Yikes.
This is it, right?
Are we ready?
You all are ready?
>> Yeah. Good. Well, um then I'm going to
call to order the um August 26th meeting
of the board of zoning appeals for the
city of Leewood. Could I have roll call,
please? Members Penn,
Sipple
>> here,
>> Dirkson
>> here,
>> Dunn
>> here,
>> Hurst, Hawk,
>> Busing.
>> We have a quorum.
>> Thank you. Um, first item of business is
approval of the minutes. We have minutes
from I I want to take them separately.
First, the minutes of June 24. Um, any
changes or anything else?
Editing. Move to approve.
>> Second.
>> All in favor?
>> They're approved. I want to point out on
the second ones, we've got the July 22nd
meeting on pages 2,78 and 10. I'm
referred to as Chairman Clawson. I know
that's because you're using old stuff.
So, yeah, it it's no big deal. I just
thought for the record it should
probably be corrected. But with those
corrections, do I have a motion to
approve?
>> Second. All in favor? I
>> opposed. That passes. All right. So,
that brings us to our agenda for
tonight. Our We have no old business.
Our first new business is case 58-2026
21101 West 120th Terrace request for a
fence height exception in accordance
with the LDO16-4-9.5A
in an R1 district. Does staff have a
report?
The applicant would like to replace an
existing six-foot fence with a six-foot
wood privacy fence at the perimeter of
the property in the same location.
>> So, without belaboring the point, this
is one of those where it is it is
strictly replacement of a fence that's
already 6 foot in that location and the
only reason they need an exception is
because they're replacing it and not
repairing it. Right.
>> Correct. Okay. And the existing fence is
indicated in the yellow dotted line and
the new fence is in green solid on the
picture displayed.
>> So virtually the same.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Any questions for staff before we
get the applicant?
>> Question, Ron. Why is it a different
shape than the existing fence?
I
it look it appears I mean that might be
a better question for the applicant but
they're going to go all the way to the
30 foot setback on that corner to get a
little more space beyond that patio and
I I just assume they're squaring it off
rather than that kind of jagged curved
line but that they'll be better to
answer that.
>> I will
in just a second. Are there any other
questions for staff before we get the
applicant up?
All right, then come on up, please.
Would you please state your name and
record and name and address for the
record?
>> Yeah. Good evening. My name is Rob
Lipold. I'm the property owner, one of
two with my wife.
>> Thank you very much. Um, you may present
your case.
>> Yeah. So, um, we purchased this house
about 5 years ago. The fence was
existing. Uh what we want to do to
change the shape would allow like a
little service area on the side to be
enclosed for excuse me garbage cans um
grill kind of things like that. Um the
current shape also um doesn't really
follow really any straight lines. Um and
so we kind of wanted to match the
architecture of our house.
>> Any questions for the applicant?
So it wasn't because you ran into
underground utilities or something like
that. It was just kind of a you your
family desired just to have a different
shaped fence.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. A combination of uh
use and aesthetics.
>> Thank you.
>> An engineer's fence, not an artist's
fence.
>> I am an engineer.
>> How did I know that?
>> Right.
>> All right. Um are there any other
questions for the applicant?
All right. Uh well then we can entertain
a motion.
>> Move to approve.
>> Second.
>> Got a motion in a second. All those in
favor of approval, please say I.
>> Oppos? Nay. It passes. You'll be
notified in writing. Thanks for coming
in.
>> Thank you.
Our second case for tonight is 59,
excuse me,-2026
9301 Lee Boulevard, request for a
variance to the placement of a
permanently installed generator. And I
will note for all of you that the second
case is also uh the same address and
another variance to the sideyard
setback. So, um, I'll just ask Ron,
staff have a report and as part of that
report, could you explain to us why we
have two on the same piece?
>> The applicant has placed a permanently
installed generator in the sidey yard of
the home. Permanently installed
generators are required to be in the
rear yard.
The two cases are one, generators belong
in the rear, so they want to put it on
the side. Now that it's on the side,
it's in the sideyard setback.
>> Okay. So, so they need they need a a
variance to allow it to be on the side.
>> Correct.
>> So, they need a variance. You know, it
has to be in the rear yard. So, that's
that first case. The second case, it
also has to meet the 15t side setback
and it doesn't meet the 15t side
setback.
>> Did he apply for the placement of the
for the generator previously?
>> What was that? And did he did he apply
for the placement before they installed
the gen to begin with?
>> The permit was applied for after the
fact for the generator. There was a
generator for a new home or there was a
permit for a new home, but there the
generator is not part of new homes. They
require their own permit.
>> It it was installed without a permit,
right? You're saying
>> yes.
>> Okay. All right. Isn't that typically
the job of the installer, the contractor
that in in that installs the uh
generator?
>> Yes.
>> Thank you.
Okay. Any other questions for staff
before we get the applicant up here? Is
the applicant here? Come on up
and please give us your name and address
before you begin.
>> Yes. Uh my name is Blake Foster, uh 9301
Lee Boulevard. I am the homeowner. Um,
just to add a little bit more color. So,
the home was built uh through 2024 into
2025. The generator in question was
installed. I will be forthright. A
mistake was made. Neither the
electrician nor the builder homaly um
realized that a a an application and
permit was required. It was installed.
The home underwent multiple inspections
May 30th, June 30th, June 13th, and June
16th before a final certificate of
occupancy was issued. All not flagging
this. this wasn't flagged until a later
date. Now that we've arrived at this
unfortunate situation, um I am aware of
the regulations. Um what I'm asking for
these exceptions, this variance for that
is because my immediate neighbors to the
rear have a their their house faces
perpendicular to our house. So our house
faces towards Lee Boulevard. Theirs sits
facing this way. They have a a swimming
pool. And so our the entirety of our
backyard faces their swimming pool. to
move it. If I understand the principle
of the matter is that it's trying to
minimize disruption to the neighbors.
Moving it to the back would be a further
disruption to them and the swimming pool
they have installed. Where it currently
sits is next to a garage. My neighbor um
of course the solicitation of of input
from neighbors has gone out. None of the
neighbors have objected, particularly
the one in question, her name is Connie
next door. She does not have a problem
with it. There is one further problem
that will be remedied on if if approval
is had which is that it is not enclosed
in the way that it should be right now.
Again, a part of the original mistake
made part of the plan that was submitted
as part of this variance is that we
would enclose it. We would meet the
sound requirements. We would go whatever
we needed to do to meet the sound
requirements. But where it is, we would
move it but move it further to the house
keeping it essentially where it is now
placed. And that's what the application
of the variance is for. Thank you for
your time.
>> Okay. Are there questions for the
applicant? Don't don't don't leave us
yet.
>> Well, I I'm just interested in this is
as to
chances are your neighbor to the east
with that has the pool would not be
using the pool if you were using your
generator because it would be a time of
distress probably. You know,
>> you you might say that, but power can
fail for any number of reasons. Uh what
I would say probabilistically, yes, it
would be adverse weather that would lead
to power power failure.
>> Any other questions for the applicant?
>> I have a question for the applicant. So
on I'm on this photo
>> right right here. And so if you were
moving
>> Thank you. If you were moving the
generator to the backyard, would that be
kind of up or below on that picture?
Because right now it's
>> on the side.
>> Um, it would be above. So, the rear of
our house is the the top of the page.
>> Okay. And I do see that pool now. So,
the location where it is now, I mean,
just seems like undeniably closer to a
house than it would be if you moved it
towards the pool.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. Just wanted to be sure I was
seeing that. Okay. Thank you.
