Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA August 11, 2026 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:00 p.m. #1 Debra Nye & Mary Lyon New windows and doors 2101 W 70th Street #2 Kathleen & Tyler Doehring New second story addition; 2318 W 70th Terrace New dormer window #3 Dan Deckert Remove window; 6451 Sagamore Road Replace door #4 Merrie & David Costello* Rear addition 5910 Oakwood Drive Continued from July 28th meeting #5 Jon & Kelly Lambert Changes to previously approved project 5650 High Drive #6 Nathan & Carissa Crocker† New pool, pool house & patio 6430 Belinder Circle #7 Kami Bremyer & John Vaglio Home modifications/addition; 6130 Mission Drive Two new detached accessory buildings * Variance required † 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 Debra Nye & Mary Lyon 2101 W 70th Street The owners are proposing to replace multiple windows and doors on the home. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: Some of the units will change from having muntins to clear-view. The front door will change from clear- view to have muntins. 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 on page 96 of the Design Guidelines provides recommendations for doors and windows. It states, “Windows on homes of a traditional architectural style should be simulated divided light with applied muntins at the exterior, at the insulated air space, and at the interior. All muntins on the home should be the same pattern and proportion, with few exceptions, such as allowing replacement windows to match the windows being replaced, or allowing new or replacement windows to at least match the majority of windows on that side of the home.” Some of the units will change from having muntins to be clear-view. August 11, 2026  #2 Kathleen & Tyler Doehring 2318 W 70th Terrace The Doehrings are proposing to add a dormer window to the front of the home and add a second story addition on the rear of the home. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: Narrow Lot Summary of Project: The proposed dormer is on the left side of the front façade and is a different side/proportion than the existing dormers on the front of the main mass. The rear addition raises the existing flat roof approximately 2.5 ft. and expands the flat roof area. This is lower than the highest ridge of the home. A portion of the second story addition will protrude out from the main part of the addition. The addition is located in the primary building area and will be approximately 22 ft. tall. 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 page 74 recommends that wings located in the primary building area not be taller than 24 feet. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.1 on page 96 of the Design Guidelines provides recommendations for doors and windows. It states, “Windows on homes of a traditional architectural style should be simulated divided light with applied muntins at the exterior, at the insulated air space, and at the interior. All muntins on the home should be the same pattern and proportion, with few exceptions, such as allowing replacement windows to match the windows being replaced, or allowing new or replacement windows to at least match the majority of windows on that side of the home.” The window muntins on the new front dormer are a slightly different proportion than the other second floor windows but they are more vertical which matches the windows below it on the first floor. The new window muntins on the rear addition are a vertical proportion. The existing windows on the rear of the home are different proportions. August 11, 2026  #3 Dan Deckert 6451 Sagamore Road As part of an interior remodel, Mr. Deckert is proposing to remove a small horizontal window and replace a solid door with sliding glass doors. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Traditional • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side (corner lot) • Any Special Frontages: Narrow Lot Summary of Project: A horizontal window on the north elevation close to the garage will be removed. A solid pedestrian door next to the garage doors will be replaced with a pair of sliding glass doors. 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 with Design Guidelines. August 11, 2026  #4 Merrie & David Costello* 5910 Oakwood Road The Costellos’ ARB approval for a rear addition expired on July 15, 2026. They are returning to the ARB for a new approval and with a change to the location of the chimney. Continue from July 28th meeting. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: At the July 15, 2025, ARB meeting, the ARB approved an addition at the rear of the Costello’s home. The original approval had a fireplace centered on the rear gable with windows flanking each side. They are now proposing to place the fireplace off-center with smaller flanking windows. Ordinance Compliance: The variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals expired on July 29, 2026. The Costellos will need to receive a new variance from the BZA. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. *Variance required. August 11, 2026  #5 Jon & Kelly Lambert 5650 High Drive The Lamberts are proposing changes to their new house project. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: Hillside Summary of Project: The owners are proposing to reduce the size of their pool and pool deck and add lawn to either side of the front landing and walkway. They are also proposing to replace the approved 6 ft. wall along the south property line with a 2 ft. tall masonry wall with a 4 ft. iron fence on top. The stone will match the stone on the home. A previously approved masonry return wall (south side) will now be a 6 ft. pre- approved iron fence instead. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed changes and the Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: The Design Guidelines recommend that for a property of this size, 70% of the lot area should be greenspace. This recommendation has been met. Greenspace Review ORIGINAL PROPOSED Lot Area: 47,978 sf House Footprint: -6,345 sf 6,345 Driveway, Walkways, Patios, pool 7,471 sf 6,708 Remaining Greenspace: 34,162 sf 34,924.7 (71.2%) (72.8%) August 11, 2026 #6 Nathan & Carissa Crocker† 6430 Belinder Avenue The Crockers are proposing a new pool, pool house, and patio modification in their rear yard. The original submittal was presented in February 2026. In response to comments at the ARB meeting, the Crockers made revisions to the proposal that increased greenspace to meet the Design Guideline recommendation, moved the pool house to the south 6 ft. to make a 16 ft. setback, lowered the roof ridge and eave height of the pool house, lowered the chimney height, windows on the north elevation were repositioned, and a 6 ft. wide planting bed was proposed along the north property line. At the March 10th meeting, the ARB requested that the Crockers reduce the length of the pool house – it was proposed at 38’8”. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage Review SF Main Floor Living Area: 3,311 Proposed Pool House: 606 Total Lot Coverage: 3,917 Summary of Project: The proposed 30 ft. X 21 ft. pool house is located in the northwest corner of the rear yard. It has a gabled roof with painted hardboard shingles. All materials, detailing, and fenestration match the main house. A small patio is provided on the south side of the pool house. The pool equipment is located on the west side and screened with a 4-foot-tall wood fence. The proposed pool is located to the south of the pool house and does not include any decking beyond the coping cap. The project also includes new fence returns on both sides of the house. It will be a pre-approved picket-style painted wood fence. Dense landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the yard. A large portion of the driveway, and a large portion of the rear patio has been removed to make way for more greenspace. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. August 11, 2026  Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 21,140 House: -3,311 Driveway: -1,808 Front Walkway & Stoop: -180 New Rear Patio: -553 New Rear Walkways: -186 New Pool House: -606 New Pool House Open Porch: -79 New Pool -544 New Pool Equipment: -54 Remaining Greenspace: 13,819 = 65.37% Design Guideline Review: Section 2.7.3.A recommends that LS-3 properties have a greenspace total no less than 65% of the lot area. This recommendation has been met. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(20)/LS-3 Lot Area: 21,140 SF Lot Width: 141’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Pool/Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ >50’ Pool/Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 31’ Accessory Building Height: 15’-10” (ridge) 24’ 8’9” (eave) Accessory Building Minimum Side Yard Setback: 10’ 16’’ Accessory Building Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 10’ 16’-8” Maximum Lot Coverage: 5,368 SF/4,695 SF DG 3,917 SF Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 13,741 SF 13,819 SF = 65.4% † Substantial Construction August 11, 2026 #7 Kami Bremyer & John Vaglio 6130 Mission Drive The owners are proposing an addition to the front of the home and adding two detached accessory buildings. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side (corner lot) • Any Special Frontages: Creekside Lot Coverage Review EXIST PROPOSED House Footprint 2,139.4 sf 2,587.2 sf Detached Garage Footprint: 498.8 sf 503 sf Studio -- 712 sf Total Lot Coverage: 2,738.2 sf 3,805.2 sf Summary of Project: The existing detached garage and some hardscape will be removed (shown in red on sheet LA 102). A new single-car detached garage and studio will be added in the rear yard. Two private courtyards will be added between the detached garage and the studio, and a third courtyard will be added to the northwest side of the new studio. A crushed stone walkway will be added connecting one of the courtyards to the main house patio behind the home. An existing stone walkway at the rear of the home will be extended along the new reconfigured concrete drive. AC units will be moved from the west side of the home to the front of the home. A 3-story addition will be added to the front façade. The addition will tie into the existing front turret and existing front wing screened porch. The turret roof and the roof over the front wing will be removed and replaced with new slate roofs to match the existing house. The front addition includes a large 2-story box bay window that sits on a stone archway. The window extension will have a relatively flat copper roof. Similarly, there is a dormer at the top of