MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
December 10, 2014
The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) of the City of Mission Hills, Kansas, convened for a
meeting on December 10, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. at Mission Hills City Hall, 6300 State Line
Road, Mission Hills, Kansas.
PRESIDING:
Chair Braden Perry
PRESENT:
Steven Kallemeier, David Orlowski
ABSENT:
Mary Jane Barnes, Trey Humphrey
ALSO PRESENT:
Courtney Christensen, City Administrator; Pete Heaven, Legal
Counsel; Todd Ault, City Architect; Megan Nelson, City Clerk
VISITORS:
Jeff Kunin, 5920 High Drive (for Harden); Ellen Goheen, 6135
Overhill Road (for Harden); Tom Walsh, 3140 W. 138th Terrace
(for Harden); Kevin Harden, 6725 Belinder Avenue; Susan Miller,
5735 High Drive (for Harden); Bob Schulte, Gene Fritzel
Construction (for Harden); Barb Yeast, 2040 W. 59th Street (for
Harden); Anne Gall, 5835 High Drive (for Harden); Mike McQuaid
(for Harden); Katherine DeBruce, 6301 Belinder Ave (for Harden);
Sean Wyrick, 817 SE 12th Terrace (for AT&T); Jacob Warren, Black
& Veatch (for AT&T); Sam Davis, Black & Veatch (for AT&T);
Susan Faber, Black & Veatch (for AT&T); Kelley Kates, Black &
Veatch (for AT&T)
At 8:34 AM, Mr. Perry called to order the December 10, 2014 BZA meeting. Mr. Perry
asked the Board if there were any required changes to the October 29, 2014 meeting
minutes. Hearing none, Mr. Kallemeier moved and Mr. Orlowski seconded to approve the
October 29, 2014 minutes. Approved 3-0.
Mr. Orlowski moved and Mr. Kallemeier seconded to approve the resolution granting a
variance for a second floor addition to Joseph and Rebecca Reuben. Approved 3-0. Mr.
Kallemeier moved and Mr. Orlowski seconded to approve the resolution granting a variance
for a fence to Karen and Rob Long. Approved 3-0.
#1
Wm. Kevin Harden
6725 Belinder Avenue
Appealing decision of the Architectural Review Board to
approve a new home at 2101 W. 59th Street
Mr. Perry referred to Mr. Harden’s appeal of the Architectural Review Board’s (ARB)
decision to approve a new home at 5101 W. 59th Street and noted that some letters had been
received from neighboring residents regarding the appeal which would be read aloud for the
record. Mr. Heaven explained the BZA’s process and read the following from the by-laws:
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
1
Board of Zoning Appeals
The Board shall have the power to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there
is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the City
Administrator, City Clerk or other officer administering the provisions of the Zoning
Regulations or Building Code. If a decision of an officer is appealed, the officer
whose decision has been appealed, when notified by the City Clerk of the appeal,
shall arrange to transmit to the Board all papers constituting the record upon which
the action appealed from was taken. Whenever a party appeals any decision of the
City Administrator, City Clerk or other officer administering the provisions of the
Zoning Regulations or Building Code, the Board shall review the matter de novo. In
exercising the foregoing powers, the Board may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part,
or modify the order, requirements, decision or determination as in its opinion should
be done under the circumstances.”
Ms. Christensen read letters from Mission Hills residents Terry and Stuart Bauman
(Attachment A), Melissa and Matt Rubel (Attachment B), and Dr. A. Kunin (Attachment
C). Mr. Perry thanked Ms. Christensen for reading the letters and commented that he felt it
was important to have a full record. He then welcomed Mr. Harden to present his appeal to
the Board. He stated that the appeal of the ARB decision is based on the record of the ARB
and the Board would not be accepting any new evidence.
Mr. Harden said that he is a Mission Hills resident and former chairman of the Planning
Commission and played an instrumental role in developing the guidelines for the City. He
noted the importance of the guidelines and that Sargent Town Planning was put in charge to
assist the ARB in obtaining the design essence that Mission Hills is about. He continued
that the design guidelines have been put in place to portray regulations and the importance
of the guidelines being followed. Mr. Harden felt that the design guidelines were ignored
and not followed, and noted he had three reasons for his appeal of the ARB’s decision
which were the detached studio building in relation to its size, the retaining wall that was on
the side of the property, and that the main structure of the house did not conform to the
guidelines. He indicated that as part of the original ARB hearing, he had created a memo
which outlined these concerns, and had also provided it for the BZA. Mr. Harden recited
his memo to the Board (Attachment D). In regards the main structure, he said that Mission
Hills homes typically allow natural light to get into the center of spaces and noted concern
of this home because it was such a large mass, a center portion of the home would always be
dark. He added that typical Mission Hills homes do not have that depth so that it has
natural light. Mr. Harden read the rest of his memo, and said that he hoped the BZA would
consider his appeal as presented.
