Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA July 6, 2021 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in-person at City Hall. If you wish to join virtually, you can find the login on the City Calendar at www.missionhillsks.gov #1 Alison & Eric Jager Changes to a previously approved driveway 3201 West 69th Street Continued from June 22nd ARB mtg #2 Tim & Margaux Blackwell New circle driveway / New rear patio 3216 West 68th Street #3 Sarah & Thomas Ruane Multiple door and window modifications 6442 Sagamore Road #4 Patrick & Carolyn Seago Replacing siding on home 2102 West 69th Terrace #5 James & Judy Beck Replace a window on side of home 6618 Rainbow Avenue #6 Tanya Trost Changes to a previously approved patio 2520 West 63rd Street #7 David & Brooke Ward Changes to a previously approved project 2840 Verona Road #8 David Hinchman Two new water features / Fences / Concrete ramp 6430 Willow Lane *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 Alison & Eric Jager 3201 West 69th Street The Jagers are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved project. This project was continued at the June 22nd meeting to allow the owners to resolve a drainage issue. NOTE: The neighbor who was concerned with the project causing drainage problems has withdrawn her concerns. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: At the June 11, 2019 ARB meeting, the ARB approved the replacement of their existing asphalt circle driveway with concrete. They are now proposing to modify the configuration to include a paver area at the front of the house. This area will widen the driveway to 22 feet wide. It is flanked on both sides with decorative hedges and landscape urns. A new front walkway will connect the new driveway to the existing front stoop. 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. July 6, 2021 #2 Tim & Margaux Blackwell 3216 West 68th Street The Blackwells are proposing a new circle driveway and add a new rear patio. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The new driveway will connect a new drive entrance to their existing direct driveway. An existing brick walkway will be removed to make way for the new driveway. In the rear yard, an existing brick terrace will be removed to make way for a new bluestone patio. An existing gazebo/shed, located in the southwest corner of the property, will be removed 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: Section 2.3 on pages 64 through 67 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Neighborhood Estates character area. 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 2.7.3.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. July 6, 2021  Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16)/LS-5 Lot Area: 31,269 sf Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 20,325 SF 20,830 = 66.6% Drainage Study Required if any answer below is “Yes” Yes/No Is the project adding 1,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface? Yes Will the project cause the greenspace to be less than recommended by the Design Guidelines? No Will the project cause the greenspace to be within 3% of what is recommended by the Design Yes Guidelines? July 6, 2021 #3 Sarah & Thomas Ruane 6442 Sagamore Road The Ruanes are proposing multiple door and windows modifications. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Traditional • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: At the west side of the house a second floor window will be removed and a first floor octagonal window is proposed. The octagonal window matches an existing window on the south side of the house. At the south side of the house, an existing balcony door will be replaced with a window to match others in the area. At the northwest corner, an existing door will be removed and a new door added in the same area. 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. July 6, 2021 #4 Patrick & Carolyn Seago 2102 West 69th Terrace The Seagos are proposing to replace all of the wood siding on their home. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The Seagos are proposing to replace all of their home’s wood shingle siding with Hardie fiber cement lap siding. The reveal size is not indicated. All window trim will be replaced with fiber cement trim. All existing brick will remain. 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. July 6, 2021 #5 James & Judy Beck 6618 Rainbow Ave The Becks are proposing to replace a window on the side of an existing rear wing. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The existing window is a pair of clear view windows with a matching transom. The Becks are proposing to replace this window with a new single lite window and to eliminate the transom. The proposed window is narrower than the existing window and, with the elimination of the transom, the head height will be significantly lower. 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. July 6, 2021 #6 Tanya Trost 2520 West 63rd Street The Trosts are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved patio. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The Trosts are proposing an additional concrete pad around their previously approved patio. The new pad is at grade so it will be level with the adjacent yard. Please note, the drawings include a circle driveway that was withdrawn at the June 6th ARB meeting and is not part of this review or approval. The ARB had directed Ms. Trost to have a drainage study completed for the property before they would be willing to review the circle driveway proposal. 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. 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 been met. July 6, 2021 #7 David & Brooke Ward 2840 Verona Road The Wards are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved project. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Countryside Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: Hillside Lot Coverage Review: Main floor living area: 3,062 sf Main floor garage area: 1,350 sf Covered porches: 838 sf Total Lot Coverage: 5,250 sf Summary of Project: At the March 16th ARB meeting, the Wards were approved to replace all the windows in the house. The Ward are now proposing to only replace selected windows. These new windows are of the same style and detailing as the existing windows. At the rear of the house, two new third floor dormers are proposed. The first is located at the side of an existing rear wing, and the second is located between two existing rear wings. Both are detailed to match existing dormers on the house. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review: Lot area: 93,246 sf House Footprint: 5,250 sf Driveway and walkways: 10,101 sf Remaining Greenspace: 77,895 sf Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. July 6, 2021  Lot Information Zoning: R-1(E1) LS-7 Lot Area: 93,246 sf Lot Width: 209’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ No Change Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10% = 20.9’ 47.3’ No Change Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10% = 20.9’ 31.3’ Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 30% = 113’ >211’ Maximum Lot Coverage: Minimum Greenspace: 70% = 65,272 sf 77,895 sf = 83.5% Drainage Study Required if any answer below is “Yes” Yes/No Is the project adding 1,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface? Yes Will the project cause the greenspace to be less than recommended by the Design Guidelines? No Will the project cause the greenspace to be within 3% of what is recommended by the Design No Guidelines? July 6, 2021 #8 David Hinchman 6430 Willow Lane Mr. Hinchman is proposing two new water features and a bridge in his rear yard. He is also proposing new fences and a concrete ramp as part of the project. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The fences are simple 6-foot high privacy fences on both sides of the property. These new fences will tie into existing fences at the rear of the property. The exact style of privacy fence has not been indicated. Clarification is required. The proposed ramp is located at the north side of the house, running along the fence line. The concrete ramp connects the lower yard to the upper terrace. The first of the two water features is a 250 sq. ft. koi pond like feature located between the existing patio and an existing terrace wall. A new wood bridge will span across the pond. The second water feature is located at the rear of the property set on the rear setback line. This feature includes a recirculating pump to provide small waterfalls. The location of the pump is indicated at the back of the pond and it is not clear if it will be visible. Clarification is required. Greenspace Review: Lot area: 18,402 sf Existing House Footprint, Driveways & Patios: 5,782 sf Ramp: 87 sf Upper Pond: 185 sf Koi Pond: 250 sf Remaining Greenspace: 12,098 sf Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: Section 2.7.3.A on page 106 recommends that LS-1 and 2 properties have a greenspace no less than 60% of the lot area. This recommendation has been met. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16)/LS-2 Lot Area: 18,402 SF Ordinance Allowable/Required Proposed Water feature minimum side yard setback 10’ 28.9’ Water feature minimum rear yard setback 10’ 10’ Greenspace: (LS-2) 60% (11,041 SF) 65.7% (12,098 SF) Drainage Study Required if any answer below is “Yes” Yes/No Is the project adding 1,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface? No Will the project cause the greenspace to be less than recommended by the Design Guidelines? No Will the project cause the greenspace to be within 3% of what is recommended by the Design No Guidelines? July 6, 2021