[1:58] Yikes.

[2:06] This is it, right?

[2:12] Are we ready?

[2:16] You all are ready?

[2:18] >> Yeah. Good. Well, um then I'm going to

[2:21] call to order the um August 26th meeting

[2:24] of the board of zoning appeals for the

[2:26] city of Leewood. Could I have roll call,

[2:28] please? Members Penn,

[2:32] Sipple

[2:32] >> here,

[2:33] >> Dirkson

[2:34] >> here,

[2:34] >> Dunn

[2:35] >> here,

[2:35] >> Hurst, Hawk,

[2:38] >> Busing.

[2:39] >> We have a quorum.

[2:40] >> Thank you. Um, first item of business is

[2:44] approval of the minutes. We have minutes

[2:47] from I I want to take them separately.

[2:49] First, the minutes of June 24. Um, any

[2:54] changes or anything else?

[2:57] Editing. Move to approve.

[2:59] >> Second.

[3:00] >> All in favor?

[3:01] >> They're approved. I want to point out on

[3:04] the second ones, we've got the July 22nd

[3:07] meeting on pages 2,78 and 10. I'm

[3:11] referred to as Chairman Clawson. I know

[3:13] that's because you're using old stuff.

[3:16] So, yeah, it it's no big deal. I just

[3:18] thought for the record it should

[3:19] probably be corrected. But with those

[3:22] corrections, do I have a motion to

[3:23] approve?

[3:24] >> Second. All in favor? I

[3:27] >> opposed. That passes. All right. So,

[3:31] that brings us to our agenda for

[3:33] tonight. Our We have no old business.

[3:36] Our first new business is case 58-2026

[3:40] 21101 West 120th Terrace request for a

[3:45] fence height exception in accordance

[3:47] with the LDO16-4-9.5A

[3:50] in an R1 district. Does staff have a

[3:52] report?

[3:54] The applicant would like to replace an

[3:56] existing six-foot fence with a six-foot

[3:59] wood privacy fence at the perimeter of

[4:00] the property in the same location.

[4:04] >> So, without belaboring the point, this

[4:06] is one of those where it is it is

[4:08] strictly replacement of a fence that's

[4:10] already 6 foot in that location and the

[4:12] only reason they need an exception is

[4:15] because they're replacing it and not

[4:17] repairing it. Right.

[4:18] >> Correct. Okay. And the existing fence is

[4:21] indicated in the yellow dotted line and

[4:23] the new fence is in green solid on the

[4:27] picture displayed.

[4:28] >> So virtually the same.

[4:30] >> Correct.

[4:31] >> Okay. Any questions for staff before we

[4:33] get the applicant?

[4:34] >> Question, Ron. Why is it a different

[4:37] shape than the existing fence?

[4:41] I

[4:43] it look it appears I mean that might be

[4:45] a better question for the applicant but

[4:47] they're going to go all the way to the

[4:48] 30 foot setback on that corner to get a

[4:51] little more space beyond that patio and

[4:54] I I just assume they're squaring it off

[4:56] rather than that kind of jagged curved

[4:59] line but that they'll be better to

[5:01] answer that.

[5:02] >> I will

[5:04] in just a second. Are there any other

[5:05] questions for staff before we get the

[5:07] applicant up?

[5:09] All right, then come on up, please.

[5:11] Would you please state your name and

[5:13] record and name and address for the

[5:14] record?

[5:15] >> Yeah. Good evening. My name is Rob

[5:16] Lipold. I'm the property owner, one of

[5:19] two with my wife.

[5:20] >> Thank you very much. Um, you may present

[5:22] your case.

[5:23] >> Yeah. So, um, we purchased this house

[5:25] about 5 years ago. The fence was

[5:27] existing. Uh what we want to do to

[5:29] change the shape would allow like a

[5:32] little service area on the side to be

[5:34] enclosed for excuse me garbage cans um

[5:38] grill kind of things like that. Um the

[5:41] current shape also um doesn't really

[5:43] follow really any straight lines. Um and

[5:46] so we kind of wanted to match the

[5:48] architecture of our house.

[5:51] >> Any questions for the applicant?

[5:54] So it wasn't because you ran into

[5:56] underground utilities or something like

[5:58] that. It was just kind of a you your

[6:02] family desired just to have a different

[6:03] shaped fence.

[6:04] >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. A combination of uh

[6:08] use and aesthetics.

[6:10] >> Thank you.

[6:10] >> An engineer's fence, not an artist's

[6:12] fence.

[6:15] >> I am an engineer.

[6:16] >> How did I know that?

[6:17] >> Right.

[6:18] >> All right. Um are there any other

[6:20] questions for the applicant?

[6:22] All right. Uh well then we can entertain

[6:25] a motion.

[6:27] >> Move to approve.

[6:29] >> Second.

[6:30] >> Got a motion in a second. All those in

[6:32] favor of approval, please say I.

[6:35] >> Oppos? Nay. It passes. You'll be

[6:36] notified in writing. Thanks for coming

[6:38] in.

[6:38] >> Thank you.

[6:43] Our second case for tonight is 59,

[6:48] excuse me,-2026

[6:50] 9301 Lee Boulevard, request for a

[6:53] variance to the placement of a

[6:54] permanently installed generator. And I

[6:57] will note for all of you that the second

[7:00] case is also uh the same address and

[7:03] another variance to the sideyard

[7:06] setback. So, um, I'll just ask Ron,

[7:10] staff have a report and as part of that

[7:12] report, could you explain to us why we

[7:14] have two on the same piece?

[7:16] >> The applicant has placed a permanently

[7:17] installed generator in the sidey yard of

[7:19] the home. Permanently installed

[7:21] generators are required to be in the

[7:23] rear yard.

[7:25] The two cases are one, generators belong

[7:27] in the rear, so they want to put it on

[7:29] the side. Now that it's on the side,

[7:31] it's in the sideyard setback.

[7:35] >> Okay. So, so they need they need a a

[7:38] variance to allow it to be on the side.

[7:43] >> Correct.

[7:44] >> So, they need a variance. You know, it

[7:46] has to be in the rear yard. So, that's

[7:47] that first case. The second case, it

[7:49] also has to meet the 15t side setback

[7:53] and it doesn't meet the 15t side

[7:55] setback.

[7:55] >> Did he apply for the placement of the

[7:58] for the generator previously?

[8:01] >> What was that? And did he did he apply

[8:03] for the placement before they installed

[8:04] the gen to begin with?

[8:06] >> The permit was applied for after the

[8:08] fact for the generator. There was a

[8:10] generator for a new home or there was a

[8:13] permit for a new home, but there the

[8:15] generator is not part of new homes. They

[8:18] require their own permit.

[8:22] >> It it was installed without a permit,

[8:24] right? You're saying

[8:26] >> yes.

[8:27] >> Okay. All right. Isn't that typically

[8:30] the job of the installer, the contractor

[8:32] that in in that installs the uh

[8:35] generator?

[8:38] >> Yes.

[8:39] >> Thank you.

[8:42] Okay. Any other questions for staff

[8:44] before we get the applicant up here? Is

[8:46] the applicant here? Come on up

[8:50] and please give us your name and address

[8:52] before you begin.

[8:53] >> Yes. Uh my name is Blake Foster, uh 9301

[8:55] Lee Boulevard. I am the homeowner. Um,

[8:57] just to add a little bit more color. So,

[8:59] the home was built uh through 2024 into

[9:02] 2025. The generator in question was

[9:05] installed. I will be forthright. A

[9:07] mistake was made. Neither the

[9:08] electrician nor the builder homaly um

[9:11] realized that a a an application and

[9:13] permit was required. It was installed.

[9:16] The home underwent multiple inspections

[9:18] May 30th, June 30th, June 13th, and June

[9:21] 16th before a final certificate of

[9:23] occupancy was issued. All not flagging

[9:26] this. this wasn't flagged until a later

[9:27] date. Now that we've arrived at this

[9:30] unfortunate situation, um I am aware of

[9:32] the regulations. Um what I'm asking for

[9:35] these exceptions, this variance for that

[9:37] is because my immediate neighbors to the

[9:39] rear have a their their house faces

[9:42] perpendicular to our house. So our house

[9:44] faces towards Lee Boulevard. Theirs sits

[9:46] facing this way. They have a a swimming

[9:49] pool. And so our the entirety of our

[9:51] backyard faces their swimming pool. to

[9:53] move it. If I understand the principle

[9:57] of the matter is that it's trying to

[9:58] minimize disruption to the neighbors.

[10:01] Moving it to the back would be a further

[10:02] disruption to them and the swimming pool

[10:05] they have installed. Where it currently

[10:06] sits is next to a garage. My neighbor um

[10:09] of course the solicitation of of input

[10:12] from neighbors has gone out. None of the

[10:14] neighbors have objected, particularly

[10:15] the one in question, her name is Connie

[10:18] next door. She does not have a problem

[10:19] with it. There is one further problem

[10:21] that will be remedied on if if approval

[10:24] is had which is that it is not enclosed

[10:26] in the way that it should be right now.

[10:28] Again, a part of the original mistake

[10:30] made part of the plan that was submitted

[10:33] as part of this variance is that we

[10:34] would enclose it. We would meet the

[10:37] sound requirements. We would go whatever

[10:39] we needed to do to meet the sound

[10:41] requirements. But where it is, we would

[10:43] move it but move it further to the house

[10:46] keeping it essentially where it is now

[10:48] placed. And that's what the application

[10:50] of the variance is for. Thank you for

[10:51] your time.

[10:52] >> Okay. Are there questions for the

[10:54] applicant? Don't don't don't leave us

[10:55] yet.

[10:56] >> Well, I I'm just interested in this is

[10:59] as to

[11:01] chances are your neighbor to the east

[11:05] with that has the pool would not be

[11:07] using the pool if you were using your

[11:09] generator because it would be a time of

[11:11] distress probably. You know,

[11:14] >> you you might say that, but power can

[11:17] fail for any number of reasons. Uh what

[11:20] I would say probabilistically, yes, it

[11:22] would be adverse weather that would lead

[11:23] to power power failure.

[11:26] >> Any other questions for the applicant?

[11:28] >> I have a question for the applicant. So

[11:31] on I'm on this photo

[11:34] >> right right here. And so if you were

[11:37] moving

[11:39] >> Thank you. If you were moving the

[11:40] generator to the backyard, would that be

[11:45] kind of up or below on that picture?

[11:47] Because right now it's

[11:48] >> on the side.

[11:49] >> Um, it would be above. So, the rear of

[11:51] our house is the the top of the page.

[11:53] >> Okay. And I do see that pool now. So,

[11:56] the location where it is now, I mean,

[11:58] just seems like undeniably closer to a

[12:02] house than it would be if you moved it

[12:04] towards the pool.

[12:05] >> Yes, ma'am.

[12:06] >> Okay. Just wanted to be sure I was

[12:08] seeing that. Okay. Thank you.

[12:10] >> Any other questions for the applicant?

[12:12] Gary?

[12:12] >> Uh, yes. Thank you. Where is where's the

[12:14] air conditioning unit?