Mr. Perry asked if the Board had any questions, and confirmed that Mr. Walsh, owner of
the appealed home, was present to speak. He said that Mr. Harden had outlined what he
felt was overlooked by the ARB and asked Mr. Walsh for his comments. Mr. Walsh said he
was not sure why so much time was spent discussing something that was already resolved at
the ARB meeting on December 2nd. Since the time of the appeal, Mr. Walsh indicated that
they had presented their plans with changes to the ARB, making changes to the studio
building and eliminated the retaining wall, which should now no longer be items of concern
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
2
Board of Zoning Appeals
for the appeal except regarding the main mass of the home. With respect to the length of
the studio building, Mr. Walsh felt it was typical and that the ARB minutes state clearly that
they were not violating guidelines that Mr. Harden referred to. Mr. Walsh said that they
presented a house which did not require any variances and it was a beautiful fit for a reverse
corner lot. In terms of roof planes, the design of the house is consistent and was discussed
at length at the ARB meeting regarding the challenges with the lot. The ARB was in
approval even if it was not consistent with massing, and felt they had done their job as well
as the Walshes and hoped the BZA could approve what was on the lot.
Mr. Kallemeier asked why the first two items of Mr. Harden’s appeal were no longer valid
and asked Ms. Christensen for clarification. Ms. Christensen explained that the appeal is
based on the ARB decision made in September and that record. When an appeal is made, it
does not stop any other processes and previously approved homes can come back to the
ARB for changes. An appeal was filed and the Walshes had their architect redesign the
studio building, took out the retaining wall, and moved the studio to a natural grade to
reduce height, and those changes were approved on December 2nd. Mr. Kallemeier
confirmed that the changes made on December 2nd were not part of the record for the BZA.
Mr. Walsh commented that he just wanted to note to the Board that the two items of Mr.
Harden’s appeal would no longer need to be addressed. Mr. Kallemeier confirmed that the
third argument still remained, regarding the main massing. Ms. Christensen added that the
issue regarding the length of the studio building also remained. Mr. Kallemeier remarked
that the Board has to make a decision based on the previous decision made in September
when it was appealed. Ms. Christensen noted that the ARB’s decision on December 2nd
could also be appealed and that the thirty day window for appeal was still open. Mr.
Orlowski agreed and confirmed with Mr. Walsh that the studio building had been lowered
in height and that the 45 foot length of the studio still remained as approved by the ARB in
September. Mr. Perry gave Mr. Harden a chance to address the new ARB decision made
on December 2nd. Mr. Harden said that he felt the Walshes took his appeal and used it to
comply with the studio building exactly and changed the detail of the eave and submitted
the changes to the ARB. He said that they have addressed every issue exactly and are
allowed to be at a maximum at height but the issue not addressed is the 45 foot length of the
studio. Mr. Orlowski asked why the studio was 45 feet in length. Mr. Walsh said that it
closes off the courtyard and helps achieve the overall design of the space. The sizing is
restricted by deed restrictions as well as by square footage on the lot itself, but the overall
design is what appeals to his wife and himself.
Mr. Perry confirmed that there was not any ordinance or zoning issues. Ms. Christensen
indicated that she was not aware of any deed restriction problems either. Mr. Orlowski
acknowledged with the particular lot that the building line required along 59th Street requires
a setback of 75 feet, forcing all of the building back towards the rear of the lot. He
understood why the home was laid out the way it was, and Mr. Walsh said that it was that
way to accommodate the lot. Mr. Perry asked if anyone present at the meeting had any
comments. Dr. Kunin said that he lives south of the Walsh property. He said that he
supported what Mr. Harden had said and thought that the plateline and ceiling and eave
line have not been completely understood and even though the accessory building was
lowered, the plate line is still 12 feet and 2 inches. If the height is above 12 feet, the
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
3
Board of Zoning Appeals
guideline suggests that the building be moved up to 20 feet from the property line, and he
did not agree with Mr. Walsh’s comments that all was settled with the accessory building.
Dr. Kunin still felt that the height was not appropriate. Under the March 2012 design
guidelines, detached buildings that are dimensioned 30 feet by 20 feet are considered to be
looming over neighbors. The intent of the design guidelines is not to build an accessory
building that will overlook, impose, or hurt the neighboring property. Dr. Kunin referred to
section 2.3.2 of the design guidelines which states the suggested typical dimensions for a
detached accessory building for a ratio of 1.25:1, and the ARB approved the Walsh’s 45 foot
by 15 foot accessory structure which is a 3:1 ratio. He asserted that privacy could be
obtained by taking 7 feet off of each side of the building and putting up trees.
