Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA March 26, 2024 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:00 p.m. #1 Andrew & Kara Harmon Replacing existing pergola and decking 6745 Belinder Ave #2 Kansas City Country Club New restroom accessory building 6200 Indian Lane #3 Brooks & Amy Pierce Replacing existing driveway 6333 Verona Road Project continued from Feb 13th mtg #4 David Case Window and door modifications 6521 Sagamore Road #5 Anthony & Jordan Grieff WITHDREW Window replacements 5550 State Line Road #6 Mark Eisemann & Leslie Mark New side stoop / Retaining walls 2900 W 68th Street #7 Tony & Liz Krsnich* Rebuild existing attached garage / Replace windows 2315 W 65th Street and doors / Add rear pergola #8 Robert McGannon Replace existing patio 2303 W 69th Terrace Continued from March 12th ARB mtg #9 William & Mary Beth Zollars† Outdoor kitchen / Pool / Hot tub/ Expand patio 6130 Ensley Lane Continued from March 12th ARB mtg #10 Jon & Kelly Lambert† New Home / Swimming pool 5650 High Drive *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 Andrew & Kara Harmon 6745 Belinder Avenue The Harmons are proposing to replace their existing pergola and decking material. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The Harmons are proposing to replace the decking of all the various porches and decks around the house with new wood decking. Minor modifications to reconfigure stairs are proposed with the replacement. They are also proposing to replace the existing wood pergola with a new steel/fabric pergola. 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 Code of Ordinances. March 26, 2024 #2 Kansas City Country Club 6200 Indian Lane The Club is proposing a new restroom accessory building near the #14 tee box. Summary of Project: The proposed building is a simple structure with a gabled roof. It is sided entirely with lap siding. The only fenestration is on the front elevation which is limited to the restroom doors and an alcove for a water station. The front elevation also features a shallow porch supported by a colonnade. Due to the existing grade, a new stone retaining wall is proposed to encircle the back of the building with the building on the low side of the wall. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: The Design Guideline do not apply to the country club districts. March 26, 2024 #3 Brooks & Amy Pierce 6333 Verona Road The Pierces are proposing to replace their existing driveway. At the owner’s request, this project was continued at the February 13th ARB meeting. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The Pierces are proposing that the garage access drive be replaced with a new concrete drive in the same configuration. The circle drive will also be replaced with concrete, but the width is proposed to be reduced to 14 feet wide. As part of the project, the Pierces are proposing to remove the short brick courtyard walls and paver area at the front of the house along with the walkway connecting to the lower driveway. The stone wall at the west side of the house is to be replaced with a shorter stone wall to match the wall at the south side of the garage door. 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. The proposed changes increase the greenspace from 63.3% to approximately 66%. This recommendation has been met. March 26, 2024 #4 David Case 6521 Sagamore Road Mr. Case is proposing multiple window and door modifications. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Traditional Neighborhood • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: At the right side of the house, Mr. Case is proposing to convert an existing second floor door into a window. He is are also proposing to remove an existing second floor window near the front door. At the back of the house, two new basement windows are proposed. 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 doors and windows. This section recommends that windows match the style of the home’s existing windows. The majority of the home’s windows are double-hung with colonial-style muntins. The proposed basement windows are both clear-view casement windows. No information has been provided for the new second floor window. This recommendation has not been met. March 26, 2024 #5 Anthony & Jordan Grieff WITHDREW 5550 State Line Road The Grieffs are proposing multiple window replacements. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: All of the proposed windows match the size of the existing ones, but the mullions are being changed from having interior and exterior muntins to only having interior 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.D on page 96 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for doors and windows. This section recommends that windows match the style of the home’s existing windows. Most of the home’s existing windows have muntins at the exterior, the ones proposed do not. This recommendation has not been met. March 26, 2024 #6 Mark Eisemann & Leslie Mark 2900 W 68th Street The Eisemann and Mark household is proposing a new side stoop and multiple retaining walls. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Traditional Neighborhood • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The east side of the property abuts a creek. In an effort to minimize erosion on that side of their home, they are proposing to rebuild a retaining wall in the side yard. The wall is to be constructed of dove-gray limestone to replace the existing modular retaining wall that exists. The new dove grey stone wall will be constructed a number of feet further east from its existing location as shown on the plans. The existing modular retaining wall blocks will be removed and re-used further north in the backyard in an area not readily visible as shown on the plans. At the side of the house, a small wood stoop/porch is proposed to be replaced with a new stoop constructed of composite decking. 