[12:16] >> Um, the there is one air conditioning

[12:18] unit that services the garage which is

[12:21] on this. Um, yes. Uh, so that large tree

[12:24] right there, it is placed right there.

[12:26] Um, the house itself is geothermal. So,

[12:28] I do not have outdoor units.

[12:30] >> Sorry, say that again. Uh,

[12:32] >> uh, the units for the house, the

[12:34] interior are um, geothermal. So they do

[12:37] not use outside units,

[12:42] » but there is a mini split in the garage

[12:44] which we just pointed out

[12:46] >> and that has an outdoor unit.

[12:48] >> Thank you, sir.

[12:49] >> Any other questions for

[12:51] >> go back to that

[12:53] >> picture that we had up there with the

[12:55] white facade? Looking at that, are we

[12:58] looking to the northeast? And um

[13:02] >> yes, you are. You're facing uh the north

[13:06] the northwest.

[13:07] >> You're facing northwest. So you're

[13:09] standing on the south.

[13:12] >> Wow. This is directionally challenging

[13:13] here.

[13:14] >> The southwest uh southeast of the uh

[13:17] corner.

[13:17] >> Where is the white truck and the black

[13:19] SUV?

[13:21] >> That's 93rd Court.

[13:23] >> Huh.

[13:23] >> That is 93rd Court. So the house faces

[13:26] Lee Boulevard.

[13:28] There is a uh an L-shaped road that runs

[13:31] by. that's 93rd court and then it turns

[13:33] into something else, but it's uh there's

[13:35] no uh further access.

[13:40] » I I tend to agree with Katherine in that

[13:43] it seems like it's very close to your

[13:46] south neighbor

[13:48] >> and his property and the driveway that's

[13:50] right there. And I'm surprised that they

[13:53] didn't object when they received the

[13:55] letter, but that's my own personal

[13:57] opinion.

[13:59] >> Any other questions for the applicant?

[14:01] Do do we know what do you know what the

[14:03] decibel level is on at the property

[14:06] line? um currently untreated. It is in

[14:09] excess of what is what is required. It's

[14:12] in excess of

[14:13] >> it's in excess of what is currently

[14:15] required and that's why part of the

[14:16] variance does include moving it back

[14:19] towards the house to move it um I think

[14:22] we get within a foot of reaching the

[14:25] required setback but we are a foot short

[14:28] but then it would we would build further

[14:30] build a brick wall with shrubbery

[14:32] enclosure and possibly exploring a top

[14:35] over it to control sound. Well, Travis,

[14:38] they they have to comply with the noise

[14:41] requirements to get a final permit

[14:43] signed off on, right?

[14:44] >> Yeah, they'd have to there's like zombie

[14:46] box. There's different products you

[14:47] could use, but they have to meet the

[14:49] decibel level even if this were

[14:51] approved.

[14:52] >> So, where

[14:52] >> that's not part of the variance.

[14:55] >> That's going to be required regardless.

[14:57] >> Yes. Correct.

[14:58] >> Okay.

[14:58] >> Um I I think I would just is more of a

[15:01] proverbial question. Um this could again

[15:05] a mistake was made. Um, I think in the

[15:07] inspection process, if this would have

[15:09] been raised at a a point when the house

[15:12] was being inspected for the electrical

[15:14] system, it would have been much easier

[15:16] to remedy. So, I'm here now because it

[15:18] essentially would mean um I I'm not sure

[15:22] that we can move it. So, if if it is

[15:25] struck down, then I will take it out.

[15:27] So, which it it is what it is, and I'm

[15:29] willing to accept that. But the point of

[15:31] the variance is moving it um comes at an

[15:36] extreme expense. So,

[15:38] >> and what you say makes perfect sense,

[15:40] but you're addressing one of the

[15:41] dilemmas we have is your board zoning.

[15:44] Yeah.

[15:44] >> We we enforce the law as it's written.

[15:46] We don't get to make changes in it based

[15:48] on what we think is a good idea.

[15:50] >> No, certainly. Um I think I just it it

[15:52] Yeah, I I don't mean to belabor a point.

[15:54] I think I've wondered about the legal

[15:56] recourse for isn't the point of

[15:58] inspections to find and flag and if they

[16:01] don't perform their job, isn't liability

[16:04] shared? Uh, that's not a question for

[16:06] here. So, I would just

[16:07] >> Well, well, let's since that's been

[16:09] mentioned three times now, let me just

[16:10] ask staff what do we have to say about

[16:13] that?

[16:14] >> Looking at the inspection record, it is

[16:16] unclear, you know. So, if we go out on

[16:18] an initial inspection, we might flag 10

[16:21] items. We don't come back and do a

[16:23] complete review of the whole house. We

[16:26] just come back and look at those

[16:27] specific items that we have called out

[16:30] on that initial inspection. It's

[16:32] impossible to look at the inspection

[16:33] record and say when the generator went

[16:37] in, if staff would have even seen it on

[16:40] inspection, because if they're on a

[16:41] reinspection, they wouldn't necessarily

[16:43] be looking at the generator

[16:45] specifically.

[16:46] >> And with it not being on the plans, they

[16:48] certainly wouldn't have that triggered

[16:50] to look at.

[16:51] >> Okay.

[16:53] >> Any any questions for staff and the

[16:55] applicant?

[16:55] >> Just to pursue that a little bit more,

[16:57] Travis, when was the final inspection

[17:00] done? Was the air was the generator

[17:04] there when they did the final

[17:08] >> per what they've provided to us? It

[17:10] probably it likely was there at refinal

[17:14] inspection. But again, if we've flagged

[17:18] five items, you're looking at five

[17:20] specific items on a refinal. You're not

[17:23] going back and reviewing the entire

[17:25] house, all accessory uses, anything like

[17:28] that. You're looking at very specific,

[17:31] you know, sod splash blocks. You, you

[17:34] know, you might have several, you're

[17:36] looking at those specific deficiencies.

[17:38] You're not doing a complete final every

[17:42] time you come out for a refinal

[17:45] inspection. So, it's really it's hard to

[17:48] say.

[17:49] >> Thank you.

[17:50] >> May May I add just one last thing and

[17:52] then I will be finished. Um the

[17:54] generator was installed somewhere

[17:56] between uh March 13 and March 20th of

[17:59] 2025. So that is a three three full

[18:02] months in advance um of final

[18:05] inspections. So there was a handful um

[18:08] again which I I called out um

[18:11] uh but that would have most certainly

[18:14] included preliminary electrical

[18:15] inspections because it was installed

[18:17] with the entirety of the electrical

[18:19] systems in the house.

[18:20] >> I I appreciate that. But you've already

[18:22] acknowledged you understand that the the

[18:25] board doesn't have the power to balance

[18:26] equities. That's that's not what our job

[18:28] is here. Yes, sir. Okay.

[18:30] >> I I

[18:31] >> just wanted to make sure. But but before

[18:33] you go away, let me let me give you a

[18:35] chance. The the difficult ones for us to decide that we have these five

[18:40] criteria that has to pass for us to

[18:42] >> do this and and the two that cause

[18:44] problems are uniqueness of the property

[18:46] and hardship. And I'm sure I don't know

[18:50] if you already have a leg understanding

[18:52] of what those terms mean legally, but uh

[18:54] unique doesn't mean one of a kind in the

[18:58] entire universe. Unique means an unusual

[19:00] situation. Hardship basically means our

[19:03] ordinances or not allowing you to do

[19:05] with your property um use your property

[19:09] in a meaningful way. In other words, you

[19:11] know, we're we're because of our

[19:12] ordinances, somebody's

[19:15] in in easements, they've only got they

[19:16] can only build a 1,200 square foot home.

[19:18] That's that's that's hardship.

[19:20] >> Yep.

[19:21] >> Um so, if you want to to take your your

[19:25] shot at convincing us of uniqueness and

[19:27] hardship, I'd certainly like to have you

[19:29] do that before we give up on this. Um,

[19:35] I I think to be honest, I don't know

[19:36] that in in good faith I could make an

[19:39] argument for either.

[19:40] >> I appreciate that. I I really do

[19:42] appreciate your honesty very much. Uh,

[19:44] any other questions?

[19:47] All right. Well, with that we go through

[19:48] the five criteria and uh you may have a

[19:51] seat and if we want to talk to you some

[19:53] more, we'll call you back out. Thank

[19:54] you.

[19:55] >> Editorial, please.

[19:56] >> Of course.

[19:57] >> Um, you learned a lot in this process.

[20:00] Um, we really don't like it when people

[20:02] build something and then ask for a

[20:04] permit. And I'm not barking at you, but

[20:07] you're whoever did this work for you

[20:09] should have known. Should have known to

[20:11] look for the appropriate documentation

[20:13] to put that in place. I'd chew on that

[20:15] guy if I were you.

[20:19] Okay. Having having is there anything

[20:22] else to say before we get on with our

[20:24] consideration of the factors? All right.

[20:26] Well, we have the five factors we

[20:28] have to uh consider and the first is

[20:31] uniqueness of the property. Are there

[20:32] any is there any further discussion on

[20:34] uniqueness?

[20:38] » Okay. All those who believe it's met

[20:40] this criteria, please say I.

[20:42] >> I.

[20:43] >> All those who uh don't believe it met

[20:46] this criteria say nay.

[20:48] >> Nay.

[20:50] >> No, I didn't hear your vote.

[20:54] >> Yes, I l to the

[20:56] uniqueness

[20:57] >> to what?

[20:58] >> I lean to the uniqueness reserve

[21:01] reservedly.

[21:02] >> So, so you you are saying I you believe

[21:05] it's met the uniqueness criteria.

[21:08] >> Okay. And and you two say nay. So that

[21:10] means I have to vote. I say nay.

[21:16] Uh rights of adjacent property owners

[21:18] have have uh letters gone out.

[21:21] >> Yes. No calls or concerns.

[21:24] >> Okay. Um, is I guess I should ask is

[21:27] there anybody here who wants to speak on

[21:29] this one way or the other? I'm a little

[21:31] late with that, but

[21:33] Okay. All right. Rights adjacent

[21:35] property owners. Any discussion?

[21:37] >> Mr. Chairman, I'll just comment on that even if the current property owner

[21:42] is okay with it. Um, it is really really

[21:45] close to that property, I'd be concerned

[21:47] about future property owners um and

[21:49] their rights. So, I don't think that's

[21:51] been met. So, all those who believe it's

[21:53] met this criteria, please say I.

[21:56] >> Oppose. Nay.

[21:58] >> Nay.

[21:59] >> I didn't hear any eyes. Did I miss

[22:01] something?

[22:03] >> What? No.

[22:05] >> Okay. Uh, hardship. Any discussion on

[22:08] the hardship criteria?

[22:14] Okay. All those who believe it's met

[22:16] this criteria, please say I.

[22:18] >> Oppose. Nay.

[22:19] >> Nay.

[22:21] public safety and general welfare.

[22:24] There's a lot of generators around.

[22:25] Anybody have any comments on public

[22:27] safety and general welfare?

[22:30] All those who believe it's met this

[22:31] criteria, please say I.

