Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA April 23, 2024 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:00 p.m. #1 Alex Kopulos Exterior light fixture changes 2701 W 69th Street #2 Lawrence & Angela Smith Dormers and skylights 2201 Stratford Road #3 Tom & Susan Jones Landscape plan 6716 Cherokee Ln #4 Derek Fricke Landscape plan 2408 W 69th Street #5 Tony & Liz Krsnich* Dormer change| 2315 W 65th Street Window and door changes #6 Philip & Amy Goforth† Addition / Detached garage / Pool 2225 Stratford Road and patio #7 Tom & Molly Freeman†* Rear wing addition / Various 5923 Overhill Road window changes / Pool patio #8 William & Mary Beth Zollars† Outdoor kitchen/Pool/Hot tub/Expand patio 6130 Ensley Lane Continued from April 9th ARB mtg #9 Richard & Mary Sloss* Replace fence 6646 Wenonga Terrace Continued from April 9th ARB mtg #10 Bryce & Jane Jones† New home 3516 W 64th Street *Variance required from the Board of Zoning Appeals. † 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 Alex Kopulos 2701 W 69th Street The Kopuloses are proposing exterior lighting changes. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: At the front of the house, a new sconce is proposed over the front door. This is the only new fixture. At the rear and sides of the house, various existing sconces, pendant and pole mounted fixtures are all being replaced with new fixtures. All of the proposed fixtures are in keeping with the style of 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. April 23, 2024 #2 Lawrence & Angela Smith 2201 Stratford Road The Smiths are proposing a remodel that includes two new dormers and two skylights at the back of the house. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: At the rear, the proposed dormers are both located to the west (left) of an existing rear wing. All fenestration, detailing and materials match the existing house. One of the two skylights is located to the east (right) of the same rear wing, and the other is located on the rear wing. Neither will be visible from the street. 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. April 23, 2024 #3 Tom & Susan Jones 6716 Cherokee Lane The Joneses are returning to the ARB to present their landscape plan as required for all new homes. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: Hillside Lot Coverage (Footprint of Roofed Structures): Main floor living area: 3,130 sf Main floor garage area: 550 sf Covered porches: 727 sf Total Lot Coverage: 4,743 sf Summary of Project: The proposed landscape plan indicates extensive landscaping around all sides of home. The plan includes two new canopy trees and multiple ornamental trees. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review: Lot area: 39,314 sf House Footprint: 4,743 sf Driveway: 3,197 sf Window Wells: 126 sf Utility Yard: 165 sf Site Walls 244 sf Patios and walkways: 2,052 sf Remaining Greenspace: 28,631 sf (72.8%) Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. City Arborist Review: Three new large canopy trees need to be incorporated into the plan with one of the trees being located in the front of the house. April 23, 2024  Lot Information Zoning: R-1(25)/LS-5 Lot Area: 39,314 sf Lot Width: 149’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: (Above average grade) 35’ 27.25’ Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10% = 14.9’ 27.75’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10% = 14.9’ 30.5’ Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 30% = 84’ 161.4’ Pool/Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 20.1’ (Right) 55.5’ (Left) Pool/Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ > 130’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 8,261 sf 4,743 SF Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 25,554 sf 28,631 sf = 72.8% 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? Have previous projects added more than 1,000 sq. ft. over the last 10 years? N/A Existing Lot LC by % max Address Lot Area Coverage Ordinance used 6716 Cherokee Ln 39,314 2,035 8,261 24.63% 6700 Cherokee Ln 30,571 2,378 6,936 34.28% 6708 Cherokee Ln 34,576 5,136 7,556 67.97% 6728 Cherokee Ln 38,530 3,497 8,147 42.93% 6709 Cherokee Ln 30,623 3,758 6,945 54.11% 6715 Cherokee Ln 26,170 5,487 6,226 88.13% 6727 Cherokee Ln 23,478 3,163 5,774 54.78% Average 52.41% 50% Increase 78.61% Allowable LC reduced by 150% Rule = 6,494 6716 Cherokee Ln Proposed = 4,743 57.4% of City Ordinance Limit 73.0% of Design Guideline Limit April 23, 2024 #4 Derek Fricke 2408 W 69th Street Mr. Fricke is returning to the ARB to present his landscape plan as required for all new homes. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage Review: Primary Building Footprint: 3,686 sf Covered Porches 107 sf Lanai 310 sf Covered Patio 165 sf Detached Accessory Buildings: 360 sf Total Lot Coverage: 4,628 sf Summary of Project: The proposed plan indicates various bushes and plantings at the front and side of the home and includes one ornamental tree at the front entry. The plan did not provide large canopy trees as recommended by the City Arborist. The proposed landscape plan also includes proposed locations for downspout and sump pump discharge points. Ordinance Compliance: The project is in violation of City Code Section 5-121.C which requires accessory structures to be located a minimum of 10 feet from the side or rear property line. Four of the proposed drainage lines are located significantly closer. Four variances are required. Greenspace Review: Lot area: 23,197 sf Roofed Structures Footprint: 4,628 sf Driveway & Front Walk: 1,689 sf Rear Patios and walkways: 792 sf Pool/Walls 871 sf Generator/AC Pad 58 sf Remaining Greenspace: 15,159 sf 65.3% Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. City Arborist Recommendation: Plant one large canopy tree in the rear yard and two large canopy trees in the front yard. April 23, 2024 #5 Tony & Liz Krsnich* 2315 W 65th Street The Krsnichs are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved garage renovation/addition. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: Intersection Green Lot Coverage Review SF Main Floor Living Area: 1,539 Main Floor Garage Area: 735 Covered Porches: 0 Detached Accessory Buildings: 0 Total Lot Coverage: 2,274 Summary of Revisions: At the April 26th ARB Meeting, the garage renovation/addition project was approved. The owners are returning to present multiple modifications. The garage features a large second floor dormer. This was approved as a shed dormer, but now they are proposing a gabled dormer that is significantly wider. On the first floor, below the dormer they are proposing to relocate a window to be centered in the wall, but not centered under the dormer. At the rear of the garage, they are proposing to eliminate a first-floor window and relocate a pedestrian door. Ordinance Compliance: The project is in violation of Code Section 5-120 that requires the combined side yards of LS-1 and LS-2 lots to be a minimum of 25% of the lot width. A variance of 13 feet is required. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 12,942 House Footprint: -2,274 Window Wells: -36 Driveway & Walkway: -2,231 Patios & Walkways: -343 Walls & Steps -97 Existing Putting Green -556 Remaining Greenspace: 7,405 Design Guideline Review: Section 2.5 on pages 72 through 75 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Suburban character area. Subsection C recommends that side wings be inset a minimum of 3 ft. from the front and rear facades of the main mass. This recommendation has been met. * A variance is required April 23, 2024 The width of side wings should not exceed 20% of the lot width. For this lot, side wings should be limited to 20 feet wide. The proposed wing is a compound wing that extends a total of 37 feet. This recommendation has not been met. Side wings located in the Conditional Building Area are allowed if they meet the special conditions in Section 2.6.4 (pg. 88). Only one is allowed. If allowed, the height is limited to 1 story and 16 ft. and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. Side wings in the Conditional Building Area should contain no second floor or dormer windows that overlook the neighbors. The proposed side wing contains a large dormer and extends into the Conditional Building Area. These recommendations have not 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. The proposed addition includes a large dormer. This recommendation has not been met. Section 2.7.1 B on page 94 recommends that the number of different roof pitches should be limited to two. The proposed dormer is not following the same pitch as the main house, but using a secondary pitch from an internal portion of the house. That, combined with the increased width, makes the dormer more prominent than the previous submission. Discussion is recommended. Section 2.7.2 A on page 101 recommends garages be set behind the façade of the main house mass. This recommendation has not been met. 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: LS-1 Lot Area: 12,942 sf Lot Width: 100’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 2’ (Existing) 27’ with Tract A Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 10’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: 25% = 25’ 12’ 37’ with Tract A Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 25.9’ 41.7’ (Existing) Maximum Lot Coverage: 4,430 sf 2,274 sf Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 7,765 sf 7,405 sf = 57.2% 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? 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. April 23, 2024 #6 Philip & Amy Goforth† 2225 Stratford Road The Goforths are proposing an addition to their home, a new detached garage, and a new pool/patio. This project is a substantial project and was noticed as such. 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: 2,849 Main Floor Garage Area: 0 Covered Porches: 0 Detached Accessory Buildings: 619 Total Lot Coverage: 3,468 Summary of Project: The new addition to the main home is proposed on the west (right) side of the house. The majority of the addition sits behind an existing wing wall and is incorporated into the home’s main mass. A new rear garage wing projects from the back of the new addition and contains a single-car garage. The proposed detached garage sits behind the new rear wing. The detached garage is linked back to the main house with an independent standing-seam roof system. All detailing, materials and fenestration match the existing house. The proposed pool patio sits behind the existing rear terrace. Due to the existing topography, the pool patio sits significantly lower than the terrace. A large stair connects the new pool patio to the existing terrace. The east side of the pool deck is further sunken to match the existing grade. Even with the proposed terracing, the proposed pool patio is approximately 2 feet above finished grade at the rear of the pool. A low retaining wall is proposed to accommodate the grade change. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 29,592 House Footprint: -3,468 Driveway: -2,881 Front Walkway: -385 Upper Terrace: -1091 Pool Patio: -2,168 Remaining Greenspace: 19,599 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 D recommends that rear wings located in the Primary or Secondary Building Areas be no more than 2 stories and 30 ft. tall and should be at least 3 ft. shorter 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. These recommendations have been met. April 23, 2024 Subsection E recommends that detached accessory buildings, located in the Primary Landscape Areas are limited to 1 story with 10-ft. maximum eave heights with a maximum area of 720 sq. ft. if allowed under Section 2.6.4 (pg. 88). There should be no more than 2 detached accessory buildings per lot. These recommendations have 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 2.7.2 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 on page 111 provides specific recommendations for Patios and Outdoor Recreational Facilities. This section recommends that these elements follow the zoning regulations to help mitigate water runoff and minimize noise from entertainment areas. This recommendation has been met. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(25)/LS-4 Lot Area: 29,592 SF Lot Width: 137’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ No Change Minimum Side Yard (Left): 15% = 20.5’ 31’ (Existing) Minimum Side Yard (Right): 15% = 20.5’ 28.6’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: N/A Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 30% = 65’ 85’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 22.8’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 43’ Accessory Building Height: 24’ 20.2’ Accessory Building Minimum Side Yard Setback: 10’ 25.1’ Accessory Building Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 10’ 48.7’ Maximum Lot Coverage by DG: 4,485 SF 3,468 SF Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 19,235 SF 19,599 SF = 66.2% 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 April 23, 2024 #7 Tom & Molly Freeman*† 5923 Overhill Road The Freemans are proposing a new rear wing addition, various window replacement/additions, and a new pool and patio. This project is a substantial project and was noticed as such. 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: 2,723 Main Floor Garage Area: 552 Covered Porches: 256 Addition: 1,432 Total Lot Coverage: 4,963 Summary of Project: At the front of the house, the Freemans are proposing to replace the siding and windows for the three existing front dormers. The dormers will be sided with stucco to match the house. At the south (right) side of the house, they are proposing to replace the existing singe garage door with two new doors. An eyebrow roof is proposed over the doors as well as a new second floor dormer with a Juliete balcony. A new second-floor shed dormer is proposed as part of the new rear wing addition. The rear wing addition also includes a compound wing that will contain a third car garage. At the rear of the house, a rear wing is being added. In addition to the new rear wing, all of the siding and windows at the rear of the house are being replaced. Most are going back in the same configuration, but all include more substantial trim. All of the proposed materials, detailing and fenestration match the main house. At the north (left) side of the house, the Freemans are proposing to replace most of the windows and siding. One window will not be replaced and will be removed. This elimination will create a large area of blank wall. Discussion is recommended. Site work consists of a new pool and patio at the rear of the house. This patio is confined between the two rear wings. The proposed pool does not extend significantly beyond the new rear wing. The pool equipment and a new generator are proposed in a new utility garden at the rear of the new rear wing. At the front of the house, the existing front walkway will be replaced in the same configuration. Ordinance Compliance: The project is in violation of City Code section 5-119 which forbids accessory structures in the front yard. The proposed front walkway is too wide to be considered a walkway per 5-103.133 nor does it meet the exception for walkways connecting to circle drives listed in 5-132.B.3.(f) A variance is required. Please note, this is an existing walk which is being replaced in the same configuration. Greenspace Review Existing Proposed Lot Area: 35,193 35,193 House Footprint: -3,525 -4,966 Driveway/Front Walk: -6,624 -5,133 Patios/Pool: -1,373 -1,032 April 23, 2024  Walls: -354 -344 Play Equipment -108 0 Mechanical Equipment: -36 -235* Ex. Window Wells: -38 -38 Landings/stepping stones: -48 Remaining Greenspace sf 23,135 23,397 Remaining Greenspace % 65.7% 66.5% *Included new window well in new utility yard. 