Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA November 19, 2024 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:00 p.m. at the Indian Hills Country Club #1 Hadley Burcham Landscape Plan 5934 Overhill Circle #2 Bill & Brigid Ohlemeyer Changes to previously approved project 5939 Overhill Road #3 Richard Shackelford New patio 2032 W 61st Terrace #4 Ahead Engineering Small cell node cellular antennas Various Places Continued from November 5th Mtg #5 Matthew & Mallory Gound Replacing screened porch / Second-floor addition 6408 Verona Road #6 Spencer & Laura Walsh Detached Garaged / Circle Driveway / Patio / 3408 W 68th Street Addition #7 Tarak Devkota † Pool / Patio 2517 W 68th Street #8 Limonada Trust † Addition / Patio / Outdoor Kitchen / 5964 Overhill Road Swimming pool / Fountain / Generator #9 Heather & Chandler McCray † Requesting to be continued New Home 3002 W 66th Terrace to 12.3.24 mtg #10 MOJO Built, LLC † Project to be continued to New Home 6419 Sagamore Road 12.17.24 #11 Centennial Homes Plaques *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 Hadley Burcham 5934 Overhill Circle Ms. Burcham is returning to the ARB to present her landscape plan as required. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Countryside Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Rear • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed landscaping calls for extensive plantings throughout the property. Plantings extend to the private road. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. November 19, 2024 #2 Bill & Brigid Ohlemeyer 5939 Overhill Road Ms. Ohlemeyers are returning to the ARB to present changes to their previously approved new home. They are proposing a new brick patio and retaining walls in their rear yard. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Sides • Any Special Frontages: Intersection Green Lot Coverage Review SF Main Floor Living Area: 3,825 Garage: 808 Proposed porch addition. 242 Detached Accessory Buildings: 0 Total Lot Coverage: 4,875 Summary of Project: The proposed patio is centrally located in the rear yard near the minimum setback lines. A flagstone walkway will connect the proposed patio to previously approved walkways at the rear of the house. Eighteen-inch-tall retaining walls are proposed on both sides of the patio, roughly following the rear property line. These walls will create a large, landscaped planting bed. A new French drain system is also proposed between the new patio and the house. Please note that the patio design includes an outdoor fireplace and a pergola, which will be presented at a future date and are not part of this review. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 41,611 House Lot Coverage: -4,875 Window Wells: -131 Driveway: -5,576 Site Walls & Stairs: -824 Patios and walkways -863 New Patio and Walls: -534 Remaining Greenspace: 28,808 Greenspace Percentage: 69.2% Design Guideline Review: 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. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(30)/LS-5 Lot Area: 41,611 Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 22.7’ Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 27,047 SF 28,808 SF = 69.2% November 19, 2024 #3 Richard Shackelford 2032 W 61st Terrace Mr. Shackelford is proposing a new patio in his rear yard. Missing Information: • Official Survey • Greenspace Study Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed paver patio is located at rear of an existing brick patio. Due to the existing topography, a short retaining wall is proposed along the west side of the patio. The exact height and material for the wall have not been provided. Clarification is required. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 14,123 House Lot Coverage: (with -2,678 existing patios) Driveway: -1,772 New Patio and Walls: -204 Remaining Greenspace: 9,469 Greenspace Percentage: 67.0% 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(20)/LS-1 Lot Area: 14,123 SF Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 15’ 26.5’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 15’ 26.67’ Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 8,474 SF 9,469 SF = 67.0% November 19, 2024 #4 Ahead Engineering Various Right of Ways (ROW) and Utility Easements Ahead Engineering is proposing to install small cell node cellular antennas at multiple locations around the City to create a network of seven small cell wireless facilities attached to streetlights (5) and utility poles (2), at locations shown on the attached map. This project was continued from the November 5th ARB meeting. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The nodes consist of an antenna that is approximately 2 feet tall and 15 inches in diameter. The antenna will be installed at the top of either a telephone pole or light pole, depending on the location. Each node will also include an equipment box and a power meter. At most locations all of this equipment will be installed on the associated pole. A small electrical transformer will be ground set near the pole in select locations. The table below shows the locations, current height of existing poles and height of proposed replacement poles and antenna. Current Proposed Proposed Location Pole Type top of Pole top of Pole top of Antenna 1 – State Park Road Wood Utility Pole 38’8” 43’ 46’3” 2 – 2040 W. 59th Street Streetlight 29”8” 30’ 33’ 3 – Island (6036 Mission Drive) Streetlight 25’8” 30’ 33’ 4 – 2411 W. 65th Street Streetlight 25’ 30’ 33’ 5 – 2901 Tomahawk Circle Streetlight 24’10” 30’ 33’ 6 – 6630 Rainbow Wood Utility Pole 28’5” 34’ 37’3” 7 – 3030 W. 69th Street Streetlight 25’2” 30’ 33’ Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. The City has hired a consultant to complete an independent third party review of the structural design as well as the emissions, to be certain all applicable standards have been met. Design Guideline Review: Design Guidelines do not apply to utility projects. November 19, 2024 #5 Mathew & Mallory Gound 6408 Verona Road The Gounds are proposing a whole house remodel that includes replacing their existing screened porch with a new larger porch, and a second-floor addition to the south side 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 of the house, the existing screened porch will be demolished to make way for a new porch. While the width will remain the same, the new porch will extend 20 feet from the main structure, approximately 8 feet deeper than the current porch. The proposed porch design is partially enclosed and partially screened, with all fenestration set into panels to match the screen system. Three new pairs of doors are proposed along the back side. The current proposal removes all existing patios and walkways, with no plan to replace them, not even stoops at the new doors. On the south (left) side of the house, the Gounds propose a second-story addition to a small side wing. The footprint will remain the same; however, on the second floor, the wing will extend to the rear over the existing garage. All proposed materials and fenestration will match the main house. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 20,335 House Lot Coverage: -3,808 Added Structure: -977 Driveway, Patios and walkways -3,298 Remaining Greenspace: 12,252 Greenspace Percentage: 60.25% 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. The proposed wing extends the full width of the main mass. This recommendation has not 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 not been met. November 19, 2024  Lot Information Zoning: R-1(20)/LS-3 Lot Area: 20,335 Lot Width: 120’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ No Change Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 34.7’ No Change Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 13.3’ No Change Minimum Combined Side Yards: 30% = 36.0’ 48.0’ No Change Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 34.0’ 39.2’ No Change Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ N/A Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ N/A November 19, 2024 #6 Spencer & Laura Walsh 3408 W 68th Street The Walshes are proposing a new detached garage, circle driveway, patio, and small home addition. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage Review SF Main Floor Area: (With Garage) 3,624 Covered Porches: 0 Detached Accessory Buildings: 720 Total Lot Coverage: 4,344 Summary of Project: The proposed detached garage is located at the rear of the property where an existing shed will be removed to make space. The proposed siding and roofing will match those of the main house. The windows are designed as casements with a larger muntin pattern than that of the main house. A large clear-view sliding door will face the rear yard, but the material for the garage door is not specified and requires clarification. The existing driveway will be extensively reconfigured near the garage, with a large portion being removed to accommodate the new structure. In the front yard, a new 12-foot-wide leg will be added to create a circular driveway. A new stoop and front walkway will connect to this reconfigured driveway. The house has an L-shaped footprint, and a new second-floor addition is proposed at the inside corner of the “L.” Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 26,865 Lot Coverage Footprint: -4,344 Driveway: -4,048 Patios & Walkways: -797 Utility Pads: -24 Remaining Greenspace: 17,652 Greenspace Percentage: 65.7% Design Guideline Review: Section 2.5 on pages 72 through 75 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Suburban character area. Subsection E recommends that detached accessory buildings, located in the Conditional Building or Primary Landscape Areas are limited to a height of 1 story with 10-ft. maximum eave heights if allowed under Section 2.6.4 (pg. 88). There should be no more than 2 accessory buildings per lot. 