[22:33] >> I.

[22:34] >> Oppose? Nay.

[22:35] >> Nay.

[22:36] >> That's two and two. I'm going to say I

[22:38] on this one. I don't see any problem

[22:39] with public safety and general welfare.

[22:41] Spirit and intent. Any comments on

[22:44] spirit and intent?

[22:47] All those who believe it's met this

[22:49] criteria, please say I.

[22:51] >> Oppose. Nay.

[22:52] >> Nay.

[22:53] >> Okay. So, having not met um all five of

[22:58] that criteria, the only thing we can

[23:00] entertain is a motion to deny the

[23:02] request for a variance. Um

[23:07] in this case 59-2026,

[23:10] >> Mr. Chairman, case 59 2026 2301 Lee

[23:15] Boulevard request for a variance to the

[23:17] placement of a permanently installed

[23:19] generate in accordance with the LDO

[23:21] section 16-4-1.3A

[23:25] 7D in the R1 district. I move

[23:31] it.

[23:31] >> I got a motion to deny.

[23:34] Have a second. All those in favor of

[23:36] denial, please say I.

[23:38] >> I oppose. Nay. it's denied, you'll be

[23:41] notified. Um the sec next case we have,

[23:45] folks, is the same property as you as

[23:48] you know. Um it's 60-20269301

[23:53] Lee Boulevard. Um just for the record,

[23:57] does staff have a report?

[24:01] The applicant has placed a generator

[24:03] side yard set back 13t 1 and 1/2 in from

[24:07] the property line. And a variance of 1T

[24:08] 10 and a half is needed to keep the

[24:10] generator in its current location.

[24:14] >> So the last one was location and or the yard it's in and this one is the

[24:18] distance from the setback.

[24:20] >> But if it denied being in the side,

[24:25] Kelsey,

[24:27] do we need to vote on this one?

[24:28] >> Yes, I would still vote on each factor

[24:30] to make a record.

[24:31] >> All righty then. Um, do you want to say

[24:34] anything else, sir? I'm noting for the

[24:36] record that the applicant shaking his

[24:38] head. No. Is there anybody who's here to

[24:40] speak on this one one way or the other?

[24:43] All right. Then a uniqueness of

[24:45] property. Any comments? All those who

[24:48] believe it's met this criteria, please

[24:49] say I. Oppose. Nay.

[24:52] >> Nay.

[24:53] >> Rights of adjacent property owners. All

[24:55] those who believe it's met this

[24:56] criteria, please say I.

[24:58] >> I.

[24:58] >> Oppose. Nay.

[25:00] >> Nay.

[25:01] >> I think that's three to one. Is that Is

[25:04] that what we got? Mel, you were a nay.

[25:07] Okay.

[25:08] >> Hardship. All those who believe it's met

[25:11] this criteria, please say I.

[25:14] >> All those

[25:16] >> I Okay. All oppose say nay.

[25:19] >> Nay.

[25:21] >> No. I'm sorry. It comes nay. Okay.

[25:24] Public safety and general welfare. All

[25:26] those who believe it's met this

[25:28] criteria, please say I.

[25:29] >> I.

[25:30] >> Oppose. Nay.

[25:32] >> Nay. I'm going to side with the eyes on

[25:35] this one. I don't see the problem there.

[25:37] Spirit and intent. Um, all those who

[25:40] believe it's met this criteria, please

[25:41] say I.

[25:43] >> Oppose. Nay.

[25:44] >> Nay.

[25:45] >> I'm going to say um I'll say nay on this

[25:48] one.

[25:50] >> Okay. Um, having not passed the five

[25:53] criteria, all we can do is entertain a

[25:55] motion to deny this request for variance

[25:57] to the sideyard setback. Do I have such

[25:59] a motion? like to make a motion on case

[26:03] number 6-20226

[26:06] at 9301 Lee Boulevard request for a

[26:08] variance to the side setback in

[26:11] accordance with the LDO section

[26:13] 16-2-5.3D

[26:16] in an R1 district. Move to deny.

[26:20] >> Second.

[26:21] >> Got a motion and a second. All those in

[26:23] favor of the motion to deny, please say

[26:25] I.

[26:26] >> I.

[26:26] >> Oppose. Nay.

[26:27] >> Nay.

[26:28] >> Okay. So, three to one. Is that what I'm

[26:31] seeing? Okay. All right. That's that's

[26:35] it. Thank you for coming in and for your

[26:37] professional approach to this. I'm sorry

[26:38] for your troubles. Okay.

[26:44] Our next case is case 61-2026

[26:48] 8319 Meadow Lane. request for a variance

[26:52] to the placement of a sport c sport

[26:58] within 20 ft of any rear or side line in

[27:02] accordance with the LDO. Does staff have

[27:04] a report?

[27:05] >> The applicant has converted a previously

[27:07] approved patio from 2025 into a sport

[27:11] court. The north edge of the sport court

[27:13] is 13 ft from the side property line.

[27:16] Sport courts are required to be 20 ft

[27:18] from the side property line. A variance

[27:20] of seven feet is needed to keep the

[27:22] sport court in its current location.

[27:25] >> Any questions for staff?

[27:29] >> So, so 2025 application was approved

[27:33] >> for a patio.

[27:36] >> has he done anything other than erect

[27:39] the basketball court?

[27:41] >> No.

[27:45] » Any other questions for staff?

[27:48] I see the applicant. Would you give us

[27:50] your name and address for the record,

[27:51] please?

[27:52] >> Yes. David Terrell, 8319 Meadow Lane.

[27:55] >> Thank you very much. You may present

[27:57] your case.

[27:58] >> Uh, thank you. I know you guys take it

[28:00] by the five factors, so I'll try to

[28:01] address those in order. I'll be rather

[28:03] brief and allow you guys to ask any

[28:05] questions you may have.

[28:06] >> Um, first, as to the uniqueness of the

[28:09] property, I believe that the primary

[28:11] factor here is it is a 1949 home built

[28:14] in Old Leewood. So it is commiserate

[28:16] with that other area with a lot of stone

[28:17] basements and some of that um issue.

[28:20] What led to our patio project to begin

[28:22] with was the fact that we were having

[28:24] storm water drainage issues that were

[28:25] flooding not only our basement but also

[28:27] the basement to the north of our home.

[28:30] Um, what what transpired from there, if

[28:33] I can use the elbow,

[28:37] was that we did drainage studies to try

[28:39] to determine how we could best remediate

[28:41] some of that storm water drainage, not

[28:42] only for our own home, but for the

[28:44] neighbor to the north. And through that,

[28:46] you can see where the drainage lies.

[28:47] North is on the right side of the

[28:49] drainage study here. It comes across

[28:51] part of the back portion of our lot

[28:55] and leads towards that neighbor to our

[28:57] north. And the drainage solution was not

[28:59] only a burm there to try to capture that

[29:01] groundwater, but then to create a very

[29:03] large infiltration trench in the

[29:06] backyard to capture the water and then

[29:07] we spent a lot of money on pumps and

[29:09] other things to try to get it out to the

[29:11] setback from the street to lead into the

[29:13] city storm water drainage system.

[29:16] >> This was one of the two remediation

[29:18] projects. The other occurred on the

[29:19] other side of the property to catch the

[29:21] remaining water that was hitting our

[29:22] house. Through this process, we knew

[29:24] that we may want to convert that area

[29:26] while we're doing the construction into

[29:27] a play area for the kids. put a permit

[29:29] put a permitted patio in there and we

[29:33] reviewed um and I'm going to kind of

[29:36] jump into some of the other factors as I

[29:37] go through this process, but we knew

[29:39] that we may want to add that additional

[29:42] play area in the future. So, we reviewed

[29:44] what the sport court requirements were

[29:45] and per the application for the city at

[29:47] the time, there was conspicuous language

[29:49] indicating that there was a 10-foot

[29:52] setback for any side or boundary line

[29:56] required. And so when we talk about

[29:57] hardships here, we reviewed and relied

[29:59] upon the permit application that the

[30:01] city provided in order to determine that

[30:04] we were within the setback requirement

[30:05] in the event we wanted to convert the

[30:07] patio to a sport court through this

[30:08] process.

[30:09] >> So So when was this that that you that

[30:13] this happened? What what time? This was

[30:15] when before you put the patio in.

[30:17] >> Yes.

[30:17] >> Which was when

[30:19] >> we put the patio in last summer.

[30:21] >> Okay. So, when you made an when you made

[30:23] it, what you're saying is when you made

[30:25] an application last year to put the

[30:28] patio in, the city application said that

[30:32] a sport court had to be 10 ft and it

[30:35] still says it today.

[30:36] >> Okay.

[30:39] >> You looked on the page 86 of tonight's

[30:41] agenda, you'll see in our write up, we

[30:44] actually included some of this language,

[30:45] but you can see it's listed in two

[30:54] different sections actually. Um, one in

[30:57] this check box area right up here talks

[30:59] about 10 foot setback and then

[31:01] inconspicuous highly high highlighting

[31:03] and bold. It indicates in the

[31:04] application permit that it's only a

[31:06] 10-ft setback.

[31:08] >> We were reasonable and relying upon

[31:09] this. We thought when we were working

[31:11] with our contractor to say if we want to

[31:12] convert this area into the sport court

[31:14] in the future, we would be able to do

[31:16] so. Um

[31:18] the long version of this, we complete

[31:20] the project and when we go to put the

[31:21] basketball goal up, we found that we did

[31:23] not have the sport court application

[31:25] permitted. One, and then two, they have

[31:26] changed the setback now to 20 ft as

[31:29] opposed to 10. We have approximately 13

[31:32] feet on the north boundary as opposed to

[31:34] the 20 that's now required under the new

[31:36] ordinance that was put in place at some

[31:38] time in 23 is my understanding, but that

[31:40] was not we were not aware of that

[31:42] obviously at the time. Um, so I kind of

[31:45] got off track there telling you the

[31:46] overall story, but let me get back. So

[31:48] the uniqueness of the property, I think

[31:50] the primary purpose is here that in

[31:52] order to remediate the water, we needed

[31:53] to have a storm water drainage solution

[31:55] that captured that area where the sport

[31:58] court is now placed, including a burm

[32:00] that had to be placed in a specific

[32:01] location. We were going to have to do

[32:03] hardcaping in order to capture the water

[32:04] there. Hence, the location of the patio

[32:06] was required to be that. And at this

[32:08] point, we wanted to make sure that we

[32:09] could also utilize it as a sport court.

[32:12] So, so the uniqueness just just to

[32:14] summarize what I hear you saying, you

[32:15] you're saying the uniqueness is in the

[32:17] fact that you have a unique drainage

[32:20] problem that you have to deal with and

[32:22] to deal with it effectively, you had to

[32:25] place the patio in that location.

[32:26] >> Yes.

[32:27] >> Okay. All right.

[32:28] >> That's the short version.

[32:29] >> That's a short version. I like short

[32:31] versions.