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 D recommends that rear wings located in the Primary or Secondary Building Areas be no more than 2 stories and 30 ft. tall and should be at least 3 ft. shorter 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. These recommendations have been met. No more than 2 rear wings are recommended in the Secondary Building Area. Spacing between wings should be no less than the eave height of the taller wing or half the length of the longer wing. These recommendations have been met. Rear wings located in the Conditional Building Area are allowed if they meet the special conditions in Section 2.6.4 (pg. 88). If allowed, no more than one shall encroach into the Conditional Building Area. Condition 3 allows rear wings in the conditional building area when providing an addition to an existing house. Rear wings allowed in the Conditional Building Area are limited to 1 1/2 stories and 24 ft. in height with eaves no taller than 12 ft. They should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. Since this is an LS-5 lot, the increased side yard setbacks eliminate the conditional building area. These recommendations have 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. Dormers should be scaled as modest accessories to the roof they adorn and windows to the room they serve, not as entire rooms with their own roofs or “wings” sitting on the roof. The home does include a side balcony and dormer that are oriented toward the side neighbor. However, both of these are located in the primary building areas. 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. The proposed rear wing includes a compound portion. It is unique in that the ridges run parallel to each other. The two ridges are connected by a low slope roof. Discussion is recommended. April 23, 2024 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. The existing home sits over the left side setback and the new addition touches the right side and rear setbacks. Additionally, the greenspace is within 2% of the minimum allowed. This recommendation has not been met. Section 2.7.1 B on page 94 recommends that the number of different roof pitches should be limited to two. A roof plan was not provided, but the majority of the house has a 12/12 roof. The only known exceptions to this are the low slope roof at the compound wing, and the second-floor shed dormer. Discussion is recommended. 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 2.7.3.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 D on page 110 provides specific recommendations about altering grade and topography. Minimal grading is required at the rear and south (right) sides of the house. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.3 E on page 111 provides specific recommendations for Patios and Outdoor Recreational Facilities. This section recommends that these elements follow the zoning regulations to help mitigate water runoff and minimize noise from entertainment areas. This recommendation has been met. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(30)/LS-5 Lot Area: 35,193 sf Lot Width: 159.08’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ No Change Minimum Side Yard (Left): 15% = 23.86’ 15.5’ (Existing) Minimum Side Yard (Right): 15% = 23.86’ 23.87’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: N/A 39.37’ Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 30% = 67.1’ 67.1’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ >33’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ >88’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 7,649 SF 4,963 SF Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 22,875 sf 23,397 = 66.5% 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 No 2) project will not decrease existing greenspace on site No Is there a documented drainage issue for this property? No April 23, 2024 *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. Existing Lot LC by % max Address Lot Area Coverage Ordinance used 5923 Overhill Rd 35,193 3,732 7,649 48.8% 5933 Overhill Rd 31,700 3,992 7,113 56.1% 2411 W 59th St 39,444 4,027 8,280 48.6% 2321 W 59th St 25,730 4,205 6,153 68.3% 5910 Oakwood Rd 31,191 5,058 7,034 71.9% 5924 Oakwood Rd 28,486 3,630 6,604 55.0% 5930 Oakwood Rd 24,094 2,797 5,879 47.6% Average 56.6% 50% Increase 84.9% 5923 Overhill Rd 35,193 Proposed = 4,963 7,649 64.9% Allowable Lot Coverage reduced by 150% Rule = 6,496 76.4% April 23, 2024 #8 William & Mary Beth Zollars 6130 Ensley Lane The Zollars were continued from the April 9th ARB meeting. Revised plans have not yet been submitted. The Zollars are proposing an outdoor kitchen, new pool, hot tub and expanded patio. This project is considered a substantial construction project and was noticed as such. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: Intersection Green (Verona Columns) Summary of Project: One September 5, 2023, the ARB approved a rear wing addition to the Zollars home. The plan, at that time, showed a new pool, patio, and hot tub that were being deferred to a later date. The Zollars are now proposing those additions. The proposed outdoor kitchen is located on a new patio to the west of the recently modified rear wing. It consists of a stone base with a built-in grill. The pool and hot tub are located in a new patio to the east of the modified rear wing. The patio steps down with the topography creating a low seat wall around the pool. The new walkway and stairs will connect the new patio down to the existing driveway. 