Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA July 1, 2025 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:15 p.m. #1 Albert Darling Trust Replacing window / Enclosing screened porch 3417 W 68th Street #2 Daniel Weindling Window and door modifications 2811 W 66th Street #3 James & Melinda Scovell Addition on rear of home 6424 Ensley Lane #4 Dieter & Yassin Trost* Changes to previously approved project 3800 W 65th Street #5 John & Julie Aucar* Shed 2026 W 63rd Street Continued from the 6.3.25 ARB meeting #6 Prescott & Kelly Legard Driveway modifications 6516 Belinder Avenue #7 Andrew Nosti* New home 5509 Mission Drive Continued from the 6.3.25 ARB meeting #8 John & Pam Sutherlin Requesting to be Replace portion of patio / Outdoor kitchen th 2602 W 70 Street continued to 7.15.25 mtg Continued from June 17, 2025 ARB #9 Philip Peterson New front porch / Front door and garage 6926 Belinder Avenue Continued from June 17, 2025 ARB #10 Brett & Angela Sperry Requesting to be Changes to previously approved project 6452 Overbrook Road continued to July 29th mtg Project continued from 6.3.25 *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 Albert Darling 3417 W 68th Street The owners are proposing an interior remodel that includes replacing one window and converting an existing screened porch into living space. 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, a pair of French casement windows will be replaced with a shorter unit. The new unit is at the same head-height. At the existing screened porch, they are proposing to replace all of the screen panels with fixed window units. All of the proposed windows match the rest of the house. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. July 1, 2025 #2 Daniel Weindling 2811 W 66th Street Mr. Weindling is proposing an interior remodel that includes multiple window replacements, a new front door, and the elimination of an existing 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, Mr. Weindling is proposing to replace the existing front door and side lights with a new unit that includes horizontal muntin bars. A pedestrian door, near the garage, will be removed and the opening filled with brick to match the adjacent walls. All of the window replacements are proposed to go back with new units of the same size and style except for one window in the kitchen which will be replaced from a 4’ window to a 6’ wide window. 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 specific recommendations for windows and doors. This section recommends that muntin bars match the style of the house. The only muntin bars in the house will be at the new front door. Discussion is recommended. July 1, 2025 #3 James & Melinda Scovell 6424 Ensley Lane The Scovells are proposing a new addition at the rear of their home. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Traditional Neighborhood • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The existing home has two existing rear wings that form a small courtyard/patio. The Scovells are proposing to in-fill this area with a new flat-roofed addition. Except for the roof, 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 2.4 on pages 68 through 71 provides specific recommendations for the Traditional Neighborhood character area. Subsection D recommends that rear wings should not exceed 24 feet in width. The proposed addition essentially connects the existing rear wings into a single wing that matches the width of main mass. This recommendation has not been met. July 1, 2025 #4 Dieter & Yassin Trost* 3800 W 65th Street The Trosts are returning to the ARB to present changes to their project. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: Hillside Summary of Project: At the October 22, 2024, ARB meeting, the Trosts were approved to install multiple flagstone walkways. During the course of construction, the walkways were reconfigured. They ARB also approved a 6-foot-wide rear access stair that extended 17 feet into the rear yard. As constructed, the stairs are 6 feet wide and extend 27 feet 7 inches into the rear yard. The fence and return on the east (right) side of the house was approved at 4 feet tall. As constructed the fence is 6 feet tall. Ordinance Compliance: The project is in violation of City Code Section 5-135.B.2. which requires 6-foot-tall fences to have a minimum setback of 15 feet from the front yard. A variance of 8 feet is required. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. * A variance is required from the Board of Zoning Appeals July 1, 2025 #5 John & Julie Aucar* 2026 W 63rd Street The Aucars are proposing a new shed at the side of their rear yard. Continued from 6/3/2025 Meeting. The ARB requested a custom design that was more in keeping with the design of the main house. 