Dr. Kunin asked if a detached structure could be any length and width as long as it is 720
square feet, and noted that this would not prevent someone from building a 72 by 10 foot
building. He commented that the Walshes are building something that takes up the entire
side of the property and will be 19 feet high with the chimney and is as large as the west side
of Dr. Kunin’s home. He noted another neighboring property that also had a detached
building and commented that the neighborhood is unique in that there are two properties
with accessory buildings and it boxes them in. He did not feel that there was anyplace else
in Mission Hills where there was such a constraint. Mr. Harden commented that the height
of the building was still too tall and too long and felt that it did not need to be as there was
nothing unique about the Walsh property that would require them to do so. He said that
the Mission Hills guidelines must be followed, and the size and proportion of the accessory
building was not unique to the property. He felt that the ARB approval of the detached
building creates a hardship on the Kunins and the adjacent property owners. By now
allowing homes to loom over neighbors, he questioned what the guidelines were for if they
were not followed. Mr. Harden said that the Walshes could build something that does not
negatively affect their neighbors and fall within the guidelines. He continued that the home
design has a lot of issues in regards to massings and the structure is an aberration and it does
not need to be. In closing, Mr. Harden remarked that he was asking the BZA to carefully
scrutinize what was presented, and that he felt that the home was not conforming to the
guidelines and the neighbors had felt that they did not have the opportunity to share their
opinions. He plead for thorough review and for the BZA to take the time to fully
understand the design guidelines regarding detached accessory buildings. He asked that the
building be limited to 30 feet and if there is a height greater than 12 feet, there should be a
greater setback from the property line.
The Board asked those in attendance if there were any further comments on the matter. Ms.
Goheen said that as a former ARB member, a resident of Mission Hills, and architectural
historian, that she felt the approach to the problem has been thorough and precise but there
was a bigger issue. She commented that Mission Hills did not become the historically
important residential development by accident, and when J.C. Nichols platted the
neighborhood 100 years ago it was planned in a way so that property values would be
maintained. Presently, she felt that nationally recognized residential development was
being cannibalized by allowing the construction of such large homes. She felt that the City
is losing something special and if they continued to go down its current path, it would not
be long until Mission Hills was no longer an important historical development. Mr.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
4
Board of Zoning Appeals
McQuaid remarked that he was a member of the ARB for six years and was familiar with
the changes with Sargent Town Planning and wanted to address the style of the Walsh
home. He noted that with Sargent Town Planning they were very careful not to manage
taste in the City and felt it was good to have a variation of styles in the City. He
commented that the Walsh home may be a bit large but the style should not be the same in
every situation and variation is good for the City and they must be careful about dictating
taste. Mr. Kallemeier asked Mr. McQuaid if he had any involvement with the property and
Mr. McQuaid said no.
Ms. Miller indicated that she lives on High Drive and felt that when a home is to be torn
down, neighbors needed to be notified at a larger area because it changes the intent of the
neighborhood. She said that she lives down the street from the Walsh property and the
house was torn down and it changed the intent of the neighborhood. She did not know
whether they would be increasing the grade of the property which would affect the way the
house would look, and did not know if this would be an issue with the Walsh house. She
commented that when a massive home is built, the houses around it become teardowns and
it is a much bigger issue than just one house and is something that needs to be addressed.
Mr. Perry thanked everyone for their comments.
At 9:35 a.m., Mr. Kallemeier moved that the Board recess to executive session under the
exception to the Kansas open meeting law which permits discussion of attorney-client
privileged issues. Mr. Kallemeier further moved that the Board resume in open session at
this same location at 9:45 a.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Orlowski and carried
unanimously. Everyone other than the Board members and Legal Counsel were excused
from the meeting. The Board resumed in open session at 9:45 a.m. Mr. Perry commented
that he felt some issues were raised based by the record presented from the ARB. He noted
that the situation of the property has changed but the record of the ARB that the Board has
reviewed had not, so the Board was not in the position to know what is and what is not
relevant. Mr. Kallemeier commented that it was enlightening that Mr. Walsh had indicated
some points were no longer value since there were changes at the ARB and as a result, it
would be best to remand back to the ARB in order to gain further insight to what remaining
issues lie and go from that point. He added that to render an approval or disapproval on
what is a changed project would be irresponsible. Mr. Orlowski agreed, and said that based
on what he had heard that they would need further clarification where things currently
stand relative to size, setback, topography, and the retaining wall. Mr. Kallemeier made a
motion to remand the appeal back to the ARB for determination of the remaining issues
before the BZA and Mr. Orlowski seconded.
Mr. Walsh asked for clarification of what it meant for the matter to go back to the ARB.
Ms. Christensen explained that the Board is sending it back to the ARB and asking for
clarification in the record and whether they want to readdress what Mr. Harden had in his
appeal, opening it back up to the ARB to re-review and rebuild the record. Mr. Perry said
that unfortunately, new changes since the appeal was made were not made part of the
current record. Mr. Walsh asked if by being remanded back to the ARB if the entire house
would need to be re-presented. Ms. Christensen said that it would depend on how much
direction the Board is going to give to the ARB and that they did not overturn the decision.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
5
Board of Zoning Appeals
Mr. Kallemeier stated that he would rephrase his former motion, and make a motion to
remand the matter back to the ARB for a determination of the remaining issues and Mr.