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.C on page 109 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for garden walls. This section discourages the use of modular block walls and favors stone walls. If a new modular block wall is proposed, this recommendation has not been met. March 26, 2024 #7 Tony & Liz Krsnich* 2315 W 65th Street The Krsnichs are proposing to demolish and rebuild their existing attached garage, replace existing windows/door. and add a new rear pergola. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: Intersection Green Lot Coverage Review SF Main Floor Living Area: 1,539 Main Floor Garage Area: 735 Covered Porches: 0 Detached Accessory Buildings: 0 Total Lot Coverage: 2,274 Summary of Project: The Krsnichs have a unique lot in the fact that although it appears to be a corner lot, there is a triangle piece of property, labeled Tract A, along the east side that has not been platted to be a part of the property with the home. This skews the side setbacks and greenspace areas since this 2,888 sf parcel of land is not considered part of their property. The Krsnichs are proposing to replace their existing single-story 2-car garage with a new 1 ½ story, 2-car garage with a slightly larger footprint. In addition to the new garage, the Krsnichs are proposing to replace two windows and a sliding glass door at the rear of their home. All proposed materials, detailing and fenestration matches the main house. The proposed pergola is a simple post-and-beam structure that stands approximately 10 feet above the existing patio. A new outdoor kitchen is proposed at the end of the pergola. It consists of a stone wall to match an existing stone landscape wall. Ordinance Compliance: The project is in violation of Code Section 5-120 that requires the combined side yards of LS-1 and LS-2 lots tp be a minimum of 25% of the lot width. A variance of 13 feet is required. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 12,942 House Footprint: -2,274 Window Wells: -36 Driveway & Walkway: -2,231 Patios & Walkways: -343 Walls & Steps -97 Existing Putting Green -556 Remaining Greenspace: 7,405 * A variance is required March 26, 2024 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 recommends that side wings be inset a minimum of 3 ft. from the front and rear facades of the main mass. This recommendation has been met. The width of side wings should not exceed 20% of the lot width. For this lot, side wings should be limited to 20 feet wide. The proposed wing is a compound wing that extends a total of 37 feet. This recommendation has not been met. Side wings located in the Conditional Building Area are allowed if they meet the special conditions in Section 2.6.4 (pg. 88). Only one is allowed. If allowed, the height is limited to 1 story and 16 ft. and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. Side wings in the Conditional Building Area should contain no second floor or dormer windows that overlook the neighbors. The proposed side wing contains a large dormer and extends into the Conditional Building Area. These recommendations have not been met. 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. The proposed addition includes a large dormer. This recommendation has not 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 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: LS-1 Lot Area: 12,942 sf Lot Width: 100’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 2’ (Existing) 27’ with Tract A Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 10’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: 25% = 25’ 12’ 37’ with Tract A Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 25.9’ 41.7’ (Existing) Maximum Lot Coverage: 4,430 sf 2,274 sf Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 7,765 sf 7,405 sf = 57.2% Drainage Study Required if any answer below is “Yes” Yes/No Is the project adding 1,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface? Yes Will the project cause the greenspace to be less than recommended by the Design Guidelines? EXCEPT NO STUDY REQUIRED IF: 1) replacing existing impervious surface in approximately same footprint, and No 2) project will not decrease existing greenspace on site No Is there a documented drainage issue for this property? No *See the Mission Hills website for drainage study requirements – www.missionhillsks.gov *The Architectural Review Board may require the drainage study be submitted before they act on the proposed project. March 26, 2024 #8 Robert McGannon 2303 W 69th Ter Mr. McGannon is proposing to replace his existing patio in the same location. Mr. McGannon was continued from the March 12th meeting. Note, a boundary pin survey has not been provided. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed freeform patio is located at the center of the rear yard. Mr. McGannon is requesting the option to remove a small existing wood deck and replace it with a patio. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review: Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 22,516 House Footprint: -4,497 Driveway & Walkway: -3,520 Front Court: -380 Rear Stoop: -92 Rear Patio: -1,083 Various walls -35 Remaining Greenspace: 12,909 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. At 57.3% this recommendation has not been met. March 26, 2024 #9 William & Mary Beth Zollars † 6130 Ensley Lane The Zollars were continued from the March 12th meeting. The Zollars are proposing an outdoor kitchen, new pool, hot tub and expanded patio. This project is considered a substantial construction project and was noticed as such. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: Intersection Green (Verona Columns) Summary of Project: One September 5, 2023, the ARB approved a rear wing addition to the Zollars home. The plan, at that time, showed a new pool, patio, and hot tub that were being deferred to a later date. The Zollars are now proposing those additions. The proposed outdoor kitchen is located on a new patio to the west of the recently modified rear wing. It consists of a stone base with a built-in grill. The pool and hot tub are located in a new patio to the east of the modified rear wing. The patio steps down with the topography creating a low seat wall around the pool. The new walkway and stairs will connect the new patio down to the existing driveway. 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. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(30)/LS-5 Lot Area: 36,784 Lot Width: Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 20’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 20’ Minimum Greenspace: 70% = 25,748 sf 27,050 = 73.5% March 26, 2024 #10 Jon & Kelly Lambert † 5650 High Drive The Lamberts are proposing a new 2-story home with a 6,460 sq. ft. footprint. The footprint consists of 4,851 sq. ft. of first-floor living space, an 860 sq. ft. 3-car garage, and 749 sq. ft. of covered porches. The project includes a swimming pool. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: Hillside Lot Coverage Review SF Main Floor Living Area: 4,838 Main Floor Garage Area: 860 Covered Porches: 647 Detached Accessory Buildings: 0 Total Lot Coverage: 6,345 Summary of Project: The proposed home is a traditional French Revival design. The siding is a combination of stone at the main mass, and stucco at the wings. The windows all feature stone headers. Additional wood trim is proposed at several windows as various accent pieces. Iron railings are proposed at the front roof deck, Juliet balconies, and over the front entry. Thirty-inch-tall stone walls form a courtyard at the front of the house. The fenestration is a combination of fixed and casement windows with simple horizontal muntins in the transoms. The window style/layout stays consistent at all elevations. The roof employs composition shingles with large areas of flat roofs. The rear of the house features a large, covered porch positioned between two single-story rear wings. The rear yard has a series of terraces that step down with the grade of the rear yard. The lowest tier features the proposed pool. A new 4 to 5-foot-tall iron fence encircles the rear yard. A portion of the fence, on the north side, sits adjacent to a neighbor's stone wall. The fence wall combination is not more than 7 feet tall. The proposed driveway is a direct drive with a large hammerhead parking area near the front of the house. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 47,978 House Footprint: -6,345 Driveway: -3,796 Front Walkway: -369 Patios & Walkways: -3,306 Remaining Greenspace: 34,162 Design Guideline Review: Section 2.3 on pages 64 through 67 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Neighborhood Estates character area. March 26, 2024 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 49 ft. this recommendation has been met. This section goes on to recommend that the depth of the main mass should not exceed 40 ft. At 45 ft. deep, this recommendation has not been met. The main mass height should be no more than 2 ½ stories and 35 ft. At 34’-6” this recommendation has been met. The main mass should be located entirely within the Primary Building Area. This recommendation has been met. Also, “With few exceptions, the main mass should be the tallest, widest and most highly visible massing element of the home. A minimum of 50% of the front facade should be visible from the street. Front projections such as porches, stoops, bay windows and chimneys that are 6 ft. deep or less are considered part of the visible main mass front facade. Front porches deeper than 6 ft. that are 75% open on the street- facing side are considered part of the visible main mass front facade.” These recommendations have been met. Subsection 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. Exceptions are large front gables on Tudor homes and other central entry projections that are common on styles such as Mediterranean Revival, French Country, and Craftsman; and for "Gable-Front-and-Wing" style of homes where a single gabled-wing is added to one end of the front of the home. The location should be near the front building line. There should be no more than two. If a forecourt is formed between two wings, the forecourt width should be at least 20 ft. 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. The proposed north wing is a compound wing that extends beyond the 30% recommendation. Discussion is recommended. 