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 semi pre-manufactured shed at the east side of their rear yard. The design features horizontal wood lap siding and a 8:12 roof pitch to match the house. There is a small sliding glass window added to the front of the shed however, there is no fenestration on the rest of the shed. In the previous meeting, the ARB indicated that the lack of greenspace was an issue. In response, the Aucars are proposing the “north walkway will be reclaimed as green space by covering it with at least 4 inches of topsoil, over an area 6 feet wide by 17 feet long. This area will be planted with seed or sodded with fescue grass to enhance the grassy area of the yard. This will reclaim 102 sq ft of green yard, slightly more than the area lost to the shed (96 sq ft) and require approximately 34 cu ft of topsoil, or 1.2 cu yds.” However, because the pavement would not be removed it would still be impervious and would not qualify as greenspace according to the definition of “greenspace” in the Design Guidelines (pg.106). Ordinance Compliance: 5-121 B. states that detached accessory buildings may be located in the rear yard; provided, that the detached accessory building is located at least 10 feet from the side and rear property lines. The proposed location of the shed is 3 feet from the side property line. A variance of 7 feet is required. 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. Discussion recommended. 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’ July 1, 2025  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% July 1, 2025 #6 Prescott & Kelly Legard 6516 Belinder Avenue The Legards are proposing modifications to their driveway. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: Hillside Summary of Project: The Legards are proposing 2 small additions to their driveway on the interior corners. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: Section 2.7.3.A on page 106 recommends that LS-2, 3 and 4 properties have a greenspace no less than 65% of the lot area. This project decreases the greenspace from 65% greenspace (15,232 sf) to 64.5% greenspace (15,120 sf). This recommendation has not been met. July 1, 2025 #7 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 June.3.2025 meeting so that information about the stability of the retaining wall could be provided. Project continued from 5.20.2025 meeting so more information could be provided regarding the proposed tinted glass and so the mechanical equipment could be relocated a minimum of 10 feet from the side property line. Updated plans have been provided that relocate the mechanical equipment, but no information has been provided regarding the tinted glass. At the 6/3/2025 meeting the ARB requested additional information regarding the northeast retaining wall. 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. July 1, 2025 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. 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% July 1, 2025 Design Guideline Review: Section 2.3 on pages 64 through 67 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Neighborhood Estates character area. Subsection A recommends that the main mass of the house should be no more than 50% of the lot width 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. July 1, 2025 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. 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. July 1, 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 July 1, 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 July 1, 2025 #8 John & Pam Sutherlin 2602 W 70th Street The Sutherlins propose to replace a portion of their existing patio and add an outdoor kitchen. Project continued from 6.17.25 ARB meeting due to lack of representation Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The south end of the existing patio will be replaced with a new smaller patio. The existing steps and connections to the house will remain. The outdoor kitchen is proposed on the central section of the patio. A new section of patio is proposed along the side of the new kitchen. The outdoor kitchen consists of a faux stucco base with a granite countertop. The north end of the kitchen includes a TV shed constructed of the same faux stucco. 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, starting on page 91 of the Design Guidelines, provides general recommendations for accessory structures and materials. This section generally discourages the use of faux materials in favor of natural materials. The proposed outdoor kitchen is constructed of faux stucco instead of real stucco. Discussion is recommended. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 21,491 House Footprint: ` -2,600 Driveway & Sidewalks: -3,009 Existing Patio & Stairs: -847 New Patio & Step: -569 New Paver Addition: -87 New Stone Steppers: -72 Kitchen & Bar: -97 Remaining Greenspace: 14,210 = 66.12% Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16)/LS-3 Lot Area: 21,491 sf Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 28.75’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 25’ Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 12,894 sf 14,210 sf = 66.12% July 1, 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. Project continued from 6.17.25 ARB meeting due to lack of representation 6/25/2025 – The Petersons provided updated drawings. The only significant change is the omission of muntin bars on selected existing windows to match the existing conditions. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: 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. July 1, 2025