the new addition that is entirely clad in copper siding and roofing. The existing front door, located in the turret, will be closed in. The front wing eave height is being raised and the roof reoriented. New pilasters are proposed at the corners of the screened porch wing. A small, copper-clad dormer is proposed in the new roof. At the right (north) side of the house, you can see the new gabled end sided with wood planks. At the left (south) side of the house, they propose rebuilding the existing side porch. A new stone wall with an archway is proposed in front of the existing garage door. The roof structure will be replaced with a new copper roof supported by brackets. New railings are proposed at the existing porch stairs. A second-floor wall dormer will be removed and replaced with a much smaller copper-clad dormer. At the rear of the house, a new large boxed-bay window is proposed opposite the bay window on the front of the house. The configuration is similar; however, this side includes doors accessing the existing courtyard patio. A projecting planter separates the first-floor doors from the second-floor windows. The attic dormer will be replaced with a shorter but wider, new dormer that will be clad with copper. A similar dormer will replace an existing dormer at the south rear wing. The first-floor window in the south wing will be replaced with a wider unit. August 11, 2026 The proposed detached garage is 1-story and is proposed to cut into the existing landscape. The eave height at the single garage door is just under the 10-foot maximum height, and the side eaves extend out further are only 7 feet above the garage floor. With the change in topography, sections of the side eaves are only 2 feet or less above grade. The garage is sided entirely with brick and has a slate roof to match the main house. The all-brick detached studio building has two major components. The first is a tall gabled structure that has a Jacobean-style stone façade and parapet at the front (east) side. This section includes a stone fireplace at the rear. The second part of the building is a more contemporary structure with large expanses of glass and a green roof. The stone and brick materials are maintained throughout and tie the structure together. Two private courtyards are created at the detached accessory buildings by using low stone walls. Due to the site configuration, the visibility of both accessory buildings is greatly reduced by topography, site walls and landscaping. Ordinance Compliance: While accessory structures, such as A/C units are not allowed in the front yard, the proposed units are technically located in the side yard and are well screened with landscaping. There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 39,433 Existing Greenspace 32,210.5 (81.7%) Proposed Greenspace 29,343.8 (74.4%) 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. This section goes on to recommend that the depth of the main mass should not exceed 40 ft. With the modifications, the main mass is approximately 30 feet wide and 30 feet deep. The main mass height should be no more than 2 ½ stories and 35 ft. At 39’-5” tall this recommendation has been met, but this is an existing condition that includes a basement level. The main mass should be located entirely within the Primary Building Area. Also, “With few exceptions, the main mass should be the tallest, widest and most highly visible massing element of the home. The picturesque massing of this house lends itself to rambling configuration. 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 E recommends that detached accessory buildings located in the Secondary Building Area should have a height of no more than 2 stories and 24 ft. with a maximum area of 720 sq. ft. Accessory buildings located in the Conditional Building or Primary Landscape Areas are limited to 1 story with 10- ft. maximum eave heights with a maximum area of 720 sq. ft. if allowed under Section 2.6.4 (pg. 88). There should be no more than 2 detached accessory buildings per lot. These recommendations have been met. August 11, 2026 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. 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. These recommendations have been met. Section 2.6.3.C. on page 86 provides specific recommendations for Creekside frontages. This section recommends that landscaping be kept “natural” and be limited to no more than a lawn. The section goes on with recommendations for driveways. There are no driveways proposed on the Creekside portion of the property and the existing landscape is to remain. 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. The majority of the house has only one roof pitch with the exception of flat roofs and low-slope dormers. 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. There are no changes proposed to the existing drive approaches. 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. August 11, 2026 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. 