Orlowski seconded. Mr. Heaven indicated that it would not be a public hearing. Ms.
Christensen said that the ARB will review and clarify the record. Mr. Perry commented
that the Board is trying to make sure that they know where the status of the project is before
making a decision. Mr. Walsh asked if there would be another appeal or if the ARB would
make a determination and be notified once the ARB conducted their review. Mr. Heaven
said that the BZA will receive information from the ARB and hold another hearing at which
the BZA will make a decision. He explained that if new changes have occurred and if the
BZA felt, additional testimony is required that they can always open it back up to a public
hearing again.
Mr. Harden asked why the BZA would be considering information from a subsequent ARB
meeting since it was not part of the ARB record made available to the Board. He said that
the Walshes presented to the ARB in December and the ARB made the ruling based on the
accessory building. He said he did not understand why the BZA needed the new
information as part of the hearing since it had nothing to do with the appeal, and the appeal
was more about the approval of the house. Mr. Perry stated that the Board has to look at
the reasonableness of the ARB decision, including first and subsequent decisions to gain a
better understanding of where the project stands. Dr. Kunin asked when the BZA would
make a decision, and confirmed with Mr. Perry that the decision would be made at the next
BZA meeting on January 28, 2015. Mr. Kallemeier confirmed with Mr. Heaven that the
BZA’s decision on the matter had to be made on the evidence provided before them, and if
any additional new evidence between today’s meeting and the meeting in January was
produced the Board could remand back to the ARB for review of the additional record. Ms.
Christensen asked how to direct the ARB, and whether to explain that it is only being
remanded on the issue of what was appealed, or if any action had been taken that affected
the appeal. Mr. Kallemeier noted that out of fairness to Mr.Walsh that it needed to be
limited to the points raised at the appeal. Dr. Kunin confirmed with the Board that they
were remanding Mr. Harden’s appeal back to the ARB, specifically based on the points Mr.
Harden made in his appeal. Ms. Christensen said that the ARB will not be able to go back
and look at the architecture or other points regarding the home since nothing has happened,
but rather they will address what they have already had a hearing about, confirming
whether the retaining wall and height and eave heights were addressed, but not the size of
the building, length of the wall, or architectural elements. All the BZA is looking for is
clarification that those things have been met and are no longer an issue so the Board can
make their finding. She added that Mr. Harden made his appeal because he did not agree
with the ARB’s decision. Mr. Kallemeier said that the Board hoped if it went back to the
ARB, the matters of the appeal or at least some of the points would go away. Ms.
Christensen remarked that there would still be an appeal because there are still issues to be
addressed. Mr. Orlowski said that the Board could then vote on the reasonableness or
unreasonableness of the ARB’s decision, provided the additional information that the BZA
has not been privy to from the most recent ARB meeting. Ms. Christensen said that had the
appeal been in November and there was a quorum, the appeal would have been heard with
no new information, but the timing was off. Approved 3-0.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
6
Board of Zoning Appeals
[Todd Ault left the meeting]
#2
First Lutheran Church (AT&T)
6400 State Line Road
Amendment to Special Use Permit
Ms. Christensen offered to provide the information based on what was given by and said
that AT&T is swapping out three antennas for three new ones with new capabilities. She
continued to go through the special use requirements and state whether they had been met.
AT&T submitted a building permit application for what is appropriate along with the
required fee and lease agreement with First Lutheran Church. They provided notice to
neighboring properties abutting 500 feet. Ms. Christensen said that the report and site plan
is all outlined and is appropriate for the work to be completed. The wireless
communications site inventory is current and up to date, and the proposed site plan and
photo simulation is included. The location is within the C-1 district which is an allowed
district and there were not any other suitable locations allowed in 2000 when the tower was
originally built. The design requirements were met when it was designed in 2000 to meet
the requirements of the City. There are no changes to the exterior of the tower or building,
so it did not require going to the ARB. There will not be any lighting or landscaping
changes to the site. In regards to construction and maintenance, it will be built to code and
inspected by the City and a third party. Operational standards have all been met and the
radiation certificate is the same as first presented by Sprint since the City had a third party
complete the report. Ms. Christensen noted that the BZA previously made the
determination that the radiation does not cause any safety issues. Mr. Kallemeier
confirmed with Ms. Christensen that the radiation report included the accumulative effect of
AT&T and Sprint as well as any others. Ms. Christensen indicated that inspections at the
site are current, and safety and buffer requirements have been met. She said that the bond
required was applied for, but not yet received by the City. Mr. Heaven proceeded to go
through the ten required findings for special use exceptions. Mr. Perry confirmed with Ms.
Christensen that all required paperwork had been received with the exception of the bond.
The Board agreed that all requirements had been met. Mr. Kallemeier asked if there was
anything on the report that was different or specific in nature from Sprint and Ms.
Christensen said no. Mr. Kallemeier made a motion to approve AT&T’s proposal for
upgrades to the cellular tower at First Lutheran Church and Mr. Orlowski seconded.
