Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA April 8, 2025 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:30 p.m. #1 Kathleen & Tyler Doehring Replacing patio 2318 W 70th Terrace #2 Brett & Angela Sperry* Changes to previously approved project 6452 Overbrook Road #3 Cory & Tara Boyle Replacing circle driveway 2911 W 66th Terrace #4 Jeff & Joey Ann Slutskiy * † New Home 2221 W 63rd Street Continued from 3-25-25 meeting *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 Kathleen & Tyler Doehring 2318 W 70th Terrace The Doehrings are proposing to replace their existing concrete patio with a new paver patio in approximately the same location. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed paver patio is approximately the same location as the existing. Paver areas around the existing trees will be replaced with mulch beds. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Please note that a small portion of the patio extends out to be less than 20 feet from the east property line. This portion of the patio is narrow enough to be considered a walkway and does not require a variance. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 17,809 House Footprint: -2,306 Driveway: -1,576 Front Porch: -306 Front Sidewalks: -386 Existing Mulch Garden: -590 Proposed Patio: -1,213 Remaining Greenspace: 11,432 = 64.19% 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: 17,809 sf Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 30’ (East), 26.5’ (West) Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 10,685 sf 12,984 sf = 72.9% April 8, 2025 #2 Brett & Angela Sperry * 6452 Overbrook Road The Sperrys are returning to the ARB to present changes to their previously approved garage wing addition. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Traditional • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages/Conditions: None Lot Coverage Review SF Main Floor Living Area: 1,652 New addition 764 Front Porch: 137 Total Lot Coverage: 2,553 Summary of Project: At the February 11, 2025 ARB meeting the Board approved this project that required a 3.9’ variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The BZA denied the full variance allowing the encroachment for the garage only. The Sperrys are returning to the ARB to present an updated design where only the garage protrudes into the minimum side yard setback. Ordinance Compliance: The project is in violation of City Code Section 5-120.A.1.(a) which requires a side yard setback of at least 10 feet. A variance of 3.9 feet is required. The project is also in violation of the platted 35-foot front building line. A variance of 4.9 feet is required. This variance was not reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 15,134 House Footprint: -2,553 Driveway: -588 Brick Patio -474 Brick Sidewalk: -224 Window Wells: -16 AC Pads: -40 Remaining Greenspace: 11,239 = 74.26% * The project requires multiple variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals April 8, 2025 Design Guideline Review: Section 2.4 on pages 68 through 71 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Traditional Neighborhood character area. Subsection C recommends that side wings should be located primarily within the Primary Building Area and located on the side adjacent to the main mass of the neighboring home. Side wings should be inset a minimum of 3 ft. from the front and rear facades of 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. The depth should not exceed 30 ft. The height is limited to 1 ½ stories and 24 ft. and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. The proposed wing is 33’-2” deep and 24’-11” tall, and a full 2 stories. The proposed wing extends into the side primary landscape area. Discussion is recommended. Due to the small lot sizes and compact massing, the Design Guidelines generally discourage compound wings in the traditional neighborhood character area. 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 been met. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(10)/LS-1 Lot Area: 15,134 sf Lot Width: 112’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ No Change Minimum Front Yard: 35’ (Platted) 30.1’ Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 34.2’ (Existing) Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 6.1’ (Proposed) Minimum Combined Side Yards: 25% = 28.0’ 40.3’ Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% No Change Maximum Lot Coverage: 4,255 sf 2,553 sf Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 9,080 sf 11,239 sf = 74.26% 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 *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 8, 2025 #3 Cory & Tara Boyle 2911 W 66th Terrace The Boyles are proposing to replace their existing asphalt circle driveway with a concrete circle driveway. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The current driveway is an existing non-conforming use. The Boyles are proposing to replace the driveway in the same configuration. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: Section 2.5 on pages 72 through 75 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Suburban character area. Subsection G recommends 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. The existing/proposed interior green is 75 feet wide and 25 feet deep. 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. The existing/proposed drive is 16 feet wide at the west curb-cut and 17 feet wide at the east. This recommendation has not been met. April 8, 2025 #4 Jeff and Joey Slutskiy * † 2221 W 63rd Street The Slutskiys are proposing a new 2-story home with a 3,736 sq. ft. footprint. The project includes a swimming pool, spa, outdoor kitchen, and multiple retaining walls. At the 3-25-25 ARB meeting the walls and driveway were approved but the home was continued to the next meeting 4-8-225 ARB meeting. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: Creekside Lot Coverage Review SF Main Floor Living Area: 2,767 Main Floor Garage Area: 665 Covered Porches: 304 Detached Accessory Buildings: 0 Total Lot Coverage: 3,736 Summary of Project: The proposed home is a 2-story Colonial Revival style home with a central vertical mass. Both side wings are 1 story with the left side wing having an exposed basement. The home is all stucco with stone accents and a stone foundation. The fenestration layout if formal on all sides and maintains the home’s symmetrical aesthetic. The roof is composition asphalt with a single primary pitch. Two large areas of flat roof are employed to keep the height of the house down. Ordinance Compliance: The project is in violation of City Code Section 5-119.C which forbids structures in the front yard. Please note, this section allows exceptions for courtyard walls and retaining walls. However, the walls at the driveway do not meet the definition of a retaining wall because the top of the wall is not at least 6 inches higher than the highest grade, and there is not at least 12 inches difference in the grade on either side of the walls. A variance is required. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 28,172 House Footprint: -3,736 Driveway: -1,653 Front Walkway: -153 Window Wells: -107 Utility Yard: -145 Patios, Pool & Walkways: -1,554 Pool Equipment yard: -101 Retaining Walls: -751 Remaining Greenspace: 19,972 = 70.89% Design Guideline Review: Section 2.3 on pages 64 through 67 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Neighborhood Estates character area. April 8, 2025 Subsection A recommends that the main mass of the house should be no more than 50% of the lot width or 70 ft. whichever is greater. At 40 feet this recommendation has been met. This section goes on to recommend that the depth of the main mass should not exceed 40 ft. At 38 feet deep, this recommendation has been met. The main mass height should be no more than 2 ½ stories and 35 ft. At 32.5 feet this recommendation has been met. The main mass is located entirely within the Primary Building Area. This section goes on to state that 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 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. At 20 and 26.5 feet respectively, these recommendations have been met. 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 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. Only one side wing is allowed in the Conditional Building Area. These recommendations have 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. Rear wings should have a width clearly less than the main mass and should not exceed 50% of the main mass width. The rear wing meets the height requirement but takes the full width of the main mass. This recommendation has not 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. This recommendation has 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. Both of the side wings are compound wings. 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. Consider adding front dormers or other front projections to break up a roof height between 1.5 and 2 times taller than the front façade and/or roofs wider than 50 ft. 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 2.6.4.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. Section 2.7.1 B on page 94 recommends that the number of different roof pitches should be limited to two. This recommendation has been met. April 8, 2025 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.C on page 109 provides specific recommendations for Garden Walls and Fences. This section recommends that garden and retaining walls be constructed of brick, stone, or stucco compatible with the main house. It generally discourages the use of faux materials. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.3 D on page 110 provides specific recommendations about altering grade and topography. This section generally discourages the over-manipulation of the landscape in favor of conserving the original greenspace design. Section 2 discourages retaining walls within the streetside yards. It encourages the preservation of natural stone outcrops of existing properties. These recommendations have 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. These recommendations have been met. PRP Recommendation: [Insert PRP recommendation] Lot Information Zoning: R-1(10)/LS-4 – Corner Lot Area: 28,172 sf Lot Width: 183’-7” Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ 32’-5” Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 72’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 27’-7” Minimum Combined Side Yards: 30% = 55.1’ 99’-7” Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 36.7’ 36.9’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ ~44’ (Scaled) Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 20’-1” Maximum Lot Coverage: 6,553 sf 3,736 sf Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 18,312 sf 19,972 = 70.89% April 8, 2025  Neighbor Comparison Neighbor to Left Proposed Neighbor to Right Primary Eave Height Above N/A 23.3’ 12’ Finished Grade: First Floor Elevation: N/A 916.0’ 931.2’ Top of Foundation Elevation: N/A 915.6’ (previous home-918.7) Second Floor Plate Height: N/A 926.21’ Eave Height: N/A 936.83’ 947.7 Ridge Height: N/A 945.94’ 954.8 Site Elements Driveway width at Property Line 12’ Driveway width at the house 22.5’ with Auto court Circle Drive Interior Green N/A Second Floor Plate Height 10’ 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. Existing Lot LC by Address Lot Area % max used Coverage* Ordinance 2221 W 63rd St 28,172 1,490 6,553 22.7% 6235 Mission Dr 15,886 2,437 4,401 55.4% 6200 Mission Dr 28,881 1,958 6,668 29.4% 2223 W 63rd St 14,493 2,411 4,129 58.4% 2227 W 63rd St 14,776 2,162 4,185 51.7% 2200 Tomahawk 17,822 2,809 4,767 58.9% 2112 Tomahawk 18,390 2,654 4,872 54.5% 2100 Tomahawk 34,103 2,596 7,484 34.7% Average 45.7% 50% Increase 68.6% Allowable Lot Coverage reduced by 150% Rule = 4,493 Proposed = 3,736 83.2% April 8, 2025