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. November 19, 2024 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. 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 not 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. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16)/LS-4 Lot Area: 26,865 SF Lot Width: 128.3’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 47’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 76’ Accessory Building Height: 24’ Accessory Building Minimum Side Yard Setback: 10’ 10.7’ Accessory Building Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 10’ 12.0’ Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 17,462 SF 17,652 SF = 65.7% 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? *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. November 19, 2024 #7 Tarak Devkota † 2517 W 68th Street The Devkotas are proposing a new pool and patio in their rear yard. † This project is a substantial project and was noticed as such. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed concrete patio is a simple rectangular structure located near the center of the house. The pool will be situated within this new patio. No grading is indicated. The pool equipment will be placed near the existing A/C equipment and screened by landscaping. The existing circular driveway will be removed to create additional greenspace. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 21,876 House Footprint: -3,116 Driveway & Front Walk: -1,835 Misc. Pads -36 Patios & Pool: -1,888 Remaining Greenspace: 15,001 Design Guideline Review: 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(16)/LS-3 Lot Area: 21,876 sf Lot Width: 140.00’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 30.52’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 25.64’ Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 14,219 sf 15,001 sf = 68.6% Drainage Study Required if any answer below is “Yes” Yes/No Is the project adding 1,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface? 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 November 19, 2024 #8 Limonada Trust † 5964 Overhill Road The owners are proposing a new 2-story addition to their home. The project includes a large patio, an outdoor kitchen, a swimming pool, a fountain, and a generator. † This project is a substantial project and was noticed as such. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Countryside Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: Hillside Lot Coverage Review SF Main Floor Living Area: 5,828 Main Floor Garage Area: 1,460 Covered Porches: 664 Detached Accessory Buildings: 0 Total Lot Coverage: 7,952 Summary of Project: The existing house is in the Mediterranean Revival Style with central vertical massing. The proposed addition removes a small portion of the existing house and adds a substantial new addition to the north. The proposed plan follows the rambling flow that is typical of Mediterranean- style homes through the use of compound wings. The home is sided with a combination of stone and stucco, with stone detailing around the windows. The fenestration layout is formal at all elevations. Each portion of the house maintains its symmetrical layout to coordinate across the house. A new entry tower is proposed on the east side of the house to complement the existing south entry tower. A new garage is proposed in the northernmost wing. A terraced retaining wall screens the garage. The main patio is located at the rear of the house on axis with a new covered porch. The patio is limited to just a few feet around the proposed pool. The outdoor kitchen is located to the east of the covered porch and consists of a stone base with a stone countertop and built-in appliances. A formal garden with a new fountain is proposed along the west side of the house. A significant existing retaining wall will remain along the north side of the property. An existing 6- foot-tall iron fence encircles the majority of the property. A new extension will connect the existing fence to the main house. The HVAC equipment is located in two separate equipment yards, along with the pool equipment. The proposed generator is located in the northwest corner of the property. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 60,218 House Footprint: -7,952 November 19, 2024  Driveway: -4,976 South Terrace: -1,281 Pool & Pool Deck: -1,325 Sidewalks, Steps Fountain & Stepping Stones: -1,518 Site Retaining Walls: -451 Window Wells: -194 Pergolas: -49 Utility Pad Areas: -214 Remaining Greenspace: 42,258 Percentage: 70.2% Design Guideline Review: Section 2.2 on pages 60 through 63 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Countryside Estates character area. Due to the existing nature of this home, it technically sits sideways on the lot. The defined front yard is the east side of the property. However, the existing house faces south and the proposed plan maintains that approach. The following findings are based on the south side of the house being considered the front, while the setbacks being enforced assume the front is to the east. Subsection A recommends that the main mass of the house should be no more than 50% of the lot width or 80 ft., whichever is greater. The main mass is existing at 94 feet. This section goes on to recommend that the depth of the main mass should not exceed 40 ft. The existing depth is approximately 30 feet. The main mass height should be no more than 2 ½ stories and 35 ft. The existing height is 34.5 feet, and the proposed addition is less. This recommendation has been met. Lastly, this section recommends that the main mass should sit entirely within the Primary Building Area. This recommendation has been met. 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 depth should not be greater than the width. The height is limited to 2-stories and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. These recommendations have been met. Subsection C recommends that all side wings be located in the Primary Building Area. The width of the side wing should be limited to about 15% of the lot width; the combined widths of Side Wings on both sides should be no more than 25% of the lot width. 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. These recommendations have been met. November 19, 2024 Subsection D recommends that rear wings located in the Primary Building Areas be no more than 2 stories and 30 ft. in height and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. The width of a rear wing should not exceed 50% of the main mass width. No more than two wings shall encroach into the Secondary Building Area, and they should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. 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 ft. wide, measured at the front property line, and depth of 40 ft. 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. These recommendations have been met. New Subsection I for roofs: Maximum height: 1.5 times that of the height of the façade below the eave, except for roofs on 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. All existing tile roofs are a 5.5”:12” slope and the new tiled roofs will match. There are some flat roof areas at ½”:12” and ¼”:12”. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.1.C on page 95 provides specific recommendations for projecting elements. These recommendations have 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 not been met. Please note the drive approaches are existing. Section 2.7.3.A on page 106 recommends that LS-6 and 7 properties have a greenspace no less than 70% of the lot area. This recommendation has been met. November 19, 2024 Section 2.7.3 D on page 110 provides specific recommendations about altering grade and topography. 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. This recommendation has been met. PRP Recommendation: The PRP recommends approval. Lot Information Zoning/Lot Size: R-1(E1)/LS-6 Lot Area: 60,218 sf Lot Width: 251.7’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ No Change Minimum Front Yard: 75’ (Platted) 91.7’ Minimum Side Yard (Left): 15% = 36’ 49’ (Existing) Minimum Side Yard (Right): 15% = 36’ 67.8’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: N/A Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 15% = 38.7’ 50.2’ (Existing) Patio Minimum Side Yard: 27.7’ to South Terrace 20’ (Existing) Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 23.3’ Maximum Lot Coverage: Minimum Greenspace: 70% = 42,152 sf 42,258 sf = 70.2% Neighbor Comparison Neighbor to Left Proposed Neighbor to Right Ridge Height: 936.5’ 932.25 954.8’ Primary Eave Height 929.1 918.8’ 949.8’ Above Finished Grade: First Floor Elevation: 908.00’ 898.25’ 925.9’ Top of Foundation Elevation: Second Floor Plate Height Site Elements Driveway width at Property 12.2’ & 18.6’ Line: (Existing) November 19, 2024  Existing Lot Address Lot Area LC by Ordinance % max used Coverage 5964 Overhill Rd 62,218 4,414 11,366 38.83% 5944 Overhill Rd 44,280 5,476 8,973 61.02% 5939 Overhill Rd 41,611 4,875 8,594 56.73% 5955 Mission Dr 115,661 10,513 17,489 60.11% 6036 Mission Dr 59,734 5,762 11,049 52.15% 2435 Drury Ln 119,689 5,690 17,910 31.77% 2400 Drury Ln 34,050 4,817 7,476 64.43% Average 52.15% 50% Increase 78.23% 5964 Overhill Road Proposed: 7,952 11,366 69.96% Recommended Lot Coverage as reduced by 150% Rule: 8,891 89.43% 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. November 19, 2024 #9 Heather & Chandler McCray† (Continue to 12/3/2024) 3002 West 66th Terrace The McCrays are proposing a new 1-story home with a 4,443 sq. ft. footprint. The footprint consists of 2,911 sq. ft. of first floor living space, a 931 sq. ft. 3-car garage, and 601 sq. ft. of covered porches. The project includes a small patio. † This project is a substantial project and was noticed as such. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage Review SF Main Floor Living Area: 2,911 Main Floor Garage Area: 931 Covered Porches: 601 Detached Accessory Buildings: 0 Total Lot Coverage: 4,443 Summary of Project: The Mediterranean-style home is entirely stucco with a clay tile roof. All the windows feature deep insets with rolled stucco trim. Nearly all the windows have arched tops or are set in arched-top nooks. The garage is located in a prominent front/side wing. Another large, covered porch wing is situated at the center of the main structure. A front/side wing is also located at the west end of the house. The space between the front wings creates a courtyard for the front entry. Instead of a traditional wall, a hedgerow is proposed to enclose the courtyard. The rear of the house is heavily fenestrated and includes a large, covered porch that extends deep into the backyard. A modest, freeform patio wraps around the rear of the home. The property is enclosed by a six-foot privacy fence featuring stucco columns at the primary corners and around the garages. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 21,667 House Footprint: -4,443 Driveway: -1,556 Walkways: -420 Patios: -524 Mechanical Pads -28 Window Wells: -158 Remaining Greenspace: 14,538 Greenspace Percentage: 67.0% Design Guideline Review: Section 2.5 on pages 72 through 75 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Suburban character area. November 19, 2024 Subsection A recommends that the main mass should be located entirely in the Primary Building Area. Its width should not exceed 50% of the lot width and not exceed 65 ft. At 52 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 40 feet deep, this recommendation has been met. Lastly, this section recommends that the height be restricted to 2 stories and 30 feet. At 1-story and 22.5 feet tall, this recommendation has been met. 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. While the main mass is obscured, this recommendation has been met. Subsection B recommends that the total width of front wings not exceed 50% of the main mass width. The depth should not be greater than the main mass. The height is limited to 1 ½ stories and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. The garage wing width is more than 50% of the main mass width, but the portion in front of the main mass is less than 50%. This recommendation has been met. Subsection C recommends that side wings 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. This recommendation has been met. Side wings in the Primary and Secondary Building Areas are limited to 1 ½ stories and 24 ft. in height and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. They should also be set behind the front plane of the main mass. This recommendation has 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 existing utility easements can be considered a special lot condition allowing for the house to be located in the Conditional Building Area. Subsection D recommends that rear wings located in the Conditional Building Area are allowed if they meet the special conditions in Section 2.6.4 (pg. 88). No more than one shall encroach into the Conditional Building Area. The rear wing should not exceed 1 story and 16 ft. in height and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. The depth should not exceed 24 feet. 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. The proposed driveway is less than 8% from the side of the lot. This was to maintain the existing curb cut. The driveway quickly shifts towards the center of the lot as it approaches the garages. 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. November 19, 2024 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 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. Minimal grading is proposed. 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. 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. PRP Recommendation: [PRP review not yet completed.] Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16)/LS-3 Lot Area: 21,667 SF Lot Width: 145.8’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ 22.5’ Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 10’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 47.8’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: 30% = 43.74’ 57.8’ Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 30.2’ 31.2’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 23’ (Scaled) Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 26’ (Scaled) Maximum Lot Coverage: 5,460 SF 4,443 SF Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 14,083 SF 14.538 SF = 67.0% Neighbor Comparison Neighbor to Left Proposed Neighbor to Right Highest Ridge Above Finished 949.75 937 947 Grade: Primary Eave Height Above 942.5 930.5 936 Finished Grade: First Floor Elevation: 923.5 926.5 935.5 Top of Foundation Elevation: 922.5 926 935 November 19, 2024  Site Elements Driveway width at Property Line: 10’ Driveway width at house. 32’ Circle Drive Interior Green N/A Second Floor Plate Height N/A 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? *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 3002 W 66th Ter 21,667 2,606 5,460 47.73% 3001 Tomahawk Rd 22,798 3,737 5,657 66.06% 3007 Tomahawk Rd 20,702 4,090 5,290 77.31% 3105 Tomahawk Rd 19,232 2,912 5,026 57.94% 2910 W 66th Ter 21,195 3,458 5,377 64.31% 2902 W 66th Ter 20,064 3,493 5,176 67.48% 2911 W 66th Ter 20,075 3,933 5,178 75.95% 3003 W 66th Ter 24,810 4,794 5,999 79.91% 3011 W 66th Ter 24,843 3,541 6,005 58.97% 2909 W 66th St 23,003 2,884 5,692 50.67% 2901 W 66th St 21,933 3,036 5,507 55.13% Average 63.77% 50% Increase 95.65% Allowable LC reduced by 150% Rule 5,223 = 3002 W 66th Ter Proposed = 4,606 84.4% of City Ordinance Limit 88.2% of Design Guideline Limit *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. November 19, 2024 #10 MOJO Built, LLC † Continue to December 17th 6419 Sagamore Road The owners are proposing a new 2-story home with a 2,334 sq. ft. footprint. The footprint consists of 1,414 sq. ft. of first-floor living space, a 2-car garage, and 263 sq. ft. of covered porches. † This project is a substantial project and was noticed as such. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Traditional • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: Corner Lot Coverage Review SF Main Floor Living Area: 1,454 Garage: 521 Front Porch: 37 Side Porch: 61 Covered Deck: 165 Total Lot Coverage: 2,238 Summary of Project: The home is Tudor style. It is sided with a combination of stucco and stone. Some of the stucco includes timber detailing. The window arrangement is formal on all sides with all windows having a Colonial muntin pattern. All windows have extensive trim. Windows in brick include rowlock sills and soldier headers. The box bay window, at the rear of the house, has smooth cementitious panels that will be painted to match the adjacent stucco. The screened porch/covered deck is elevated over the rear patio and supported on wood columns with brackets. Similar brackets are proposed at the roof eyebrows and the porches. No HVAC equipment has been indicated. Clarification is required. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 12,068 House Footprint: -2,338 Driveway: -471 Front Walkway: -232 Generator Pad: -13 Side Retaining Wall: -25 Remaining Greenspace: 8,989 = 74.5% Design Guideline Review: Section 2.4 on pages 68 through 71 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Traditional Neighborhood character area. November 19, 2024 Subsection A recommends that the main mass width be no more than 60% of the lot width and no more than 50 feet. At 44 feet this recommendation has been met. This section goes on to recommend that the depth of the main mass should not exceed 35 ft. At 34.5 feet deep, this recommendation has been met. The main mass height should be no more than 2 stories and 30 ft. At 29.5 feet and 1 ½ stories, these recommendations have been met. This section (for homes in the Traditional Neighborhood) allows the main mass to extend to the minimum side yard setback. However, Section 2.6.3.A gives recommendations for corner lots. This section recommends that the main mass be located entirely within the Primary Building Area. The main mass is located within the Conditional Building Area on the north side. This recommendation has not been met. 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 only one front wing be allowed, and its width should not exceed 50% of the main mass width. The depth should not be greater than the width. The height is limited to 1 ½ stories and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. Exceptions are large front gables on Tudor homes and other central entry projections that are common on styles such as Mediterranean Revival, French Country, and Craftsman; and for "Gable-Front-and-Wing" style of homes where a single gabled-wing is added to one end of the front of the home. The location should be near the front building line. These recommendations have been met. Subsection D recommends that only one rear wing be allowed on a property. A rear wing located in the Primary or Secondary Building Areas should be no more than 1 ½ stories