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. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(30)/LS-5 Lot Area: 36,784 Lot Width: Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 20’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 20’ Minimum Greenspace: 70% = 25,748 sf 27,050 = 73.5% April 23, 2024 #9 Richard & Mary Sloss * 6646 Wenonga Terrace The Slosses are proposing to replace the wood fence along the side of their property. The Zollars were continued from the April 9th ARB meeting. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: Corner Lot Summary of Project: The proposed fence is located along the Tomahawk Road side of the house. It will be a 6-foot-tall cedar board-on-board, pre-approved style. A recess with an inset gate is proposed at the front side return. The ARB reviewed the proposal in 2023 and asked the Slosses to consider an alternate location to reduce the size of the variance and also to consult the City Arborist regarding trees in that area. The Slosses are proposing the same location (location of current fence) as presented before. City staff asked the City Arborist to review trees along the existing fence and his comments are attached. Ordinance Compliance: The existing fence is a non-conforming use in violation of a platted setback. The new fence will be in violation of the same platted setback. A variance of 30 feet is required. The existing fence is also in violation of Code Section 5-135.D.1 which requires that a solid fence extend no further from the principal building than 30% of the distance from the street (back of curb) to the point of the principal building that is closest to the street. A variance of 19 ft. is required. Design Guideline Review: Section 2.7.3.C on page 109 of the Design Guidelines recommends that fences be located behind platted setbacks in conformance with the Mission Hills Zoning ordinances. This recommendation has not been met. * A variance is required. April 23, 2024 #10 Bryce and Jane Jones† 3516 W 64th Street The owners are proposing a new 2-story home with a 5,425 sq. ft. footprint. The footprint consists of 3,912 sq. ft. of first floor living space, a 906 sq. ft. 3-car garage, and 607 sq. ft. of covered porches. The project includes a large patio, a swimming pool, and a generator. The Jones will have a Professional Review Panel meeting on Wednesday the 17th, so this memo is subject to change. This project is a substantial project and was noticed as such. 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: 3,912 Main Floor Garage Area: 906 Covered Porches: 607 Detached Accessory Buildings: 0 Total Lot Coverage: 5,425 Summary of Project: The house does not follow a clear architectural style. The central vertical massing, symmetrical nature and Romanesque detailing give it the impression of a Colonial Revival home. The plan is a classic central hall layout. Two prominent front wings flank the main mass creating a front courtyard. The front symmetry is somewhat compromised by a shed projection on the west front wing. This projection is very close to the front elevation and takes away from the aesthetic of the front wing. This shed is further complicated by the fact that the design indicated on the elevations does not match the renderings. Clarification is required. The home is sided with a combination of stone and stucco with stone detaining around windows. The fenestration layout is formal at all elevations. Each portion of the house maintains its symmetrical layout and attempts to coordinate across the central axis of the house. Two rear wings create a central patio area at the rear of the house. The proposed pool is incorporated into this patio. The HVAC and generator have been omitted from renderings and elevations however, these elements will be noticeable on the right side of the house. Similarly, the pool equipment is not shown on any plan. No landscape screening or fencing is proposed to screen these elements from view. A perimeter fence or other protection will be required due to the proposed pool. According to the provided grading plan, there is approximately 2 to 3 feet of cross slope across the rear of the house. This has not been indicated in the renderings or the elevations. It appears that all the proposed grading has not been indicated on the site plan. Clarification is required. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. April 23, 2024  Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 33,629 House Footprint: -5,364 Driveway: -4,994 Courtyard Walls: -50 Patios & Walkways: -1,045 Window Wells: -144 Equipment Pads: -80 Remaining Greenspace: 21,952 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 be no more than 50% of the lot width (63.15’) or 70 ft. whichever is greater. At 53.7’, this recommendation has been met. This section goes on to recommend that the depth of the main mass should not exceed 40 ft. At 42.5 feet deep, this recommendation has not been met. The main mass height should be no more than 2 ½ stories and 35 ft. At 34.9 feet this recommendation has been met. The main mass should be located entirely within the Primary Building Area. This recommendation has been met. Please note, to meet the height requirement, the center of the main mass features a large flat roof area. Also, “With