your PC, tablet or smartphone at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/382012061 You can also dial in using your phone at (Toll Free) 1 (877) 568-4106 or 1 (571) 317-3129 with Access Code: 382-012-061 Note for those calling in: The City does not want any board member or attendee to incur any cost to participate in the meeting. If you do not pay a fee for using the long distance service on your telephone, please consider using the long- distance phone number instead of the toll-free number as the City incurs a cost for each toll-free call that is placed. #1 Consent Agenda A. Scott Schoenfeld – 6528 Sagamore Road Changes to previously approved project B. Adam & Jill Gray – 6400 Wenonga Terrace Changes to previously approved new home C. Jonathan & Sarah Yen – 2215 Drury Lane Changes to previously approved project D. Thomas & Tiffany Ruzicka – 2526 West 64th Street Changes to previously approved project #2 Top Choice Contracting LLC† Request to be cont’d New Home 2117 Drury Lane to April 13th Cont’d from March 2nd meeting #3 Dustin & Katherine Stiles Replace siding with faux shake shingles; replace windows 6624 Rainbow Avenue Cont’d from March 16th meeting #4 Steve & Linda Turley New generator 2801 West 67th Street #5 Jodi & Darren Abbott Replace pool deck 2508 Arno Road #6 Michael and Melissa Foster* New fence 6552 Overbrook Road #7 Bret & Erin Knighton† Outdoor fireplace 2040 West 59th Street #8 Patrick Roth† Outdoor fireplace 2403 West 69th Terrace #9 Koenig Building & Restoration † New Home 6516 Belinder Avenue *Variance required. † Substantial Construction 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. Scott Schoenfeld 6528 Sagamore Road The Schoenfelds are proposing changes to their previously approved project. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: At the January 5th meeting, the Schoenfelds were approved for a rear addition that included a second story balcony. They are now proposing to omit the balcony and install a traditional sloped roof. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed changes and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflict between the proposed changes and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. March 30, 2021 B. Adam & Jill Gray 6400 Wenonga Terrace The Grays are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved new home. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Countryside Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The house project was approved at the December 15, 2020 ARB meeting. The Grays are now proposing the following changes: At the front door, the archway has been reduced and the sidelights narrowed. At the west side of the house, the second floor dormer has been narrowed, one of the garage doors has been changed to two doors, and the roof over the pergola has been removed and replaced with a trellis structure. At the rear elevation, various window sills have been raised slightly and a new window has been added to the rear wing gable. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed changes and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflict between the proposed changes and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. March 30, 2021 C. Jonathan & Sarah Yen 2215 Drury Lane The Yens are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved pool project. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: Intersection Green Summary of Project: An existing pergola, at the side of the garage, will be demolished as part of the project. 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. March 30, 2021 D. Thomas & Tiffany Ruzicka * 2526 West 64th Street The Ruzickas are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved project. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban (Transitional) • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The Ruzickas are proposing to reduce the scope of the project by eliminating one of the new rear wing additions. The main covered porch and side entrance will remain. Ordinance Compliance: The project is in violation of Code Section 5-120 A. 1. (a) that requires the sum of each side yard to be at least 25% of the lot width. For this lot, that is 23.75 feet. The home is an existing non- conforming use with an existing combined setback of 19 feet. The new addition extends another portion of the house into violation of this ordinance with a combined setback of 21.75 feet. A variance of 2 feet is required. *Previously Granted* Design Guideline Review: Section 2.7.3.A on page 106 recommends that LS-1 properties have a minimum of 60% greenspace. For this lot that is 9,865 square feet. With the proposed addition, 8,857 square feet have been provided. This is 1,008 square feet less than recommended. This recommendation has not been met. Please note, the existing house before the additions does not meet this requirement. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(20)/LS-1 Lot Area: 16,441 SF Lot Width: 95’ Ordinance Allowable/Required by Ord Proposed Maximum Height: 35’ No Change Minimum Front Yard: 40’ Platted No Change Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 8’ (Existing) Minimum Side Yard (Right): 11’ (Existing) 10’ 13.75’ (Addition) 25% Combined Side Yards: 19’ (Existing) 23.75’ 21.75’ (Addition) Minimum Rear Yard: (20%) 34.8’ (At closest point) 79.0’ Lot Coverage: 4,507 SF 3,233 SF Minimum Greenspace: 60% (9,865 SF) 8,857 = 53.8% * A variance is required. March 30, 2021 #2 Top Choice Contracting LLC 2117 Drury Lane The new owners are proposing a new 2-story home with a 3,636 sq. ft. footprint. The footprint consists of 2,547 sq. ft. of first floor living space, and an 880 sq. ft. 3-car garage. The project includes a swimming pool with a large patio and an auto-court driveway. The proposed project is a substantial construction matter and was noticed as such. The project was continued at the March 2nd ARB meeting with the requirement that the project return to the PRP for further review. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The house is a contemporary style sided in a combination of stone and stucco. The main mass of the house is 2 stories. The main mass is flanked on both sides and the front by one-story side wings. The windows are all clear-view and most are fixed. The window arrangement is fairly formal on all sides of the house. The roof is comprised of multiple planes that all appear to have the same pitch. The new first floor elevation is approximately 2 feet higher than the existing grade. The main floor sits 5 feet higher than the house to the right and 5 feet lower than the home to the left. The main ridge is 7.4 feet higher than the home to the right and 4 feet lower than the home to the left. Due to the different styles of the adjacent homes, eave lines are significantly different with the proposed house having eaves 14 feet higher than the home to the right and 5 feet lower than the home to the left. Significant grading is proposed at the southwest corner of the lot. An auto-court is located near the garages and is positioned to accommodate all three garages. A hammer-head portion of the auto-court extends in front of the house along the front walkway. The pool is proposed at the rear of the main mass. It is surrounded on all sides by a new terrace. A retaining wall is proposed at the west side. There is no indication of a code compliant pool barrier at this time. Pool equipment location is shown to the south of the single-car garage and we assume A/C units will be located there as well, but clarification is required. Update 2/10/2021: New drawings were provided for the ARB to review. The new drawings did not lower any of the proposed eaves or ridges as suggested by the ARB. The eave depth of the first floor has been increased, and window head heights have been increased to meet the bottom of the eave. Only the architectural elevations were updated to illustrate these changes - all renderings remain unchanged. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. March 30, 2021 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 A suggests that the main mass of the house should be between 40% and 50% of the lot width. At 48 feet wide (45%), the main meets this recommendation. This section goes on to suggest that the depth of the main mass should be 25% of the lot width. At 50 feet deep, the depth of the main mass is significantly more than 25% of the lot width. Subsection B suggests that front wings have a width not to exceed 50% of the main mass width. This recommendation has been met. Subsection D suggests that rear wings located in the primary or secondary building areas can be up to 2 stories and 30 feet tall providing that their height is less than the main mass. This recommendation has been met. This section goes on to suggest that rear wings should have a width clearly less than the main mass and should not exceed 50% of the main mass width. This recommendation has 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. Section 2.7.2 A on page 101 recommends garages be set behind the façade of the main house mass. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.2.B on page 102 recommends drives be no more than 12 feet wide at the front property line. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.3.A on page 106 recommends that LS-1 properties have a minimum of 60% greenspace. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.6.4.A on page 89 discourages overbuilding by suggesting that homes avoid reaching more than 2 minimum/maximum setbacks or limits. This recommendation has been met. Professional Review Panel Recommendation: The Professional Review Panel recommends approval. UPDATE: The PRP has not completed their second review of the project at the request of the Architectural Review Board. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(20)/LS-1 Lot Area: 15,983 SF Lot Width: 106’ March 30, 2021  Ordinance Allowable/Required by Ord Proposed Maximum Height: 35’ 24’-10” Minimum Front Yard: 50’ 50’ Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 11.1’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 16.5’ 25% Combined Side Yards: 26.5’ 27.6’ Minimum Rear Yard: (20%) 30’ (At closest point) 46.5’ Lot Coverage Limit: 4,420 SF 3,395 SF Minimum Greenspace Required: 60% (9,591 SF) 9,675 SF = 60.5% Existing Address Lot Area Lot LC by Ordinance % max used Coverage 2117 Drury Ln 15,983 2,761 4,420 62.47% 2100 Drury Ln 18,125 2,212 4,823 45.86% 2032 Drury Ln 13,036 1,998 3,836 52.09% 2020 Drury Ln 21,745 2,994 5,474 54.69% 2035 Drury Ln 13,967 1,825 4,024 45.35% 6101 High Dr 21,239 2,438 5,385 45.27% 6105 High Dr 15,384 1,734 4,304 40.29% 2112 Brookwood 19,653 4,406 5,102 86.35% 2100 Brookwood 14,744 3,052 4,179 73.04% 2040 Brookwood 14,345 1,973 4,100 48.13% Average 55.35% 50% Increase 83.03% Allowable LC reduced by 150% Rule 3,670 = 2117 Drury Ln Proposed = 3,395 76.8% of City Ordinance Limit 92.5% of Design Guideline Limit March 30, 2021 #3 Dustin & Katherine Stiles 6624 Rainbow Avenue The Stiles are proposing to replace all their existing siding with new faux shake shingles. They would also like to replace all the windows on the front of the home and the easterly most window on the north side. This project was continued at the March 16th meeting due to lack of representation. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The existing home has a combination of horizontal lap siding, vertical siding, and brick. All of the vertical and horizontal lap siding will be replaced with Hardie shake shingles. The windows will be the same size and location as the existing windows. The windows will be changed from true divided light to simulated divided light. One window has a 60/40 split between the lower and upper sash and is being replaced with a 50/50 split. There is a triple window that is being replaced with a single fixed window. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: While not specifically forbidden, the ARB has typically rejected several of the Hardie shingle products due to their flat appearance. This is especially true of the panelized products. Sample/mockup review is recommended. March 30, 2021 #4 Steve & Linda Turley 2801 West 67th Street The Turleys are proposing a new generator in their rear yard. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed generator is located in the rear yard behind the existing A/C units. There is no screening proposed. 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. March 30, 2021 #5 Jodi & Darren Abbott 2508 Arno Road The Abbotts are proposing to replace their existing pool deck. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The existing concrete pool deck will be replaced with a “techo-bloc” concrete block paver system. The exact block size and configuration has not been provided. Clarification is required. Ordinance Compliance: The project is in violation of Code Section 5-121 D which requires outdoor recreation facilities, such as pool decks, have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the side or rear property lines. At its closest point the existing pool deck is 12.7 feet from the rear property line and 8.8 feet from the side property line. Variances of 7.3 feet and 11.2 feet are required. However, Code Section 5- 128 C.2 allows for alterations to a nonconforming structure without requiring a variance from the BZA provided that the alteration does not increase the building footprint or height of the nonconforming portion of the structure. Since the proposed deck is going back in the same location, a new variance is not required. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. March 30, 2021 #6 Michael & Melissa Foster* 6552 Overbrook Road The Fosters are proposing a new fence on the Overbrook Road side of their home. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Traditional Neighborhood • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The legal front yard of 6552 Overbrook Road is Overbrook; however, the house faces 67th Street. The Fosters want to fence in what rear/side yard they have for their children. Because 67th Street is technically their side yard, City ordinance allows them to place a wood fence 12 feet to the south of the front of their house which is the visual front yard. City staff believes that it would look odd to have a fence in the visual front yard, and doubt anyone is aware that the front yard is technically on Overbrook. After visiting with the Fosters about their options, they are proposing to place a wood fence on the Overbrook Road side. This would violate the prohibition of fences in the front yard and would violate a platted setback. However, City staff is willing to declare the front yard as 67th Street for as long as the house faces 67th Street. City ordinance give the City Administrator authority to determine the front yard of the lot based on the “manner in which the principal building is located on the lot”. By changing the legal front yard to 67th Street, the Fosters can place a wood fence 16.8 feet to the east of their house without violating the side yard setback, but will still need a variance for violating the platted setback. The east side of the house sits on the platted setback line. The attached site plan shows the proposed fence location in green. Ordinance Compliance: The project is in violation of a platted setback. A variance of 16.8 feet is required. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. March 30, 2021 #7 Bret & Erin Knighton 2040 West 59th Street The Knightons are proposing a new outdoor fireplace on their existing patio. Outdoor fireplaces are substantial construction matters as defined by Code Section 5-103.78 and 5-103.122 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 proposed fireplace is proposed at the rear of an existing patio. It is all brick standing 10’-9” tall. 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. March 30, 2021 #8 Patrick Roth 2403 West 69th Terrace Mr. Roth is proposing a new outdoor fireplace on his existing patio. Outdoor fireplaces are substantial construction matters as defined by Code Section 5-103.78 and 5-103.122 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 proposed fireplace is proposed at the rear of an existing patio. It is all brick standing 12’-6” tall. A low 16-inch tall brick seat wall will encircle the remainder of the patio. 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. March 30, 2021 #9 Koenig Building & Restoration 6516 Belinder Avenue Koenig Building and Restoration is proposing a new 2-story home with a 3,679 sq. ft. footprint. The footprint areas are listed below. The project includes a circle driveway and a large patio. The proposed project is a substantial construction matter and was noticed as such. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates (Transitional) • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage Review: Main floor living area: 2,743 sf Main floor garage area: 907 sf Covered porches: 90 sf Total Lot Coverage: 3,740 sf Summary of Project: The house is a Colonial revival style sided with lap siding. The main mass of the house is 2 stories. The main mass is flanked on the right side by a one-story 3-car garage wing. The windows are all double-hung or fixed. The window arrangement is fairly formal on all sides of the house. The roof is comprised of multiple planes with multiple pitches. The area that connects the side wing is proposed with a lower slope roof. Similarly, a large rear porch will have a flat roof. The new first floor elevation is approximately 2 feet higher than the previous. The main floor sits 0.7 feet higher than the house to the right and 2.9 feet higher than the home to the left. The main ridge is 11 feet higher than the home to the right and 10 feet higher than the home to the left. Both of the adjacent homes are 1 ½ stories so eave lines are significantly different on the left side, but the right-side wing eaves are comparable to the right-side neighbor. Please note, the homes across the street are full 2-story homes. The driveway is a simple circle drive like all of the houses within the immediate area. An auto-court is located near the garage and is positioned to accommodate all three garages. The A/C equipment is located in a small equipment enclosure at the rear of the garage. The proposed patio is centered on the main mass and consists of a simple concrete patio. No outdoor kitchen, fire pit or similar amenity is proposed at this time. 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. Subsection A suggests that the main mass of the house should be between 40% and 50% of the lot width. At 47’ feet wide, this recommendation has been met. This section goes on to suggest that the depth of the main mass should be 25% of the lot width but need not to be less than 25 feet. At 31 feet deep, this recommendation has been met. March 30, 2021 Subsection C suggests that side wings, located in the primary building area, should have a depth and height clearly less than the main mass. They should also be set behind the front plane of the main mass. This recommendation has been met. Side wings located in the secondary building area should have a height up to 2-stories and 30 feet, but clearly less than the main mass. This recommendation has been met. Side wings located in the conditional building area should have a height up to 1 ½ stories and 24 feet with eaves no higher than 12 feet. This recommendation has been met. Subsection D suggests that rear wings located in the primary or secondary building areas can be up to 2 stories and 30 feet tall but clearly less than the main mass. Rear wings should have a width clearly less than the main mass and should not exceed 50% of the main mass width. This recommendation has not been met. Subsection G suggests that driveways occupy as little of the Primary Landscape Area as possible. Circle driveways should have an interior green with a width no less than 80 feet wide, measured at the front property line, and depth of 40 feet measured from the curb. 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. Section 2.6.4.A on page 89 discourages overbuilding by suggesting that homes avoid reaching more than 2 minimum/maximum setbacks or limits. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.1 B on page 94 provides specific recommendations for roofs. This section recommends that no more than two roof pitches be used. The current design uses 2 pitches if you do not included the flat roof areas. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.2 A on page 101 recommends garages be set behind the façade of the main house mass. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.2.B on page 102 recommends drives to be no more than 12 feet wide at the front property line. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.3.A on page 106 recommends that LS-3, 4 and 5 properties have a greenspace no less than 65% of the lot area. This recommendation has been met. Greenspace Review: Lot area: 23,430 sf House Footprint: 3,740 sf Driveway, patios and walkways: 4,437 sf Provided Greenspace: 15,253 sf (65.1%) Required Greenspace: 15,230 sf (65%) Extra Greenspace: 23 sf Professional Review Panel Recommendation: The PRP recommends approval of the project as presented even with the rear wing Design Guideline violation. The PRP believes that by maintaining a single story and changing the architectural detailing of the rear wing, the project meets the spirit of the Design Guidelines. March 30, 2021  Lot Information Zoning: R1-(20)/LS-3 Lot Area: 23,430 SF Lot Width: 120’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ 33’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 30’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: 30% = 36’ 44.58’ Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 38.95’ 69.5’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 26’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 43.9’ Lot Coverage Limit: 5,765 SF 3,740 SF Minimum Greenspace Recommended: 65% = 15,230 SF 15,253 sf = 65.1% Drainage Study required if any answer is “yes” Is project adding 1,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface? Yes Is project causing less Greenspace than recommended by DG? No Is project causing Greenspace to be w/in 3% of recommended amount? Yes Existing Lot Address Lot Area LC by Ordinance % max used Coverage 6516 Belinder 23,430 3,396 5,765 58.90% 6508 Belinder 22,538 3,871 5,612 68.98% 6532 Belinder 29,625 4,225 6,786 62.26% 6524 Belinder 26,772 3,467 6,325 54.81% 6509 Belinder 40,582 5,995 8,446 70.98% 6515 Belinder 44,225 4,403 8,966 49.11% 2709 Tomahawk 26,762 3,611 6,324 57.10% 2801 Tomahawk 28,905 4,198 6,671 62.93% Average 60.63% 50% Increase 90.95% 6516 Belinder 23,430 Proposed: 3,740 5,765 64.9 % Recommended Lot Coverage as reduced by 150% Rule: 5,244 71.3% March 30, 2021