Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Is that a new clock? I didn't remember it had a black face. recording in progress.

Well, thank you. I know that voice. It's the same one on my phone. All righty then. We ready? All right. Good evening everybody. Welcome to the April meeting of the Leewood Board of Zoning Appeals. Um, can I have a roll call? Members Penn Sipple

here. Dirkson here. Dun here. Hurst here. Hawk here. Busing. We have a quorum. Very good. Thank you. For our first order of business tonight. We need to elect a vice chair. I am currently the chairman of this and and do have to miss on a fairly regular basis. So, we definitely need a vice chair. And Katherine, I think you've agreed to that. So, do I have a motion to I would like to formally nominate Katherine's chair. Vice Chairman, I guess it is. What's that? Is it the vice chairman? Is that the vice chair? Yeah.

The motion. I have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. Welcome. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, please. Thank you so much. Uh, second order of business is approval of minutes. We have two two months. We have February and March minutes. Have you all had a chance to review those? And if you have, do you have any changes or corrections? I move approval of the two minutes or zoning pre minutes. Have a motion. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor, please say I. I.

They are approved. All right. Then our first order of business is um old business. It's case 11-2026 8909 High Drive. Request for a fence height exception. Does staff have a report? The applicant would like to install a 6ft wood privacy fence along the rear of the property line.

Are there any questions for staff from the board? Uh, I have a question. Uh, backing up to this property, are those the new houses that are on the east side of Lee Boulevard, uh, where the old Leewood Country Club used to be? Correct. So, there's those are all fairly new and nice homes and fairly new, heavily landscaped.

Okay. Any other questions for staff before we proceed? Is the applicant here? Maybe not. Well, I guess it's going to stay old business. It's We've continued it once already. So, what what do we do? I haven't dealt with this one before. Do we take it off the agenda for good? You can do a motion to abandon or withdraw the uh application. Okay. Do I have such a motion? Move. Second. Second. Second. All in favor, please say I. I. Okay.

So, is that the same as a denial? Effectively, I think, Chuck, although um although I'm sure they have the ability to refile it fairly quickly and and with a denial, they couldn't refile exactly the same thing.

Okay. Well, as I said, that's kind of unusual, folks. So, let me catch up. Oops. There it is. All right. Then we'll move to our next next item which is under new business case 17-202612905 Delmare Street request for a fence height exception. Does staff have a report? The applicant would like to install a 6ftwood privacy fence along the perimeter of the property.

Is there a fence currently there? Some of the adjoining properties have a fence and then the red would be the new fence. Okay. So, this isn't replacing an old fence is what I'm what I'm asking. I would have to ask the applicant to be sure about that. We'll get the applicant up here. Any questions for staff from the board before we ask the applicant to come up? Are the fences shown in green? Are those 4 foot fences? Uh, we'd have to ask the applicant that one also. Thank you.

All right. Is the Is the applicant here? Come on up. If you would please give us your name and address for the record and then present your case. That looks painful. Brienne Durham, 12905 Delmare Street. Darren Wanderer, 12905 Delmare Street. Great. So, you may present your case.

Yeah. Uh, we recently purchased the home we closed on March 26. We currently I don't know if you want to put the picture up. I can explain where what's where. Uh there is currently 4 foot fences along the north side which is our fence and it's currently in it's no longer being able to be repaired. The Yeah, the section labeled 91 ft that is currently our our 4ft fence but it's falling down. And the 58 foot fence is also our fence uh on the what would be the north side.

All right. And then the 58 foot fence, what would be the west southwest side?

Southeast, excuse me, is uh belongs to that neighbor. It's iron rod. It's 4 foot. The two green lines in the very back of the picture, that is a sixoot fence belonging to a neighbor. And then the 62 foot on the south side, that is a 4ft fence belonging to the neighbor. We're asking for the uh variance because we own a dog who is 65 pound Belgian Malininois. I own a dog training company and uh previously he was used for um work as well as was my competition dog. He's since retired into the leisurely life leisurely life, but um having that enclosure would just help maintain his safety and get him adequate exercise.

Well, if YouTube videos are correct, the Belgian Malamino can do about 18 foot fence camp. He we uh so his retirement championship he took second in the world. Oh my gosh. Beat the Russians. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? My question about the height of the fences. The fences that are green that are shown in the diagram, are those sixfooters? Now, uh three of them are four, two of them are six. But you're going to put six all the way around where it's shown in red. Correct. Correct. And you're not not and you're going to tear down the other fence. The two that are ours that are falling down. Yeah.

And which ones are those? Which the north one? Yep. Thank you. The 91 and then the 58. Correct. And then the other two will be building out into our property to avoid their fence. Just so we know, what type of fence are you putting up? It's a we we did submit a picture. Perfect. There you go. Everybody should see. Thank you. All right. Any other questions for the applicant? Will there be I see it says there there will be a two foot gap between the the new fence and the existing fences. Is that true?

The neighbors who have their own fence line, that's where the twoft gap will be just so workers can get behind it. So, that'll be coming in on our property. Okay. And how will that property be maintained? Will you be maintaining it? Yeah, we'll be able to get through. It is our property technically, that two-ft gap, so we'll be able to get in there and maintain it. Okay, cool. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? I'm up here.