few exceptions, the main mass should be the tallest, widest and most highly visible massing element of the home. A minimum of 50% of the front facade should be visible from the street. Front projections such as porches, stoops, bay windows and chimneys that are 6 ft. deep or less are considered part of the visible main mass front facade. Front porches deeper than 6 ft. that are 75% open on the street- facing side are considered part of the visible main mass front facade.” These recommendations have been met. Subsection B recommends that the total width of all front wings not exceed 50% of the main mass width. The sum of the two front wings is 44 feet. This recommendation has not been met. The depth of front wings should not be greater than the width. This recommendation has been met. The height is limited to 2 stories and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. This recommendation has been met. The location should be near the front building line. There should be no more than two. If a forecourt is formed between two wings, the forecourt width should be at least 20 ft. These recommendations have been met. Subsection C recommends that the width of each side wing should be limited to about 20% of the lot width; the combined widths of Side Wings on both sides should be no more than 30% of the lot width. If the front/side wings are interpreted as side wings, each should be limited to 20% of the lot width (25.2’) and the sum should not exceed 30% of the lot width (37.9’). Under this interpretation the width of the individual wings is acceptable, but the sum width does not meet the recommendations. Interpretation of the Design Guidelines is required. Side wings should be inset a minimum of 3 ft. from the front and rear facades of the main mass. The height should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. Side wings that extend in front of or behind the main mass should extend at least 3 ft. past the main mass façade. They should have a depth and height clearly less than the main mass. Side wings located in the Secondary Building Area are limited to 2-stories and 30 feet in height, and at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. These recommendations have been met. April 23, 2024 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. This section is moot, the LS-5 lot size increases the side setbacks and eliminates the conditional building area. Side wings should contain no second floor or dormer windows that overlook the neighbors. The left side wing includes one small window that overlooks the neighbor's sunroom. This recommendation has not been met. Subsection D recommends that rear wings located in the Primary or Secondary Building Areas be no more than 2 stories and 30 ft. tall and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. This recommendation has been met. Rear wings should have a width clearly less than the main mass and should not exceed 50% of the main mass width (26.8’). The rear wings meet this recommendation. No more than 2 rear wings are recommended in the Rear Secondary Building Area. Spacing between wings should be no less than the eave height of the taller wing or half the length of the longer wing. The rear of the house could be interpreted as a compound wing. A large central wing is located within the primary building area at the center of the main mass. The subsequent rear wings are subordinate to that primary wing. The design guidelines do not have a recommendation for this specific condition. Interpretation is required. Rear wings located in the Conditional Building Area are allowed if they meet the special conditions in Section 2.6.4 (pg. 88). If allowed, no more than one shall encroach into the Conditional Building Area. Rear wings allowed in the Conditional Building Area are limited to 1 1/2 stories and 24 ft. in height with eaves no taller than 12 ft. They should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. Both rear wings are inside the rear primary building area. These recommendations have 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. Dormers should be scaled as modest accessories to the roof they adorn and windows to the room they serve, not as entire rooms with their own roofs or “wings” sitting on the roof. The home has no dormers in the secondary or conditional building areas. These recommendations have been met. Subsection G recommends that driveways occupy as little of the Primary Landscape Area as possible. On lots wider than 140 ft., the driveway should be located off the side property line a distance no less than 8% of the lot width. 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. 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. The west side wing includes two large shed-roofed areas that are clearly secondary to the wing but are too large to be considered projecting elements. Their use allows for the front wings to appear more symmetrical than they are. The projections come within inches of the front and rear wings. The primary side wing extends out further allowing a place for the projections to terminate. Since these do not meet the strict definition of a compound wing, interpretation is required. New Subsection I for roofs: Maximum height: 1.5 times that of the height of the façade below the eave, except for one-story homes which can be 2 times that of the façade height below the eave. This recommendation has been met. April 23, 2024 Section 2.6.2 on page 79 provides specific recommendations for adjustments to narrow lots (less than 130 ft. wide) OR Houses less than 30 ft. apart. The existing site is less than 130 feet wide, but the proposed home is more than 30 feet from either side neighbor. The proposed separation would allow ground to second floor height to be up to 3 feet taller than the neighbor’s home as described in the section. The proposed eave heights are roughly equal to the neighboring homes, so no adjustment is necessary. 