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. They should have a depth and height clearly less than the main mass. Side wings located in the Conditional Building Area are allowed if they meet the special conditions in Section 2.6.4 (pg. 88). If allowed, the height is limited to 1 ½ stories or 24 feet and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. The proposed lot is an LS-6 lot which sets the minimum side yard setback equal to the secondary building area. As such, the conditional building area in the side yard is eliminated. These recommendations have been met. Subsection D recommends that rear wings located in the Primary or Secondary Building Areas be no more than 2 stories and 30 ft. tall and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. Rear wings should have a width clearly less than the main mass and should not exceed 50% of the main mass width. 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 depth of the house is within the primary building area. 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. This recommendation has been met. March 26, 2024 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. A driveway setback of 12 feet is recommended for this lot. A setback of 13.5 feet has been provided at the front property line. This setback slowly decreases to 3 feet at the garage auto court. Discussion is recommended. 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. The compound wing at the rear of the garage does not fall into the conventional compound wing description. Discussion and interpretation is required. New 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. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.6.4 on page 89 of the Design Guidelines provides recommendations for lot coverage. The section recommends that lot coverage be limited and should not exceed an increase of 50% over the average percentage maximum lot coverage that is being used by the neighboring properties. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.6.4.A on page 89 discourages overbuilding by recommending that homes avoid reaching more than 2 minimum/maximum setbacks or limits. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.1 B on page 94 recommends that the number of different roof pitches should be limited to two. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.1.C on page 95 provides specific recommendations for projecting elements. 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. Section 2.7.3.A on page 106 recommends LS-6 and 7 properties have a greenspace no less than 70% of the lot area. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.3 D on page 110 provides specific recommendations about altering grade and topography. No significant grading has been proposed. Section 2.7.3 E on page 111 provides specific recommendations for courtyards. Courtyards 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 36 inches. Entry posts should be limited to 4 feet tall. These recommendations have been met. Section 2.7.3 E on page 111 provides specific recommendations for Patios and Outdoor Recreational Facilities. This section recommends that these elements follow the Zoning Regulations to help mitigate water runoff and minimize noise from entertainment areas. These recommendations have been met. March 26, 2024 Design Guidelines supplement dated June 14, 2021, recommends that hammer heads, located in the front yard, be limited to no more than 10 feet by 20 feet. The proposed hammerhead is 24 feet by 24 feet. This recommendation has not been met. PRP Recommendation: The PRP recommends approval with changes (see the PRP meeting summary). Lot Information Zoning: R-1(E-1)/LS-6 Lot Area: 47,978 SF Lot Width: 150’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ 34.5’ Minimum Side Yard (Left): 15% = 22.5’ 22.8’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 15% = 22.5’ 28.3’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: N/A N/A Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 30% = 95.1’ 98.0’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 34.4’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 33.2’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 9,488 SF 6,345 SF Minimum Greenspace: 70% = 33,585 SF 34,162 SF = 71.2% Neighbor Comparison Neighbor to Left Proposed Neighbor to Right Primary Eave Height Above 21.5’ Finished Grade: First Floor Elevation: 941.3 934.0 930.15 Top of Foundation Elevation: 933.6 Second Floor Plate Height Eave Height 960.0’ 942.5 957.0? Ridge Height: 968.0’ 967.5 / 34.5 ft 957.0 Site Elements Driveway width at Property Line: 11.4’ Drainage Study Required if any answer below is “Yes” Yes/No Is the project adding 1,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface? Yes Will the project cause the greenspace to be less than recommended by the Design Guidelines? No EXCEPT NO STUDY REQUIRED IF: 1) replacing existing impervious surface in approximately same footprint, and No 2) project will not decrease existing greenspace on site No Is there a documented drainage issue for this property? No *See the Mission Hills website for drainage study requirements – www.missionhillsks.gov *The Architectural Review Board may require the drainage study be submitted before they act on the proposed project. March 26, 2024  Existing Lot Address Lot Area LC by Ordinance % max used Coverage 5650 High Drive 47,978 3,454 9,488 36.4% 5620 High Drive 48,682 4,003 9,584 41.8% 5630 High Drive 66,043 6,073 11,847 51.3% 5720 High Drive 41,321 4,727 8,552 55.3% 5701 Oakwood Rd 73,317 4,058 12,740 31.9% 5705 Oakwood Rd 56,802 5,925 10,669 55.5% Average 45.3% 50% Increase 68.0% 5650 High Drive 47,978 Proposed: 6,345 9,488 66.9% Recommended Lot Coverage as reduced by 150% Rule: 6,454 98.3% March 26, 2024