Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA June 3, 2025 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:00 p.m. #1 Bryce & Jane Jones Changes to previously approved project 3516 W 64th Street #2 Scott Radecic & Sue Marshall Conversion of screened porch 2802 W 67th Terrace #3 Daniel & Ellen Bolen Generator 6105 High Drive #4 Robert & Diane Johnson Addition to rear of home 2400 Drury Lane #5 Tristan & Timothy Duncan Replacing/modifying addition 6205 Overhill Road #6 Richard & Megan Zahner Addition/Patio/Fireplace 6534 Overbrook Road #7 John & Julie Aucar Shed 2026 W 63rd Street #8 Adam & Jill Tilton Rear wing addition 3800 W 66th Street #9 Philip Peterson New front porch / Front door and garage 6926 Belinder Avenue #10 Brett & Angela Sperry Changes to previously approved project 6452 Overbrook Road Project continued from 5.20.25 #11 Andrew Nosti* New home 5509 Mission Drive Project continued from 5.6.25 *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 Bryce and Jane Jones 3516 W 64th Street The Joneses are proposing changes to their previously approved plans. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: At the front of the house, they are proposing two small ocular windows on each side of the front elevation. 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. June 3, 2025 #2 Scott Radecic & Sue Marshall 2802 W 67th Terrace The Radecic\Marshalls are proposing to convert their existing screened porch into a three-season room. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The existing porch is part of a rear wing with elevations at the rear and side. The screens will be replaced with new windows to match the existing house. At the side of the wing, a new stucco wall is proposed to accommodate a new interior fireplace. 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. June 3, 2025 #3 Daniel & Ellen Bolen 6105 High Drive The Bolens are proposing a new generator at the rear of their detached garage. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed generator will sit at the northeast corner of the detached garage. Landscape screening is also proposed. 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. June 3, 2025 #4 Robert & Diane Johnson 2400 Drury Lane The Johnsons are proposing a small addition at the rear of their home. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The addition is tucked between an existing outdoor kitchen and a screened porch. It projects to match the roof over the outdoor kitchen. All materials, detailing, and fenestration match the existing house. Since the addition is over an existing patio, there is no change to the greenspace area. 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. June 3, 2025 #5 Tristan & Timothy Duncan 6205 Overhill Road The Duncans propose to replace a portion of their second floor with a new addition. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed addition is located in the same location as the existing second floor area. It will extend a few feet to the rear, over an existing rear wing. A new gable roof will be added to match the two existing rear gables. All materials, detailing, and fenestration match the main 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. June 3, 2025 #6 Richard & Megan Zahner 6534 Overbrook Road The Zahners are proposing a small addition to the rear of their home, along with a new patio and outdoor fireplace. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Traditional • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: At the rear of the house, the Zahners proposed to extend an existing rear wing 10 feet into the rear yard. New doors will be added to an existing boxed bay window. The rear of the existing dining room will be extended to the rear approximately 5 feet. The new bluestone patio will replace the existing deck with a significantly smaller footprint. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 12,150 House Footprint: ` -2,379 Driveway and front walkway: -1,060 Proposed Patio: -672 Remaining Greenspace: 8,039 = 66.16% 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: 19,914 sf Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio Minimum Side Yard: 15’ 15’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 15’ 26.5’ Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 7,290 sf 8,039 = 66.16 June 3, 2025 #7 John & Julie Aucar 2026 W 63rd Street The Aucars are proposing a new shed at the side of their rear yard. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The Aucars are proposing a new pre-manufactured shed at the east side of their rear yard. The shed has no fenestration and is sided with T111 siding on all sides. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 15,684 House Footprint: ` -2,605 Circle Driveway: -3,569 Primary Patio and Walkway: -836 Secondary Patio: -608 Proposed Shed: -96 Remaining Greenspace: 7,970 = 50.82% Design Guideline Review: Section 2.72 on page 101 of the Design Guidelines provides recommendations for detached accessory buildings. This section generally suggests that accessory buildings have materials, fenestration, and detailing to match the main house. 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: R-1(25)/LS-1 Lot Area: 15,684 sf Lot Width: 110’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Detached Accessory Building Maximum Height: 24’ <10’ Detached Accessory Building Minimum Side Yard: 10’ 10’ Detached Accessory Building Minimum Rear Yard: 10’ >10’ Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 9,410 sf 7,970 sf = 50.82% June 3, 2025 #8 Adam & Jill Tilton 3800 W 66th Street The Tiltons are proposing a new rear wing addition. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The existing house has two prominent rear wings with a patio between them. The Tiltons propose filling in the space between the two wings and extending into the rear yard. All materials, detailing, and fenestration match the existing house. 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 provides specific recommendations for the suburban character area. Subsection D recommends that rear wings should not exceed 50% of the main mass width. The proposed addition essentially connects the existing rear wings into a single wing that matches the width of main mass. Discussion is recommended. June 3, 2025 #9 Philip Peterson 6926 Belinder Avenue Mr. Peterson is proposing a cosmetic remodel that includes a new front porch, new front dormers, and a third garage door. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: At the front of the house, at the front entry, the existing mansard roof will be removed and replaced with a new hipped roof. Three small arched dormers will be replaced with two larger dormers with hipped roofs. At the right side of the house, a new garage addition is proposed next to the existing garage. The proposed garage has a significantly larger door than the other garage. To accommodate the larger door, the roof has been modified. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: Section 2.7.1.D on page 96 of the Design Guidelines provides recommendations for windows and doors. This section recommends window muntins match the style of the house. The proposed windows are all clear view, while the existing windows all have muntin bars. Discussion is recommended. June 3, 2025 #10 Hold for Sperry 6452 Overbrook Rd June 3, 2025 #11 Andrew Nosti * 5509 Mission Drive Mr. Nosti is proposing a new 3-story home with a 3,938 sq. ft. footprint. The footprint consists of 3,238 sq. ft. of first floor living space, a 700 sq. ft. 2-car garage, and 46 sq. ft. of covered porches. The project includes a 1,220 sq. ft. structured auto court. Project continued from 4.22.25 ARB Meeting where the ARB asked that the main mass depth be decreased by 6 inches, that the driveway width be indicated, a tree inventory be provided, and that the exterior materials be clarified. The depth has decreased, the driveway has been marked at 10 feet, a tree inventory has been provided and addition exterior details have been provided. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Rear • Any Special Conditions: Edge Frontage/Narrow Lot Lot Coverage Review SF Main Floor Living Area: 1,870 Main Floor Garage Area: 721 Covered Porches: 0 Structured Auto court: 1,321 Total Lot Coverage: 3,912 Summary of Project: The proposed home features a modern design with large clear-view windows and multiple interlocking planes. The finish palette includes stucco, porcelain tile, metal, and glass, with sparse detailing in keeping with modern aesthetics. The fenestration is large and purposefully asymmetrical. The lot has a significant vertical grade change, which the home utilizes by incorporating an accessible basement that serves as a secondary garage. The primary garage aligns with the first floor and is accessed via a large auto court that also functions as the roof of the lower-level garage. There is no driveway access to the secondary garage. The auto court doubles as an entry terrace leading to the front yard, and guardrails encircle it due to the drop-off in elevation. The house includes two main levels above the basement level, along with a third floor that leads to a rooftop terrace. This rooftop terrace sits considerably higher than the roofs of adjacent homes and is recessed into an architectural roof form that conceals its edges. An open canopy structure is proposed above the roof terrace. At the front, a small terrace is proposed above the garage, and another is planned for the left side of the main structure, both of which are elevated significantly higher than neighboring properties. At the rear, a small terrace is proposed outside the main structure, aligning with a prominent architectural arch feature. To manage the steep grading and driveway layout, multiple large retaining walls are proposed in the front yard, while smaller terraced retaining walls are planned for the rear yard. Ordinance Compliance: 5-129. Prohibited Uses and Structures section E states: No portion of a yard shall be used as a driveway or for parking unless such portion is paved with concrete, asphalt, or similar substance approved by the ARB. Graveled driveways are prohibited, except as may be authorized for substantial construction matters and concurrent construction projects. Installing grass pavers requires a variance. June 3, 2025 In considering all plans and specifications submitted in connection with a building permit application that includes the construction of a retaining wall, the ARB shall not approve such plans and specifications as to the retaining wall, unless it finds that the requirements set forth in Section 5-146 exist and in considering such findings shall, in addition to other applicable factors, examine the following factors: 1. The height and location of the proposed retaining wall recognizing: (a) That the greater the height of the retaining wall facing an adjoining property or street, the greater the likelihood of an adverse impact on an adjoining property or the neighborhood, particularly if the wall is located in close proximity to an adjoining property or street; (b) Conversely, that the lower the height of the retaining wall facing an adjoining property or street, the less the likelihood of an adverse impact on an adjoining property or the neighborhood; 2. The design and materials of the proposed retaining wall recognizing that design and materials should be in general conformity with the style and design of surrounding structures; 3. The effect of the retaining wall on surface drainage, recognizing that the proposed retaining wall should not cause the surface drainage to change in a manner that would adversely affect surrounding properties; and 4. The purpose for the retaining wall, recognizing: (a) That if the retaining wall is being constructed to retain soil that has been relocated from one part of the property to another part of the property creating a change in the topography or soil brought on the property from offsite, the greater the likelihood of an adverse impact on adjoining property and the neighborhood; (b) That legitimate safety and drainage requirements for a retaining wall may outweigh any negative appearance impact of the retaining wall on the neighborhood; and (c) That alternative solutions may remove or limit the need for a retaining wall. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 19,469 House Footprint: ` -3,912 Concrete Slab at Auto court: -329 Driveway: -1,106 Grass Pave Secondary Driveway: -0 Rear Terrace: -461 Site Stairs: -194 Mechanical Pads: -72 Site Retaining Wall: -403 Remaining Greenspace: 12,992 = 66.73% Design Guideline Review: Section 2.3 on pages 64 through 67 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Neighborhood Estates character area. June 3, 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 46.5 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. The main mass height should be no more than 2 ½ stories and 35 ft. This recommendation has been met. At 3 stories, not including the partially exposed basement, it is 34.9 feet tall. The main mass should be located entirely within the Primary Building Area. The main mass encroaches into the left Conditional Building Area. Given the amorphic shape, typical of modern homes, the main mass is not clearly defined, and the ARB may find its encroachment into the conditional building area acceptable. Discussion is recommended. 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. Only one side wing is proposed at 26 feet wide or 24.8% of the lot width. This recommendation has not 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 that extend in front of or behind the main mass should extend at least 3 ft. past the main mass façade. 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. The proposed lot qualifies as a narrow lot which allows encroachment into the Conditional Building Area. However, the main mass encroaches into the side Conditional Building Area. Discussion is recommended. 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. 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. 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. The garage side wing encroaches into the rear Conditional Building Area. It is a full two stories, but less than 24 feet tall. Discussion is recommended. Because of the extreme elevation change and the street behind the property, there will be no adverse effect to a rear neighbor. 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. 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. June 3, 2025 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. Section 2.6.2 on page 79 provides specific recommendations for adjustments to narrow lots less than 130 ft. wide. This section suggests that the ground floor elevation be elevated no more than necessary above the natural elevation. This recommendation has been met, however, the added auto court terrace does not. This section goes on to suggest that the ARB pay special attention to the relationship between the subject house and the neighboring properties. The proposed plan somewhat relates to the home to the right but is almost 5 ft. taller than the home to the left. The home to the left will be in front of the new Nosti home which gives it a lower elevation due to the property slope. Discussion is recommended. Section 2.6.3.C provides specific recommendations for Edge Frontages. This section calls for more rustic landscaping. This will require further review once the landscape plan is proposed. This section also suggests that driveways on Edge Frontage lots be dark in color and conform to natural terrain. Lastly, this section suggests that driveways be as narrow as possible, between 8 and 11 feet wide. The proposed driveway has not been dimensioned. Discussion is recommended. 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 not been met. Please note 1,321 square feet of the footprint is for the structured slab and front terrace that is on top of the basement garage and therefore is counted as a “roofed structure”. Areas like these are typically slab on grade and not considered part of the footprint. If they are omitted, the footprint is 2,591 sf which is smaller than most of the neighboring homes. 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 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. However, section 2.6.3 is more restrictive. 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. Please note, the rear and side lawns are called out as gravel/lawn. If they are installed as gravel, this will decrease the provided greenspace. Section 2.7.3 D on page 110 provides specific recommendations about altering grade and topography. These recommendations have been met. June 3, 2025 Section 2.7.3 E on page 111 provides specific recommendations for courtyards and terraces. Courtyards and terraces 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 48 inches. Entry posts should be limited to 4 feet tall. The terrace floor height should be within 6 inches of the home’s finished floor. These recommendations have been met. Please note, the structured motor court sits lower than the main terrace and is not considered part of the front terrace. 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: The PRP recommends approval. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16)/LS-3 Lot Area: 19,469 sf Lot Width: 104.6’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ 34.94’ Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 12.5’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 19.8’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: 30% = 31.38’ 32.3’ Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 38.1’ 39.44’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 24.3’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 35.8’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 5,069 sf 3,938 sf Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 12,654 sf 12,992 sf = 66.7% eighbor Comparison Neighbor to Left Proposed Neighbor to Right Primary Eave Height Above 17’ 34.94’ 27.33 Finished Grade: First Floor Elevation: 866 868.67’ 878.66 Top of Foundation Elevation: 866 867.67’ 877.66’ Second Floor Plate Height 847.67 879.76’ Eave Height 883.5 897.94. 897.33 Ridge Height: 894 898.94’ 905.42 June 3, 2025  Site Elements Existing grade at Front Building Line: 864’ Driveway width at Property Line: 10.25’ Driveway width at house. 26’ Circle Drive Interior Green N/A Second Floor Plate Height 11 feet 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 % max Address Lot Area Coverage Ordinance used 5509 Mission Drive 19,469 1,966 5,069 38.78% 5513 E. Mission 30,534 4,028 6,931 58.12% Drive 5519 E. Mission 36,069 2,657 7,781 34.15% Drive 5527 E. Mission 18,839 3,398 4,955 68.58% Drive Average 49.91% 50% Increase 74.86% Allowable LC reduced by 150% Rule = 3,795 5509 Mission Dr Proposed = 3,912 77.2% of City Ordinance Limit 103.1% of Design Guideline Limit June 3, 2025