[32:34] If we uh

[32:39] if we look to rights of adjacent

[32:41] property owners, um I understand that

[32:44] there are some noise issues that could

[32:46] come with sport courts and that's

[32:47] probably why the setback was changed and

[32:49] I'm fully aware of that. I think that

[32:51] ultimately though we've done many things

[32:53] in this area to ensure that we have

[32:55] noise reduction by planting our

[32:56] providers along the fence line and

[32:58] having a large burm with some plantings

[32:59] on top of it. The neighbors to the north

[33:01] also um are in this part of old Leewood

[33:04] where there are a lot of homes on top of

[33:06] one another and they have a play area

[33:07] about five feet from that fence line.

[33:09] Yeah.

[33:09] >> Um and for what it's worth, I've spoken

[33:11] with them. They were aware of what our

[33:12] project was. Their kids have played on

[33:14] the patio. They don't have any objection

[33:16] to the placement of the sport court.

[33:17] >> Great. Um,

[33:20] in terms of hardship, I I understand

[33:24] that a hardship may have been created

[33:26] when we put up a goal, as the city has

[33:27] noted in theirs, but at the same time, a

[33:29] hardship was created when we reasonably

[33:30] relied upon what the city permit

[33:32] application process looked like. And in

[33:34] order to remediate the water

[33:35] effectively, we were going to have to

[33:36] have some hardscape in this location.

[33:38] So, we felt like it was a necessary um

[33:40] endeavor to go through um public safety

[33:43] and general welfare. I think in fact we

[33:44] have improved general welfare in the

[33:46] neighborhood by improving the water

[33:48] drainage system and avoiding the

[33:49] flooding that was occurring to our

[33:50] neighbor to the north's house as well

[33:52] which happens to be the house that has

[33:54] the 7 foot variance issue. So the area

[33:56] that we're trying to get the variance

[33:58] for um hopefully they could overlook any

[34:00] noise problems by us improving their

[34:02] flooding problems.

[34:04] >> Okay.

[34:05] >> And just go back to hardship for a

[34:07] moment. I I wanted to make sure I I

[34:10] fully understood because I heard I

[34:11] thought I heard you say at the beginning

[34:13] that that you you view the hardship as

[34:16] being that you you did this according to

[34:18] the letter of the law and now you're

[34:20] being told it won't work for that

[34:22] purpose that you were told it would work

[34:24] for when you when you did the original

[34:27] application. Is that correct? So the

[34:29] hardships being created by our change in

[34:31] our ordinance

[34:33] >> with reasonable reliance upon the

[34:35] documents that were put out pro not just

[34:37] retroactively but still prospectively

[34:40] informing the residents that you are in

[34:42] compliance when you're trying to do it

[34:44] >> right. I I'm just trying to make sure I understood that correctly. That's what

[34:49] I heard you say before.

[34:50] >> I think the other hardship would be I

[34:51] don't think there is a reasonable

[34:52] solution to the water drainage problem

[34:54] without doing some hardcaping there. I

[34:56] don't think there's any option to be

[34:57] able to create a sport court in our yard

[34:59] as well.

[34:59] >> Sure.

[35:00] >> And it would be unusual in our

[35:01] neighborhood where many people have

[35:02] these, including our next door neighbor

[35:04] to the south that's less than 10 ft from

[35:06] our property line. Okay.

[35:07] >> Um so if anything, that may feed into

[35:10] the uniqueness factor as well and the

[35:12] fact that there are other properties in

[35:13] our neighborhood with that and where the

[35:15] setbacks in the neighborhood are

[35:16] commonly less than what the current

[35:18] ordinance look like. Um especially if

[35:20] we're looking at a few a year difference

[35:22] from when this project was completed to

[35:24] be in compliance with the old ordinance.

[35:26] >> Sure. Sure.

[35:29] >> And then spirit intent. I think I

[35:31] probably covered that through the

[35:32] general nature of the other arguments,

[35:34] but I'm happy to answer any other

[35:35] questions from

[35:36] >> any questions for the applicant.

[35:38] >> Do you have any letters of support or

[35:40] other than verbal uh approval from your

[35:42] neighbors?

[35:45] say that

[35:45] >> do you is there any letters of support

[35:48] your homes association or neighbors

[35:50] saying, "Hey, this is a great idea

[35:52] because my kids like to play play

[35:53] basketball."

[35:54] >> Um, I didn't bring any with me this

[35:56] evening, but I will tell you that I did

[35:58] get an email from a neighbor when we set

[36:00] out our notice who said, "Hey, I don't

[36:02] want to have to come to the hearing.

[36:04] What are you guys doing?" And I replied

[36:05] to him with a general nature of we're

[36:07] trying to put a basketball goal up on

[36:09] this patio that we put in the back

[36:11] during the drainage project and we're

[36:13] not in compliance with the current

[36:14] setback. And he he replied in the nature

[36:17] of I fully support that. I hope you and

[36:19] your kids can play out there.

[36:22] >> And I note that our the staff reports

[36:24] that although all letters were mailed,

[36:26] there were no calls or concerns raised.

[36:28] Is that still the case, guys?

[36:31] Yeah, there were no calls or concerns,

[36:33] but the it was brought to our attention

[36:35] by a noise complaint.

[36:37] >> Okay, so there's somebody concerned out

[36:40] there.

[36:42] >> Any other questions for the applicant?

[36:46] >> I've got two questions. One, have have

[36:48] the the flooding issues been resolved

[36:51] now?

[36:52] >> We've had some heavy rains. Have you

[36:54] made it through unscathed?

[36:56] >> Yes, we have.

[36:57] Okay.

[36:58] >> And to the best of my knowledge, our

[36:59] neighbors to the north have not had

[37:01] flooding in their basement either.

[37:02] >> Could you go to this map, which is kind

[37:05] of the plat map. It shows the whole

[37:07] neighborhood. Can you tell us which of

[37:09] the houses that are close to you do not

[37:13] comply with the 20 foot setback for

[37:15] their court? Could you just point out

[37:16] those houses?

[37:18] >> Um,

[37:20] I don't want names. I just want you to

[37:22] show me on the diagram how close they

[37:24] are to you.

[37:25] >> Sure. The neighbor directly to the south

[37:27] of us has a sport court.

[37:28] >> Okay.

[37:28] >> And it's under this tree right here.

[37:31] >> So it's it's not on this picture, but

[37:33] there's a sport sport court there now.

[37:35] >> Yes.

[37:36] >> Okay. Anybody else in the neighborhood?

[37:38] >> There are several. That's just the one I

[37:40] know of because I can see it from my

[37:42] yard.

[37:43] >> And it's closer than 20 ft.

[37:46] >> Yes, I believe so.

[37:50] » Any other questions for

[37:51] >> Travis? When when was the ordinance

[37:52] changed from 10 to 20?

[37:55] I want to say late 2022, but don't quote

[37:58] me on that. Um, it's been within the

[38:01] last two to three years that that went

[38:03] before planning commission and governing

[38:04] body and they determined that they

[38:06] wanted to have greater setbacks

[38:09] for sport courts just because that can

[38:11] be an objectionable use. pickle ball

[38:13] especially, but that's kind of what

[38:15] brought that to the forefront was the

[38:17] clicketity clack of the pickle ball,

[38:19] >> right,

[38:20] >> for sport courts, but also, you know, a

[38:23] lot of fair amount of complaints just

[38:26] basketball ball driven with that being

[38:28] so close to the property line, they

[38:30] decided to change some of those

[38:31] requirements.

[38:32] >> But but there's no reason to question

[38:34] his his testimony that when he made the

[38:37] application, the a the form he got had

[38:39] 10 foot on there. Well, so it was a

[38:42] building permit application for a patio.

[38:45] So, we wouldn't have reviewed the sport

[38:46] court. That doesn't mean that staff

[38:48] would acknowledge. We checked with the

[38:50] planning department their uh form for a

[38:53] sport court application.

[38:55] It wasn't updated and it still said have

[38:58] since changed that now,

[39:00] >> right?

[39:00] >> To correct it.

[39:01] >> Okay. Thank you. And for what it's

[39:03] worth, I think it was in November of

[39:04] 2023 based on my research when the

[39:06] ordinance did change, which I found out

[39:08] when I was researching the still current

[39:10] form a couple months ago on the city

[39:12] site still listing 10- foot setback on

[39:14] the sport court application.

[39:16] >> Okay,

[39:19] >> that that sounds correct. I would say if

[39:21] he's saying November 2023,

[39:24] I didn't have that information right in

[39:25] front of me, so that's probably correct.

[39:27] And just at recently it was still it

[39:30] still said 10 feet in that application.

[39:32] They have since corrected it.

[39:34] >> Okay.

[39:36] >> Any other questions?

[39:37] >> Mr. Mr. Trell. Yes. When I looked at the

[39:40] Ames map. Um I expected to see a creek

[39:44] or something. Where's the water coming

[39:46] from that?

[39:47] >> Um I'm not a water expert. I hired an

[39:50] engineering company to do the drainage

[39:51] study. But I believe that 84th Terrace,

[39:54] the street to the south in between Lee

[39:56] and Meadow, has a number of homes that

[39:58] have been upgraded and built. And so I'm

[40:00] assuming we're getting more water runoff

[40:03] through those backyards coming down from

[40:04] the 84th Street corridor or 84th terrace

[40:08] corridor.

[40:10] >> Thank you.

[40:12] >> Is that because the storm drains are

[40:14] insufficient or it just from the runoff

[40:17] from the people's property? I'm assuming

[40:20] there's bigger homes with bigger roofs

[40:22] and more hardscape on those homes. So,

[40:25] everything south of or sorry, north of

[40:28] 84 Terrace is coming back through my

[40:29] yard. Now,

[40:33] » or maybe there was flooding in prior

[40:34] years and we just didn't know about it.

[40:38] >> Anything else? Our permitting process

[40:41] though is supposed to

[40:44] we require that there's no more runoff

[40:46] after new homes built than before.

[40:50] Uh that's so that's kind of different

[40:52] with the tear down rebuild, but on this

[40:55] did receive a storm water adding they

[40:58] were adding over 400 square feet of

[41:00] imperous surface. Um so this was

[41:03] reviewed for storm water when the patio

[41:05] went in. Again, it was presented to the

[41:07] city as a patio. I believe it was even

[41:09] noted on that plan

[41:11] uh you know that this is not approved as

[41:13] a sport court patio only even. So it

[41:16] just we wouldn't have reviewed it for

[41:18] those requirements at that time because

[41:19] it was just a patio. A lot of people are

[41:21] just putting in patios. That's very

[41:23] common.

[41:24] >> Thank you.

[41:27] >> Did you want to say anything on that?

[41:29] >> Not at this time.

[41:30] >> Okay. All right. Um any other questions

[41:33] for the applicant or for staff? Is

[41:35] everybody clear on the applicant's

[41:37] position regarding uniqueness and

[41:38] hardship?

[41:41] Okay. Well, then our next job is to go

[41:43] through the five criteria.

[41:46] Uh the first of which is uniqueness of

[41:48] property. Any comments?

[41:52] I I think there's something about about

[41:54] the storm water runoff that makes this

[41:57] unique that they can't do other things

[41:59] with the backyard.