All right. Well, this is an exception. It's not a variance, which is is good for you because an exception is is much easier to satisfy. In our analysis, we have to look at the effect on adjoining property, the uses and physical characteristics of adjoining property and the proximity to arterial streets. We didn't really talk about the proximity to arterial streets. Is there anything that you is there any proximity to arterial streets? The larger more traveled streets? No, we uh kind of live Delmare is probably the the uh busiest street in that neighborhood. Okay. Um everything that the fence would kind of see, there's culde-sacs.

Okay. All right. And so the very front, what would be the front of the property, the west side, the just the fence from our back of our house to the fence line, those two areas would be you' be able to see from the driving down Delmare. Great. And Ron, I see that you've noted that all letters were mailed and you still at this point have received no calls or any no calls or concerns.

Okay. All right. Very good. Uh any other questions for the applicant? Is there anyone here who came to speak on this application for or against? No. Well, then it's it's up to us folks to discuss it and decide where we want to go with this. Are there any any other issues you want to discuss or do I have a motion? I see no concerns, sir. In case 17 2028 12905 Delmare Street, request for a fence height exception in accordance with the LDO section 16-4 9.5A in R1 district. I move approval. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I oppose. Nay, it's passed. You'll be notified in writing. Thanks for coming in. Thank you.

Our next case is 18-2026 3904 West 128th Street. Request for an exception for the placement of a fence in a through lot uh in accordance with the LDO. Do we staff have a report? The applicant would like to install a 6-ft wood privacy fence on the rear property line. This will require an exception of a total of 30 to build the fence as proposed. Previous BZA action granted an exception to place the fence 12 ft from the property line. The original rear setback was 30.

I'm sorry. There was an original request we passed. I I missed that part. Ron, what' you say? There there was a through lot exception granted to put it at 12 and now I believe there's an issue with the landscaping so they would like to move it further back. I see. Okay. All right. Um so when was the previous uh when when did this previous I think February.

Well, I'm sure the applicant will know because they've been living it. So any other questions for staff before we get the applicant up here? Is the applicant here? Come on up. If you'd give us your name and address for the record, I'd appreciate it. These are recorded.

Cara Sherwood, 3904 West 128th Street. Okay, let me just picture. All right. Good evening. Nice to see some of you again. Um, as he mentioned, I was here in February and we asked for this exception for the fence to have a certain setback. Um, when we originally asked for the 12oot exception, I was going off like what the fence guys measurements were. I assumed he included these trees along our property line on the back side. There's like five or six of them. Really beautiful, but I went back and did the measuring myself. We did not include those trees. So, as the setback stands now, the fence is going to be in front of those trees that back to 127th. I think he was going off the curb line rather than the property line. Anyway, so now I'm back to just ask for it on the property line because then it'll include those trees. Um, so basically, if we bought this lot back in November for the big lot. So, right now, if we do the fence as it stands, it's going to cut off a lot of the lot. Not only that, we are going to put a pool in this summer. Um, so if the fence is in front of those trees, it just makes it more accessible for the people possibly climbing the trees, hop over the fence, kind of a safety hazard, um, and whatnot. So, there are other properties around us that have their fences to the property line. I have a couple um addresses and I took a couple pictures of their fences and our lot is on the side. It's not on the side where there's sidewalk, so that's not an issue. Um overall, we just want to be able to utilize as much as the lot as possible while maintaining the landscaping because the people before us just did some amazing landscaping back

there. Um and we just Oh, I couldn't put up a picture. And those last two pictures were of houses that already have Correct. Yeah. They're already back to the property. It's like one's a couple houses down from us, one's a few houses down from us. Um, and we do plan on putting a gate on the back that backs to 127. So, because there is like some hostas back there, too, that will they're actually over the property line. So, it would cut those off, but this way we can still maintain that landscaping out there. Okay. All right. Any questions for the applicant? Are there any other six foot wooden fences along 127th Street? The pictures I believe I had were

the picture you showed the ornamental iron one's like the black ornamental one looks like it was a wood fence. I don't know about privacy. It does have slats, but mine's going to be vertical privacy. We're not doing horizontal, so then people can't climb it. Um, I'm not sure if it's six foot or not. How about how about West Road? I don't recall. I just kind of went off my neighborhood. 6 foot privacy fences along 127th. And that's a fairly busy street, right? Correct. Which is one of the reasons we wanted the privacy fence. There's there's no sidewalk on the south side of 127, right?

Correct. The side we're on. There's no sidewalk. And you say that the plan is to put a swimming pool in. Yes. So that's why we originally got the six foot exception because the pool just so there's no confusion up here. The way that would go is that if we limited approval to a 4ft fence now and then they put a pool in, they'd have a right to make it a sixoot fence at that time. Correct. Correct. And and they have approval already for a sixfoot. That's what I thought. Yeah. All right.