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(20)/LS-5 Lot Area: 39,433 sf Lot Width: 146.63’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ No Change Minimum Side Yard (Left): 15% = 42’ 58.0’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 15% = 42’ 57’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: N/A Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 30% = 181.5’ >370’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ No Change Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ No Change Accessory Building Height: 17.3’ (Garage) 24’ 23.0’ (Studio) Accessory Building Minimum Side Yard Setback: 34.7’ (Garage) 10’ 18.3’ (Studio) Accessory Building Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 160.0’ (Garage) 10’ 24.6’ (Studio) Accessory Building Max Area: 503 sf (Garage) 720 sf 715 sf (Studio) Maximum Lot Coverage: 2,738.2 sf 3,805.2 sf Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 25,631 sf 29,343.8 = 74.4% Existing Lot Address Lot Area LC by Ordinance % max used Coverage 6130 Mission Dr 39,433 3,019 8,279 36.47% 6120 Mission Dr 28,097 3,251 6,541 49.70% 6131 Mission Dr 25,487 4,006 6,113 65.54% 6140 High Dr 28,211 4,399 6,560 67.06% Average 54.69% 50% Increase 82.04% Allowable LC reduced by 150% Rule = 6,792 6130 Mission Dr Proposed = 3,805 58.0% of City Ordinance Limit 56.0% of Design Guideline Limit August 11, 2026 #8 Chris & Kristine Schoemann 6536 High Drive The Schoemanns are proposing a new second-floor addition over their garage and a single-story addition behind the garage. They are also proposing a rear covered patio and large open patio. Continued from the July 28th meeting so that changes could be made. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Traditional Neighborhood • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage Review SF Existing House: 1,863 Rear Addition: 260 Total Lot Coverage: 2,123 Summary of Project: The second-floor addition over the garage is proposed to be set back from the face of the garage. This allows for an eyebrow roof to be maintained over the doors. The depth of the addition is relatively shallow. The addition at the rear of the garage aligns with the side of the garage and extends to align with an existing rear wing. The addition has a flat roof that will be an accessible roof deck. Since the addition is on a wing, it does not affect the visibility of the main mass of the house. The proposed covered porch is a simple shed roof supported by columns and pilasters at the back of a rear wing. New French doors are proposed to replace an existing window. A new second floor window is proposed over the new porch. An existing bay window is being removed, and a new extension with French doors is proposed with an eyebrow roof. The brick patio is proposed to replace a smaller brick patio in the same area. To the side of the garage, a new bin storage shed is proposed. It is constructed to match the house with three large doors for access. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 12,888 Lot Coverage: -2,123 Driveway & Walkway: -1,035 Rear Addition: -260 Covered Porch: -112 New Patio: -600 Bin Shed: -42 Remaining Greenspace: 8,716 = 67.63% August 11, 2026 Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(10)/ LS-1 Lot Area: 12,888 sf Lot Width: 98.0’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ 23’-10” (At addition) Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 5’-5” (Existing) Minimum Side Yard (Right): 19’-2” (House) 10’ 15’-2” (Shed) Minimum Combined Side Yards: 25% = 24.5’ 29’-3” Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 27.0’ 43’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 15’ 15’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 15’ 38’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 11,385 sf 7,173 sf Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 7,732 sf 8,716 sf = 67.63% 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 Yes 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. August 11, 2026 #9 Richard & Mary Sloss * 6646 Wenonga Terrace The Slosses are proposing to replace the wood fence along the rear and side of their property. Continued from the July 28th meeting so that a survey locating the trees and the City Arborist’s review of the trees could be provided. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: Corner Lot Summary of Project: The proposed rear fence will bridge the gap between their neighbor’s rear fence and the Slosses’ side fence. The gap was formed when the BZA denied a variance for the neighbor’s fence (installed without a building permit) in approximately the same location. The Slosses propose to inset the fence 3 inches. The side fence that currently runs along Tomahawk Road was installed in a location not approved by the ARB or the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ordinance Compliance: The new fences are/will be in violation of a platted setback. A variance of 30 feet is required. The fences are also in violation of City Code Section 5-135.D.1 which requires that a solid fence extend no further from the principal building than 30% of the distance from the street (back of curb) to the point of the principal building that is closest to the street, and be no taller than 5 ft. A variance of 18 ft. is required for the location, and a variance of 1 ft. is required for the height. Design Guideline Review: Section 2.7.3.C on page 109 of the Design Guidelines recommends that fences be located behind platted setbacks in conformance with the Mission Hills Zoning ordinances. This recommendation has not been met. * Variances are required from the Board of Zoning Appeals August 11, 2026