[42:02] >> Anyone else? Well, the African has gone

[42:04] to considerable expense to alleviate

[42:07] this water runoff problem and that lends

[42:11] to the uniqueness of the lot because

[42:13] most locks don't have that requirement.

[42:16] Anyone else?

[42:19] All those who believe it's met the

[42:20] uniqueness criteria, please indicate by

[42:22] saying I. I

[42:24] >> oppose. Nay.

[42:28] Rights of adjacent property owners. Any

[42:30] discussion?

[42:35] Mr. Chairman, I'll comment on rights of

[42:37] adjacent property owners. Um although

[42:41] the distance was recently changed from

[42:44] that 10 to 20, I see we do still have 13

[42:46] feet um away here, it seems like the

[42:49] current property owners there um also

[42:52] have kids who play outside. So I don't

[42:54] think that would be affected um here. So

[42:56] I do think that's been met.

[42:58] >> Any other comments?

[43:01] All those who believe it's met the

[43:02] criteria of rights of adjacent property

[43:04] owners, please say I.

[43:06] >> I.

[43:06] >> Oppose. Nay.

[43:08] >> Hardship.

[43:11] >> Mr. Chairman, if ever there was a

[43:13] definition of hardship, this would be

[43:14] it.

[43:15] >> Yeah.

[43:15] >> Well,

[43:16] >> city changed the rules on them.

[43:17] >> Yeah.

[43:19] >> Any other any other comments?

[43:22] >> All those who believe it's met this

[43:23] criteria, please say I.

[43:25] >> Oppose. Nay.

[43:27] >> Public safety and general welfare. Any

[43:29] comments?

[43:33] All those who believe it's met this

[43:34] criteria, please say I.

[43:36] >> I.

[43:37] >> Opposed? Nay. And finally, spirit and

[43:39] intent.

[43:41] All those who believe it's met this

[43:43] criteria, please say I.

[43:45] >> I.

[43:46] >> Oppose. Nay.

[43:48] >> All right. Um, since we have a uh

[43:52] affirmative response on all five

[43:54] criteria, we can uh entertain a motion

[43:56] to approve this request for a variance

[44:00] to the placement of a sport court. Do I

[44:02] have such a motion?

[44:03] >> Mr. Chairman, case 6120

[44:07] 8319 M Lane request for a variance to

[44:10] the placement of a sport court within 20

[44:12] ft of any rear or sideline in the LDO or

[44:16] section 16-4.

[44:19] 1.3B

[44:20] 6 in R1 district. I move approval.

[44:25] >> Second.

[44:26] >> Have a motion and a second. All those in

[44:28] favor of approval, please say I.

[44:30] >> I.

[44:31] >> Oppose. Nay.

[44:33] >> It's passed. You'll be notified in

[44:34] writing. Thank you for your professional

[44:36] presentation.

[44:38] >> You too.

[44:41] All right. Our next case is 62-2026

[44:45] 3309 West 92nd Street. Request for a

[44:49] fence height exception. The staff have a

[44:52] report.

[44:53] The applicant would like to replace an

[44:55] existing 4ft chain link on the south and

[44:58] east side, wood on the west, and rot

[45:00] iron on the north fence with a six-foot

[45:03] wood privacy fence at the perimeter of

[45:05] the property.

[45:08] Will will the six-foot fence be in the

[45:11] same location as the existing 4ft fence?

[45:14] >> Correct.

[45:16] >> Any other questions for staff?

[45:19] Is the applicant here? Come on up. You

[45:22] give us your name and address for the

[45:23] record. I'd appreciate it.

[45:25] >> Hello. My name is Megan Miner. I am

[45:26] actually the applicant owner's daughter.

[45:28] She is medically indisposed tonight.

[45:31] >> Well, thanks for coming.

[45:32] >> Yeah, happy to be here. Um, so my mother

[45:35] has an extreme change in grade from her

[45:37] patio to where her fence line in as well

[45:40] as her neighbors patios. They're very

[45:42] high. The fence is very low. Not to

[45:44] mention, it is a 4ft chain link fence,

[45:46] so she doesn't have a lot of privacy.

[45:49] Um, with the six-foot fence, the change

[45:51] in grade will naturally minimize its

[45:53] visual appearance to perver uh preserve

[45:55] the open character of the area. The

[45:57] fence is a board-to-board design, so

[45:59] everyone gets a good side. So, there

[46:02] should be no um aesthetic issue. And

[46:06] then she is building a sun room that she

[46:09] is going to be putting in an application

[46:10] for for the next board meeting, I

[46:12] believe, in October, I guess, the one

[46:14] after. Uh that complies with the

[46:16] proximity to property lines, but puts

[46:18] her even closer to her neighbors. The

[46:21] sun room will consist mostly of windows,

[46:23] and with them on top of her, there will

[46:25] be no privacy. Um, do you all have any

[46:28] questions?

[46:29] >> Does anyone have questions for the

[46:31] applicants?

[46:32] >> I have pictures of the view if you'd

[46:33] like to see them, but

[46:37] >> no questions.

[46:39] Well, if there's no questions, do I have

[46:42] a motion?

[46:44] Oh, wait. Is there anyone here who wants

[46:45] to speak on this one way or the other?

[46:47] Sorry.

[46:48] Okay. Now, do I have a motion?

[46:52] on a case 92-2026

[46:56] 3309 West 92nd Street request for a

[46:59] fence height exception in accordance

[47:02] with LD LDO section 16-4-9.5A

[47:07] in an R1 district. I move for approval.

[47:10] Second.

[47:11] >> Have a motion and a second. All those in

[47:13] favor, please say I. I

[47:14] >> oppose. Nay. It passes. You'll be

[47:17] notified in writing. Thanks for coming

[47:18] in.

[47:18] >> Awesome. Thanks y'all. Have a nice

[47:19] night.

[47:23] Okay, our next case is another

[47:25] exception. It's 63-2026

[47:28] 28/19 West 89th Street. Request for an

[47:32] exception to the maximum allowable

[47:34] square footage. Uh, does staff have a

[47:37] report?

[47:39] >> The applicant is proposing a tear down

[47:41] rebuild that will total 4,738

[47:45] feet. The maximum allowed on this lot is

[47:48] 4,615

[47:50] ft. An exception of 123 feet or 2.6% is

[47:55] needed to build the home as proposed.

[47:59] Any questions for staff?

[48:04] Um,

[48:06] is this one of those where it's

[48:07] replacing a much smaller home?

[48:10] >> Correct.

[48:11] >> Okay.

[48:12] Um, I just note for my fellow board

[48:15] members that this is uh what is commonly

[48:18] referred to as North or Old Leewood. And

[48:20] there's a whole lot of houses in North

[48:22] or Old Leewood that are way undersized

[48:25] for what's allowed on the property.

[48:26] There's being a lot a lot of uh tear

[48:29] downs and rebuilds where what's going

[48:31] back looks like a mansion compared to

[48:33] what was there. But um we have to

[48:36] consider it in light of what the

[48:38] statutes allow the square footage to be.

[48:41] So, um, any questions for staff?

[48:44] >> I had a question. Uh, Ron, what's the

[48:46] status of the construction project? Are

[48:48] they still waiting for approval or have

[48:50] they started with the foundation or

[48:52] >> It's in review.

[48:54] >> In review. Okay. Thank you.

[48:57] >> Any other questions for staff?

[49:00] Is the applicant here?

[49:03] >> Come on up.

[49:09] » Hi. Hi, my name is Sarah Baird and I'm

[49:12] representing um James Engel Custom

[49:15] Homes, the owner of the property.

[49:19] Um and yes, as you said, it's a a tear

[49:21] down rebuild. Um and we are proposing

[49:26] the 123 additional square foot um is

[49:30] actually in the second floor in the

[49:32] attic space over a threecar side loading

[49:36] garage.

[49:37] Um, and we're requesting the exception

[49:41] because it will not impact the the

[49:44] additional square footage does not

[49:45] impact the footprint of the house, nor

[49:47] does it impact the exterior of the

[49:51] house. So, um, a neighbor or passer by

[49:56] isn't going to notice the difference in

[49:57] the additional um, square footage.

[50:00] >> This is difference created simply by

[50:02] refinishing some area that was not

[50:04] planned to be finished.

[50:06] >> Uhhuh.

[50:06] >> Yeah. Okay.

[50:09] Any questions for the applicant?

[50:14] All right. Is there anyone here to speak

[50:16] on this one way or the other?

[50:19] I guess I for for my benefit, Ron, have

[50:22] letters gone out.

[50:24] >> Correct. No calls or concerns. One email

[50:26] as to what was going on and they seem

[50:30] satisfied.

[50:31] >> Okay. Very good. All right. Any other

[50:34] discussion?

[50:36] Then uh we can entertain a motion on

[50:39] this request for an exception.

[50:43] I'd like to make a motion to approve

[50:45] case number 63-2026

[50:48] at 2819 West 89th Street. Request for an

[50:52] exception to the maximum allowable

[50:54] square foot on a lot in accordance with

[50:57] the LDO 16-2-5.3F2

[51:01] in an R1 district. I'd like to move for

[51:03] approval.

[51:04] >> Second.

[51:05] >> Have a motion and a second. All those in

[51:07] favor of approval, please say I.

[51:09] >> I.

[51:09] >> Opposed? Nay. It passed. You'll be

[51:11] notified in writing. Thanks for coming

[51:12] in.

[51:13] >> Thank you.

[51:16] >> All right. Our last two cases are both

[51:18] at the same address. Um the first one is

[51:21] 64-2026

[51:24] 8614 Meadow Lane. Request for a variance

[51:27] to the side setback. Does staff have a

[51:30] report?

[51:32] The applicant has proposed a tear down

[51:34] rebuild that will be placed 10 feet from

[51:36] the side property line. The sideyard

[51:39] setback for this lot is 15 ft. A

[51:41] variance of 5 ft is needed to build the

[51:43] home in the proposed location.

[51:47] >> Any questions for staff?

[51:51] >> I have a question, Ron. this. There's

[51:53] some pictures here about the on the AMS

[51:56] map about uh the flood plane and uh some

[52:00] of the pictures show that there's going

[52:01] to be built on on stilts on the in the

[52:04] backyard.

[52:07] Correct.

[52:08] >> Okay. That's because of the flood plane.

[52:10] >> Correct.

[52:11] >> Okay.

[52:12] and the reason for the move. Tom Kimes

[52:15] is here from public works to speak, but

[52:18] on this there's a storm drain that needs

[52:21] to be routed around.

[52:23] >> Well, let's let's hear about it.

[52:25] >> Tom Kimes, I'm a senior project engineer

[52:28] with the uh public works department for

[52:30] the city of Leewood.

[52:31] >> Welcome.

[52:33] Um on this property we did identify

[52:36] along one property line the um it's

[52:39] pointed out there on the map um that

[52:41] there is a public storm sewer line that

[52:44] is runs along the property line. We did

[52:46] some research and we're not able to

[52:48] identify that an easement existed. So it

[52:50] was not identified during the property

[52:52] uh development.

[52:54] Um but it does run behind the property.