>> Any other questions for the applicant?
Gary?
>> Uh, yes. Thank you. Where is where's the
air conditioning unit?
>> Um, the there is one air conditioning
unit that services the garage which is
on this. Um, yes. Uh, so that large tree
right there, it is placed right there.
Um, the house itself is geothermal. So,
I do not have outdoor units.
>> Sorry, say that again. Uh,
>> uh, the units for the house, the
interior are um, geothermal. So they do
not use outside units,
» but there is a mini split in the garage
which we just pointed out
>> and that has an outdoor unit.
>> Thank you, sir.
>> Any other questions for
>> go back to that
>> picture that we had up there with the
white facade? Looking at that, are we
looking to the northeast? And um
>> yes, you are. You're facing uh the north
the northwest.
>> You're facing northwest. So you're
standing on the south.
>> Wow. This is directionally challenging
here.
>> The southwest uh southeast of the uh
corner.
>> Where is the white truck and the black
SUV?
>> That's 93rd Court.
>> Huh.
>> That is 93rd Court. So the house faces
Lee Boulevard.
There is a uh an L-shaped road that runs
by. that's 93rd court and then it turns
into something else, but it's uh there's
no uh further access.
» I I tend to agree with Katherine in that
it seems like it's very close to your
south neighbor
>> and his property and the driveway that's
right there. And I'm surprised that they
didn't object when they received the
letter, but that's my own personal
opinion.
>> Any other questions for the applicant?
Do do we know what do you know what the
decibel level is on at the property
line? um currently untreated. It is in
excess of what is what is required. It's
in excess of
>> it's in excess of what is currently
required and that's why part of the
variance does include moving it back
towards the house to move it um I think
we get within a foot of reaching the
required setback but we are a foot short
but then it would we would build further
build a brick wall with shrubbery
enclosure and possibly exploring a top
over it to control sound. Well, Travis,
they they have to comply with the noise
requirements to get a final permit
signed off on, right?
>> Yeah, they'd have to there's like zombie
box. There's different products you
could use, but they have to meet the
decibel level even if this were
approved.
>> So, where
>> that's not part of the variance.
>> That's going to be required regardless.
>> Yes. Correct.
>> Okay.
>> Um I I think I would just is more of a
proverbial question. Um this could again
a mistake was made. Um, I think in the
inspection process, if this would have
been raised at a a point when the house
was being inspected for the electrical
system, it would have been much easier
to remedy. So, I'm here now because it
essentially would mean um I I'm not sure
that we can move it. So, if if it is
struck down, then I will take it out.
So, which it it is what it is, and I'm
willing to accept that. But the point of
the variance is moving it um comes at an
extreme expense. So,
>> and what you say makes perfect sense,
but you're addressing one of the
dilemmas we have is your board zoning.
Yeah.
>> We we enforce the law as it's written.
We don't get to make changes in it based
on what we think is a good idea.
>> No, certainly. Um I think I just it it
Yeah, I I don't mean to belabor a point.
I think I've wondered about the legal
recourse for isn't the point of
inspections to find and flag and if they
don't perform their job, isn't liability
shared? Uh, that's not a question for
here. So, I would just
>> Well, well, let's since that's been
mentioned three times now, let me just
ask staff what do we have to say about
that?
>> Looking at the inspection record, it is
unclear, you know. So, if we go out on
an initial inspection, we might flag 10
items. We don't come back and do a
complete review of the whole house. We
just come back and look at those
specific items that we have called out
on that initial inspection. It's
impossible to look at the inspection
record and say when the generator went
in, if staff would have even seen it on
inspection, because if they're on a
reinspection, they wouldn't necessarily
be looking at the generator
specifically.
>> And with it not being on the plans, they
certainly wouldn't have that triggered
to look at.
>> Okay.
>> Any any questions for staff and the
applicant?
>> Just to pursue that a little bit more,
Travis, when was the final inspection
done? Was the air was the generator
there when they did the final
>> per what they've provided to us? It
probably it likely was there at refinal
inspection. But again, if we've flagged
five items, you're looking at five
specific items on a refinal. You're not
going back and reviewing the entire
house, all accessory uses, anything like
that. You're looking at very specific,
you know, sod splash blocks. You, you
know, you might have several, you're
looking at those specific deficiencies.
You're not doing a complete final every
time you come out for a refinal
inspection. So, it's really it's hard to
say.
>> Thank you.
>> May May I add just one last thing and
then I will be finished. Um the
generator was installed somewhere
between uh March 13 and March 20th of
2025. So that is a three three full
months in advance um of final
inspections. So there was a handful um
again which I I called out um
uh but that would have most certainly
included preliminary electrical
inspections because it was installed
with the entirety of the electrical
systems in the house.
>> I I appreciate that. But you've already
acknowledged you understand that the the
board doesn't have the power to balance
equities. That's that's not what our job
is here. Yes, sir. Okay.
>> I I
>> just wanted to make sure. But but before
you go away, let me let me give you a
chance. The the difficult ones for us to decide that we have these five
criteria that has to pass for us to
>> do this and and the two that cause
problems are uniqueness of the property
and hardship. And I'm sure I don't know
if you already have a leg understanding
of what those terms mean legally, but uh
unique doesn't mean one of a kind in the
entire universe. Unique means an unusual
situation. Hardship basically means our
ordinances or not allowing you to do
with your property um use your property
in a meaningful way. In other words, you
know, we're we're because of our
ordinances, somebody's
in in easements, they've only got they
can only build a 1,200 square foot home.
That's that's that's hardship.
>> Yep.
>> Um so, if you want to to take your your
shot at convincing us of uniqueness and
hardship, I'd certainly like to have you
do that before we give up on this. Um,
I I think to be honest, I don't know
that in in good faith I could make an
argument for either.
>> I appreciate that. I I really do
appreciate your honesty very much. Uh,
any other questions?
All right. Well, with that we go through
the five criteria and uh you may have a
seat and if we want to talk to you some
more, we'll call you back out. Thank
you.
>> Editorial, please.
>> Of course.
>> Um, you learned a lot in this process.
Um, we really don't like it when people
build something and then ask for a
permit. And I'm not barking at you, but
you're whoever did this work for you
should have known. Should have known to
look for the appropriate documentation
to put that in place. I'd chew on that
guy if I were you.
Okay. Having having is there anything
else to say before we get on with our
consideration of the factors? All right.
Well, we have the five factors we
have to uh consider and the first is
uniqueness of the property. Are there
any is there any further discussion on
uniqueness?
» Okay. All those who believe it's met
this criteria, please say I.
>> I.
>> All those who uh don't believe it met
this criteria say nay.
>> Nay.
>> No, I didn't hear your vote.
>> Yes, I l to the
uniqueness
>> to what?
>> I lean to the uniqueness reserve
reservedly.
>> So, so you you are saying I you believe
it's met the uniqueness criteria.
>> Okay. And and you two say nay. So that
means I have to vote. I say nay.
Uh rights of adjacent property owners
have have uh letters gone out.
>> Yes. No calls or concerns.
>> Okay. Um, is I guess I should ask is
there anybody here who wants to speak on
this one way or the other? I'm a little
late with that, but
Okay. All right. Rights adjacent
property owners. Any discussion?
>> Mr. Chairman, I'll just comment on that even if the current property owner
is okay with it. Um, it is really really
close to that property, I'd be concerned
about future property owners um and
their rights. So, I don't think that's
been met. So, all those who believe it's
met this criteria, please say I.