And there are sixoot fences on the north side of 127th Street between Mission and Row. uh that are out right by the sidewalk. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Um this is a uh an exception, not a variance, and we have to consider the effects on adjoining property, uses and physical characteristics of the adjoining property, proximity to arterial streets, and the existing topography and landscaping of the subject property. Uh, I see that letters were mailed and you haven't received any calls or emails and

no calls or concerns. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience out here who came to speak on this for or against? All right. Then subject any further discussion up here, we can entertain a motion. I'd like to move to approve case number 18-2026 at 3904 West 128th Street. request for an exception for the placement of a fence on the through lot in accordance with the LDO section 16-4-9.5 parentheses B in an R1 district second have a motion and a second all those in favor please say I oppose nay

it's passed you'll be notified in writing thank you for coming in thank you so yes we have a roll call

we did have roll call All righty. Then our next case is case 19-2026 93 9340 Enley Lane. Request for an exception to the maximum allowable square footage. Does staff have a report? The applicant is proposing a tearown rebuild that will total 4,694 feet. The maximum square footage allowed by ordinance on this lot is 4,33 feet. An exception of 391 ft, which is 9% above the maximum is needed for the proposed plan. And the reason this is an exception is that as long as the request is under 20%.

Correct. It remains an exception. Okay. Does anyone have questions for staff before we ask the applicant to step up? All right. Is the applicant here? Good evening. I'm Scott Kenixorf. I live at 4722 West 68th Street, Prairie Village, Kansas.

Welcome. So, the exception that I'm requesting is for a 4600 foot home. Uh it's typical of other size and massing of tear down rebuild projects in Old Lewood. Uh throughout Oldwood, this particular lot is plenty wide for this size of home per ordinance, but it is not exceptionally deep. So, if it were, it's on the west side of the street. If I was applying for the permit on the east side of the street, it would conform. Those lots are a little bit deeper. Uh there's multiple homes nearby of similar size and massing uh on this block and in the neighborhood. Uh but we're I'm just slightly over this finished floor allowable square footage by by 9%. Any questions for the applicant from the board?

And did I read that the additional footage is upstairs? That's correct. Have you met with the surrounding neighbors? I had one neighbor to the north uh call uh this afternoon and they they're not here this evening, but they were in favor of the the home and the the exception. Okay. Okay. And I and Ron, I assume letters went out. Correct. No calls or concerns. Okay. Um, is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this project one way or another? We have one person, so if you could move aside for a minute, let him talk.

Hi, my name is Richard Fink. My wife Kathleen and I are here. We live at 9341 Canterbury, which is the house immediate to the west. We share a fence line with the Scott's proposed house. Uh, and I just want to put on the record how cooperative he's been once all the landscaping on his property came down. Um, there was a lot of debris left. That's uh my wife contacted him and he had a crew out there that cleaned all that up. Um, so that u not we have extensive landscaping but there's a lot of gaps now. Um, and we just mainly have some questions that we'd like to speak to Mr. Kennorf um, after we're done here just to clarify some things with the with the property. Thank you. Anyone else here that'd like to speak on this one way or the other? I I feel since we have a a couple of new members, it seems like we've turned over a lot recently that I'll just kind of review a little bit about how this works. Um the typically speaking um granting an exception for um the additional square footage doesn't really affect generally doesn't affect the footprint of the house. Generally speaking, you're you're going to see the same house there whether you approve the additional square footage or not. It's usually has it usually affects how the inside can be refinished because if if an attic's left an attic, it doesn't count as square footage. If it's finished off, it does count as square footage. So, just just keep that in mind. I I just wanted you all to know that's that's why 20% is listed as an exception rather than a variance. uh not putting people through that long arduous process of requesting the variance if that's what we're talking about and that does sound like what we're talking about

in this case. The I'd be remiss if I didn't also mentioned that this is a very sensitive issue in Old Lewood and typically speaking people have a lot of concerns about um these tearowns and rebuilds and and oftentimes it comes out in these hearings. I don't know that it will on this particular one, but just thought that background might be helpful. Does that lead to any questions any of you all have for the applicant or staff? No, but I appreciate that. Thank you. Is there anyone here? Anyone else who wants to speak on this? Okay.

I do have a question for the applicant. Um, have any alternative um h house plans been considered at all? 9% is, you know, pretty sufficiently over that maximum square foot allowed even even with, you know, the the extra footage allowed there. So, have you considered any alternatives?

Um, no. No, honestly, I I have not. I I just really would like a lost space on the the second floor of this house. Um, and on the other hand, the total footage of this home is is 4,600 square feet, which I I believe is really in keeping of many other projects that we've done on similar size lots. It's just this particular lot just isn't very deep. Right. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?

No. Well, I I think if the neighbors were concerned after letters were sent out that they probably would appear and would be discussing this in greater detail. And since this has not happened and letters were sent out, the homes association, I assume, is has been advised of the concerns that I think that we've resolved our questions ourselves. I do have somewhat of a concern with with just because no one came in though accepting that because if we do grant this based on no one coming in then the next time someone does come in it would be it would become more with the neighborhood to start allowing these larger homes. So my concern is then next time when people do come in to voice their concerns, we'd be more likely to grant that when I think it's it's pretty pretty blatantly against the ordinance. Um that 9% is a lot for me. I don't think I'll be able to support that.

Okay. Any other questions, concerns? Are there any other large homes like your proposed home on the street? Yes, the home directly to the south is a a newer home probably 3 to 5 years old of similar size and massing. I'm not sure if they if they got the same exception or not, but but it is rather large. What what percentage of the houses on that street just on that block are new as a result of a tear down? Is it two or is it 10? It's it's two or three. Two or three. Yes. Okay.