[52:56] It collects storm drainage from the

[52:58] street and does go out to the creek

[53:00] behind the house. So that affects uh

[53:03] proximity to the storm drain line that

[53:05] runs between the two houses, two

[53:07] existing houses.

[53:08] >> So So does that does that storm water

[53:11] line is it is it sufficient so we don't

[53:15] have overflow into this property owner's

[53:17] backyard?

[53:21] » Um

[53:22] are you saying that the that the curb

[53:24] inlet at the street will not over top

[53:27] onto the property?

[53:28] >> Okay. That was that the question?

[53:32] >> Well, I'm I'm looking at this map, which

[53:34] is a 100redyear map, I assume. Yes.

[53:36] >> And I just wondered if

[53:38] >> with the which with the storm drain

[53:40] that's in

[53:42] >> and with the uh improvements that

[53:46] they're proposing to make, will we be

[53:49] above the 100red-year flood plane?

[53:52] So to address the storm drain line

[53:55] specifically modern standard is that we

[53:58] design the pipe to carry what we call a

[54:00] 10-year storm

[54:01] >> 10ear

[54:02] >> the pipe is very old so it is likely

[54:05] below that level

[54:07] >> was it corrugated

[54:08] >> uh I believe this is a reinforced

[54:10] concrete pipe

[54:12] the flood plane boundary is set to the

[54:15] 100redyear so that's the regulatory

[54:17] boundary it's a standard it is a

[54:19] national standard set by the federal

[54:21] emergency management agency in the city

[54:22] follows that standard.

[54:25] So, it's a it's a higher level of

[54:27] rainfall.

[54:29] >> Okay.

[54:30] >> And I and I note on on the report we

[54:33] received, the staff comments were the

[54:35] property is not of a similar size and

[54:37] shape to most lots in the neighborhood.

[54:40] A storm drain is located on the west

[54:42] side of the house. That's why you're

[54:43] here, Tom. Right.

[54:44] >> Correct.

[54:45] >> To tell us about that problem.

[54:47] >> Yes.

[54:48] >> Okay. All right. Um, any other questions

[54:51] for

[54:53] staff?

[54:54] >> Mr. Chairman, I've got one question. So,

[54:58] it looks like that storm drain prevents

[55:01] the home from being within 20 ft of the

[55:04] west side property line. Was the

[55:06] previous home not on that space or was

[55:11] the previous home on that space?

[55:13] >> The previous uh home uh is a much

[55:16] smaller footprint.

[55:17] >> Okay. Okay. So, it did not cover the

[55:19] >> correct

[55:19] >> that 20. Okay. Because if I'm reading

[55:22] this correctly, then instead of that

[55:24] normal sideyard setback of 15, in this

[55:28] case, that storm drain is causing there

[55:29] to be an extra five feet on that side.

[55:32] So, it seems like the applicant's sort

[55:34] of just shifting the entire home five

[55:36] feet the other way if that's what

[55:40] >> correct.

[55:40] >> Okay. Gotcha. Thank you.

[55:44] >> Okay. Any other questions for staff?

[55:47] And I see I think you're probably the

[55:49] applicant standing up back there. So, if

[55:51] you want to come on up, it's your turn.

[55:54] >> Answer one of the questions that

[55:55] >> give us your name and address if you

[55:57] would please first. We're recording this

[55:58] and we like to make sure it's complete.

[56:01] >> Got it. My name is Rich Acres. The

[56:03] address is 8614 Meadow Lane. I'm the

[56:06] contractor.

[56:07] >> Thank you.

[56:08] And to address the flooding or the the

[56:12] drainage that you were talking about,

[56:13] I've had a drainage study done by a FEMA

[56:16] engineer who did say we'll have a zero

[56:18] rise. So we don't have a we don't have

[56:21] any rise from the building.

[56:24] >> I don't understand that. But maybe my

[56:26] fellow

[56:26] >> So he was asking if we're going to

[56:28] change the flood elevation by building

[56:30] this house,

[56:30] >> right?

[56:31] >> And we don't. We have a zero rise

[56:32] certification letter already submitted.

[56:35] >> Okay. Okay. And I don't want to mix

[56:36] these up, but the next case is the same

[56:38] address and it's it's it's asking for a

[56:40] grade change. What's that's that about?

[56:42] >> Yeah.

[56:43] Basically, this I don't same

[56:47] thing, I guess. So, that way we designed

[56:49] the house, the we have the house a

[56:52] little bit higher.

[56:54] >> Well, well, not to be a nitpicker, but I

[56:56] thought you just said that it wasn't

[56:57] going to result in a grade change, and

[56:59] yet we have an application for a grade

[57:01] change.

[57:02] >> So, I didn't know I said grade change. I

[57:04] apologize for that. zero rise

[57:06] certification. In other words, we are

[57:07] going to fill a little bit. We have

[57:08] areas that we fill. In other words, I'm

[57:10] putting the house at 886.5 and I think

[57:12] the G

[57:14] >> RP grade reference point is 8.84.

[57:18] So, I'm actually which is sea level. So,

[57:20] they're just showing I'm going to be 1

[57:21] foot higher. So, I think it was Ron was

[57:24] teaching me, you know, basically showing

[57:25] what I can allowed to do. And so I'll be

[57:28] one I'm allowed one foot to fill and I'm

[57:30] doing two because the garage door we're

[57:31] doing a zero entry home to make

[57:33] everything work and flow. And I took

[57:35] account for all the flood

[57:38] what do they call that compensary

[57:39] storage. So the way I build the house

[57:41] everything's done. I have to allow for

[57:43] compensary storage for the flood waters

[57:45] that if they do come.

[57:46] >> Okay.

[57:47] >> And that's why the house is on still

[57:49] allows the water to pass through.

[57:50] >> Okay. Anything else you'd like to

[57:53] present in support of your case? uh

[57:56] against for the five- foot easement.

[57:58] >> That's for the this is for the five foot

[58:00] easement. Although if you if you bleed

[58:02] over into the other case a little bit,

[58:03] we don't mind.

[58:05] >> Well, okay. Well, it's all basically the

[58:06] same as that, though. I do already.

[58:08] We're trying to meet the intent, you

[58:10] know, of what was been asked for the

[58:14] >> Well, well, you've been here for our

[58:16] other cases.

[58:17] >> Yes, I'm trying to follow that. I have

[58:18] something written here. Let me follow.

[58:19] >> Okay. Well, well, let me help you out.

[58:21] >> Okay. The two criteria that causes

[58:23] problems on this are uniqueness of

[58:25] property, which our staff has pretty

[58:27] much addressed

[58:28] >> and did a good job of it. But hardship

[58:30] is the other one and that's a difficult

[58:32] one because obviously a compliant home

[58:35] could be designed one that doesn't

[58:37] require these these ch these variances.

[58:40] So what what what is the hardship that

[58:44] uh would is is causing you to have to do

[58:48] it in this way rather than in accordance

[58:50] with the Well, that's a great question

[58:52] and

[58:54] I worked hard before we bought the

[58:55] property to try to solve that and see

[58:58] and so I worked hard knowing I even made

[59:01] sure I asked for extra time to see if we

[59:03] could do it and I thought I designed

[59:04] something and I erred

[59:07] >> in that but we already bought the

[59:09] property and so that's what they my

[59:11] clients wanted and so that's so now we

[59:14] own it. So, the hardship is we already

[59:16] own the property

[59:18] had we known ahead of time. Now, I've

[59:19] worked hard to redesign something that

[59:21] would meet the best that we can all the

[59:24] things that they're asking for.

[59:26] >> Well, have no doubt. We'll talk about it

[59:27] up here more before we finish, but do if

[59:30] you've got anything else, now's the

[59:32] time.

[59:33] >> Not right now.

[59:34] >> Okay. All right. All right. All right.

[59:36] Any questions for the applicant from up

[59:38] here?

[59:41] » Mr. Chairman, I've got one question for

[59:43] the applicant. I suppose from

[59:46] side to side from east to west do you

[59:48] know how many feet the home is measures

[59:51] across

[59:54] like it's probably

[59:55] >> yeah so the 47 ft is the build line I

[1:00:00] have it right here I'll just show

[1:00:01] >> so I'll tell you then

[1:00:09] » looks like 46 feet by those measures

[1:00:13] across the front building but 46 feet

[1:00:16] across.

[1:00:17] >> Um it is actually

[1:00:21] 48 feet. It's when you go to so as the

[1:00:24] lot sort of pies back. So it's for at

[1:00:28] the front it is 47t.

[1:00:33] That's including any overhangs, right?

[1:00:36] Because you'll have some overhangs. And

[1:00:37] then it's 48t when you get to the back

[1:00:39] because it can't leave us further back.

[1:00:41] But it's always staying within, you

[1:00:43] know, outside those building parameters.

[1:00:45] We didn't run into the, as Tom said, we

[1:00:49] didn't know anything about that till we

[1:00:50] had done all this work. We didn't know

[1:00:52] anything about the the uh easement that

[1:00:55] they had. It's not recorded. So, since

[1:00:57] it wasn't recorded, we were all we had

[1:00:59] already done all the work and had it on

[1:01:00] the lot plan. In fact, at one point, um,

[1:01:04] the plot plan had already been approved,

[1:01:07] but that was as we were working, we got

[1:01:09] disapproved for other things, so we

[1:01:10] worked around that. And then the next

[1:01:12] plot plan got unapproved, saying, "Oh,

[1:01:14] by the way, there's an easement there,

[1:01:16] and we didn't know that."

[1:01:18] >> Wow.

[1:01:20] >> Okay.

[1:01:21] >> And I do have pictures of the house. I

[1:01:23] don't know if we're in that section, you

[1:01:24] know, I can show you.

[1:01:26] >> Whatever you want to show us, now's the

[1:01:28] time to do it.

[1:01:28] >> Okay. So, I'll deal with both of these

[1:01:29] at the same time. because you talked

[1:01:31] about the house being on stilts.

[1:01:34] So, I'll show you first.

[1:01:36] >> Well, while you're looking for those, I

[1:01:37] want to I want to also point out to my

[1:01:40] fellow members up here that if you'll

[1:01:42] read under site plan on our the report

[1:01:45] to us, it does point out that this lot

[1:01:48] is not of a similar size and shape to

[1:01:50] most lots in the neighborhood and the

[1:01:52] majority of the lot is located in the

[1:01:54] flood plane. So, anyway, I just wanted

[1:01:56] to make sure we were aware of that. Go

[1:01:58] ahead.

[1:01:59] >> Yes, that's true. very struggling on

[1:02:01] that especially when we find out all the

[1:02:02] interesting things.

[1:02:03] >> We'll help you any way we can.

[1:02:04] >> Thank you.

[1:02:06] But so that you can look at it. There's

[1:02:08] what the house will look like from the

[1:02:11] street. So you talked about a beat on

[1:02:12] stilts. It's not like no one's going to

[1:02:14] notice. You look at the house, it it

[1:02:16] still looks nice. And then

[1:02:21] this is kind of looking at it from the

[1:02:23] west side. And so as you come down and

[1:02:26] so when you're seeing the easement that

[1:02:29] we're doing, the house actually is over

[1:02:31] 15 is 15 foot side to side. What I was

[1:02:34] doing is putting the Oh, sorry. What I

[1:02:36] was doing is putting the driveway down

[1:02:37] the side, but then the driveway runs

[1:02:40] into that easement, which if they of

[1:02:42] course it doesn't even sit on the

[1:02:42] ground, so they could technically dig.