>> Oppose. Nay.
>> Nay.
>> I didn't hear any eyes. Did I miss
something?
>> What? No.
>> Okay. Uh, hardship. Any discussion on
the hardship criteria?
Okay. All those who believe it's met
this criteria, please say I.
>> Oppose. Nay.
>> Nay.
public safety and general welfare.
There's a lot of generators around.
Anybody have any comments on public
safety and general welfare?
All those who believe it's met this
criteria, please say I.
>> I.
>> Oppose? Nay.
>> Nay.
>> That's two and two. I'm going to say I
on this one. I don't see any problem
with public safety and general welfare.
Spirit and intent. Any comments on
spirit and intent?
All those who believe it's met this
criteria, please say I.
>> Oppose. Nay.
>> Nay.
>> Okay. So, having not met um all five of
that criteria, the only thing we can
entertain is a motion to deny the
request for a variance. Um
in this case 59-2026,
>> Mr. Chairman, case 59 2026 2301 Lee
Boulevard request for a variance to the
placement of a permanently installed
generate in accordance with the LDO
section 16-4-1.3A
7D in the R1 district. I move
it.
>> I got a motion to deny.
Have a second. All those in favor of
denial, please say I.
>> I oppose. Nay. it's denied, you'll be
notified. Um the sec next case we have,
folks, is the same property as you as
you know. Um it's 60-20269301
Lee Boulevard. Um just for the record,
does staff have a report?
The applicant has placed a generator
side yard set back 13t 1 and 1/2 in from
the property line. And a variance of 1T
10 and a half is needed to keep the
generator in its current location.
>> So the last one was location and or the yard it's in and this one is the
distance from the setback.
>> But if it denied being in the side,
Kelsey,
do we need to vote on this one?
>> Yes, I would still vote on each factor
to make a record.
>> All righty then. Um, do you want to say
anything else, sir? I'm noting for the
record that the applicant shaking his
head. No. Is there anybody who's here to
speak on this one one way or the other?
All right. Then a uniqueness of
property. Any comments? All those who
believe it's met this criteria, please
say I. Oppose. Nay.
>> Nay.
>> Rights of adjacent property owners. All
those who believe it's met this
criteria, please say I.
>> I.
>> Oppose. Nay.
>> Nay.
>> I think that's three to one. Is that Is
that what we got? Mel, you were a nay.
Okay.
>> Hardship. All those who believe it's met
this criteria, please say I.
>> All those
>> I Okay. All oppose say nay.
>> Nay.
>> No. I'm sorry. It comes nay. Okay.
Public safety and general welfare. All
those who believe it's met this
criteria, please say I.
>> I.
>> Oppose. Nay.
>> Nay. I'm going to side with the eyes on
this one. I don't see the problem there.
Spirit and intent. Um, all those who
believe it's met this criteria, please
say I.
>> Oppose. Nay.
>> Nay.
>> I'm going to say um I'll say nay on this
one.
>> Okay. Um, having not passed the five
criteria, all we can do is entertain a
motion to deny this request for variance
to the sideyard setback. Do I have such
a motion? like to make a motion on case
number 6-20226
at 9301 Lee Boulevard request for a
variance to the side setback in
accordance with the LDO section
16-2-5.3D
in an R1 district. Move to deny.
>> Second.
>> Got a motion and a second. All those in
favor of the motion to deny, please say
I.
>> I.
>> Oppose. Nay.
>> Nay.
>> Okay. So, three to one. Is that what I'm
seeing? Okay. All right. That's that's
it. Thank you for coming in and for your
professional approach to this. I'm sorry
for your troubles. Okay.
Our next case is case 61-2026
8319 Meadow Lane. request for a variance
to the placement of a sport c sport
within 20 ft of any rear or side line in
accordance with the LDO. Does staff have
a report?
>> The applicant has converted a previously
approved patio from 2025 into a sport
court. The north edge of the sport court
is 13 ft from the side property line.
Sport courts are required to be 20 ft
from the side property line. A variance
of seven feet is needed to keep the
sport court in its current location.
>> Any questions for staff?
>> So, so 2025 application was approved
>> for a patio.
>> has he done anything other than erect
the basketball court?
>> No.
» Any other questions for staff?
I see the applicant. Would you give us
your name and address for the record,
please?
>> Yes. David Terrell, 8319 Meadow Lane.
>> Thank you very much. You may present
your case.
>> Uh, thank you. I know you guys take it
by the five factors, so I'll try to
address those in order. I'll be rather
brief and allow you guys to ask any
questions you may have.
>> Um, first, as to the uniqueness of the
property, I believe that the primary
factor here is it is a 1949 home built
in Old Leewood. So it is commiserate
with that other area with a lot of stone
basements and some of that um issue.
What led to our patio project to begin
with was the fact that we were having
storm water drainage issues that were
flooding not only our basement but also
the basement to the north of our home.
Um, what what transpired from there, if
I can use the elbow,
was that we did drainage studies to try
to determine how we could best remediate
some of that storm water drainage, not
only for our own home, but for the
neighbor to the north. And through that,
you can see where the drainage lies.
North is on the right side of the
drainage study here. It comes across
part of the back portion of our lot
and leads towards that neighbor to our
north. And the drainage solution was not
only a burm there to try to capture that
groundwater, but then to create a very
large infiltration trench in the
backyard to capture the water and then
we spent a lot of money on pumps and
other things to try to get it out to the
setback from the street to lead into the
city storm water drainage system.
>> This was one of the two remediation
projects. The other occurred on the
other side of the property to catch the
remaining water that was hitting our
house. Through this process, we knew
that we may want to convert that area
while we're doing the construction into
a play area for the kids. put a permit
put a permitted patio in there and we
reviewed um and I'm going to kind of
jump into some of the other factors as I
go through this process, but we knew
that we may want to add that additional
play area in the future. So, we reviewed
what the sport court requirements were
and per the application for the city at
the time, there was conspicuous language
indicating that there was a 10-foot
setback for any side or boundary line
required. And so when we talk about
hardships here, we reviewed and relied
upon the permit application that the
city provided in order to determine that
we were within the setback requirement
in the event we wanted to convert the
patio to a sport court through this
process.
>> So So when was this that that you that
this happened? What what time? This was
when before you put the patio in.
>> Yes.
>> Which was when
>> we put the patio in last summer.
>> Okay. So, when you made an when you made
it, what you're saying is when you made
an application last year to put the
patio in, the city application said that
a sport court had to be 10 ft and it
still says it today.
>> Okay.
>> You looked on the page 86 of tonight's
agenda, you'll see in our write up, we
actually included some of this language,
but you can see it's listed in two
different sections actually. Um, one in
this check box area right up here talks
about 10 foot setback and then
inconspicuous highly high highlighting
and bold. It indicates in the
application permit that it's only a
10-ft setback.
>> We were reasonable and relying upon
this. We thought when we were working
with our contractor to say if we want to
convert this area into the sport court
in the future, we would be able to do
so. Um
the long version of this, we complete
the project and when we go to put the
basketball goal up, we found that we did
not have the sport court application
permitted. One, and then two, they have
changed the setback now to 20 ft as
opposed to 10. We have approximately 13
feet on the north boundary as opposed to
the 20 that's now required under the new
ordinance that was put in place at some
time in 23 is my understanding, but that
was not we were not aware of that
obviously at the time. Um, so I kind of
got off track there telling you the
overall story, but let me get back. So
the uniqueness of the property, I think
the primary purpose is here that in
order to remediate the water, we needed
to have a storm water drainage solution
that captured that area where the sport
court is now placed, including a burm
that had to be placed in a specific
location. We were going to have to do
hardcaping in order to capture the water
there. Hence, the location of the patio
was required to be that. And at this
point, we wanted to make sure that we
could also utilize it as a sport court.