Thank you. Well, and just a reminder folks, this is an exception. And the two things we have to satisfy ourselves is that one is that it's the request is less than 20% increase, which it is. And the other is that the proposed size will shall reflect the character of the surrounding dwellings in the neighborhood. And and I think that's what your questions have been about as to whether it's going to do that or not. I have no doubt that if we look back at this neighborhood 50 years from now, they'll all reflect this character because what you say is correct. All that rebuilds going on in Old Leewood or to maximum square footage. And frankly, I live in a neighborhood where most of the houses are about 50% of the allowable square footage. So, it comes as quite a shock when a when a big house goes in. Um, but I don't know where we go with all that information. That's what we've got to deal with. So with that, if there's no other comments, then does anyone have a motion?

I make a motion for case 19-2026 at 9340 Ensley Lane, request for an exception to the maximum maximum allowable square footage on a lot in accordance with the LDO 16-2-53F2 in an R1 district. Second. So that's a motion to approve. Yes, please. Okay. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Oppose. Nay. Nay. I believe that gives us three to one. So it passes. You'll be notified in writing. Thanks for coming in. Thank you. Can I ask one more question? Yes, sir.

What about mature trees that are on that property? Are you going to leave them or are they going to go? two very large uh oaks in the front yard and then there was a bunch of just scraggly overgrowth in the backyard that we've already removed. The two oaks are are staying in the front. Thank you. Thank you. Our next case is 20-2026 2844 West 138 Terrace. request for a variance to the rear yard setback of an irregular lot. The staff have a report.

The applicant has proposed to replace and extend an existing deck that will be 33 feet from the rear yard build line. The rear yard setback is 35 feet. A variance of 2 feet is needed to build the deck as proposed. Is there currently a deck on the house? Yes. Is it currently at 33 feet or somewhere thereabouts? It uh is at 35. Uh on the the picture, what's in black is the existing deck and what is in red is what's proposed. So, they're just wanting to extend it two feet out along that rear.

And I assume the existing deck needs to be replaced one way or another. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Any questions for staff before we ask the applicant up? Is the applicant here? Come on up. Good evening. John Lentel, 2844 West, 138th Terrace. Um, first just to be clear, the deck is actually down. Um, so yes, it did need to be replaced. It is down.

Um, we are just uh seeking the variance on that two feet. I actually have um from the HOA the HOA approval because Sorry, we need to record this. The variance that we're talking about is actually a 20, not the 25 foot standard, but the 35 foot that is applicable to the neighborhood. Uh we're seeking to go two feet into that and the HOA has um submitted an approval, a letter approving that. And you're handing us copies of that? Yes, I am. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Are you finished or do you have one more? That's it.

I may have a few extra comments up there, but that's okay. I I will tell you that um the difficulty we have in variance cases is that uh you have to demonstrate uniqueness of property and and hardship. Well, the property itself is an irregular shaped through lot and so we have that affecting the deck and the deck that was there beforehand was so small it was barely usable uh in part because of the through lot and the 35 ft setback. So replacement replacement of the deck with this size will allow the deck greater use of the deck the backyard and as far as the surrounding area it's not visible to the neighbors as it is and it only enhances um their property value by the improvement of the deck. The deck itself is within a fenced yard so there's no public safety issue with the deck. So out of the five criterias, um the last one I guess there would be the intent. I think that two feet improving the deck and adding to the usefulness of the lot fulfills the intent of extending a little bit into that setback area, especially given the fact that the setback applies to the HOA 35 ft, not the standard 25 of the city code. Well, and we but but with respect to uniqueness and hardship, we we have um in the past taken notice of the regular shape of lots when we're considering issues like this and sometimes that fulfills that criteria, sometimes it doesn't. If you have anything else you'd like us to have in mind when we're considering uniqueness or hardship, that's what I'm asking you for at this point. No, I mean it's the irregular shapes a lot to prevent a deck from having to be to comply with the setback, you know, have to be an S kind of shape or some sort of shape that would not look good with the surrounding neighborhood and the decks

that are there. So, it is the lot that creates the issue. Okay. Any questions for the applicant from the board? I have a question for the applicant. How long was the previous deck there? It previous deck went up in 2003. Okay. And so that this one would be bigger than that deck. Yes. Would it be the depth? It would be about two feet further in depth from the house and roughly about 15 feet further down the side or down the back of the house, but not um still not where it's in view of the neighbor's property. Okay. Thank you.

Could you put that other picture up you put up for a second, Ron? Just just so we can look at it. Uh would you point to where the deck is on this there. Okay. All right. So, so basically we're looking at a deck there that would have uh two additional feet and and the feet I should say there's already a concrete pad there where the steps from the previous deck came down. The new deck is not going to extend past that little concrete pad because the steps are going to be recessed. So if you're looking at the concrete pad that already encroached into the easement area, the new deck itself is not going to go beyond that. Okay. And what you're saying is that because of the irregular shape of the lot, it creates kind of a moving target for you. Correct. Yes, that's correct. Any other questions for the applicant? Is there anyone who came to speak on this one way or the other? Did we get any responses that we need to know about?