and 24 ft. in height and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. A rear wing should have a width of no more than 24 ft. A rear wing that extends into the Conditional Building Area is allowed if it meets the special conditions in Section 2.6.4 (pg. 88). Only one is allowed. If allowed in the Conditional Building Area by the Architectural Review Board, the wing height should not exceed 1 ½ stories and 24 ft. with eaves no taller than 12 ft. It should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. All of these recommendations have been met, except for the height. Due to the slope of the property, a full walk-out basement has been provided which makes the rear wing approximately 36 feet tall. Discussion is recommended. 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. The proposed driveway is a direct drive as is typical of the Traditional neighborhood character area. 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 2.6.2 on page 79 provides specific recommendations for adjustments to narrow lots (less than 130 ft. wide) OR houses less than 30 ft. apart. The proposed home is 20.5 feet from the house to the north. The eave and ridge heights of the proposed home are comparable to the ridge and eave heights of the adjacent house. November 19, 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. 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. Section 2.7.1.C on page 95 provides specific recommendations for projecting elements. 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 2.7.2 A on page 101 recommends garages be set behind the façade of the main house mass. This recommendation has been met. The garage is incorporated into the main mass. Section 2.7.2.B on page 102 recommends drives to be no more than 12 feet wide at the property line. At 15 feet, 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. Section 2.7.3 D on page 110 provides specific recommendations about altering grade and topography. The only significant grading proposed is where the existing driveway was removed. The proposed grading creates a swale that directs water around the house to the street and away from the neighbors. City Arborist Review: Tree inventory of the property above has been made. The Mojo Built site plan for tree removal has been approved and the trees that are not removed will require protection from construction, per City Ordinance 509-4. During the utility shut off a large Pin Oak located up front up was harmed and sustained considerable root damage. Mojo Built has been notified and the city will require them to remove the tree and replace the tree with two approved trees on sight by the end of the building process. PRP Recommendation: [PRP recommendation not yet complete.] Lot Information Zoning: R-1(10)/LS-1 Lot Area: 12,068 SF Lot Width: 84’-4” Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ 30’2” Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 10.5’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 25’ (Platted) 26.0’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: 25% = 21’ 36.5’ Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 27.35’ 33.3’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 3,636 SF 2,334 SF Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 7,241 SF 8,989 SF = 74.5% November 19, 2024  Neighbor Comparison Neighbor to Left Proposed Neighbor to Rear Primary Eave Height Above 17’ 18’ 8.5’ Finished Grade: First Floor Elevation: 945.0’ 946.7’ 938.2’ Top of Foundation Elevation: 944.1’ 946.5’ 937.1’ Second Floor Plate Height Approx. 953’ 957.78’ N/A Eave Height 959.8 963.2’ 945.4’ Ridge Height: 967.1’ 976’ 961.0’ Site Elements Driveway width at Property Line: 15’ Driveway width at house. 18’ Circle Drive Interior Green n/a Second Floor Plate Height 10’-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. Existing Lot Address Lot Area LC by Ordinance % max used Coverage 6419 Sagamore Rd 12,068 1,373 3,636 37.8% 6412 Sagamore Rd 10,124 2,539 3,218 78.9% 6416 Sagamore Rd 9,730 2,291 3,130 73.2% 6420 Sagamore Rd 9,664 2,242 3,115 72.0% 6426 Sagamore Rd 9,811 2,093 3,148 66.5% 6409 Sagamore Rd 20,968 2,466 5,337 46.2% 6415 Sagamore Rd 13,900 2,084 4,011 52.0% 6427 Sagamore Rd 12,646 1,793 3,756 47.7% 6421 Overbrook Rd 26,792 2,659 6,329 42.0% 6428 Overbrook Rd 7,989 1,351 2,729 49.5% Average 56.6% 50% Increase 84.9% Recommended Lot Coverage as reduced by 150% Rule: 3,085 Proposed: 2,334 76% November 19, 2024 #11 Centennial Homes Plaques The City would like to add Centennial Plaques to the list of pre-approved items. Summary of Project: The proposed plaques would be bronze ovals approximately 10 inches wide by 6 inches tall and would list the year the house was built along with “City of Mission Hills Centennial Home”. 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. November 19, 2024