So, so the uniqueness just just to
summarize what I hear you saying, you
you're saying the uniqueness is in the
fact that you have a unique drainage
problem that you have to deal with and
to deal with it effectively, you had to
place the patio in that location.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. All right.
>> That's the short version.
>> That's a short version. I like short
versions.
If we uh
if we look to rights of adjacent
property owners, um I understand that
there are some noise issues that could
come with sport courts and that's
probably why the setback was changed and
I'm fully aware of that. I think that
ultimately though we've done many things
in this area to ensure that we have
noise reduction by planting our
providers along the fence line and
having a large burm with some plantings
on top of it. The neighbors to the north
also um are in this part of old Leewood
where there are a lot of homes on top of
one another and they have a play area
about five feet from that fence line.
Yeah.
>> Um and for what it's worth, I've spoken
with them. They were aware of what our
project was. Their kids have played on
the patio. They don't have any objection
to the placement of the sport court.
>> Great. Um,
in terms of hardship, I I understand
that a hardship may have been created
when we put up a goal, as the city has
noted in theirs, but at the same time, a
hardship was created when we reasonably
relied upon what the city permit
application process looked like. And in
order to remediate the water
effectively, we were going to have to
have some hardscape in this location.
So, we felt like it was a necessary um
endeavor to go through um public safety
and general welfare. I think in fact we
have improved general welfare in the
neighborhood by improving the water
drainage system and avoiding the
flooding that was occurring to our
neighbor to the north's house as well
which happens to be the house that has
the 7 foot variance issue. So the area
that we're trying to get the variance
for um hopefully they could overlook any
noise problems by us improving their
flooding problems.
>> Okay.
>> And just go back to hardship for a
moment. I I wanted to make sure I I
fully understood because I heard I
thought I heard you say at the beginning
that that you you view the hardship as
being that you you did this according to
the letter of the law and now you're
being told it won't work for that
purpose that you were told it would work
for when you when you did the original
application. Is that correct? So the
hardships being created by our change in
our ordinance
>> with reasonable reliance upon the
documents that were put out pro not just
retroactively but still prospectively
informing the residents that you are in
compliance when you're trying to do it
>> right. I I'm just trying to make sure I understood that correctly. That's what
I heard you say before.
>> I think the other hardship would be I
don't think there is a reasonable
solution to the water drainage problem
without doing some hardcaping there. I
don't think there's any option to be
able to create a sport court in our yard
as well.
>> Sure.
>> And it would be unusual in our
neighborhood where many people have
these, including our next door neighbor
to the south that's less than 10 ft from
our property line. Okay.
>> Um so if anything, that may feed into
the uniqueness factor as well and the
fact that there are other properties in
our neighborhood with that and where the
setbacks in the neighborhood are
commonly less than what the current
ordinance look like. Um especially if
we're looking at a few a year difference
from when this project was completed to
be in compliance with the old ordinance.
>> Sure. Sure.
>> And then spirit intent. I think I
probably covered that through the
general nature of the other arguments,
but I'm happy to answer any other
questions from
>> any questions for the applicant.
>> Do you have any letters of support or
other than verbal uh approval from your
neighbors?
say that
>> do you is there any letters of support
your homes association or neighbors
saying, "Hey, this is a great idea
because my kids like to play play
basketball."
>> Um, I didn't bring any with me this
evening, but I will tell you that I did
get an email from a neighbor when we set
out our notice who said, "Hey, I don't
want to have to come to the hearing.
What are you guys doing?" And I replied
to him with a general nature of we're
trying to put a basketball goal up on
this patio that we put in the back
during the drainage project and we're
not in compliance with the current
setback. And he he replied in the nature
of I fully support that. I hope you and
your kids can play out there.
>> And I note that our the staff reports
that although all letters were mailed,
there were no calls or concerns raised.
Is that still the case, guys?
Yeah, there were no calls or concerns,
but the it was brought to our attention
by a noise complaint.
>> Okay, so there's somebody concerned out
there.
>> Any other questions for the applicant?
>> I've got two questions. One, have have
the the flooding issues been resolved
now?
>> We've had some heavy rains. Have you
made it through unscathed?
>> Yes, we have.
Okay.
>> And to the best of my knowledge, our
neighbors to the north have not had
flooding in their basement either.
>> Could you go to this map, which is kind
of the plat map. It shows the whole
neighborhood. Can you tell us which of
the houses that are close to you do not
comply with the 20 foot setback for
their court? Could you just point out
those houses?
>> Um,
I don't want names. I just want you to
show me on the diagram how close they
are to you.
>> Sure. The neighbor directly to the south
of us has a sport court.
>> Okay.
>> And it's under this tree right here.
>> So it's it's not on this picture, but
there's a sport sport court there now.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Anybody else in the neighborhood?
>> There are several. That's just the one I
know of because I can see it from my
yard.
>> And it's closer than 20 ft.
>> Yes, I believe so.
» Any other questions for
>> Travis? When when was the ordinance
changed from 10 to 20?
I want to say late 2022, but don't quote
me on that. Um, it's been within the
last two to three years that that went
before planning commission and governing
body and they determined that they
wanted to have greater setbacks
for sport courts just because that can
be an objectionable use. pickle ball
especially, but that's kind of what
brought that to the forefront was the
clicketity clack of the pickle ball,
>> right,
>> for sport courts, but also, you know, a
lot of fair amount of complaints just
basketball ball driven with that being
so close to the property line, they
decided to change some of those
requirements.
>> But but there's no reason to question
his his testimony that when he made the
application, the a the form he got had
10 foot on there. Well, so it was a
building permit application for a patio.
So, we wouldn't have reviewed the sport
court. That doesn't mean that staff
would acknowledge. We checked with the
planning department their uh form for a
sport court application.
It wasn't updated and it still said have
since changed that now,
>> right?
>> To correct it.
>> Okay. Thank you. And for what it's
worth, I think it was in November of
2023 based on my research when the
ordinance did change, which I found out
when I was researching the still current
form a couple months ago on the city
site still listing 10- foot setback on
the sport court application.
>> Okay,
>> that that sounds correct. I would say if
he's saying November 2023,
I didn't have that information right in
front of me, so that's probably correct.
And just at recently it was still it
still said 10 feet in that application.
They have since corrected it.
>> Okay.
>> Any other questions?
>> Mr. Mr. Trell. Yes. When I looked at the
Ames map. Um I expected to see a creek
or something. Where's the water coming
from that?
>> Um I'm not a water expert. I hired an
engineering company to do the drainage
study. But I believe that 84th Terrace,
the street to the south in between Lee
and Meadow, has a number of homes that
have been upgraded and built. And so I'm
assuming we're getting more water runoff
through those backyards coming down from
the 84th Street corridor or 84th terrace
corridor.
>> Thank you.
>> Is that because the storm drains are
insufficient or it just from the runoff
from the people's property? I'm assuming
there's bigger homes with bigger roofs
and more hardscape on those homes. So,
everything south of or sorry, north of
84 Terrace is coming back through my
yard. Now,
» or maybe there was flooding in prior
years and we just didn't know about it.