No calls or concerns. Okay. Well, if there are no other comments or questions, uh we'll proceed to consideration of the factors. You can stay there or sit down while we're doing this. Whatever you would prefer to do. Okay. I'll just go ahead and wait in case you have questions.

Okay. Uh the first as as I said this is a a variance and we have to feel that all five of these criteria have been satisfied. So we vote on each of those individually and if we get a positive response on all five of those then we can vote on a motion to approve it. If any of the four five criteria fail then all we can entertain is a motion to deny. Is that clear? Okay. Well, uniqueness of property is the first one. Does anyone have any comments on uniqueness of property? Staff points out that a lot is not similar in size and shape to the surrounding homes in the neighborhood. It's also on the connoisseur.

Chad, I think I'd concur. I mean, it's just the same as all the other lots in there. I don't I don't think there's anything unique on on this thing. It backs up to a busy street, but uh I don't see anything unique about the property, but other than the shape of the property is different from the surrounding lots. The curvature the curvature of the property is different than the surrounding lots and that's what creates part of the setback issue.

You're you're you're making you're you're you're interpreting unique as as meaning what it what the word says. And and for the purposes of this, it's more highly unusual than it is unique for our considerations. But but I'm not trying to change your mind. I do note that the the staff points out that the lot is not of similar size and shape to most of the homes in the neighborhood. Then then I'll stand corrected on that. I drive by 138th Street quite frequently. That's a fairly busy street and uh I'll defer to the judgment of the staff on that. Okay. Any other comments on uniqueness?

All those who believe this criteria has been met, please say I. I. oppose. Nay, that criteria is satisfied. Rights of adjacent property owners, we've already heard that they have been notified and we haven't received any negative responses. So, any questions or comments on this? All those who believe the rights of adjacent property owners criteria has been met, please say I. I oppose. Nay. Passes. Now, we're on to hardship. Any comments on hardship?

Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'll comment on hardship. Um, we heard from the applicant that the previous existing deck had been there for over 20 years. Um, you know, barring additional information of why that shape of deck is no longer able to work for the applicant. Um, I don't think that this criteria has been met. Perhaps it would be more convenient for the applicant to have a couple extra feet of deck, but I don't think that it would be a hardship to keep the deck at the size that it's been for over 20 years. So, I don't think that's been met. Okay.

But, Mr. uh chairman, I would also like to give input as a realer. I think the growth of Leewood and the um the elevating values I think would be very helpful overall for Leewood to just have a little further deck. Well, on that lot. Any other questions or comments? Well, it's a property improvement and we're always looking for improvements or property.

That that's all of those are correct. I I will remind us though that as our our job up here is to um determine whether the application meets the legal criteria, not whether we think it's a good idea or not. That that's not our job. We're not an architectural review board or anything like that. So that's kind of what your comment is is the criteria says this and you don't see that since a deck was there before that it's such a hardship but others may disagree. Absolutely.

I just want to make sure we're making these decision on the on the proper basis. That's all. I agree and I'm, you know, I I might like to go hang out on a deck that's a little bit bigger, too, but I think if I'm looking specifically at the hardship criteria today, um I I don't think that under the Leewood Development Ordinance, it would meet that. Okay. Any other comments? All those who believe it's met the hardship criteria, please say I. I. Opposed? Nay. Nay. Looks like I count three to one. Is that accurate? What was your I affirmative. Yes. I'm I'm sorry. He said yes. He said it he's he's in favor of He believes it's been met.

Yes. Okay. How How many of those of you believe it's been met? Raise your hands, please. I'm sorry. I'm confused. Two. And then two of you. Okay. It's up to you. Well, it's up to me. And and with all due respect, sir, I've got to follow the ordinance. I don't think hardship criteria has been met. I I'm going to side with those who would who would uh say it doesn't meet that criteria. So, next step is district court. Correct. What's that? Next step is district court. I I'm not going to answer that. Okay. I will.

So, public safety and general welfare. Do u do I have any comments on this before we vote on this criteria? All those who believe it's been met, please say I. I. I. Oppose. Nay. And finally, spirit and intent. Any comments? All those who believe this criteria has been met, please say I. I. I. Oppose. Nay. All right. Well, unfortunately, we have four met and one not. So all we can entertain is a motion to deny the request for variance. Do I have such a motion?

Mr. Chairman, I'll move to move to deny case 2020 2026 2844 West 138th Terrace request for a variance to the rear setback of an irregular lot in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.4 Parend Parin in an RP1 district. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor of denial, please say I. I. I. All those opposed say nay. All right. It's been denied. Thanks, sir.

I I don't know the answer to that either. Okay. The staff would know if you want to talk to them after the denial letter.

Okay. All right. All right, folks. Our next case is 21-2026 3442 West 138 Terrace. Request for an exception to the maximum allowable square footage on a lot in accordance with the LDO. Does staff have a report? The applicant is proposing an addition that will bring the total square footage of the home to 5,628 ft. The maximum square footage allowed by ordinance on this lot is 5,11. An exception of 617 ft, which is 12% above the maximum is needed for the proposed addition.