[1:02:44] But when I was talking to Tom, we Tom,

[1:02:46] he suggested we move it over to keep it

[1:02:48] out of the way. So if they do need to

[1:02:49] get equipment in there and needed to

[1:02:51] address I did camera that the other day

[1:02:53] to check it myself had the the storm

[1:02:55] sewer that because it's been put in in

[1:02:57] 1947

[1:02:59] I think he told me and uh he says it's

[1:03:02] in level four condition which is one

[1:03:04] deviant from being really bad. So I'm

[1:03:06] going to stay off of it but I wanted a

[1:03:07] camera to make sure I can show I'm not

[1:03:09] ruining anything there. And I told them

[1:03:11] we would put a a uh protection fence

[1:03:14] that we'll never cross that because I

[1:03:15] don't want to have to replace that if it needed to be replaced. But so then

[1:03:21] I'm just showing you what the house

[1:03:22] would look like. All the other sides

[1:03:25] are, you know, the front the back sides

[1:03:27] there. I'll give you more so you'll see

[1:03:29] other

[1:03:30] here's it from the top view.

[1:03:34] Just looking at it down. So, by the way,

[1:03:37] as you see, as you look down this side

[1:03:40] here,

[1:03:42] as you go down and look down the side, I

[1:03:44] will probably I'll put all rock going

[1:03:46] down that and put plants to make it look

[1:03:48] nice so you don't see it. And it's also

[1:03:49] make it for drainage purposes. So, any

[1:03:51] water that comes down there will

[1:03:52] probably I might even take a dry river

[1:03:54] bed all the way out just to control the

[1:03:56] water.

[1:03:59] >> What's the total square footage?

[1:04:02] >> I beg you, pardon.

[1:04:02] >> What's the total square footage of the

[1:04:04] house? Um,

[1:04:09] I think it's 40

[1:04:12] uh

[1:04:14] 4,400 or 45 under 4,500.

[1:04:21] Yeah. So, it's 4,486.

[1:04:27] » Thank you.

[1:04:29] >> Any other questions for the applicant?

[1:04:31] >> Yeah. On the picture that you've got up

[1:04:33] there in front of us right now on the

[1:04:35] lower right hand corner, is that a

[1:04:37] garage or is that a storage building?

[1:04:40] >> That is a garage.

[1:04:41] >> Okay. And so an automobile is going to

[1:04:44] come down here along the the barrier and

[1:04:46] make a left and go in there. Is that

[1:04:48] going to be enough room to jockey

[1:04:50] around?

[1:04:50] >> Yes, sir. It's 28 feet and 2 and 316 in.

[1:04:55] >> You did even get a pickup truck in

[1:04:57] there, right?

[1:04:57] >> Yes. made sure that we could have access

[1:04:59] to be able to get in and out, even turn

[1:05:00] around because in all honesty, you can

[1:05:03] also turn right here because this is 20

[1:05:05] ft here. So, they'll have enough room if

[1:05:07] they had to go back up.

[1:05:10] >> So, it's a threecar garage. You have

[1:05:13] >> affirmative two up front, but you don't

[1:05:15] allow three facing forward. So, that we

[1:05:17] ran into that problem. I think it was

[1:05:18] Travis helping me out or yeah, helping

[1:05:20] me say you can't have a third car

[1:05:22] before. Anyway, there was so many and

[1:05:23] then having it detached made it hard. So

[1:05:26] I had to connect it, come around the

[1:05:28] back trying to do it all. So we figured

[1:05:30] out how to get it done, but it was

[1:05:31] pretty uh interesting.

[1:05:32] >> Learn more than you ever expected,

[1:05:34] haven't you?

[1:05:34] >> Yes, it has been a lot of work. It's

[1:05:36] probably our third or fourth plan

[1:05:37] revision.

[1:05:40] >> Yes, it's been a lot of work on that.

[1:05:43] >> But um but I think we've met the what

[1:05:46] they're trying to get at.

[1:05:49] >> And if you notice

[1:05:50] >> the picture of the front, what is it you

[1:05:52] want?

[1:05:52] >> Yeah, the picture of the front of the

[1:05:53] house.

[1:05:54] >> Yes.

[1:06:03] I have a plot plan, too. Now that you

[1:06:06] guys

[1:06:12] » I'm marked up here. I got two marks up

[1:06:15] because they Travis asking me for

[1:06:18] drainage. So, I'm taking care of

[1:06:25] Well, once again, just so my fellow

[1:06:27] board members are clear on this, if we

[1:06:30] approve this variance, it's still going

[1:06:32] to have to meet our runoff requirements

[1:06:34] before it's approved for final

[1:06:36] construction, right?

[1:06:37] >> Yes. And it does meet all that. They've

[1:06:38] already done the telling you how much

[1:06:40] the amount when we met the runoff. It is

[1:06:43] the only good part about it is is a

[1:06:44] massive lot. So therefore, I'm allowed a

[1:06:46] certain amount of

[1:06:47] >> right

[1:06:47] >> impervious area, but I'm also

[1:06:49] controlling all that. I'm controlling

[1:06:51] all the down spouts and because he asked

[1:06:53] me maybe it was Ron that asked me to

[1:06:56] show

[1:06:57] was it Ron J different guys. Okay.

[1:07:00] >> I I just want to make sure that up here

[1:07:02] we understand that that that that'll be

[1:07:04] taken care of as part of the

[1:07:05] >> Right. Process and I'm going to meet

[1:07:07] those runoffs. Yes, sir.

[1:07:10] >> I I think my only kind of remaining

[1:07:13] concern because I'm with you on

[1:07:15] uniqueness with the storm drain. Totally

[1:07:17] understand that point. It just seems

[1:07:19] like we're at a point

[1:07:21] specifically with the hardship factor

[1:07:23] where you've got a blank slate. Although

[1:07:26] we've done these plans to where you know

[1:07:28] you've got an idea of the home you want

[1:07:30] on there. It just seems like there's a

[1:07:31] blank slate. You know, have there been

[1:07:33] any attempts to go from that 48t across

[1:07:37] to like a 43

[1:07:40] feet across to be able to fit it within

[1:07:43] the the distance across? Yes, ma'am. As

[1:07:48] hard as possible. I mean, it's Yes, we

[1:07:52] to meet all this footage. I've done

[1:07:54] everything possible to Well, I work for

[1:07:56] my clients. And so, at the end of the

[1:07:58] day, I'm trying to give them what they

[1:08:00] want. We ended up with this lot. And so,

[1:08:02] I'm just trying to honor their wishes

[1:08:04] before we decide. I hate to see us lose

[1:08:07] $600,000, but we get a little over that

[1:08:09] now that we've got invested in this, but

[1:08:11] that's really

[1:08:13] I don't want to not give them the home

[1:08:15] that they want. So yeah, the hardship

[1:08:16] would be yes, we already own the lot and

[1:08:19] we made a mistake and possibly having

[1:08:22] bought it, not understanding the the

[1:08:26] ramifications of it being in the flood

[1:08:28] plane and not built. I've built in the

[1:08:30] flood plane before, but they haven't

[1:08:32] ever restricted it that far. So I didn't

[1:08:34] think anything about that.

[1:08:35] >> But that mistake, if it is one, was in

[1:08:37] not

[1:08:39] being fully aware of of a majority of

[1:08:42] this property actually being in the

[1:08:43] flood plane.

[1:08:45] Is that correct?

[1:08:48] >> When you bought it and or when it was

[1:08:49] bought and the plans were to put the

[1:08:51] house on here, you didn't realize till

[1:08:52] you got into it that that the majority

[1:08:54] of the lot is in the flood plane.

[1:08:57] >> Um yeah, I didn't know that actually. I

[1:08:59] did call the realtor on that, but before

[1:09:00] I bought it, I not I thought, okay, so

[1:09:04] it's in the flood plane. I'm not worried

[1:09:05] that we can build in it. So then I

[1:09:07] didn't have the restrictions exactly

[1:09:08] knowing that you're not allowed to build

[1:09:11] in the or not necessarily not build in

[1:09:13] the flood plane. you're not allowed to

[1:09:15] have any basement or any opening. So I

[1:09:19] have built in the flood plane in many

[1:09:20] other areas and never had that happen.

[1:09:22] And so I didn't see that rest. I I

[1:09:25] didn't get that restriction and so

[1:09:26] therefore once I did understand I should

[1:09:29] have found it. I take responsibility for

[1:09:31] that. That is 100% my fault and and I

[1:09:34] might have to eat it and work it out.

[1:09:36] But we're just trying to figure out how

[1:09:37] to resolve it in the best possible way

[1:09:39] to make everybody happy. My clients

[1:09:41] still do like the lot. They like the

[1:09:43] location. They want to live there. If it

[1:09:45] doesn't work out, we'll just have to

[1:09:46] find another one and I'll have to figure

[1:09:47] out how to do what you said. Draw

[1:09:49] something different.

[1:09:51] >> Are are you the Are you the owner?

[1:09:54] >> And just for the record, give me

[1:09:55] >> Sure. My name is Marvin Music.

[1:09:57] >> Okay.

[1:09:57] >> And this is my wife, Cat. And probably

[1:10:00] just to your question, uh we have um you

[1:10:03] know, because the sidebacks are so

[1:10:05] tight, uh we looked at so many ways to

[1:10:07] try to get this. We're 47 feet across,

[1:10:10] you know, so the time you get in two a

[1:10:11] two-car garage, you only have, you know,

[1:10:13] 20 some feet. As you can see, most of

[1:10:15] the home goes um, you know, it goes back

[1:10:19] this way. So, you know, the the bulk of

[1:10:21] the home is back. And so, we try to

[1:10:22] bring this thing in as much as possible.

[1:10:25] Uh, we really did. So, I think that

[1:10:27] would be that it was just difficult. Um,

[1:10:30] yeah, it's not a huge home. In fact, we

[1:10:31] originally wouldn't have a basement to

[1:10:33] anyways. we have all kinds of kids and

[1:10:35] grandkids and we're looking forward to

[1:10:37] this thing and that just didn't work out

[1:10:39] the way we thought. So, we really have

[1:10:41] tried to bring it in, but I want to

[1:10:43] share that with you.

[1:10:44] >> I appreciate that. Thank you.

[1:10:45] >> Thank you.

[1:10:46] >> Any other questions for the applicant

[1:10:52] » and I'm not going to ask if there's

[1:10:53] anybody to speak because there's nobody

[1:10:55] else in the room.

[1:10:57] Um, did you want to say something,

[1:10:59] Travis? Well, I just wanted to add just

[1:11:01] on this on the setback part as far as on

[1:11:05] you know, it was identified late in the

[1:11:07] process. It originally was submitted

[1:11:09] meeting the setbacks and then that storm

[1:11:14] sewer line was flagged very late in the

[1:11:17] process.