>> Anything else? Our permitting process
though is supposed to
we require that there's no more runoff
after new homes built than before.
Uh that's so that's kind of different
with the tear down rebuild, but on this
did receive a storm water adding they
were adding over 400 square feet of
imperous surface. Um so this was
reviewed for storm water when the patio
went in. Again, it was presented to the
city as a patio. I believe it was even
noted on that plan
uh you know that this is not approved as
a sport court patio only even. So it
just we wouldn't have reviewed it for
those requirements at that time because
it was just a patio. A lot of people are
just putting in patios. That's very
common.
>> Thank you.
>> Did you want to say anything on that?
>> Not at this time.
>> Okay. All right. Um any other questions
for the applicant or for staff? Is
everybody clear on the applicant's
position regarding uniqueness and
hardship?
Okay. Well, then our next job is to go
through the five criteria.
Uh the first of which is uniqueness of
property. Any comments?
I I think there's something about about
the storm water runoff that makes this
unique that they can't do other things
with the backyard.
>> Anyone else? Well, the African has gone
to considerable expense to alleviate
this water runoff problem and that lends
to the uniqueness of the lot because
most locks don't have that requirement.
Anyone else?
All those who believe it's met the
uniqueness criteria, please indicate by
saying I. I
>> oppose. Nay.
Rights of adjacent property owners. Any
discussion?
Mr. Chairman, I'll comment on rights of
adjacent property owners. Um although
the distance was recently changed from
that 10 to 20, I see we do still have 13
feet um away here, it seems like the
current property owners there um also
have kids who play outside. So I don't
think that would be affected um here. So
I do think that's been met.
>> Any other comments?
All those who believe it's met the
criteria of rights of adjacent property
owners, please say I.
>> I.
>> Oppose. Nay.
>> Hardship.
>> Mr. Chairman, if ever there was a
definition of hardship, this would be
it.
>> Yeah.
>> Well,
>> city changed the rules on them.
>> Yeah.
>> Any other any other comments?
>> All those who believe it's met this
criteria, please say I.
>> Oppose. Nay.
>> Public safety and general welfare. Any
comments?
All those who believe it's met this
criteria, please say I.
>> I.
>> Opposed? Nay. And finally, spirit and
intent.
All those who believe it's met this
criteria, please say I.
>> I.
>> Oppose. Nay.
>> All right. Um, since we have a uh
affirmative response on all five
criteria, we can uh entertain a motion
to approve this request for a variance
to the placement of a sport court. Do I
have such a motion?
>> Mr. Chairman, case 6120
8319 M Lane request for a variance to
the placement of a sport court within 20
ft of any rear or sideline in the LDO or
section 16-4.
1.3B
6 in R1 district. I move approval.
>> Second.
>> Have a motion and a second. All those in
favor of approval, please say I.
>> I.
>> Oppose. Nay.
>> It's passed. You'll be notified in
writing. Thank you for your professional
presentation.
>> You too.
All right. Our next case is 62-2026
3309 West 92nd Street. Request for a
fence height exception. The staff have a
report.
The applicant would like to replace an
existing 4ft chain link on the south and
east side, wood on the west, and rot
iron on the north fence with a six-foot
wood privacy fence at the perimeter of
the property.
Will will the six-foot fence be in the
same location as the existing 4ft fence?
>> Correct.
>> Any other questions for staff?
Is the applicant here? Come on up. You
give us your name and address for the
record. I'd appreciate it.
>> Hello. My name is Megan Miner. I am
actually the applicant owner's daughter.
She is medically indisposed tonight.
>> Well, thanks for coming.
>> Yeah, happy to be here. Um, so my mother
has an extreme change in grade from her
patio to where her fence line in as well
as her neighbors patios. They're very
high. The fence is very low. Not to
mention, it is a 4ft chain link fence,
so she doesn't have a lot of privacy.
Um, with the six-foot fence, the change
in grade will naturally minimize its
visual appearance to perver uh preserve
the open character of the area. The
fence is a board-to-board design, so
everyone gets a good side. So, there
should be no um aesthetic issue. And
then she is building a sun room that she
is going to be putting in an application
for for the next board meeting, I
believe, in October, I guess, the one
after. Uh that complies with the
proximity to property lines, but puts
her even closer to her neighbors. The
sun room will consist mostly of windows,
and with them on top of her, there will
be no privacy. Um, do you all have any
questions?
>> Does anyone have questions for the
applicants?
>> I have pictures of the view if you'd
like to see them, but
>> no questions.
Well, if there's no questions, do I have
a motion?
Oh, wait. Is there anyone here who wants
to speak on this one way or the other?
Sorry.
Okay. Now, do I have a motion?
on a case 92-2026
3309 West 92nd Street request for a
fence height exception in accordance
with LD LDO section 16-4-9.5A
in an R1 district. I move for approval.
Second.
>> Have a motion and a second. All those in
favor, please say I. I
>> oppose. Nay. It passes. You'll be
notified in writing. Thanks for coming
in.
>> Awesome. Thanks y'all. Have a nice
night.
Okay, our next case is another
exception. It's 63-2026
28/19 West 89th Street. Request for an
exception to the maximum allowable
square footage. Uh, does staff have a
report?
>> The applicant is proposing a tear down
rebuild that will total 4,738
feet. The maximum allowed on this lot is
4,615
ft. An exception of 123 feet or 2.6% is
needed to build the home as proposed.
Any questions for staff?
Um,
is this one of those where it's
replacing a much smaller home?
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
Um, I just note for my fellow board
members that this is uh what is commonly
referred to as North or Old Leewood. And
there's a whole lot of houses in North
or Old Leewood that are way undersized
for what's allowed on the property.
There's being a lot a lot of uh tear
downs and rebuilds where what's going
back looks like a mansion compared to
what was there. But um we have to
consider it in light of what the
statutes allow the square footage to be.
So, um, any questions for staff?
>> I had a question. Uh, Ron, what's the
status of the construction project? Are
they still waiting for approval or have
they started with the foundation or
>> It's in review.
>> In review. Okay. Thank you.
>> Any other questions for staff?
Is the applicant here?
>> Come on up.
» Hi. Hi, my name is Sarah Baird and I'm
representing um James Engel Custom
Homes, the owner of the property.
Um and yes, as you said, it's a a tear
down rebuild. Um and we are proposing
the 123 additional square foot um is
actually in the second floor in the
attic space over a threecar side loading
garage.
Um, and we're requesting the exception
because it will not impact the the
additional square footage does not
impact the footprint of the house, nor
does it impact the exterior of the
house. So, um, a neighbor or passer by
isn't going to notice the difference in
the additional um, square footage.
>> This is difference created simply by
refinishing some area that was not
planned to be finished.
>> Uhhuh.
>> Yeah. Okay.
Any questions for the applicant?
All right. Is there anyone here to speak
on this one way or the other?
I guess I for for my benefit, Ron, have
letters gone out.
>> Correct. No calls or concerns. One email
as to what was going on and they seem
satisfied.
>> Okay. Very good. All right. Any other
discussion?
Then uh we can entertain a motion on
this request for an exception.
I'd like to make a motion to approve
case number 63-2026
at 2819 West 89th Street. Request for an
exception to the maximum allowable
square foot on a lot in accordance with
the LDO 16-2-5.3F2
in an R1 district. I'd like to move for
approval.
>> Second.
>> Have a motion and a second. All those in
favor of approval, please say I.
>> I.