Okay. Any questions for staff before we ask the applicant up? the the current home is is 467 over currently. Oh, okay. So, the addition would be the additions adding another 150 but the total for the exception for BZA is 617. So, so was the existing 400 some approved or was that legal non-conforming? Legal non-conforming. So, when it was done it was legal and now it's not

correct. Okay. All right. Uh, did everybody understand that? Any questions on that for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here? Please come on up. Scott Bickford, the architect on the project. Okay. You want to present your case?

Uh, we're adding a covered patio and a small bathroom and storage area. The bathroom and storage area are 3% over the aotment. Um, and as the staff said, we were already over. So, the total is 12% over. I see. But the that's what you were saying. This this adds an additional 3%, but because the way the ordinance is written, we've got to approve the 12. Correct. Right.

We tried to keep what we were doing pretty small. Yeah, sounds like you did. Um, are there any questions from the board for the applicant? I assume letters have gone out. You've received nothing. Uh, there there was a call with just a question of what was going on. No concern was expressed.

Okay. All right. Is there anyone here to speak on this for or against? All right. Well then um this is an exception and once again we have to find first that the requested ver uh exception is less than 20% which it is and that it would reflect the character of the other surrounding dwellings in the neighborhood. Is this going to change the exterior in any way? What's that? Is this going to change the exterior look of the house? No. In fact, we're trying to match all the existing trim details and roofing material, everything.

Okay. Any questions for the applicant before we vote on this? All right. Does anyone have a motion? I make a motion to approve case 21-2026 3442 West 138 Terrace. Request for an exception to the maximum allowable square footage on a lot in accordance with the LDO 16-2-5.4F. 4 F2 in an RP-1 district. Have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I.

Opposed? Nay. It's passed. You'll be notified in writing. Thanks for coming in. Thank you. Okay, our next one is um case 22-2026 8028 High Drive. The staff have a report. The applicant has proposed an addition and outdoor kitchen that will be placed 7 feet from the side build line. And the sideyard setback for the slot is 15 ft. A variance of 8 ft is needed to build the addition and outdoor kitchen as proposed. Tell us what this picture shows us, Ron, if you would. Uh the red lines are the build line all the way around the house. And then you see the garage edition and the outdoor kitchen that extend beyond the red line and the side on that far corner of the garage edition that gets to 7 ft.

So all four of those um blocks on the back side are new being added. Uh the the screen porch edition on the far left, the outdoor kitchen and the garage, the patio. Uh would have to ask the applicant. It may be there. Okay. Right. Any other questions for staff before we ask the applicant to come up and speak on this? There's also a previous VZA action here.

Oh, okay. to to place for the garage addition only uh to go to 11'2 in and now we're wanting to go to seven. I see. So So the the new structure on the right there that says garage edition we've already approved with a variance of three feet did you say? Uh 11 foot2 so yeah 310 310. Okay. and and that was and and then that project was abandoned and now Okay. want to make it a little bigger and now we're looking at seven feet,

right? Correct. Okay. Very good. Any other questions for staff? I I have one, Mr. Chairman. Uh are seven feet is real close to the property line. Are there any other situations in North Leewood where we are that close to the property line with a with an addition that that seems very close.

There's probably some houses that were built that are like legal non-conforming at at that or or really close to that. Um, I'm not sure that I could speak to all of North Leewood on that or or and then to on all board action, you know, because we have 60 70 cases a year. So, it's hard to really say for sure, but certainly there's some some existing houses that have been there for a long time that are probably right at that 7 8 ft from the property line and wouldn't conform to the 15 foot. Is this closest a concern of the fire department or is

No. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Come on up.

Good evening. I'm Jenny Bunner and I live at 8028 High Drive, Old Lewood. We were here in 2024 and shortly after we were approved by the board and um by our HOA, my boss notified me he was retiring. So, the project got got put aside and I have been working on that retirement for the last 18 months and now here I'm back again with some modifications due to life-changing circumstances with our family. aging parents. We'd like to extend that garage addition three more feet. Um so that when my aging parents come to visit, as they did in January, we have a place for them. Um the only other change is that the outdoor kitchen area we would like to cover and that encroaches into that side setback. We have two side setbacks and two front setbacks because we're on an irregular lot at an angle. And I do have some pictures. So this shows the back of the garage that we would like to extend. Um the property line is actually behind that 6-foot fence. Um, and that is to the north. The Logans are to the north. We have had that conversation with them. And we've also had conversations with um the neighbors to the direct east of us and south that shows the east side of the garage

which we would like to extend in the same fashion 15 ft um to make a living space when parents come to visit with an office above for my husband. We did work tirelessly with an architect um to try and get in stairs to the upper part of that garage and a place where my parents could stay. But with just 12 feet of space, it was really pretty um tiny space that I didn't think that they could probably be comfortable in. So that is why we're requesting the three feet addition to that original request that was approved. if that makes sense.

So is the concrete pad that we see in the picture is that then sitting on high drive? Uh that concrete pad existing that's our backyard. The other was the driveway. Actually it was the other picture that was just there. So that's the driveway.

And that is our front setbacks to the east and our front setback to the south. Again, because it's an irregular uh lot, we don't actually have a backyard setback. We have two side setbacks and two front setbacks. Our house faces 81st Street, but we have a high uh drive address. And so navigating that with the architect and finding the best way to add this additional space. Um well, it's taken a while. And and I Ron, I'm looking at you. That's because this is a corner lot that there's two basically two front yards. Correct. Everybody get that? I didn't hear you.