Approved 3-0. Mr. Perry added that approval was subject to the bond being secured.
Mr. Kallemeier made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Orlowski seconded. The
meeting adjourned at 10:30 AM.
/s/ Megan Nelson
Megan Nelson, City Clerk
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
7
Board of Zoning Appeals
Attachment A
Dec. 8, 2014
Attn: Mission Hills Board of Zoning Appeals
Re: 2101 W. 59th Street hearing, Dec. 9, 2014
From: Terry and Stuart Bauman
2035 W. 59th St.
Location: immediately east of the proposed property
Note: Please read the comments below during the BZA meeting so they are recorded
in the minutes. We are out of town and unable to attend.
Thank you for your thorough consideration of the proposed building plans. There are
two areas of concern we have regarding the development:
1) Lot coverage: The proposed lot coverage of 75.66% is a dramatic
increase from the neighboring properties, consuming much of the green space
allowed by the lot size. The history, culture and ambience of Mission Hills is
largely a result of the green space that surrounds home sites.
2) The footprint of the secondary structure exceeds the guidelines provided by the
city. Reference Section 2.3.2 stating a typical secondary building of
approximately 720 square feet of 24’ x 30’. The proposed plan indicates a wall of
more than 45’, dramatically longer than the intent of the guidelines.
We are requesting the BZA kindly consider these concerns before granting
approval. We believe the strength of the Architectural Review Board and the Board of
Zoning Appeal rests upon consistency with regulations and guidelines among all
planned developments.
Cordially,
Terry and Stuart Bauman
Attachment B
December 8, 2014
Dear Board of Zoning Appeals,
As we cannot attend tomorrow's meeting, please read our concerns out loud at the meeting so they
become an official part of the minutes.
We have no problems with Walsh's architectural aesthetic and are thrilled that they are not asking for
any variances on the current proposal. We do have two significant concerns we think the Board of
Zoning Appeals should seriously consider when reviewing the current proposed home.
In contrast to surrounding homes, the Walsh's lot coverage is 75.66% in their current proposal. We are
concerned that, if the Walsh's residence does increase to 75.66% lot coverage, the home may interrupt
the beauty and continuity of Mission Hills. Green space is part of the beauty of Mission Hills.
While the adjustments to the secondary structure are an improvement, Section 2.3.2 clearly states
"Footprint: Typically 24 by 30 feet or less or approximately 720 square feet". The new
proposal appears to be outside the spirit of the guidelines with one wall approximately 45’6 –
over 50% of the recommended dimension of any wall.
Given the aforementioned, we feel the BZA should give careful consideration before granting
approval to the current project.
Thank you so much and please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any additional questions.
Melissa and Matt Rubel
2100 West 59th Street
Mission Hills, KS
Attachment C
Board of Zoning Appeals
December 10, 2014
RE: 2010 W. 59th Street
We have lived in our Mission Hills home for more than 20 years. During that time we have
developed a deep respect for the City Planning Committee's responsibility in developing
carefully crafted ordinances and guidelines to protect the beauty and harmony of the homes and
spacious setting of Mission Hills. JC Nichols carefully laid out home sites to maintain a park-like
setting for all homes within our City.
The function of the Planning Commission is to establish and implement policies and practices
that promote the orderly growth and development of the City of Mission Hills. This body provides
the legal and policy framework for both short-term and long-term land use planning and control
systems to guide the economically and socially effective use of land within the City, including
the review of the Comprehensive Plan. It is the ARB's responsibility to assure that new homes
adhere to these policies.
Kevin Harden has been the Chairman of the Planning Committee for 23 years. It has been
under his leadership that these policies were developed. He has done an incredible analysis of
the issues regarding the proposed home at 2101 W. 59th Street. If anyone should understand
the Planning Commission's policies including their spirit and intent, it is Mr. Harden. And I would
ask, if the ARB does not intend to follow the letter of these policies as set by the Planning
Commission, why do we even bother with the effort to develop and oversee them?
We are surprised at the errors and omissions of the ARB in their analysis of the plans versus
the Planning Committee's guidelines and seemingly random and arbitrary actions of the ARB
by passing the project in total on September 29, 2014 despite attempts to point out the degree
of the disparities.
These are not minor discretionary tweaks of a guideline to accommodate special circumstances
of lot positioning, but rather gross random and arbitrary deviations from guidelines (excessive
number of roof planes, massing aberrations and dimensions of detached accessory building)
which adversely affects adjacent property owners, neighboring property values and are opposed
to the general spirit and intent of the BZA.
If guideline deviations are so egregious, they too, should follow the 5 conditions which must
exist to grant a variance.
Detached Accessory Building
Section 2.3.2 on page 54 on Accessory Buildings for Neighborhood Estates.
Section 2.3.2 clearly states "Footprint: Typically 24 by 30 feet or less". This implies wall lengths.
Any attempt to distort the intent of this guideline into a square footage directive is misdirected.
There is no mention of square footage in this guideline.