>> Opposed? Nay. It passed. You'll be
notified in writing. Thanks for coming
in.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. Our last two cases are both
at the same address. Um the first one is
64-2026
8614 Meadow Lane. Request for a variance
to the side setback. Does staff have a
report?
The applicant has proposed a tear down
rebuild that will be placed 10 feet from
the side property line. The sideyard
setback for this lot is 15 ft. A
variance of 5 ft is needed to build the
home in the proposed location.
>> Any questions for staff?
>> I have a question, Ron. this. There's
some pictures here about the on the AMS
map about uh the flood plane and uh some
of the pictures show that there's going
to be built on on stilts on the in the
backyard.
Correct.
>> Okay. That's because of the flood plane.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
and the reason for the move. Tom Kimes
is here from public works to speak, but
on this there's a storm drain that needs
to be routed around.
>> Well, let's let's hear about it.
>> Tom Kimes, I'm a senior project engineer
with the uh public works department for
the city of Leewood.
>> Welcome.
Um on this property we did identify
along one property line the um it's
pointed out there on the map um that
there is a public storm sewer line that
is runs along the property line. We did
some research and we're not able to
identify that an easement existed. So it
was not identified during the property
uh development.
Um but it does run behind the property.
It collects storm drainage from the
street and does go out to the creek
behind the house. So that affects uh
proximity to the storm drain line that
runs between the two houses, two
existing houses.
>> So So does that does that storm water
line is it is it sufficient so we don't
have overflow into this property owner's
backyard?
» Um
are you saying that the that the curb
inlet at the street will not over top
onto the property?
>> Okay. That was that the question?
>> Well, I'm I'm looking at this map, which
is a 100redyear map, I assume. Yes.
>> And I just wondered if
>> with the which with the storm drain
that's in
>> and with the uh improvements that
they're proposing to make, will we be
above the 100red-year flood plane?
So to address the storm drain line
specifically modern standard is that we
design the pipe to carry what we call a
10-year storm
>> 10ear
>> the pipe is very old so it is likely
below that level
>> was it corrugated
>> uh I believe this is a reinforced
concrete pipe
the flood plane boundary is set to the
100redyear so that's the regulatory
boundary it's a standard it is a
national standard set by the federal
emergency management agency in the city
follows that standard.
So, it's a it's a higher level of
rainfall.
>> Okay.
>> And I and I note on on the report we
received, the staff comments were the
property is not of a similar size and
shape to most lots in the neighborhood.
A storm drain is located on the west
side of the house. That's why you're
here, Tom. Right.
>> Correct.
>> To tell us about that problem.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. All right. Um, any other questions
for
staff?
>> Mr. Chairman, I've got one question. So,
it looks like that storm drain prevents
the home from being within 20 ft of the
west side property line. Was the
previous home not on that space or was
the previous home on that space?
>> The previous uh home uh is a much
smaller footprint.
>> Okay. Okay. So, it did not cover the
>> correct
>> that 20. Okay. Because if I'm reading
this correctly, then instead of that
normal sideyard setback of 15, in this
case, that storm drain is causing there
to be an extra five feet on that side.
So, it seems like the applicant's sort
of just shifting the entire home five
feet the other way if that's what
>> correct.
>> Okay. Gotcha. Thank you.
>> Okay. Any other questions for staff?
And I see I think you're probably the
applicant standing up back there. So, if
you want to come on up, it's your turn.
>> Answer one of the questions that
>> give us your name and address if you
would please first. We're recording this
and we like to make sure it's complete.
>> Got it. My name is Rich Acres. The
address is 8614 Meadow Lane. I'm the
contractor.
>> Thank you.
And to address the flooding or the the
drainage that you were talking about,
I've had a drainage study done by a FEMA
engineer who did say we'll have a zero
rise. So we don't have a we don't have
any rise from the building.
>> I don't understand that. But maybe my
fellow
>> So he was asking if we're going to
change the flood elevation by building
this house,
>> right?
>> And we don't. We have a zero rise
certification letter already submitted.
>> Okay. Okay. And I don't want to mix
these up, but the next case is the same
address and it's it's it's asking for a
grade change. What's that's that about?
>> Yeah.
Basically, this I don't same
thing, I guess. So, that way we designed
the house, the we have the house a
little bit higher.
>> Well, well, not to be a nitpicker, but I
thought you just said that it wasn't
going to result in a grade change, and
yet we have an application for a grade
change.
>> So, I didn't know I said grade change. I
apologize for that. zero rise
certification. In other words, we are
going to fill a little bit. We have
areas that we fill. In other words, I'm
putting the house at 886.5 and I think
the G
>> RP grade reference point is 8.84.
So, I'm actually which is sea level. So,
they're just showing I'm going to be 1
foot higher. So, I think it was Ron was
teaching me, you know, basically showing
what I can allowed to do. And so I'll be
one I'm allowed one foot to fill and I'm
doing two because the garage door we're
doing a zero entry home to make
everything work and flow. And I took
account for all the flood
what do they call that compensary
storage. So the way I build the house
everything's done. I have to allow for
compensary storage for the flood waters
that if they do come.
>> Okay.
>> And that's why the house is on still
allows the water to pass through.
>> Okay. Anything else you'd like to
present in support of your case? uh
against for the five- foot easement.
>> That's for the this is for the five foot
easement. Although if you if you bleed
over into the other case a little bit,
we don't mind.
>> Well, okay. Well, it's all basically the
same as that, though. I do already.
We're trying to meet the intent, you
know, of what was been asked for the
>> Well, well, you've been here for our
other cases.
>> Yes, I'm trying to follow that. I have
something written here. Let me follow.
>> Okay. Well, well, let me help you out.
>> Okay. The two criteria that causes
problems on this are uniqueness of
property, which our staff has pretty
much addressed
>> and did a good job of it. But hardship
is the other one and that's a difficult
one because obviously a compliant home
could be designed one that doesn't
require these these ch these variances.
So what what what is the hardship that
uh would is is causing you to have to do
it in this way rather than in accordance
with the Well, that's a great question
and
I worked hard before we bought the
property to try to solve that and see
and so I worked hard knowing I even made
sure I asked for extra time to see if we
could do it and I thought I designed
something and I erred
>> in that but we already bought the
property and so that's what they my
clients wanted and so that's so now we
own it. So, the hardship is we already
own the property
had we known ahead of time. Now, I've
worked hard to redesign something that
would meet the best that we can all the
things that they're asking for.
>> Well, have no doubt. We'll talk about it
up here more before we finish, but do if
you've got anything else, now's the
time.
>> Not right now.
>> Okay. All right. All right. All right.
Any questions for the applicant from up
here?
» Mr. Chairman, I've got one question for
the applicant. I suppose from
side to side from east to west do you
know how many feet the home is measures
across
like it's probably
>> yeah so the 47 ft is the build line I
have it right here I'll just show
>> so I'll tell you then
» looks like 46 feet by those measures
across the front building but 46 feet
across.
>> Um it is actually
48 feet. It's when you go to so as the
lot sort of pies back. So it's for at
the front it is 47t.
That's including any overhangs, right?
Because you'll have some overhangs. And
then it's 48t when you get to the back
because it can't leave us further back.
But it's always staying within, you
know, outside those building parameters.
We didn't run into the, as Tom said, we
didn't know anything about that till we
had done all this work. We didn't know
anything about the the uh easement that
they had. It's not recorded. So, since
it wasn't recorded, we were all we had
already done all the work and had it on
the lot plan. In fact, at one point, um,
the plot plan had already been approved,
but that was as we were working, we got
disapproved for other things, so we
worked around that. And then the next
plot plan got unapproved, saying, "Oh,
by the way, there's an easement there,
and we didn't know that."
