Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA July 30, 2024 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:30 p.m. #1 Kathleen & Drew Komenda Changes to previously approved project 5901 Oakwood Road #2 Michael Ebeid & Kira Gould Driveway replacement 6417 Verona Road #3 Kansas City Country Club Relocating greens fans 6200 Indian Lane #4 Kansas City Country Club Reconfigure cart paths 6200 Indian Lane #5 Adam & Angela Thomas New detached garage 6701 Belinder Avenue Continued from July 16th ARB mtg *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 Drew & Kathleen Komenda 5901 Oakwood Road The Komendas are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved project. They are proposing a new roof and stoop at an existing side door. 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: 2,703 New Porte Cochere: 256 Existing Detached Garage: 885 New Pool house: 718 New Covered Porch: 45 Total Lot Coverage: 4,607 Summary of Project: On October 31, 2023, the Komendas had a porte-cochere, pool, and pool house approved. They are now proposing a stoop and covered porch at the side of the house near the previously approved porte-cochere. The new porch is detailed to match. The stoop and porch are over the existing hardscape area, so there is no change in the greenspace calculation. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 39,692 House Footprint: -4,607 Driveway & Front Walk: -5,434 Pool, Patios & Walkways: -3,447 Remaining Greenspace: 26,204 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 been met. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(25)/LS-5 Lot Area: 39,692 SF Lot Width: 189’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Lot Coverage: 8,317 SF 4,562 SF Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 25,800 SF 26,204 SF = 66.0% July 30, 2024 #2 Michael Ebeid & Kira Gould 6417 Verona Road The Ebeid household is proposing to replace their driveway with a configuration similar to the existing. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The existing driveway is 16’-6” wide at the property line. They will be removing the brick border and the asphalt and replacing it with a concrete drive. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: Section 2.7.2 B. on pages 102 and 103 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for driveways. Section 2 recommends that direct drives be limited to 12 foot wide within 30 feet of the curb. This recommendation has not been met. Chapter 2, Section 2.7.3.A on page 106 of the Design Guidelines states LS-1 and LS-2 lots should have at least 60% greenspace, this project has 58% greenspace and is around 455 square feet away from that 60%. This recommendation has not been met. July 30, 2024 #3 Kansas City Country Club 6200 Indian Lane The KCCC is proposing to relocate several of their existing greens fans. This is being done in conjunction with the reconfiguration of the entire course. Summary of Project: No new fans are proposed, and only greens with existing fans will receive the relocated fans. • Green 1: The fan remains basically unchanged. • Green 2: The fan remains basically unchanged. • Green 3: The fan is located at the southwest corner of the new green. • Green 4: The fan is located west of the existing location, closer to neighboring homes. • Green 5: No fan at this hole. • Green 6: The fan remains basically unchanged. • Green 7: No fan at this hole. • Green 8: The fan is located east of the existing location, closer to neighboring homes. • Green 9: The fan remains basically unchanged. • Green 10: The fan is located northwest of the new green. • Green 11: The fan is located north of the new green. • Green 12: The fan is located northeast of the new green. This is farther from neighboring homes. • Green 13: The fan remains basically unchanged. • Green 14: The fan remains basically unchanged. • Green 15: The fan remains basically unchanged. • Green 16: The fan is located east of the existing location, closer to neighboring homes. • Green 17: The fan is located north of the new green. • Green 18: The fan is located east of the existing location. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. July 30, 2024 #4 Kansas City Country Club 6200 Indian Lane The KCCC is proposing extensive removal, replacement, and reconfiguration of the course’s cart paths. Summary of Project: The attached plans indicate the extent of the proposed cart paths as well as the existing paths. All new paths will be 8 feet wide and concrete. The portions in blue will be rebuilt on existing subgrade. The plans also indicate several modifications to greens and tee boxes. These are considered landscape changes which require a land disturbance permit but not ARB approval. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts with City ordinances. July 30, 2024 #5 Adam & Angela Thomas 6701 Belinder Avenue The Thomases are proposing a new detached garage with a second-floor living area. This project was continued from the July 16th meeting so that a change in the north retaining wall/fence arrangement could be modified to negate the need for a variance. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage Review SF Main Floor Living Area: 1,765 Detached Accessory Buildings: 820 Total Lot Coverage: 2,585 Summary of Project: The proposed garage is located on the existing auto court. The existing lower-level garage will be filled in with large windows and used for interior space. The lot is a unique situation where the garage is much like a basement garage. Retaining walls are located on all sides. New retaining walls are proposed along the east side of the property to allow for the new accessory building. At the south end of the accessory building, a new screen wall is proposed that is constructed to match the retaining walls but provides a perforated pattern. The space between the new garage and the main house is a circulation zone that includes stairs for the main house entry and the new second-floor living area. Access to the main house stays essentially the same, but the mid-level patio has been enlarged. The second-floor living space cantilevers over the side of the garage below but does not take up the full footprint of the garage below. All materials, fenestration, and detailing of the new garage match those of the main house. There is no indication of HVAC equipment. Clarification is required. At the property’s south side a new gate screen wall, constructed to match the screen wall at the accessory building, is proposed to connect the southeast corner of the house to the south property line. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 24,316 House Footprint: -2,585 Driveway: -1,656 Patios, Walls & Walkways: -1,410 Remaining Greenspace: 18,665 Design Guideline Review: Section 2.5 on pages 72 through 75 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Suburban character area. July 30, 2024 Subsection E recommends that detached accessory buildings located in the Conditional Building or Primary Landscape Areas are limited to a height of 1 story with 10-ft. maximum eave heights with a maximum area of 720 sq. ft. Since the building has a flat roof it does not have eaves in the traditional sense. The height of the building is 18.5 feet above the driveway, and approximately 15.4 feet above grade at the rear property line. An interpretation of the Design Guidelines is required. The footprint of the first floor is only 676 sq. ft., which meets the area requirement, but the second-floor cantilevers over the first floor. The dripline of the building is 820 sq. ft. An interpretation of the Design Guideline is required. Please note, the larger footprint number has been used for calculations. A small 1-story portion of the garage extends into the primary landscape area, the remainder of the building is in the Conditional Building Area. Since the building is two stories, this recommendation has not been met. Discussion is recommended. 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. The existing driveway is 14’-6” wide and is not being modified. 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. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(20)/LS-3 Lot Area: 24,316 SF Lot Width: 156’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 34.5’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 34.0’ Accessory Building Height: 24’ 18.5’ Accessory Building Minimum Side Yard Setback: 58’ North 10’ 59.5’ South Accessory Building Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 10’ 14.75’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 5,957 SF 2,585 SF Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 15,805 SF 18,665 SF = 75% 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 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. July 30, 2024