The maximum wall lengths of 24 by 30 feet or smaller is the intent and spirit of this guideline to
prevent encroachment upon neighboring properties. Otherwise, any combination of
measurements equalling an area of 720 sq feet would be allowed. Clearly a detached accessory
building measuring 90' by 8' or an even more absurd 360' by 2' would be unacceptable. There
Attachment C
are absolutely no detached accessory buildings in Mission Hills that so grossly encroach upon a
neighboring property as this proposed design because the intent and spirit of this guideline has
previously been understood and followed.
The current length of 45'6" is 50% longer than the 30' maximum length specification of guideline
2.3.2.
The studio building is designed to function as a large and long blockade wall 45'6" in length only
10' 7" from the south property line. Guideline 2.3.2 is meant to prevent this very encroachment.
There is nothing unique about the detached accessory building that requires or deserves such
gross deviation from the spirit and intent of guideline 2.3.2.
There is no hardship placed upon the Walshes in imposing a maximum studio length of 30'0"
from the proposed 45'6" as required by guideline 2.3.2.
Please note the following previously submitted evidence:
Photographs of neighboring homes submitted August 5, 2014 ARB Meeting in fact have no
detached accessory buildings 50% above guideline length maximum.
Neighborhood Plot Plan Image by Reed Dillon in the plans for the September 30, 2014 ARB
Meeting and noted by Jeff Kunin at that meeting clearly shows no home in all of Old Mission
Hills with detached accessory buildings along 2 of 3 backyard property line making the 50%
excess length even more egregious and markedly diminishing our property value.
Section 2.3.2 clearly states "Footprint: Typically 24 by 30 feet or less". This implies wall lengths.
Errors and Omissions in the Approval of the Detached Accessory Building:
In fact, with regards to the entire detached accessory building design, the ARB failed to
recognize the false elevation of the studio. They failed to recognize the measurement was from
the street side, they failed to accurately understand guideline 2.3.2 regarding wall length, they
failed to recognize plate height concerns and property line set back requirements. In fact the
entire studio building design was so grotesquely in violation of city guidelines that based upon
Mr. Harden's detailed analysis, the Walshes have already made some, but not all, of the
changes required to be in accordance with city design guidelines.
The ARB was improperly instructed on guideline 2.3.2 as were all neighbors who received the
city's letter dated Nov 24, 2014.
The City erred in:
Mailing out an inaccurately quoted guideline to citizens
Mailing out an inaccurate and wrong conclusion to citizens based upon the improperly quoted
guideline
It was stated at the December 2nd ARB meeting by city architect Todd Ault that there has been
significant misunderstandings of this guideline, then again misquoted it to the ARB. I had to
personally show the ARB a copy of this guideline's accurate wording and instruct them on its
true meaning. Please refer to letter to ARB from Audrey Kunin dated December 2, 2014 for a
discussion on guideline 2.3.2 and the City's inaccurate interpretation of this guideline.
Attachment C
We can only surmise that approval granted on September 29, 2014 regarding this structure was
based on inaccurate information provided by the City and their summary letter and their lack of
understanding of the multiple design concerns.
We can assume the ARB at the Dec 2nd meeting was fully aware of today's BZA appeal as they
were in possession of and having read such appeal, were unable to rescind the studio building
length they had already erred in approving.
Massing Aberrations
Aberrations in complex applied massings exceeds the allowed guidelines by at least 50%.
Please note guidelines cite what is excessive but do not specify allowable. As Mr. Harden noted
in his appeal, given 18 is too many, 27 is clearly too many. In fact, the complex applied massing
of this project is 50% in excess of the 18 roof planes which is the example of excessive per the
city planning guidelines.
50% bigger than too big is way too big and unacceptable.
50% bigger than the uppermost length limit established to protect neighboring properties harms
neighboring properties. The design provided by Walsh architect disregards the spirit and intent
of city guidelines, harms upon neighboring property values, disrupts the harmony and rhythm of
home placements in relation to each other and damages the
There is nothing unique about the property that requires or deserves such gross deviation from
the spirit and intent of house body massings and complex applied massings.
There is no hardship placed upon the Walshes in following design guidelines in the structure of
their proposed home.
ARB Plan Passage Concerns:
The ARB at the September 30, 2014 meeting further erred in their:
Failure to publicly discuss and provide reasoning and just cause for their decisions
Failure to consider evidence provided
Failure to properly understand the spirit and intent of guidelines
Failure to properly fairly listen to and represent and protect the citizens of MH who pointed out
plan deviations not in adherence to city guidelines
Misrepresentation of guideline 2.3.2 to ARB
Failure to protect surrounding home values
Failure to identify and correct inaccuracies in plans
Requests:
Please reduce the length of the detached accessory building to measure no more than 30' 0" in
length to be in accordance with guideline 2.3.2.
Please maintain the harmony which exists between the surrounding homes by strictly adhering
to house massing and complex applied massing guidelines as summarized by Kevin Harden in
his BZA appeal.