>> Wow.
>> Okay.
>> And I do have pictures of the house. I
don't know if we're in that section, you
know, I can show you.
>> Whatever you want to show us, now's the
time to do it.
>> Okay. So, I'll deal with both of these
at the same time. because you talked
about the house being on stilts.
So, I'll show you first.
>> Well, while you're looking for those, I
want to I want to also point out to my
fellow members up here that if you'll
read under site plan on our the report
to us, it does point out that this lot
is not of a similar size and shape to
most lots in the neighborhood and the
majority of the lot is located in the
flood plane. So, anyway, I just wanted
to make sure we were aware of that. Go
ahead.
>> Yes, that's true. very struggling on
that especially when we find out all the
interesting things.
>> We'll help you any way we can.
>> Thank you.
But so that you can look at it. There's
what the house will look like from the
street. So you talked about a beat on
stilts. It's not like no one's going to
notice. You look at the house, it it
still looks nice. And then
this is kind of looking at it from the
west side. And so as you come down and
so when you're seeing the easement that
we're doing, the house actually is over
15 is 15 foot side to side. What I was
doing is putting the Oh, sorry. What I
was doing is putting the driveway down
the side, but then the driveway runs
into that easement, which if they of
course it doesn't even sit on the
ground, so they could technically dig.
But when I was talking to Tom, we Tom,
he suggested we move it over to keep it
out of the way. So if they do need to
get equipment in there and needed to
address I did camera that the other day
to check it myself had the the storm
sewer that because it's been put in in
1947
I think he told me and uh he says it's
in level four condition which is one
deviant from being really bad. So I'm
going to stay off of it but I wanted a
camera to make sure I can show I'm not
ruining anything there. And I told them
we would put a a uh protection fence
that we'll never cross that because I
don't want to have to replace that if it needed to be replaced. But so then
I'm just showing you what the house
would look like. All the other sides
are, you know, the front the back sides
there. I'll give you more so you'll see
other
here's it from the top view.
Just looking at it down. So, by the way,
as you see, as you look down this side
here,
as you go down and look down the side, I
will probably I'll put all rock going
down that and put plants to make it look
nice so you don't see it. And it's also
make it for drainage purposes. So, any
water that comes down there will
probably I might even take a dry river
bed all the way out just to control the
water.
>> What's the total square footage?
>> I beg you, pardon.
>> What's the total square footage of the
house? Um,
I think it's 40
uh
4,400 or 45 under 4,500.
Yeah. So, it's 4,486.
» Thank you.
>> Any other questions for the applicant?
>> Yeah. On the picture that you've got up
there in front of us right now on the
lower right hand corner, is that a
garage or is that a storage building?
>> That is a garage.
>> Okay. And so an automobile is going to
come down here along the the barrier and
make a left and go in there. Is that
going to be enough room to jockey
around?
>> Yes, sir. It's 28 feet and 2 and 316 in.
>> You did even get a pickup truck in
there, right?
>> Yes. made sure that we could have access
to be able to get in and out, even turn
around because in all honesty, you can
also turn right here because this is 20
ft here. So, they'll have enough room if
they had to go back up.
>> So, it's a threecar garage. You have
>> affirmative two up front, but you don't
allow three facing forward. So, that we
ran into that problem. I think it was
Travis helping me out or yeah, helping
me say you can't have a third car
before. Anyway, there was so many and
then having it detached made it hard. So
I had to connect it, come around the
back trying to do it all. So we figured
out how to get it done, but it was
pretty uh interesting.
>> Learn more than you ever expected,
haven't you?
>> Yes, it has been a lot of work. It's
probably our third or fourth plan
revision.
>> Yes, it's been a lot of work on that.
>> But um but I think we've met the what
they're trying to get at.
>> And if you notice
>> the picture of the front, what is it you
want?
>> Yeah, the picture of the front of the
house.
>> Yes.
I have a plot plan, too. Now that you
guys
» I'm marked up here. I got two marks up
because they Travis asking me for
drainage. So, I'm taking care of
Well, once again, just so my fellow
board members are clear on this, if we
approve this variance, it's still going
to have to meet our runoff requirements
before it's approved for final
construction, right?
>> Yes. And it does meet all that. They've
already done the telling you how much
the amount when we met the runoff. It is
the only good part about it is is a
massive lot. So therefore, I'm allowed a
certain amount of
>> right
>> impervious area, but I'm also
controlling all that. I'm controlling
all the down spouts and because he asked
me maybe it was Ron that asked me to
show
was it Ron J different guys. Okay.
>> I I just want to make sure that up here
we understand that that that that'll be
taken care of as part of the
>> Right. Process and I'm going to meet
those runoffs. Yes, sir.
>> I I think my only kind of remaining
concern because I'm with you on
uniqueness with the storm drain. Totally
understand that point. It just seems
like we're at a point
specifically with the hardship factor
where you've got a blank slate. Although
we've done these plans to where you know
you've got an idea of the home you want
on there. It just seems like there's a
blank slate. You know, have there been
any attempts to go from that 48t across
to like a 43
feet across to be able to fit it within
the the distance across? Yes, ma'am. As
hard as possible. I mean, it's Yes, we
to meet all this footage. I've done
everything possible to Well, I work for
my clients. And so, at the end of the
day, I'm trying to give them what they
want. We ended up with this lot. And so,
I'm just trying to honor their wishes
before we decide. I hate to see us lose
$600,000, but we get a little over that
now that we've got invested in this, but
that's really
I don't want to not give them the home
that they want. So yeah, the hardship
would be yes, we already own the lot and
we made a mistake and possibly having
bought it, not understanding the the
ramifications of it being in the flood
plane and not built. I've built in the
flood plane before, but they haven't
ever restricted it that far. So I didn't
think anything about that.
>> But that mistake, if it is one, was in
not
being fully aware of of a majority of
this property actually being in the
flood plane.
Is that correct?
>> When you bought it and or when it was
bought and the plans were to put the
house on here, you didn't realize till
you got into it that that the majority
of the lot is in the flood plane.
>> Um yeah, I didn't know that actually. I
did call the realtor on that, but before
I bought it, I not I thought, okay, so
it's in the flood plane. I'm not worried
that we can build in it. So then I
didn't have the restrictions exactly
knowing that you're not allowed to build
in the or not necessarily not build in
the flood plane. you're not allowed to
have any basement or any opening. So I
have built in the flood plane in many
other areas and never had that happen.
And so I didn't see that rest. I I
didn't get that restriction and so
therefore once I did understand I should
have found it. I take responsibility for
that. That is 100% my fault and and I
might have to eat it and work it out.
But we're just trying to figure out how
to resolve it in the best possible way
to make everybody happy. My clients
still do like the lot. They like the
location. They want to live there. If it
doesn't work out, we'll just have to
find another one and I'll have to figure
out how to do what you said. Draw
something different.
>> Are are you the Are you the owner?
>> And just for the record, give me
>> Sure. My name is Marvin Music.
>> Okay.
>> And this is my wife, Cat. And probably
just to your question, uh we have um you
know, because the sidebacks are so
tight, uh we looked at so many ways to
try to get this. We're 47 feet across,
you know, so the time you get in two a
two-car garage, you only have, you know,
20 some feet. As you can see, most of
the home goes um, you know, it goes back
this way. So, you know, the the bulk of
the home is back. And so, we try to
bring this thing in as much as possible.
