Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA March 25, 2025 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:00 p.m. #1 Marilyn McConnell Changes to previously approved project 5800 High Drive #2 Andrew & Brittany Robb Enclosing an existing porch / Replace bay window 3505 W 63rd Street #3 Hadley Burcham Changes to previously approved exterior 5934 Overhill Circle house changes #4 Hadley Burcham † Changes to previously approved 5934 Overhill Circle pool house/pool project #5 Daniel & Kristen Fromm † Sport court / Pool house / Outdoor kitchen / 6708 Cherokee Lane Outdoor dining / Parking space and misc #6 Jeff & Joey Ann Slutskiy * † New Home 2221 W 63rd Street #7 Tarak Devkota Changes to previously approved project 2517 W 68th 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 Marilyn McConnell 5800 High Drive Ms. McConnell is returning to the ARB with changes to her previously approved project. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: At the July 16th and the September 24th ARB meetings, the ARB approved Ms. McConnell’s detached garage and various changes to the main house. Ms. McConnell is now proposing a new egress window well on the south side of her house. The proposed well is all concrete and projects 3 feet from 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. March 25, 2025 #2 Andrew & Brittany Robb 3505 W 63rd Street The Robbs are proposing to enclose an existing porch and replace a bay window. 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 Robbs are proposing to enclose the lower level of a two-story screened porch. The screens will be replaced with large clear-view glass panels over wood panels. To the side of the screened porch, they are proposing to remove a bay window and replace it with a new pair of French doors and side lights. A small stoop and sidewalk are proposed to connect the new doors to an existing patio. 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. March 25, 2025 #3 Hadley Burcham 5934 Overhill Circle Ms. Burcham is returning to the ARB with changes to her recently approved remodel. Summary of Property: Character Area: Countryside Estates Location of Common Green Space: Front & Rear Any Special Frontages: Hill Frontages Summary of Project: At the September 10, 2024 ARB meeting, Ms. Burcham was approved for a whole house remodel. Changes to the main house include garage doors, entry doors, and various window modifications. All changes are in keeping with the original design intent. One of the more significant changes is the creation of a screened-in porch on the west side of the house. An existing balcony will be removed and a new box bay with screens is proposed. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. March 25, 2025 #4 Hadley Burcham † 5934 Overhill Circle Ms. Burcham is returning to the ARB with changes to her recently approved pool and pool house project. Summary of Property: Character Area: Countryside Estates Location of Common Green Space: Front & Rear Any Special Frontages: Hill Frontages Lot Coverage Review SF Main House Footprint: 6,044 Proposed Accessory Building: 0 Total Lot Coverage: 6,044 Summary of Project: At the September 24, 2024 ARB meeting, Ms. Burcham was approved to build a new pool and pool house in her rear yard. She is returning to the ARB with changes to the original project that eliminates the pool house and relocates the pool closer to the house. The pool and associated patio remain essentially the same. The revised plans include an extensive site lighting plan. Several of the proposed light fixtures are located on City 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: 78,794 House Footprint: -6,044 Proposed Hardscape: -8,275 Remaining Greenspace: 64,475 Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(E-1)/LS-6 Lot Area: 78,794 sf Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ Not Provided ~24’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ Not Provided ~105’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 13,394 sf 6,044 sf Minimum Greenspace: 70% = 55,156 sf 64,475 sf = 81.0% 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. March 25, 2025 #5 Daniel & Kristen Fromm † 6708 Cherokee Lane The Fromms recently acquired the lot at 6700 Cherokee Lane and are planning to replat 6700 and 6708 Cherokee Lane into a single property. The Fromms are proposing a new sport court, pool house, outdoor kitchen, outdoor dining area, and a new parking area to the north of their existing house. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: Hillside Lot Coverage Review SF Existing house: 5,408 Proposed Pool House: 1,650 Total Lot Coverage: 7,058 Summary of Project: To the north of the existing pool patio, the Fromms are proposing a new outdoor dining area with an outdoor kitchen. The majority of the patio will be covered with an open 8-foot tall pergola. To the north of the dining area is the new pool house. All materials, detailing, and fenestration match the main house. New HVAC equipment is proposed at the north side of the building along with a small storage area. Proposed to the side of the new pool house is a sport court. The sport court is drawn to accommodate both a tennis and basketball. [Note that any sport can be played on the court]. At the east side of the court is a 1- foot retaining wall. Two 10-foot tall light poles are proposed at the top of the retaining wall to light the court. The court surface material has not been indicated, clarification is required. The proposed parking area connects back to the circle driveway. A new stepped walkway connects the parking area to the pool house. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. There are multiple new retaining walls, so the ARB must examine section 5-137.B to approve. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 65,180 House Footprint: -7,058 Existing Hardscape: -5,064 Outdoor Dining Area: (With Walls) -335 Sport Court: -2,652 Sport Court Retaining Wall. -161 New Walkways: -362 New Parking Area: -216 New Driveway -331 Parking Retaining Wall: -16 Remaining Greenspace: 48,985 = 75.15% Design Guideline Review: Section 2.3 on pages 64 through 67 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Neighborhood Estates character area. March 25, 2025 Subsection E recommends that detached accessory buildings, located in the Primary Building Area, should have a height of no more than 2 stories and 24 feet but must be subordinate to the main house. The proposed pool house is 730 square feet with an additional 920 square feet under a surrounding porch. The entire porch sits within the primary building area, so there is no restriction on the area. The height is under the 24-foot limit. All 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 existing circle driveway remains unchanged. The additional parking area and driveway meet the setback requirements. 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. 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. All the retaining walls are proposed as stone to match the existing walls. 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. Significant grading and a large retaining wall is required to make way for the proposed sport court. This wall is well outside of the 60-foot street side setback for sport courts. This recommendation has not 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 requirements have been met. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(25)/LS-6 Lot Area: 65,180 Ordinance/Design Guideline 20’ Provided Patio/Sport Court Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 30.9’ Patio/Sport Court Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 142.6’ Accessory Building Height: 24’ 15’-9” Accessory Building Minimum Side Yard Setback: 10’ 47.6’ Accessory Building Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 10’ 142.6’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 11,740 sf 7,058 sf Minimum Greenspace: 70% = 45,626 48,985 = 75.15% 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. March 25, 2025 #6 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. 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. March 25, 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. March 25, 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% March 25, 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% March 25, 2025 #7 Tarak Devkota 2517 W 68th Street The Devkotas are returning to the ARB to request a change in their originally approved project due to a failed inspection from the City Architect. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The Devkotas are returning to the ARB to request a change in their originally approved project. This permit called for the full removal of the asphalt circle drive, with the exception of the primary drive entrance. A strip of the driveway was left in place to create a front walkway. A concrete walkway was indicated as part of the project but in a different configuration. The change in material and the change in configuration requires ARB review. 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. March 25, 2025