Attachment C
Sincerely,
Audrey and Jeff Kunin
5920 High Drive
Mission Hills, KS 66208
Attachment A
Dec. 8, 2014
Attn: Mission Hills Board of Zoning Appeals
Re: 2101 W. 59th Street hearing, Dec. 9, 2014
From: Terry and Stuart Bauman
2035 W. 59th St.
Location: immediately east of the proposed property
Note: Please read the comments below during the BZA meeting so they are recorded
in the minutes. We are out of town and unable to attend.
Thank you for your thorough consideration of the proposed building plans. There are
two areas of concern we have regarding the development:
1) Lot coverage: The proposed lot coverage of 75.66% is a dramatic
increase from the neighboring properties, consuming much of the green space
allowed by the lot size. The history, culture and ambience of Mission Hills is
largely a result of the green space that surrounds home sites.
2) The footprint of the secondary structure exceeds the guidelines provided by the
city. Reference Section 2.3.2 stating a typical secondary building of
approximately 720 square feet of 24’ x 30’. The proposed plan indicates a wall of
more than 45’, dramatically longer than the intent of the guidelines.
We are requesting the BZA kindly consider these concerns before granting
approval. We believe the strength of the Architectural Review Board and the Board of
Zoning Appeal rests upon consistency with regulations and guidelines among all
planned developments.
Cordially,
Terry and Stuart Bauman
Attachment B
December 8, 2014
Dear Board of Zoning Appeals,
As we cannot attend tomorrow's meeting, please read our concerns out loud at the meeting so they
become an official part of the minutes.
We have no problems with Walsh's architectural aesthetic and are thrilled that they are not asking for
any variances on the current proposal. We do have two significant concerns we think the Board of
Zoning Appeals should seriously consider when reviewing the current proposed home.
In contrast to surrounding homes, the Walsh's lot coverage is 75.66% in their current proposal. We are
concerned that, if the Walsh's residence does increase to 75.66% lot coverage, the home may interrupt
the beauty and continuity of Mission Hills. Green space is part of the beauty of Mission Hills.
While the adjustments to the secondary structure are an improvement, Section 2.3.2 clearly states
"Footprint: Typically 24 by 30 feet or less or approximately 720 square feet". The new
proposal appears to be outside the spirit of the guidelines with one wall approximately 45’6 –
over 50% of the recommended dimension of any wall.
Given the aforementioned, we feel the BZA should give careful consideration before granting
approval to the current project.
Thank you so much and please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any additional questions.
Melissa and Matt Rubel
2100 West 59th Street
Mission Hills, KS
Attachment C
Board of Zoning Appeals
December 10, 2014
RE: 2010 W. 59th Street
We have lived in our Mission Hills home for more than 20 years. During that time we have
developed a deep respect for the City Planning Committee's responsibility in developing
carefully crafted ordinances and guidelines to protect the beauty and harmony of the homes and
spacious setting of Mission Hills. JC Nichols carefully laid out home sites to maintain a park-like
setting for all homes within our City.
The function of the Planning Commission is to establish and implement policies and practices
that promote the orderly growth and development of the City of Mission Hills. This body provides
the legal and policy framework for both short-term and long-term land use planning and control
systems to guide the economically and socially effective use of land within the City, including
the review of the Comprehensive Plan. It is the ARB's responsibility to assure that new homes
adhere to these policies.
Kevin Harden has been the Chairman of the Planning Committee for 23 years. It has been
under his leadership that these policies were developed. He has done an incredible analysis of
the issues regarding the proposed home at 2101 W. 59th Street. If anyone should understand
the Planning Commission's policies including their spirit and intent, it is Mr. Harden. And I would
ask, if the ARB does not intend to follow the letter of these policies as set by the Planning
Commission, why do we even bother with the effort to develop and oversee them?
We are surprised at the errors and omissions of the ARB in their analysis of the plans versus
the Planning Committee's guidelines and seemingly random and arbitrary actions of the ARB
by passing the project in total on September 29, 2014 despite attempts to point out the degree
of the disparities.
These are not minor discretionary tweaks of a guideline to accommodate special circumstances
of lot positioning, but rather gross random and arbitrary deviations from guidelines (excessive
number of roof planes, massing aberrations and dimensions of detached accessory building)
which adversely affects adjacent property owners, neighboring property values and are opposed
to the general spirit and intent of the BZA.
If guideline deviations are so egregious, they too, should follow the 5 conditions which must
exist to grant a variance.
Detached Accessory Building
Section 2.3.2 on page 54 on Accessory Buildings for Neighborhood Estates.
Section 2.3.2 clearly states "Footprint: Typically 24 by 30 feet or less". This implies wall lengths.
Any attempt to distort the intent of this guideline into a square footage directive is misdirected.
There is no mention of square footage in this guideline.