Uh, we really did. So, I think that
would be that it was just difficult. Um,
yeah, it's not a huge home. In fact, we
originally wouldn't have a basement to
anyways. we have all kinds of kids and
grandkids and we're looking forward to
this thing and that just didn't work out
the way we thought. So, we really have
tried to bring it in, but I want to
share that with you.
>> I appreciate that. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other questions for the applicant
» and I'm not going to ask if there's
anybody to speak because there's nobody
else in the room.
Um, did you want to say something,
Travis? Well, I just wanted to add just
on this on the setback part as far as on
you know, it was identified late in the
process. It originally was submitted
meeting the setbacks and then that storm
sewer line was flagged very late in the
process.
>> Back back to what Tom was telling us
about.
>> Exactly. And so then they just shifted
it five feet to accommodate that
request because of that storm line, you
know, because it was so late in the
process. And that's why that this first
case is before you.
>> So if we were so inclined, we could we
could conclude that the late discovery
of the location of that storm line
created a hardship.
>> You could.
>> Okay. Just just want to make sure we're
all hearing the same thing.
>> Okay. Any other questions?
Okay. Well, we need to consider the five
criteria now. You're welcome to sit down
while we do it. We'll call you back up
if we need to talk to you again. Thank
you for your presentation.
>> Thank you.
>> And it's beautiful design. Um, all
right. You all know what the five
criteria are. Let's start with
uniqueness of property. Any comments?
>> It is unique.
>> We've had a lot of discussion. It
shouldn't be
>> Mr. Chairman, I think the uniqueness of
property criteria has been satisfied. As
the staff notes indicate, property is
not a similar size or shape to most in
the neighborhood. You got the storm
drain running through it, so I think it
is unique. Thank you.
>> All those who believe it's met this
criteria, please say I
>> oppose. Nay.
>> Rights of adjacent property owners. I
assume letters went out and you haven't
received any problems.
>> No calls or concerns.
All those who in who believe it's met
this criteria, please say I. I
>> oppose. Nay.
>> Hardship. We've had a lot of discussion
about that as well. Um and I just will
remind you, we just confirmed that the
late discovery of the storm drain did
create a certain hardship in this
process. So just for your consideration.
Any other thoughts on hardship?
>> I think that's a great consideration
approving the criteria.
>> Thanks, Gary. Uh, all those who believe
it's met this criteria, please say I.
>> I.
>> Opposed? Nay. Public safety and general
welfare. Any comments?
All those who believe it's met this
criteria, please say I.
>> I.
>> Oppose. Nay. And finally, spirit and
intent.
Any comments?
>> Beautiful house.
>> It looks like a beautiful house. All
those who believe it's met this
criteria, please say I.
>> I.
>> Oppose. Nay. All right. Having gotten a
positive response on all five criteria,
we can entertain a motion to approve
this request for a variance to the
sideyard setback.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to propose that
we approve case number 65-2026
at 8614 Meadow Lane, a request for a
variance to the maximum allowed. Nope,
that's the wrong one.
request a variance for the side setback
in accordance with the LDO-16-2-5.3D
in an R1 district.
>> Second.
>> Have a motion and a second. Uh all those
in favor of approval say I.
>> I.
>> Oppose. Nay.
>> It passes. Obviously, you'll be
notified. That brings us to the second
one which is the same property, the same
issue, but it has to do with a request
for a variance to the maximum allowed
grade change. Does staff have a report?
The applicant has proposed a tear down
rebuild that will require maximum of
three foot in grade change at the front
corner of the home and a maximum of
approximately 7 feet at the pool area.
The maximum grade change allowed is 1
foot. A variance of approximately 6 feet
is needed to build the home as proposed.
>> And once again, regardless of whether we
approve this or not, whatever we approve
will have to meet our storm water
requirements before it's finally
approved. Correct.
>> Correct. And again, if you have
questions for Tom, he's here.
>> Exactly. Okay. Um, any questions for
staff?
Mr. Acres, you want to come back up for
a little bit?
» I had the FEMA engineer design it to
help me to get approval so that we would
meet the zero rise certification. So
everything that we did,
we actually um have exceeded it by 30
square feet, I think he wrote on his
study. And so we've actually given back
more compens
Okay.
>> And then even some of it, part of that
yellow part in the back, I can even open
that up and keep well I can let water
pass through underneath the pool house.
He just didn't design it that way. We
may do it that way anyway the way we're
doing it. So therefore, it would have
flood vents to run underneath the
extension, the outdoor kitchen. There's
a kitchen and hot tub room and bathroom
and garage all in the back. We can we're contemplating of uh leaving that
all open so that water can pass through.
>> Okay.
>> Which should then give even more flood
compensatory storage.
>> All right.
>> So the fill area that they're talking
about
like again it is the uniqueness is where
we're at. So what I've had to deal with
so
I've met that by giving back more
compens.
What what hardship would be created by
not approving this request?
>> Well, again, it's the same. We own it.
And
>> go ahead, tell us.
>> It's the same. We We already own it. We
needed We want They needed They wanted a
pool. I don't know about need, but they
wanted the pool. They wanted the the
design that we have. And if we don't do
it, then we have to figure out something
else. So to to effectively build the
home we've we've approved in the prior
variance
um you need this as well.
>> Is that correct?
>> Yes sir. Other than we still did meet
all those
I think we met all the intents and
everything else because if we take it
away we have to give it back. They
always tell me if I take it away
somewhere I have to give it back
somewhere else. And so I did I'll do
that.
>> Okay. Questions?
Okay, we're going to go through our five
criteria.
Um, first is uniqueness of the property.
Nothing's changed about the property, so
I assume there's are there any other
comments on uniqueness.
>> All those who believe it's met this
criteria, please say I.
>> I.
>> Oppos? Nay. Rights adjacent property
owners. Um,
I think Ron's already confirmed to us.
Letters have gone out and we've got no
complaints. All those who believe it's
met this criteria, please say I.
>> Oppose. Nay.
>> Hardship. Any comments?
» I'll just comment for the record that
this looks like it's a very difficult
situation to deal with and uh I I'd
frankly be reluctant to tell them to go
back and redesign it. But in any case,
>> any other comments?
All those who believe it's met this
criteria, please say I.
>> I. I. Opposed? Nay. Public safety and
general welfare. Any comments. All those
who believe this criteria has been met,
please say I.
>> I. I.
>> Opposed. Nay. And finally, spirit and
intent.
Just ditto Gary's comment from the last
case. All those who believe it's met
this criteria, please say I.
>> I.
>> Oppose. Nay. All right. Having
affirmative responses on all five
criteria, we can entertain a motion to
approve this request for variance to the
maximum allowed grade change.
Mr. Chairman on case
65-2026
8614 meadow lane request for variance to
the maximum allowable grade change in
accordance with the LDO section
16-2-5.3G
in an R1 district. I move for approval.
>> Have a motion and a second. All those in
favor of approval, please say I.
>> Oppose. Nay.
>> It passes unanimously. Thanks for coming
in, folks, and for your patience.
» Of course.
Thank you.
We've been working on this one year. One
year. Been a long year. And it's going
to be a nice home. And uh our
grandchildren will enjoy the pool. So,
I'm glad.
>> Sorry.
» Thanks so much.
>> Well, thank you and your builder for a
professional approach. We really
appreciate it. Thank you very much.
>> It would be a nice addition to the
neighborhood.
>> Yep. Is there a motion to adjurnn?
We're done.