Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA May 20, 2025 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:00 p.m. #1 Consent Agenda A. Dave & Dee Dillon – 6545 Wenonga Road Changes to previously approved project B. Forest & Holly Milledge – 6426 Sagamore Road 7-foot privacy fence C. Monty & Christina Montgomery – 5600 State Line Road Front door #2 Stacey & Robert Winfield Replacing fences and wall 2031 Brookwood Road Project continued from 5.6.25 #3 Brett & Angela Sperry* Changes to previously approved project 6452 Overbrook Road Project continued from 5.6.25 #4 Linda & Edward Barker* Fence replacement 6731 Overhill Road #5 Kansas City Country Club* Flagpole 6200 Indian Lane #6 Patrick & Danica O’Neill Faux cedar shake roof 6450 Sagamore Road #7 Alex Kopulos* Garage addition 2701 W 69th Street #8 John & Kylie Brewer* Addition 6501 High Drive #9 Thomas & Teresa Walsh Pavillion / Potting shed / Covered porch 2101 W 59th Street *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 Consent Agenda A. Dave & Dee Dillon 6545 Wenonga Road The Dillons are returning to the ARB with changes to their previously approved project. Changes include adjustments to the hardscape design. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: At the front entry, they are proposing to reconfigure the front stoop to include planter ledges. At the right (west) side, they are proposing a new basketball goal at the edge or their driveway. They are also proposing to enclose the utility yard with a new 6-foot wood fence of a pre-approved style. In the rear yard, they indicate a new pad installed by the electrical utility. A new retaining wall is proposed for most of the lot width. Lastly, a small fountain is proposed in the middle of a planting bed. The proposed changes add 259 sf of impervious surface, which lowers their total greenspace to 70.7%. 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(20)/LS-6 Lot Area: 45,217 sf Lot Width: 203.9’ Ordinance Allowable/Required by Ord Proposed Maximum Height: 35’ 30’ Minimum Side Yard (Left): 15% = 30.6’ 39.5’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 15% = 30.6’ 30.6’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: N/A Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 30% = 73.5’ 75.0’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ >46’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 21.5 Maximum Lot Coverage: 9,092 sf 6,481 sf Minimum Greenspace: 70% = 31,652 sf 31,964 sf = 70.7% May 20, 2025 B. Forest & Holly Milledge 6426 Sagamore Road The Milledges are proposing a new 7-foot privacy fence in their rear yard. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Traditional • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The fence is located at the back of an existing patio. Ordinance Compliance: 7-foot tall fences are allowed in the rear yard with ARB approval. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. May 20, 2025 C. Monty & Christina Montgomery 5600 State Line Road The Montgomerys are proposing to replace their front door. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The Montgomerys proposing to replace the existing single door and sidelights with a pair of French 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 between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. May 20, 2025 #2 Robert & Stacey Winfield 2031 Brookwood Road The Winfields are proposing to replace their existing fences and wall in the southeast corner of their lot. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: At the southeast corner of their property, the Winfields are proposing to replace an existing wood fence and stone wall. The stone wall is currently failing. They are proposing to replace it with a new faux stone wall. The wall will stand 2 feet tall. A new 6-foot-tall fence will replace the existing fence in the same area. They are also proposing to replace a section of fence along the rear property line with a new 4-foot-tall iron fence. The design for the iron fence has not been provided. Clarification is required. 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. May 20, 2025 #3 Brett & Angela Sperry 6452 Overbrook Road Revised plans have not yet been received. May 20, 2025 #4 Linda & Edward Barker* 6731 Overhill Road The Barkers are proposing to replace the south side of their existing fence with a 6-foot cedar shadowbox fence. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: Corner Lot Summary of Project: At the south corner of their property, the Barkers are proposing to replace an existing wood fence. A new 6- foot-tall fence will replace the existing fence in the same area, appearing to be placed 10’ south from the southern side of the home . The current location of the fence violates a platted 25 foot setback but lines up with the neighbors fence to the East. Note the neighbor to the east only has a 15-foot platted setback. Ordinance Compliance: The existing fence is a non-conforming use in violation of a platted setback. The new fence will be in violation of the same platted setback. A variance of 10 feet is required. The fence also is violating Ordinance 5-135 D.1. which states “A solid or partially open fence not exceeding five feet (5') in height may be constructed in the corner lot streetside greenspace.” A variance of 1 foot is required. 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. * A variance is required from the Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2025 #5 Kansas City Country Club * 6200 Indian Lane The Club is proposing to install a new flagpole in a new location. Summary of Project: The new 60-foot-tall pole will be located in front of the clubhouse, a few yards away from the location of their existing flagpole. The existing flagpole is 50 ft. tall. Ordinance Compliance: Section 5-103.49 limits the heights of flagpoles to 25 feet. Section 5-132.A allows structures in District D-1 to have an increased height of 10 feet over what is allowed on residential properties. This would limit a flagpole on a country club to 35 feet tall. A variance of 25 feet is required. * A variance is required from the Board of Zoning Appeals May 20, 2025 #6 Patrick & Danica O’Neill 6450 Sagamore Road The O'Neills are proposing a faux cedar shake roof. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Traditional • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The proposed material replicates the appearance of a weathered cedar shake roof. All faux roofing materials, except certain DaVinci shingles, require ARB review. 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. May 20, 2025 #7 Alex Kopulos * 2701 West 69th Street The Kopuloses are proposing a new garage addition to the rear of their existing home. Please note, the property is in the process of having an existing utility easement vacated and the owners are granting the City a new replacement easement at the rear of the property. These changes are not yet complete. Any approval would be tentative. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The existing 2-car garage will be converted to a new covered porch and living space. The new addition extends 38’-6” into the rear yard with a small portion extending over the 35’ side yard setback. The addition includes a new second floor that extends back to the existing second floor. All materials, detailing, and fenestration match the main house. Ordinance Compliance: The project violates a platted 35-foot setback along Belinder Avenue. A variance of 6 feet is required. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 38,599 Existing House: -4,460 Addition: -883 Circle Driveway -1,800 Side Driveway: -1,200 Pool & Patio: -2,240 Utility Pads: -40 Remaining Greenspace: 27,976 = 72.48% 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 May 20, 2025 #8 John & Kylie Brewer* 6501 High Drive The Brewers are proposing a 1 ½ story garage addition in place of their existing garage, with new living space above. A survey is required for a project of this type. No action can be taken until a survey has been provided. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Traditional • Location of Common Green Space: Front & Side • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The existing 2-car garage will be removed. A wider and deeper 1 ½ story garage will replace it. The new addition features a prominent front gable and a large, shed dormer. The connection to the main house features a dormer on the front of the house and a roof deck at the rear. A first-floor wing extends from the rear of the new garage. All materials, detailing, and fenestration match the main house. The property is unique in that technically the front yard abuts High Drive and the north side yard abuts 65th Street. The house faces the north side yard. Ordinance Compliance: The project violates a 15 ft. platted setback along the north side of the property. A 1 foot 9 inch variance is required. The project also violates City Code Section 5-121.A.2 which requires the rear yard setback for the principal building to be at least 15% of the lot depth. A 1 foot 8 inch variance is required. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 12,359 Lot Coverage: (Including new garage) -2,170 Driveway & Front Walkway: -550 Patio: -650 Utility Pads: -40 Remaining Greenspace: 8,949 = 72.41% 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: 12,359 Lot Width: 141’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ No Change Minimum Side Yard (South): 10’ 14.6’ Minimum Side Yard (North): 15’ (Platted) 13.25’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: 30% =23.46’ Moot Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 15% (Corner Lot) = 20.25’ 18’7” Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 7,415 sf 8,949 sf = 72.4% May 20, 2025 #9 Thomas & Teresa Walsh 2101 West 59th Street The Walshes recently purchased the lot adjacent to theirs and platted the two lots into one lot. They are proposing a new pavilion, potting shed, and various other site improvements. A new covered porch is proposed at their existing detached accessory building. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front and Side • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage Review SF Existing House: 5,627 Existing Studio: 772 New Covered Porch: 276 New Potting Shed: 498 Total Lot Coverage: 7,173 Summary of Project: The new covered porch, at the existing detached accessory building, will be fully enclosed and is an extension to the building. All materials, detailing and fenestration match the existing structure. Directly behind the existing detached accessory building, the Walshes are proposing a small water garden. No elevations are details have been provided. Clarification is required. The water garden connects to the proposed pavilion. This new accessory structure stands approximately 18 feet tall and can be enclosed with louvered doors. All materials, detailing, and fenestration match the existing home. The proposed potting shed is located between the new pavilion and High Drive. It stands over 12 feet tall. The west end of the building contains extensive windows, while the street-facing side is primarily solid. All materials, detailing, and fenestration match the existing home. The proposed retaining wall along High Drive will stand 3 feet tall at the south end and taper to 0 at the north end. A decorative gate is proposed at the entry to the rear yard. Ordinance Compliance: The proposed wall along High Drive meets the requirements set forth in City Code Section 5-135.D. The brick walkway around the existing magnolia tree meets the requirements for a walkway in the front or side yard. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 62,443 Lot Coverage: -7,173 Circle Driveway & Walkway: -2,859 Side Driveway, Parking & Walkway: -3,100 Pool, Patio & Walkways: -3,100 Utility Yard: -310 New Pavillion: -834 Walkways & Water Garden: -1,270 High Drive Wall: -560 Remaining Greenspace: 43,237 = 69.24% May 20, 2025 Design Guideline Review: Section 2.2 on pages 60 through 63 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Countryside Estates character area. Subsection E recommends that detached accessory buildings, located in the Primary Building Area, should have a height no more than 2 stories and 24 feet but must be subordinate to the main house. The modifications to the existing detached accessory building increase its area to 1,048 sf, however it is now located inside the primary building area, so the increased size is allowed. 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. The potting shed falls into this category. There should be no more than 2 detached accessory buildings per lot. The Pavillion is an open structure and is not considered an accessory building. All 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 which is 9,013 sq. ft. The proposed project will increase the total lot coverage to 7,173 sq. ft. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.3.A on page 106 recommends that LS-6 and 7 properties have a greenspace no less than 70% of the lot area. This recommendation has not been met; however, the project increases the greenspace on the property. 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. This recommendation has been met. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(25)/ LS-6 Lot Area: 62,443 sf Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 27.25’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 32.1’ Accessory Building Maximum Height: 24’ 12.25’ Potting Shed Accessory Building Minimum Side Yard Setback: 10’ and 63’ 73.6’ Accessory Building Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 10’ 74.9’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 11,385 sf 7,173 sf Minimum Greenspace: 70% = 43,710 sf 43,237 sf = 69.24% (Delta 473 sf) 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? Yes 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. May 20, 2025