Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA June 21, 2022 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:00 p.m. #1 Consent Agenda A. JL Real Estate – 6521 Mission Road Changes to previously approved project B. Peter & Karen Young – 2209 West 69th Street Replacing various windows on home #2 Tyler & Leigh Nottberg* Changes to previously approved project 3002 West 67th Terrace Continued from June 7th meeting #3 Chad & Angie Lucas Landscape plan and changes to pool design / Pergola 3316 West 69th Street #4 Jerome Torres Replacing existing rear patio 3110 Tomahawk Road #5 Brian & Reagan Wittek New single car garage / Various window changes 6600 Willow Lane #6 Jim Sight * Replacing existing generator 2100 Brookwood Road #7 James Dyer * New fountain proposed 6150 State Line Road #8 Bill Stapp † New outdoor kitchen 2000 West 70th Street #9 Kirk & Stesha Black Two new additions 3012 West 67th Terrace #10 Michael & Katherine Sinatra † New pool / Spa / Driveway gate 2508 West 64th Street #11 Mission Hills Country Club † Replacing 2 tennis courts and bubble / New fence 5400 Mission Drive *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 Consent Agenda A. JL Real Estate 6521 Mission Road JL Real Estate is returning to the ARB to present window changes to their previously approved project. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage of roofed structures: • Existing house and covered porch: 2,988 sf • Proposed Covered Porch: 45 sf • Total lot coverage: 3,033 sf Summary of Project: At the front and sides of the house, they are proposing to replace triple with double double-hung windows. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review: • Lot area: 20,392 sf • House Footprint: 3,033 sf • Driveway/walkways: 2,262 sf • Proposed Patio: 1,040 sf • Remaining Greenspace: 14,057 sf Design Guideline Review: The Design Guidelines recommend that window glazing be clear glass with no more than 10% daylight reduction (tinting). This should be clarified with the owner. There are no other conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(20)/LS-3 Lot Area: 20,376 sf Ordinance Allowable/Required by Ord Proposed Maximum Lot Coverage: 5,232 sf 3,033 sf Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 13,242 sf 14,057 sf = 68.9% 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 Has there been a documented drainage complaint against the property? No June 21, 2022 B. Peter & Karen Young 2209 West 69th Street The Youngs are proposing to replace 17 windows on various sides of their home. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: All of the windows match the existing size and style, with the exception of two. Units 112 and 115 are being changed to picture windows, without muntin bars. This change will make these two 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. June 21, 2022 #2 Tyler & Leigh Nottberg 3002 West 67th Terrace The Nottbergs are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved patio project. The project was continued at the June 7th ARB meeting so an alternate design could be developed. UPDATE: The Nottbergs’ revised proposal is to leave the pavers as-is but replace the artificial turf with 1” Missouri river rock. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The Nottbergs recently failed their final inspection because the patio, as-built, does not match the ARB approved plan. The originally approved plan consisted of a concrete patio with an outdoor fireplace. The fireplace was constructed per the ARB approved plan, but the patio was constructed as pavers divided by artificial turf. The Nottbergs are proposing to modify the existing patio by removing the last two row of pavers. Ordinance Compliance: The project is violation of City Code Section 5-132.B.8(c)i which requires the minimum pile length to be at least 1¾ inches. The proposed pile length is 1 inch. Code Section 5-132.B.8 requires that the material not have more than 150mg/kg of lead using the ASTM F2765 lead test and the infill material be clean silica sand or a zeolite material. These regulations have been met. Design Guideline Review: Section 2.7.3.A on page 106 of the Design Guidelines 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(16)/LS-2 Lot Area: 19,014 sf Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Proposed Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 21’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 10’ at existing patio 20’ 20’ at new patio Minimum Greenspace: 60% (11,408.80 sf) 55.2% (10,505 sf)* *The greenspace area approved with the original patio project was 55.2%. 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* Will the project cause the greenspace to be within 3% of what is recommended by the Design No* Guidelines? Has there been a documented stormwater complaint for this property? Yes *The existing greenspace is currently under the recommended amount for this property. June 21, 2022 #3 Chad & Angie Lucas 3316 West 69th Street The Lucases are returning to the ARB to present their landscape plan and changes to their pool design and a new pergola. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: Edge Summary of Project: The proposed pool has been enlarged and the pool deck configuration has changed. A new wall with fire features is now proposed at the rear of the pool. The proposed pergola is located at the northeast corner of the house, on axis with the swimming pool. It is a simple post-and-beam structure that aligns with the second-floor plate line. 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-3, 4 and 5 properties have a greenspace no less than 65% of the lot area. This recommendation has not been met. Please note the provided greenspace study lists a lot size that differs from what their architect and the City originally used. The calculation below is based on the lot size originally used. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(20)/LS-3 Lot Area: 22,126 sf Lot Width: 100’ Ordinance Allowable/Required by Ord Proposed Maximum Height: 35’ 35’ Minimum Front Yard: 85’ 85’ Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 28.5’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 20.88’ Combined Side Yards: (30%) 30’ 49.38’ Minimum Rear Yard: (20%) 42’ (At closest point) 42’ Minimum Greenspace: 65% =14,382 sf 13,536.7 sf = 61.18%* *Original new house/pool greenspace proposal approved at 65.99%. June 21, 2022 #4 Jerome Torres 3110 Tomahawk Road Mr. Torres is proposing to replace an existing patio, at the rear of his home, with a new larger patio. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed concrete patio is in the rear yard and connects to a larger patio. 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-3, 4 and 5 properties have a greenspace no less than 65% of the lot area. This recommendation has not been met. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(20)/LS-4 Lot Area: 25,464 sf Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Greenspace: 65% =16,551 sf 15,398 sf = 60.5% June 21, 2022 #5 Brian & Reagan Wittek 6600 Willow Lane The Witteks are proposing a new single-car garage at the side of their exiting garage and various window changes. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage Review: • Existing Main Floor: 2,887 sf • Proposed Garage: 251 sf • Total Lot Coverage: 3,138 sf Summary of Project: The proposed garage addition is located next to the existing driveway and inhabits existing driveway area. All materials, detailing and fenestration will match the existing house. The proposed window changes are at the rear of the house. An existing double casement is being enlarge into a triple casement and an existing sliding glass door is being replace with a new swinging door. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review: • Lot area: 16,937 sf • House Footprint: 3,138 sf • Driveway: 3,264 sf • Patios and walkways: 652 sf • Remaining Greenspace: 9,883 sf Design Guideline Review: Section 2.5 on pages 72 through 75 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Suburban character area. Subsection C suggests that side wings, located in conditional building area should have a height up to 1 story and 16 feet with no second-floor dormers that overlook the neighbors. This recommendation has been met. Subsection G suggests that driveways occupy as little of the Primary Landscape Area as possible. On lots wider than 140 feet the driveway should be located off the side property line a distance no less than 8% of the lot width. Circle driveways should have an interior green with a width no less than 80 feet wide, measured at the front property line, and depth of 40 feet measured from the curb. This recommendation has not been met but is an existing condition. Section 2.7.1 D on page 96 recommends that all window muntins on the home be the same pattern and proportion, with few exceptions. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.2 A on page 101 recommends garages be set behind the façade of the main house mass. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.2.B on page 102 recommends drives to be no more than 12 feet wide at the front property line. This recommendation has not been met but is an existing condition. June 21, 2022 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. Please note that the proposed addition takes up existing driveway area, so there is no net change in greenspace from the existing conditions. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16)/LS-2 Lot Area: 16,937 sf Lot Width: 120.0’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ No Change Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 11’-9” (Existing) Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 18’-3” (Proposed) Minimum Combined Side Yards: 25% = 30’ 29’-11” Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 28.25’ No Change Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 10,162 sf 9,883 sf = 58.4% 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? Yes EXCEPT NO STUDY REQUIRED IF: 1) replacing existing impervious surface in approximately same footprint, and Yes 2) project will not decrease existing greenspace on site No Is there a documented drainage issue for this property? *See the Mission Hills website for drainage study requirements – www.missionhillsks.gov *The Architectural Review Board may require the drainage study be submitted before they act on the proposed project June 21, 2022 #6 Jim Sight* 2100 Brookwood Road The Sights are proposing to replace their existing generator in their side yard. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed/existing generator is located in the side yard near the rear of the house. Ordinance Compliance: The proposed project is in violation of City Code Section 5-125.C That requires accessory structures, such as generators, to be a minimum of 10 feet from the side yard property line. Both the existing and proposed generators sit 8 feet from the property line. A variance of 2 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. June 21, 2022 #7 James Dyer * 6150 State Line Road The Dyers are proposing a new fountain at the rear of their property. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed fountain is located in the southwest corner of the property. It consists of a low brick basin with a taller back wall with waterspouts. The whole structure stands 5 feet tall. Ordinance Compliance: The proposed project is in violation of City Code Section 5-121.C that requires accessory structures, such as fountains, to be a minimum of 10 feet from the rear yard property line. The proposed fountain is 5’-11” from the rear property line. A variance of 4’-1” is required. 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 not been met. Greenspace Review: • Lot area 15,525 sf (calculated using property survey) • Existing non-greenspace area 7,650.72 sf • Existing greenspace 7,874.28 sf = 50.72% • Non-greenspace being added 104.89 sf • Remaining greenspace 7,769.39 sf = 50.04% June 21, 2022 #8 Bill Stapp † 2000 West 70th Street The Stapps are proposing a new outdoor kitchen on their existing patio. Outdoor kitchens are substantial construction matters as defined by Code Section 5-103.78 and 5-103.122 and was noticed as such. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed kitchen consists of a stone counter with a stone countertop and a built-in gas grill. 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 21, 2022 #9 Kirk & Stesha Black 3012 West 67th Terrace The Blacks are proposing two new additions at the back of their home. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage Review: Existing Main floor area: 2,577 sf Proposed Addition: 348 sf Total Lot Coverage: 2,925 sf Summary of Project: At the front of the house, a secondary roof ridge will be raised to match the main ridge. At the rear of the house, the Blacks are proposing to extend an existing shed dormer to the edge of the main mass. This change requires the raising of the secondary ridge mentioned above. A second 1-story addition consists of a new rear wing that matches an existing rear wing at the other side of the rear elevation. 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. Greenspace Review: Lot area: 15,467 sf House Footprint: 2,925 sf Driveway Patios and walkways: 2,543 sf Remaining Greenspace: 9,999 sf (64.65%) Design Guideline Review: Section 2.5 on pages 72 through 75 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Suburban character area. Subsection D suggests that rear wings located in the secondary building areas can be up to 1 1/2 stories and 24 feet tall but clearly less than the main mass and no more than 30 feet deep. No more than 2 wings should encroach into the secondary building area. These recommendations have been met. Section 2.7.3.A on page 106 recommends that LS-1 and 2 properties have a greenspace no less than 60% of the lot area. This recommendation has been met. June 21, 2022  Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16) LS-1 Lot Area: 15,467 sf Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ No Change Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ No Change Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ No Change Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 24.8’ 25.0’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 15’ 40’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 15’ 21’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 4,320 sf 2,925 sf Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 9,280 sf 9,999 sf = 64.65% 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 2) project will not decrease existing greenspace on site 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 June 21, 2022 #10 Michael & Katherine Sinatra † 2508 West 64th Street The Sinatras are proposing a new pool, spa, retaining wall and driveway gate. Swimming pools are substantial construction matters and the project was noticed as such. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed pool is located in the rear yard adjacent to their existing driveway. An existing brick patio is being removed to make way for the pool. There is no wet deck proposed at this time. The pool equipment is located at the northeast corner of the house. A low retaining wall is proposed at the rear of the property. This is a segmented concrete block wall to match others on the property. The height of the wall will be less than 2 feet. The driveway gate is located on the left side of the house and will connect to an existing fence. The proposed gate is 6 feet tall. As part of the project, the existing front brick walkway will be removed and there is no indication of replacing it. 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-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(16)/LS-1 Lot Area: 13,886 sf Lot Width: 100’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio/Pool Minimum Side Yard: 15’ 15.1 Patio/Pool Minimum Rear Yard: 15’ 15.8’ Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 8,332 sf 7,701 sf = 55.0%* *Property owners indicated proposed greenspace will be 59%; however, the City’s measurements of the plan indicate it will be 55%. 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 Has there been a documented drainage complaint against the 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. June 21, 2022 #11 Mission Hills Country Club † 5400 Mission Drive The Mission Hills Country Club is proposing to replace two of their existing tennis courts with new courts that include a new seasonal “bubble” structure and a new fence. Sport courts are substantial construction matters and the project was noticed as such. Summary of Project: The proposed courts are located in the same place as the existing, with a few notable changes. The size of the courts will increase by 10 feet on the north and west sides. This increase in size will eliminate the viewing stands on the west side of the courts. A new concrete equipment pad is located on the north side of the courts. Due to the slope of the property, the court will be dug in at the northwest corner and surrounded by a retaining wall on the north and west sides with the grade sloping down to the courts. The surface of the courts is approximately seven feet lower than the existing northwest grade. The courts are approximately 245 feet from the north, 250 feet from the west, and 350 feet from the east property lines. The existing bubble will also be replaced. The proposed bubble is partially opaque, with a translucent skylight at the top. The dome stands 38 feet above the courts. It is inset approximately two feet from the proposed retaining wall to allow for drainage. The proposed replacement fence is a 10-foot tall chain link fence coated with black vinyl. It will encircle the courts and be located outside of the bubble footprint. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: Design guidelines do not apply to the Country Club district. June 21, 2022