Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA October 25, 2022 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:00 p.m. #1 Consent Agenda A. Michael & Katherina Sinatra – 2508 W. 64th Street Changes to previously approved project B. Russ & Karen Weltner – 2801 W. 66th Street Replace windows and doors #2 Gabe & Megan Egli *† WITHDREW Additions / Outdoor kitchen 2810 W. 68th Street Continued from September 27th ARB mtg #3 Aaron & Rebecca Graham Changes to previously approved window wells 2701 W. 67th Terrace #4 Patti & Steve Gound Egress well / Remove windows 2909 Tomahawk Road #5 Evan Burton Remove windows 5708 State Line Road #6 Ann Konecny Replace roof with DaVinci faux slate 6509 Belinder Avenue #7 James & Melinda Scovell Hot tub 6424 Ensley Lane #8 Kami Bremyer Enclose room with windows 6130 Mission Drive #9 Niles & Lindsay Jager Changes to previously approved project 5840 Mission Drive #10 Ryan Patton * Changes to previously approved patio 1910 W. 63rd Street *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. Michael & Katherine Sinatra † 2508 West 64th Street The Sinatras are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved pool. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: In June 2022 the Sinatras were approved for a pool in their rear yard. They are returning to the ARB to present a smaller pool in the same area. The revised version moves the spa to the opposite side. Because this change will add back greenspace, the Sinatras are proposing to reduce their front walkway width by a lesser amount than what was originally approved. 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 not been met. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16)/LS-1 Lot Area: 13,886 sf Lot Width: 100’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio/Pool Minimum Side Yard: 15’ 15.1 16.8’ Patio/Pool Minimum Rear Yard: 15’ 15.6’ Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 8,332 sf 7,745 sf = 55.8%* *Property owners indicated proposed greenspace will be 59%; however, the City’s measurements of the plan indicate it will be 55%. 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 Has there been a documented drainage complaint against the property? No *See the Mission Hills website for drainage study requirements – www.missionhillsks.gov *The Architectural Review Board may require the drainage study be submitted before they act on the proposed project. October 25, 2022 B. Russ & Karen Weltner 2801 West 66th Street The Weltners are proposing an interior removed that includes multiple window and door replacements. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The Weltners are proposing to replace the majority of their home’s windows with new units of the same size and similar style. Two sliding glass doors, at the rear of the house, are proposed as French doors with muntins. The existing windows are a combination of clear view casements and double hung. All of the new windows will have Colonial style muntin bars. Windows will be simulated divided light with spacer bars. 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. October 25, 2022  † #2 Gabe & Megan Egli * WITHDREW 2810 West 68th Street The Eglis are proposing a whole house remodel that includes additions to the rear and front of the home. The roof structure will be changed to a lower pitch allowing for a more prominent second floor. A new covered porch and outdoor kitchen are proposed as part of the project. Outdoor kitchens are substantial construction matters as defined by Code Section 5-103.78 and 5- 103.122 and was noticed as such. This project was continued at the September 27th meeting, where the ARB requested a streetscape, roof plan, alternative front elevation, and a sample of the proposed siding. None of the requested materials have been submitted. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage Review: Existing House: 2,056 sf Additions: 178 sf Covered porches: 324 sf Detached Accessory Buildings: 0 sf Total Lot Coverage: 2,558 sf Summary of Project: At the front of the house, an existing mansard roof is being changed to a full gable with large windows. The roof of the adjacent side wing is being removed and the eave lines are proposed to be raised to the second-floor plate line. The new roof will have a significantly lower pitch to have a main ridge that aligns with the new gable roof. A new flat awning roof is proposed over the front door. The existing brick siding will be maintained, and all new walls and the gable will be sided with lap siding or Shou Sugi Ban siding (charred siding). At the rear of the house, a new two-story addition is proposed near the center of the house. A new covered porch extends out from the rear of the house. The proposed outdoor kitchen is located within this porch. The kitchen consists of a concrete base cabinet with a grill and sink. All of the home’s windows will be replaced with new clear-view units. This is in keeping with the contemporary design intent. Ordinance Compliance: The project is in violation of city code section 5-121 D that requires patios to have a minimum side yard setback of 20 feet. A variance of 0.3 feet is required. Greenspace Review: Lot area: 18,293 sf House Footprint: 2,558 sf Driveway and Front Walkway: 2,110 sf October 25, 2022  Patios and walkways: 543 sf Remaining Greenspace: 13,082 sf (71.5%) Design Guideline Review: Section 2.6.2 on page 79 provides recommendation for adjustments for narrow lots. This section recommends that floor elevations and plate heights are in scale with the neighboring homes. With the change and roof pitch and dramatic increase in eave height, the proposed house will no longer be in scale with the adjacent ranch homes. Discussion is recommended. Section 2.7.1 B on page 94 suggests that the number of different roof pitches should be limited to two. None of the roof pitches are noted, nor has a roof plan been provided. Discussion is recommended. Section 2.7.3.A on page 106 recommends that LS-1 and 2 properties have greenspace no less than 60% of the lot area. This recommendation has been met. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16)/LS-2 Lot Area: 18,293 sf Lot Width: 130’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ No Change Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 46.8’ (Existing) Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 17.9’ (Existing) Minimum Combined Side Yards: 25% = 32.5’ 64.7’ Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 26.6’ 48.1’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 19.7’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 35.9’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 5,037 sf 2,558 sf Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 10,976 sf 13,082 sf = 71.5% Drainage Study Required if any answer below is “Yes” Yes/No Is the project adding 1,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface? No Will the project cause the greenspace to be less than recommended by the Design Guidelines? No EXCEPT NO STUDY REQUIRED IF: 1) replacing existing impervious surface in approximately same footprint, and 2) project will not decrease existing greenspace on site Is there a documented drainage issue for this property? Yes *See the Mission Hills website for drainage study requirements – www.missionhillsks.gov *The Architectural Review Board may require the drainage study be submitted before they act on the proposed project October 25, 2022 #3 Aaron & Rebecca Graham 2701 West 67th Terrace The Grahams are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved project. Changes include alternate prefabricated window wells. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: Corner Lot Lot Coverage (Footprint of Roofed Structures): Main floor living area: 2,490 sf Main floor garage area: 552 sf Detached building 252 sf Covered porches/decks: 544 sf Total Lot Coverage: 3,838 sf Summary of Project: The project was also originally approved with concrete wall window wells. In March of 2022 they changed the well to prefabricated units. They are returning to the ARB with an alternative prefabricated unit. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review: Lot area: 19,020 sf per boundary survey House Footprint: 3,042 sf Detached Bldg 252 sf Covered Porches/Decks 544 sf Driveways: 2,343 sf Steps, walkways, other 634 sf Remaining Greenspace: 6,815 sf (64.16%) Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. October 25, 2022 #4 Patti & Steve Gound 2909 Tomahawk Road The Gounds are proposing a new egress well and to remove windows 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 egress well is located at the west side of the house near the rear. It will be a concrete wall below grade topped with a black steel guardrail. At the south side of the house, a large pair of windows will be reduced in height to be clerestory window. Two smaller second floor windows will be eliminated entirely. At the west side of the house two clerestory windows will be eliminated entirely. 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. October 25, 2022 #5 Evan Burton 5708 State Line Road Mr. Burton is proposing to remove two windows from the side of an existing rear wing. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed windows will not be replaced. Instead, they will be filled in to match the adjacent construction. 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 October 25, 2022 #6 Ann Konecny 6509 Belinder Avenue Ms. Konecny is proposing a new DaVinci faux slate roof. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The ARB has approved DaVinci slate in the past, but this is the first time someone has requested the Evergreen color. Please refer to the attached sample photographs. A physical example of the proposed DaVinci slate 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: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. . October 25, 2022 #7 James & Melinda Scovell 6424 Ensley Lane The Scovells are proposing a new hot tub on their existing patio. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed hot tub will be located on an existing patio. The patio is located between two existing rear wings. 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. October 25, 2022 #8 Kami Bremyer 6130 Mission Drive Ms. Bremyer is proposing to add two new windows at the rear of her home. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: Ms. Bremyer’s home has a stone foundation with two large arched openings. They are proposing to infill the existing openings with cedar and new custom windows to match the 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. October 25, 2022 #9 Niles & Lindsay Jager 5840 Mission Drive The Jagers 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: None Summary of Project: In April 2022, the Jagers were approved for two additions at the rear of their home. They are now proposing a redesign over the existing terrace. The addition is all brick with fenestration to match the main house. The terrace level features a glass guardrail and an iron railing. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review: Lot area: 24,707 sf per property survey Non-greenspace area 9,976 sf Remaining Greenspace: 14,731 sf (59.6%) Design Guideline Review: Section 2.2 on pages 60 through 63 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Countryside Estates character area. Subsection C suggests that all side wings be located in the Primary Building Area. They 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. 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. The proposed changes do not affect the greenspace area. October 25, 2022  Lot Information Zoning: R-1(20)LS-3 Lot Area: 24,707 sf Lot Width: 175’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ No Change Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10; 37.4’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 53.5’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: 30% = 52.5’ 90.9’ Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 29’ 35.25’ Patio/Pool Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 35.2’ Patio/Pool Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 20’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 5,982 sf 4,058 sf Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 16,060 sf 14,731 sf = 59.6% 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? Yes Has there been a documented drainage complaint against the property? Yes *See the Mission Hills website for drainage study requirements – www.missionhillsks.gov *The Architectural Review Board may require the drainage study be submitted before they act on the proposed project. October 25, 2022  * #10 Ryan Patton 1910 West 63rd Street The Pattons are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved non-conforming patio. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: In June of 2021, the Pattons were approved to resurface their existing non-conforming patio. They are now requesting to expand the patio. The original patio had a half moon layout. What was installed was a full rectangle. If you look closely at the provided photographs, you can see the outline of the original patio in the differential settlement within the new patio. The proposed surface material did not change. Ordinance Compliance: The project is in violation of City Code Section 5-120.D that requires patios and decks, on LS-1 Lots, be set a minimum of 15 feet from the rear or side property line. Section 5-128.C previously allowed for the replacement of an existing nonconforming structure, provided that the overall scope of the structure does not change. Had the project been built as originally proposed, a variance would not be required. Since the patio has been expanded, a variance of 2 feet is required. Greenspace Review: Lot area: 15,000 sf House: 2,788 sf Driveway, Front Walk, Side Concrete: 2,326 sf Existing Sport Court: 466 sf Stepping-stone Walkway: 100 sf Proposed Patio: 512 sf Decorative Gravel Area: 56 sf Remaining Greenspace: 8,752 sf 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 not been met. * A variance is required October 25, 2022  Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16)/ LS-1 Lot Area: 15,000 sf Lot Width: 100. Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio Minimum Side Yard: LS-1 = 15’ 13’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: LS-1 = 15’ > 50’ Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 9,000 sf 8,752 sf = 58.35% October 25, 2022