[1:11:17] >> Back back to what Tom was telling us

[1:11:19] about.

[1:11:20] >> Exactly. And so then they just shifted

[1:11:22] it five feet to accommodate that

[1:11:26] request because of that storm line, you

[1:11:29] know, because it was so late in the

[1:11:31] process. And that's why that this first

[1:11:33] case is before you.

[1:11:34] >> So if we were so inclined, we could we

[1:11:36] could conclude that the late discovery

[1:11:39] of the location of that storm line

[1:11:41] created a hardship.

[1:11:42] >> You could.

[1:11:43] >> Okay. Just just want to make sure we're

[1:11:45] all hearing the same thing.

[1:11:47] >> Okay. Any other questions?

[1:11:51] Okay. Well, we need to consider the five

[1:11:53] criteria now. You're welcome to sit down

[1:11:54] while we do it. We'll call you back up

[1:11:56] if we need to talk to you again. Thank

[1:11:57] you for your presentation.

[1:11:59] >> Thank you.

[1:11:59] >> And it's beautiful design. Um, all

[1:12:02] right. You all know what the five

[1:12:04] criteria are. Let's start with

[1:12:05] uniqueness of property. Any comments?

[1:12:07] >> It is unique.

[1:12:10] >> We've had a lot of discussion. It

[1:12:12] shouldn't be

[1:12:14] >> Mr. Chairman, I think the uniqueness of

[1:12:16] property criteria has been satisfied. As

[1:12:19] the staff notes indicate, property is

[1:12:21] not a similar size or shape to most in

[1:12:23] the neighborhood. You got the storm

[1:12:25] drain running through it, so I think it

[1:12:26] is unique. Thank you.

[1:12:28] >> All those who believe it's met this

[1:12:30] criteria, please say I

[1:12:32] >> oppose. Nay.

[1:12:33] >> Rights of adjacent property owners. I

[1:12:35] assume letters went out and you haven't

[1:12:36] received any problems.

[1:12:38] >> No calls or concerns.

[1:12:41] All those who in who believe it's met

[1:12:43] this criteria, please say I. I

[1:12:45] >> oppose. Nay.

[1:12:46] >> Hardship. We've had a lot of discussion

[1:12:48] about that as well. Um and I just will

[1:12:53] remind you, we just confirmed that the

[1:12:55] late discovery of the storm drain did

[1:12:57] create a certain hardship in this

[1:12:59] process. So just for your consideration.

[1:13:02] Any other thoughts on hardship?

[1:13:04] >> I think that's a great consideration

[1:13:07] approving the criteria.

[1:13:08] >> Thanks, Gary. Uh, all those who believe

[1:13:11] it's met this criteria, please say I.

[1:13:13] >> I.

[1:13:14] >> Opposed? Nay. Public safety and general

[1:13:16] welfare. Any comments?

[1:13:19] All those who believe it's met this

[1:13:20] criteria, please say I.

[1:13:22] >> I.

[1:13:23] >> Oppose. Nay. And finally, spirit and

[1:13:25] intent.

[1:13:28] Any comments?

[1:13:30] >> Beautiful house.

[1:13:31] >> It looks like a beautiful house. All

[1:13:33] those who believe it's met this

[1:13:34] criteria, please say I.

[1:13:35] >> I.

[1:13:36] >> Oppose. Nay. All right. Having gotten a

[1:13:39] positive response on all five criteria,

[1:13:41] we can entertain a motion to approve

[1:13:43] this request for a variance to the

[1:13:45] sideyard setback.

[1:13:47] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to propose that

[1:13:49] we approve case number 65-2026

[1:13:53] at 8614 Meadow Lane, a request for a

[1:13:56] variance to the maximum allowed. Nope,

[1:13:59] that's the wrong one.

[1:14:05] request a variance for the side setback

[1:14:08] in accordance with the LDO-16-2-5.3D

[1:14:14] in an R1 district.

[1:14:16] >> Second.

[1:14:16] >> Have a motion and a second. Uh all those

[1:14:19] in favor of approval say I.

[1:14:21] >> I.

[1:14:21] >> Oppose. Nay.

[1:14:22] >> It passes. Obviously, you'll be

[1:14:25] notified. That brings us to the second

[1:14:26] one which is the same property, the same

[1:14:29] issue, but it has to do with a request

[1:14:33] for a variance to the maximum allowed

[1:14:36] grade change. Does staff have a report?

[1:14:40] The applicant has proposed a tear down

[1:14:42] rebuild that will require maximum of

[1:14:45] three foot in grade change at the front

[1:14:47] corner of the home and a maximum of

[1:14:49] approximately 7 feet at the pool area.

[1:14:51] The maximum grade change allowed is 1

[1:14:54] foot. A variance of approximately 6 feet

[1:14:57] is needed to build the home as proposed.

[1:14:59] >> And once again, regardless of whether we

[1:15:02] approve this or not, whatever we approve

[1:15:04] will have to meet our storm water

[1:15:07] requirements before it's finally

[1:15:09] approved. Correct.

[1:15:10] >> Correct. And again, if you have

[1:15:12] questions for Tom, he's here.

[1:15:13] >> Exactly. Okay. Um, any questions for

[1:15:17] staff?

[1:15:20] Mr. Acres, you want to come back up for

[1:15:22] a little bit?

[1:15:27] » I had the FEMA engineer design it to

[1:15:30] help me to get approval so that we would

[1:15:32] meet the zero rise certification. So

[1:15:34] everything that we did,

[1:15:37] we actually um have exceeded it by 30

[1:15:41] square feet, I think he wrote on his

[1:15:43] study. And so we've actually given back

[1:15:45] more compens

[1:15:52] Okay.

[1:15:52] >> And then even some of it, part of that

[1:15:54] yellow part in the back, I can even open

[1:15:57] that up and keep well I can let water

[1:15:59] pass through underneath the pool house.

[1:16:01] He just didn't design it that way. We

[1:16:02] may do it that way anyway the way we're

[1:16:04] doing it. So therefore, it would have

[1:16:06] flood vents to run underneath the

[1:16:10] extension, the outdoor kitchen. There's

[1:16:12] a kitchen and hot tub room and bathroom

[1:16:14] and garage all in the back. We can we're contemplating of uh leaving that

[1:16:20] all open so that water can pass through.

[1:16:23] >> Okay.

[1:16:24] >> Which should then give even more flood

[1:16:26] compensatory storage.

[1:16:28] >> All right.

[1:16:28] >> So the fill area that they're talking

[1:16:30] about

[1:16:31] like again it is the uniqueness is where

[1:16:34] we're at. So what I've had to deal with

[1:16:37] so

[1:16:39] I've met that by giving back more

[1:16:41] compens.

[1:16:43] What what hardship would be created by

[1:16:45] not approving this request?

[1:16:48] >> Well, again, it's the same. We own it.

[1:16:50] And

[1:16:50] >> go ahead, tell us.

[1:16:52] >> It's the same. We We already own it. We

[1:16:54] needed We want They needed They wanted a

[1:16:56] pool. I don't know about need, but they

[1:16:58] wanted the pool. They wanted the the

[1:17:00] design that we have. And if we don't do

[1:17:04] it, then we have to figure out something

[1:17:06] else. So to to effectively build the

[1:17:10] home we've we've approved in the prior

[1:17:12] variance

[1:17:14] um you need this as well.

[1:17:16] >> Is that correct?

[1:17:17] >> Yes sir. Other than we still did meet

[1:17:20] all those

[1:17:23] I think we met all the intents and

[1:17:24] everything else because if we take it

[1:17:26] away we have to give it back. They

[1:17:28] always tell me if I take it away

[1:17:29] somewhere I have to give it back

[1:17:30] somewhere else. And so I did I'll do

[1:17:32] that.

[1:17:32] >> Okay. Questions?

[1:17:37] Okay, we're going to go through our five

[1:17:39] criteria.

[1:17:41] Um, first is uniqueness of the property.

[1:17:43] Nothing's changed about the property, so

[1:17:45] I assume there's are there any other

[1:17:47] comments on uniqueness.

[1:17:50] >> All those who believe it's met this

[1:17:51] criteria, please say I.

[1:17:53] >> I.

[1:17:53] >> Oppos? Nay. Rights adjacent property

[1:17:56] owners. Um,

[1:17:58] I think Ron's already confirmed to us.

[1:18:00] Letters have gone out and we've got no

[1:18:02] complaints. All those who believe it's

[1:18:03] met this criteria, please say I.

[1:18:06] >> Oppose. Nay.

[1:18:08] >> Hardship. Any comments?

[1:18:12] » I'll just comment for the record that

[1:18:14] this looks like it's a very difficult

[1:18:16] situation to deal with and uh I I'd

[1:18:20] frankly be reluctant to tell them to go

[1:18:22] back and redesign it. But in any case,

[1:18:25] >> any other comments?

[1:18:28] All those who believe it's met this

[1:18:29] criteria, please say I.

[1:18:31] >> I. I. Opposed? Nay. Public safety and

[1:18:34] general welfare. Any comments. All those

[1:18:37] who believe this criteria has been met,

[1:18:39] please say I.

[1:18:40] >> I. I.

[1:18:40] >> Opposed. Nay. And finally, spirit and

[1:18:43] intent.

[1:18:46] Just ditto Gary's comment from the last

[1:18:48] case. All those who believe it's met

[1:18:50] this criteria, please say I.

[1:18:52] >> I.

[1:18:53] >> Oppose. Nay. All right. Having

[1:18:56] affirmative responses on all five

[1:18:57] criteria, we can entertain a motion to

[1:18:59] approve this request for variance to the

[1:19:02] maximum allowed grade change.

[1:19:06] Mr. Chairman on case

[1:19:09] 65-2026

[1:19:12] 8614 meadow lane request for variance to

[1:19:15] the maximum allowable grade change in

[1:19:17] accordance with the LDO section

[1:19:20] 16-2-5.3G

[1:19:23] in an R1 district. I move for approval.

[1:19:27] >> Have a motion and a second. All those in

[1:19:29] favor of approval, please say I.

[1:19:32] >> Oppose. Nay.

[1:19:33] >> It passes unanimously. Thanks for coming

[1:19:35] in, folks, and for your patience.

[1:19:41] » Of course.

[1:19:47] Thank you.

[1:19:50] We've been working on this one year. One

[1:19:54] year. Been a long year. And it's going

[1:19:57] to be a nice home. And uh our

[1:20:01] grandchildren will enjoy the pool. So,

[1:20:04] I'm glad.

[1:20:05] >> Sorry.

[1:20:12] » Thanks so much.

[1:20:13] >> Well, thank you and your builder for a

[1:20:15] professional approach. We really

[1:20:16] appreciate it. Thank you very much.

[1:20:18] >> It would be a nice addition to the

[1:20:19] neighborhood.

[1:20:20] >> Yep. Is there a motion to adjurnn?

[1:20:24] We're done.

Board of Zoning Appeals [BZA] - Aug 26 2026

Transcript