When you have a corner lot, you for the purposes of our ordinance, you end up having essentially two front yards and two sideyards. You don't have a backyard because it runs around the corner. You do and you don't. It you have a front set back and then you have a corner lot side which is much which is almost like another front. Right.

So it's pretty limiting as to where we can build. We also want to preserve as many of the old trees as we can. We will lose a big silver maple that currently sits right on the existing patio that is tipped. We've had an arborist out to evaluate all of our trees. We're working hard to keep this remodel in the spirit of Oldlywood because we really do appreciate those smaller older homes um on those smaller lots.

Okay, any questions? Will you be able to keep the large trees that are in this picture? So, if you notice um the one kind of right there at the corner of the garage. Yes, that's actually I would say about 12 feet from the garage. The one directly behind the house. Let me see if I have a picture of it. I don't have a picture of it. Um and how it's tipping, but I do maybe have something better. This one. Oh, I'm sorry. You can see it directly above the roof line there. Oh, if you go over this. Nope. Keep coming. Right in the middle of that one is the one that we will lose. It's a silver maple. We're going to lose that regardless.

Regardless. What do you mean? Whether we do any construction in the backyard or not because it's tipping at an angle and the root system has grown up over the existing patio and the health of the tree is at risk. So, we have decided that whether we move forward with an addition or not, we're going to have to lose that tree. We're afraid it'll fall in the house. On your garage, or is that going to become a threecar garage? No. You you you mentioned something for your aging parents to access and visit. I thought that you might have another slot in the garage.

No, that addition will be built to the backside of that garage as it exists. So the only um real change to the street um will be well no major changes to the street. So will it be a tandem parking? No tandem. That garage will stay exactly as it is from the street. The addition if you think of it as a block for the garage.

There will be a block behind it that is a room with stair access to the upstairs for an office for my husband. But on that main floor, the garage is, I believe, 20 or 22 feet wide. We tried to design it to be 22 feet wide and 12 feet deep for room for my parents. That's just not a lot of space with the bathroom in there. And so it we're asking that it be I think it's 15 feet rather than 12. But can you put that last picture up? The one with the backyard. So basically in front of the brick that's where you're going to No. Okay. In front of the board and batton it'll be an extension of the board and bbatton sighting.

Okay. And in front of the brick that's an 11 and 1/2 foot span that a kitchenet or an outdoor kitchen will be there. And so that was really the change in addition to the three feet addition. We're asking for the back of the garage. We're wanting to cover that little outdoor area that has a kitchen for a dining space for us. Any other questions? And and the and the people that live in that original limestone Crow Brothers house next to you had no exception to this. The Logans. No, we have spoken with them. Is that Fred Logan? No. No. Scott and Pam,

the other questions? Um, what are the dimensions that that building behind this garage is going to be? Uh, the garage as it exists is 22 feet wide. So, it would be 22 feet wide and I believe Ron, if I'm not mistaken, 15 feet deep. Correct.

And then it's seven feet from that fence to the new garage edition. Correct. And I don't know if it's the fence that that measurement is too, but our actual um property line is about a foot beyond the fence towards the Logan's house. Any other questions? All right. Is there anyone who came to speak on this one either for or against? Okay. Well, as I've told you before, as you've heard when we talked about another variance case, the two criteria that are difficult for us are uniqueness and hardship. Would you like to address those for us?

Well, uniqueness, I think if you drove by the lot, you'd see why it's so unique. It is again corner lot houses at a 15 degree angle. And so it really puts that corner of the garage naturally already close to the house behind us, the Logan's home. Um the hardship, we've tried having my husband work out of the house itself by just taking one of the upstairs bedrooms, but that's not really working well for us. Um, and then to have my parents come, we only have one bedroom on the main floor. And when they came in January, it became very obvious that that's not going to be working for much longer for them to climb the stairs. It's an old house with steep stairs. So,

and I think you're reflecting the the thoughts the board had when they approved this the prior request for variance for the garage. This is a significantly increased project though, so we we've still got to believe it it's met that criteria. Um, are there any questions for the applicant that would help clarify any of this for the board?

You said you worked a long time with your architect trying to design this. And just looking at the footprint, it would seem as though some of this in the back of the home could be moved to the left uh where there's more space. Uh could you explain why you can't do that?

Uh because of what exists in the home as far as the layout of the existing footprint of the home to get access. We would not be able to get access from the existing home into the addition. there will be no um access from inside our existing home into that addition. You will be going outside into the addition. And so the struggle was trying to get something that would function for us. And we just could not do that with placing stairs without going through other rooms and creating kind of a maze within the house which is not in keeping with what how our house functions for us. Any other question?

Was it which one was previously approved? Was it the um garage edition was already previously approved? The garage edition and the screened in porch were previously approved. There was one change to the screened in porch and that came after trying to lay out furniture in it because it's quite small and so it grew by one foot. Yeah. No, I'm I like the screen and porch. It's the garage, but that's a moot point, right? Because it's already approved. Well, the the approval was for a different configuration. So, it's not a starts over. This is basically a new application that we

The approval was for 12 feet and we're requesting 15 ft. Ron put up the previous approval. That's what we approve. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? If they were easy, they wouldn't have to come here, right? All right. Is did I ask if there's anyone who wants to speak on this one way or another? All right. Well, if there's I I assume you're finished with your presentation. Thank you. Unless you have questions for me.