The maximum wall lengths of 24 by 30 feet or smaller is the intent and spirit of this guideline to
prevent encroachment upon neighboring properties. Otherwise, any combination of
measurements equalling an area of 720 sq feet would be allowed. Clearly a detached accessory
building measuring 90' by 8' or an even more absurd 360' by 2' would be unacceptable. There
Attachment C
are absolutely no detached accessory buildings in Mission Hills that so grossly encroach upon a
neighboring property as this proposed design because the intent and spirit of this guideline has
previously been understood and followed.
The current length of 45'6" is 50% longer than the 30' maximum length specification of guideline
2.3.2.
The studio building is designed to function as a large and long blockade wall 45'6" in length only
10' 7" from the south property line. Guideline 2.3.2 is meant to prevent this very encroachment.
There is nothing unique about the detached accessory building that requires or deserves such
gross deviation from the spirit and intent of guideline 2.3.2.
There is no hardship placed upon the Walshes in imposing a maximum studio length of 30'0"
from the proposed 45'6" as required by guideline 2.3.2.
Please note the following previously submitted evidence:
Photographs of neighboring homes submitted August 5, 2014 ARB Meeting in fact have no
detached accessory buildings 50% above guideline length maximum.
Neighborhood Plot Plan Image by Reed Dillon in the plans for the September 30, 2014 ARB
Meeting and noted by Jeff Kunin at that meeting clearly shows no home in all of Old Mission
Hills with detached accessory buildings along 2 of 3 backyard property line making the 50%
excess length even more egregious and markedly diminishing our property value.
Section 2.3.2 clearly states "Footprint: Typically 24 by 30 feet or less". This implies wall lengths.
Errors and Omissions in the Approval of the Detached Accessory Building:
In fact, with regards to the entire detached accessory building design, the ARB failed to
recognize the false elevation of the studio. They failed to recognize the measurement was from
the street side, they failed to accurately understand guideline 2.3.2 regarding wall length, they
failed to recognize plate height concerns and property line set back requirements. In fact the
entire studio building design was so grotesquely in violation of city guidelines that based upon
Mr. Harden's detailed analysis, the Walshes have already made some, but not all, of the
changes required to be in accordance with city design guidelines.
The ARB was improperly instructed on guideline 2.3.2 as were all neighbors who received the
city's letter dated Nov 24, 2014.
The City erred in:
Mailing out an inaccurately quoted guideline to citizens
Mailing out an inaccurate and wrong conclusion to citizens based upon the improperly quoted
guideline
It was stated at the December 2nd ARB meeting by city architect Todd Ault that there has been
significant misunderstandings of this guideline, then again misquoted it to the ARB. I had to
personally show the ARB a copy of this guideline's accurate wording and instruct them on its
true meaning. Please refer to letter to ARB from Audrey Kunin dated December 2, 2014 for a
discussion on guideline 2.3.2 and the City's inaccurate interpretation of this guideline.
Attachment C
We can only surmise that approval granted on September 29, 2014 regarding this structure was
based on inaccurate information provided by the City and their summary letter and their lack of
understanding of the multiple design concerns.
We can assume the ARB at the Dec 2nd meeting was fully aware of today's BZA appeal as they
were in possession of and having read such appeal, were unable to rescind the studio building
length they had already erred in approving.
Massing Aberrations
Aberrations in complex applied massings exceeds the allowed guidelines by at least 50%.
Please note guidelines cite what is excessive but do not specify allowable. As Mr. Harden noted
in his appeal, given 18 is too many, 27 is clearly too many. In fact, the complex applied massing
of this project is 50% in excess of the 18 roof planes which is the example of excessive per the
city planning guidelines.
50% bigger than too big is way too big and unacceptable.
50% bigger than the uppermost length limit established to protect neighboring properties harms
neighboring properties. The design provided by Walsh architect disregards the spirit and intent
of city guidelines, harms upon neighboring property values, disrupts the harmony and rhythm of
home placements in relation to each other and damages the
There is nothing unique about the property that requires or deserves such gross deviation from
the spirit and intent of house body massings and complex applied massings.
There is no hardship placed upon the Walshes in following design guidelines in the structure of
their proposed home.
ARB Plan Passage Concerns:
The ARB at the September 30, 2014 meeting further erred in their:
Failure to publicly discuss and provide reasoning and just cause for their decisions
Failure to consider evidence provided
Failure to properly understand the spirit and intent of guidelines
Failure to properly fairly listen to and represent and protect the citizens of MH who pointed out
plan deviations not in adherence to city guidelines
Misrepresentation of guideline 2.3.2 to ARB
Failure to protect surrounding home values
Failure to identify and correct inaccuracies in plans
Requests:
Please reduce the length of the detached accessory building to measure no more than 30' 0" in
length to be in accordance with guideline 2.3.2.
Please maintain the harmony which exists between the surrounding homes by strictly adhering
to house massing and complex applied massing guidelines as summarized by Kevin Harden in
his BZA appeal.
Attachment C
Sincerely,
Audrey and Jeff Kunin
5920 High Drive
Mission Hills, KS 66208