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. The proposed home is within inches of both side setbacks, within 1% of the greenspace requirement and only meets the height requirement by clipping the roof with large flat roof areas. This recommendation has not been met. Section 2.7.1 B on page 94 recommends that the number of different roof pitches should be limited to two. The house employees four different pitches, not including the flat roofs. The majority of the house uses a 12/12 pitch, the front dormers are 9/12, the shed projection on the front wing is 5/12 and the projection on the rear wing is 4/12. This recommendation has not been met. Section 2.7.1.C on page 95 provides specific recommendations for projecting elements. This section suggests that bay windows should be at least 50% transparent. This recommendation has been met. This section goes on to suggest that all mechanical equipment be completely screened from view. Extensive landscaping is proposed around mechanical equipment. This recommendation has 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 2.7.1 F on page 99 provided specific recommendations about massing aberrations. One massing aberration is use of complex massing where complicated projections are used are added in an attempt to disguise a large volume by having it constructed of a collection of incohesive parts that attempt to break up the mass. The proposed west wing uses shed projections to create larger volumes while attempting to hide their true size. Discussion is recommended. Section 2.7.2 A on page 101 recommends garages be set behind the façade of the main house mass. The proposed garages are located in the west side front wing. This recommendation has not 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 D on page 110 provides specific recommendations about altering grade and topography. There are obvious discrepancies between the grading plan and the elevations. Clarification is required. Section 2.7.3 E on page 111 provides specific recommendations for courtyards. Courtyards should engage the main mass of the principal building and provide access to the main entry. They should be oriented toward the street. Their depth should be between 8 and 16 feet and the width should be greater than the depth but less than the width of the home’s main mass. The walls should be between 16 and 36 inches. Entry posts should be limited to 4 feet tall. These recommendations have been met. April 23, 2024 Section 2.7.3 E on page 111 provides specific recommendations for Patios and Outdoor Recreational Facilities. This section recommends that these elements follow the zoning regulations to help mitigate water runoff and minimize noise from entertainment areas. This recommendation has been met. PRP Recommendation: [PRP reviewed and requested changes. Those changes have been made. The 2nd PRP review will take place on April 17th.] Lot Information Zoning/Lot Size: R-1(30)/LS-5 Lot Area: 33,629 sf Lot Width: 126.3’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ 34’10” Minimum Side Yard (Left): 15% = 18.95’ 19’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 15% = 18.95’ 19.75’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: n/a n/a Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 30% = 79.8’ 100’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 36’10” Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 98’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 5,927 sf 5,425 sf Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 21,859 sf 21,952 = 65.3% Neighbor Comparison Neighbor to Left Proposed Neighbor to Right Primary Eave Height Above 931.2 928.66 924.3 Finished Grade: First Floor Elevation: 913.5 910.18 (exist-909.25) 906.4’ Top of Foundation Elevation: 909.0’ (exist-907.98) Second Floor Plate Height 17.7’ 19.5’ 17.9’ Eave Height Ridge Height: 951.6 942.5 / 34’10” 940.1 Site Elements Driveway width at Property Line: 12’ April 23, 2024  Existing Lot Address Lot Area LC by Ordinance % max used Coverage 3516 W 64th St 33,629 3,391 7,412 45.75% 3601 W 63rd St 27,055 2,944 6,372 46.20% 3519 W 63rd St 26,532 3,495 6,286 55.60% 3515 W 63rd St 25,970 1,886 6,193 30.45% 3700 W 64th St 43,467 5,854 8,859 66.08% 3616 W 64t St 33,164 6,686 7,340 91.09% 3608 W 64th St 24,473 2,760 5,943 46.44% 3600 W 64th St 32,642 4,788 7,260 65.95% 3508 W 64th St 32,838 4,043 7,290 55.46% 3418 W 64th St 31,971 3,134 7,156 43.80% 3414 W 64th St 32,190 2,802 7,190 38.97% 3601 W 64th St 42,496 3,046 8,721 34.93% 3517 W 64th St 40,810 5,166 8,479 60.93% 3515 W 64th St 35,979 5,027 7,768 64.72% Average 53.31% 50% Increase 79.97% 3516 W 64th St 33,629 Proposed: 5,425 7,412 73.19% Recommended Lot Coverage as reduced by 150% Rule: 5,927 91.5% April 23, 2024