Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA January 16, 2024 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:00 p.m. #1 Adam & Melissa Winter Changes to previously approved project 5930 Oakwood Road #2 Shane Schaffer* Two new pole lights in front yard 6506 State Line Road Continued from January 2nd ARB mtg #3 Shane Schaffer Change to previously approved project 6506 State Line Road #4 Robyn Attaway Replace two windows on front of home 2711 W 68th Street Continued from January 2nd ARB mtg #5 Property Owner† New house / Pool / Outdoor kitchen 2111 Stratford Road Continued from January 2nd ARB mtg #6 Stuart Maffry† New house / Outdoor kitchen 2721 W 68th Street Continue to January 30th ARB mtg *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 Adam & Melissa Winter 5930 Oakwood Road The Winters are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved project. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: Edge Frontage Summary of Project: In May of 2023, the Winters received approval for a new pool and pool deck along with a new outdoor kitchen. The outdoor kitchen was approved with a full-depth brick base, however it was constructed with a thin brick veneer. 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 starting on page 105 of the Design Guidelines provides recommendations for site and landscape features. This section generally discourages the use of faux materials and favors traditional construction. The ARB has historically required full depth masonry in lieu of thin brick. This recommendation has not been met. January 16, 2024 #2 Shane Schaffer * 6506 State Line Road Mr. Schaffer is proposing two new light fixtures in his front yard. The project was continued from the January 2nd meeting so details regarding a 6 ft. pole could be provided. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed fixtures are contemporary coach lamps set upon a 7-foot-tall light pole. The proposed location is near the front property line on each side of the house. Ordinance Compliance: The project violates City Code Section 5-132.B.4 which requires yard lights to have a single, non- decorative pole, no more than 4 inches in diameter and 6 feet in height. The proposal has two poles that are 12 inches in diameter and 7 feet tall. This section goes on to allow a single head that is no more than 18 inches tall. The proposal is for two heads that are 20 inches tall. A variance is required. This section does allow for two fixtures when they are installed on a courtyard wall. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. * A variance is required. January 16, 2024 #3 Shane Schaffer 6506 State Line Road Mr. Schaffer is proposing a change to his driveway project. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: In August of 2023, Mr. Shaffer was approved to install a new circle driveway. He is now proposing an additional walkway connecting his front stoop to his recently installed circle drive. The new walkway was installed without approval. At the front of his home, Mr. Shaffer installed a new concrete walkway that connects the main entry stoop to the driveway near the garage door. This walkway runs parallel to the new circle drive. Mr. Shaffer is requesting approval for an additional walkway from the front stoop directly to the circle driveway. The new walkway is approximately 5 feet wide and 6 feet long. It is constructed of paver stones set in decorative rock. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts with the Zoning Regulations. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. January 16, 2024 #4 Robyn Attaway 2711 W 68th Street Ms. Attaway is requesting ARB approval for two windows installed without ARB review. The project was continued from the January 2nd meeting at the owner’s request. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The windows are located at the front of the house to the left of the front door. The new clear-view double-hung windows replace one larger casement window. Ms. Attaway also removed the muntins from the two windows to the right of the front door. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: Section 2.7.1 D on page 96 recommends that all window muntins on the home be the same pattern and proportion, with few exceptions. The existing home has a mishmash of window styles and muntin patterns. Most of the windows have a single horizontal muntin in each sash, others have full colonial-style snap-ins and others are clear-view. Discussion is recommended. January 16, 2024 #5 Property Owner 2111 Stratford Road The owners are proposing a new 2-story home with a 3-car garage and a large outdoor terrace. The project includes a swimming pool, outdoor kitchen, and a backup generator. The project was continued from the January 2nd meeting at the owner’s request. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage Review SF Main Floor Living Area: 2,741 Main Floor Garage Area: 956 Covered Porches: 835 Detached Accessory Buildings: 0 Total Lot Coverage: 4,532 Summary of Project: The proposed house is a Tudor revival style. It is sided with a combination of timbered stucco and shingle siding. Brick and stone accents are provided at selected elements. The windows all are fixed or casements with Colonial muntin grids. The window arrangement is formal at the front of the house and becomes less so at the rear and the sides. All details and materials are in keeping with the selected design style. A small first floor porch is proposed at the front of the house. It sits behind the front building plane so there are no issues with its location. A second-floor front balcony is proposed over the front entry which is allowed by ordinance. The driveway is a simple direct driveway that connects to a small auto court at the east side of the house and provides access to the two garages. A concrete walkway connects the driveway to the home’s front entry. Due to the slope of the property, the home has a full walk-out basement. The proposed pool is located at this lower level. A low retaining wall is indicated along the west side of the pool allowing it to be recessed into the grade so the southern edge is at existing grade. A brick and stone staircase connects the lower patio to a first floor terrace. The outdoor kitchen is located at the terrace level, along with the screened porch. The proposed generator and A/C equipment are located at the southeast corner of the house. The pool equipment is located under the garage in the same area. Update 12/27/2023 The owners provided updated plans to address PRP concerns. The large rear wing that originally spanned the width of the main mass has been removed and a new single rear wing has been added in its place. The single, third-car garage is now a secondary wing off of the new rear wing. At the right side of the house, a new one-story side wing has been added to the main mass. The basement encapsulates the full body of the house and extends to create a terrace in the L shape portion of the house. The low pool patio is still proposed but has been moved toward the center of January 16, 2024 the lot. The second-floor door over the main entry has also been centered as requested by the PRP. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 22,715 House Footprint: -4,532 Driveway: -2,005 Porches: -152* Pool Patio: -1,142 Equipment Pads: -55 Remaining Greenspace: 14,829 Percentage 65.3% * Note: The large rear terrace is included in the house footprint. 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 recommends that the main mass of the house should not exceed 50% of the lot width. At 57’-1” (49%) this recommendation has been met. This section goes on to recommend that the depth of the main mass should not exceed 40 ft. At 26’ feet deep, this recommendation has been met. Subsection B recommends that the total width of all front wings not exceed 50% of the main mass width. The depth should not be greater than the width. The height must be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass; however, exceptions are allowed for tall front gables on Tudor homes. The location should be near the front building line. These recommendations have been met. Subsection C recommends that side wings should be set in a minimum of 3 ft. from the front and rear façade of the main mass. Side wings should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. The garage wing is set back from the front façade and is partially in the rear wing. This recommendation has been met. Subsection C also recommends that side wings located in the Conditional Building Area are allowed if they meet the special conditions in Section 2.6.4 (pg. 88). If allowed, the height is limited to 1 ½ stories or 24 feet and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. Side wings should contain no second floor or dormer windows that overlook the neighbors. A portion of the right side- wing is located in the Conditional Building Area and meets the recommended height requirements. Section 2.6.4 allows homes on atypically narrow lots be allowed to have wings in the Conditional Building Area. The proposed lot is 116 feet wide which is considered a narrow lot for Mission Hills. This recommendation has been met. Subsection D recommends that rear wings be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. Portions of the rear wing match the height of the main mass, which is characteristic of Tudor designs. The section goes on to recommend that rear wings should have a width clearly less than the main mass and should not exceed 50% of the main mass width. While the basement level does span the January 16, 2024 full width and depth of the house, the main level and main mass form an L shape with a rear wing that is approximately 50% of the main mass width. This recommendation has been met. Subsection F recommends that dormers located on wings or accessory buildings located in the Secondary or Conditional Building Areas should not be oriented toward any neighboring lots. This recommendation has been met. Subsection G recommends that driveways occupy as little of the Primary Landscape Area as possible. On lots wider than 140 feet, the driveway should be located off the side property line a distance no less than 8% of the lot width. These recommendations have been met. Subsection H allows for compound wings where a secondary wing is attached to a primary wing. The primary wing should follow all the requirements stated above and the secondary wing should be clearly subordinate to the primary wing. This recommendation has been met. Subsection I recommends that roofs have a maximum height of 1.5 times the height of the façade below the eave. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.6.4 on page 89 of the Design Guidelines provides recommendations for lot coverage. The section recommends 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 recommending that homes avoid reaching more than 2 minimum/maximum setbacks or limits. This recommendation has been met. This section also recommends the conditional building area be free of the main mass and wings. A small portion of the rear terrace extends less than a foot into the conditional building area. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.1 B on page 94 recommends that the number of different roof pitches should be limited to two. The project primarily uses 12/12 and 15.5/12. The dormers use a lower slope which is customary in Tudor design. A low slope roof is used between the two main gables at the rear elevation. This recommendation has not been met. Section 2.7.1 D on page 96 recommends that all window muntins on the home be the same pattern and proportion, with few exceptions. 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. Section 2.7.3.E.2 on page 111 gives recommendations for terraces. These recommendations have been met. January 16, 2024 PRP Recommendation: The PRP recommends approval. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(25)/LS-3 Lot Area: 22,715 sf Lot Width: 116’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ 33.8’ Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 18.5’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 23..6’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: 30% = 34.8’ 42.1’ Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 39’ 50’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 20.0’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 24.5’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 5,643 sf 4,532 sf Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 14,764 sf 14,801 sf = 65.1% Neighbor Comparison Neighbor to Left Proposed Neighbor to Right Primary Eave Height Above Finished Grade: 20.5’ First Floor Elevation: 932.5’ 939.5’ 939.9’ Top of Foundation Elevation: 938.2’ Eave Height 941.7 958.75’ 957.1’ Ridge Height: 961.0’ 971.8’ 969.2’ Site Elements Driveway width at Property Line: 12.0’ Driveway width at house. Varies Circle Drive Interior Green N/A Second Floor Plate Height 9.1’ 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 EXCEPT NO STUDY REQUIRED IF: 1) replacing existing impervious surface in approximately same footprint, and No 2) project will not decrease existing greenspace on site No Is there a documented drainage issue for this 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. January 16, 2024  Existing Lot Address Lot Area LC by Ordinance % max used Coverage 2111 Stratford Road 22,715 2,041 5,643 36.17% 2100 Stratford Road 44,256 7,068 8,970 78.80% 2201 Stratford Road 31,169 4,038 7,030 57.44% 2110 Stratford Road 27,616 2,808 6,463 43.45% 2220 Stratford Road 25,038 3,182 6,038 52.70% 6000 High Drive 28,671 3,551 6,634 53.53% Average 53.68% 50% Increase 80.52% 2111 Stratford 22,715 Proposed: 4,532 5,643 80.3% Recommended Lot Coverage as reduced by 150% Rule: January 16, 2024