Well, if we do, we'll bring you back up, believe me. Uh, but it now is the time for us to go through the five criteria. So, that's what we're going to do next. Okay. Our first criteria, as you all know, is uniqueness of property. We've had quite a bit of discussion on that. Are there any comments from anybody up here regarding uniqueness before we vote on that criteria? Mr. Chairman, I'll comment on that. I do think um the way the house is situated on the lot at an angle having two essentially front setbacks, side setbacks, no back setback um like is traditional. I do think uniqueness of property has been met here.

Any others comments? All those who believe this criteria has been met, please say I. I oppose. Nay. All right, let's move on to rights of adjacent property owners. Um, any comments before we vote? Mr. Mr. Chairman, I will make a comment on that. Even though the current property owners don't have a problem with um with the proposed addition, there's no guarantee those owners won't move. Someone else will come in. I think 7 feet from the property line is is very close. The Lea development ordinance um you know requires this to be a variance for a reason. Um, I'm concerned that that factor has not been met here.

Okay. Any other comments? I agree. All right. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. All those who believe it has not, please say no. No. No. All right. We've failed on that criteria. Hardship. Any comments from the board before we vote? All right. All those who believe it's met the hardship criteria, please say I. Oppose. Nay. Nay.

Public safety and general welfare. Any comments. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. Oppose. Nay. Nay. Nay. Spirit and intent. Any comments? All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. Oppose. Nay. Nay. Well, we have four nays and one I. So that all we can entertain is a motion to deny the request for variance. Do I have a motion?

Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'll move to deny case 22-2026 8028 highrive request for a variance to the side setback in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.3 parent D parent in an R1 district. There a second. Second. All those in favor of the motion to deny, please say I. I oppose. Nay. It's unanimous. Thank you for coming in. May I ask a question? You you may, but I can't guarantee you we can answer. I totally understand. Are you denying the entire thing or are you denying the extension of the garage? We're denying the entire thing because that's what's before us now.

There was there's actually two things that were before us. What else? The coverage of the kitchen, the outdoor kitchen. So, there were two things on the agenda. To my knowledge, I'm not aware of The outdoor kitchen is part of of the it's the whole project. It's the whole thing. I only have one applica. There's only one application. We only have one application. Okay. So, the 15 in that encroach that's also denied on the outdoor kitchen. The application as it currently stands is denied. Okay.

Yeah, we typically wouldn't break those up on each one. I you know I'd have to check with Kelsey if okay you could reapply for just that specific one but we take the worst the largest encroachment and that's what you know it would be judged upon but I had applied for both right so that's maybe my misunderstanding okay thank you for your time thank you thank you

our next case is 23- 2026 12402 Overbrook Road request for a variance to the maximum allowed grade change. Does staff have a report? The applicant has been issued a permit for a tear down rebuild and has now decided to add a natural stone retaining wall to create a more level backyard. This will require a maximum grade change of 5.5 feet. A variance of 4.5 feet is needed to build the terrace as proposed. Any questions for staff before we get the applicant up here?

Ron, does this back up to a creek? Is there a creek down below this property? Uh, but backs up to the golf course. There may be a creek back there. I'm not sure. Do do any of the neighbors have a retaining wall so it flattens out their backyard property? Not that I'm aware of. The may have may have a different answer there.

Any other questions for staff? I I do note to you all that when we sat down tonight, we had in front of us a email that Ron Jones received and uh that's opposing this project that you should take note of before we vote on this. Did you receive any other? Uh there were there were two calls and one email in opposition and one call in favor.

Okay, very good. Well, we'll get we'll see who's if anybody's here to speak on that. I just wanted to make sure everybody here was realized that that piece of paper we had sitting up here related to this project. All right. Is the applicant here? Please come on up.

Good evening. Uh my name is Bruce Wetland. I'm architect of record on the new home that was tear down, rebuilt. Uh when it was originally uh submitted and went through all the permitting, everything is coloring within the lines. Um it's a very difficult lot to develop. I can tell you it was exceedingly challenging to adhere, you know, work with the the one foot max fill or cut ordinance. Uh we did do that. Um moving on into the project as they got even more familiar with the property. Uh I'm I'm here speaking on behalf of the the design for the NLES. They're the new owners and members at uh golf course country club and uh Summit Lana and Landscape did did the design proposal for them. and um also the drainage studies that have been done. So I'm just here to speak on behalf of what is going on since I do have knowledge of the property quite extensively. Um with respect to spirit and intent of the uh structure. Um there are properties on the golf course that have this. Uh I think I heard someone ask if the waterway What side was the waterway on? Uh the waterway is on the other side of the it's opposite of us. In other words, our property the fairway waterway is on the opposite side. Um so with respect to this proposal, this we're not creating something new. It has been done. I I can show you pictures on Leewood South course of that. Um, so the goal here was for them to be able to have some sort of a level

spot to do a little bit of gardening, vegetables, and herbs. Uh, we can't stay within the one foot rule on the side in the rear for sure. Certainly, we're not going to put it in the front yard. That would be abnormal. So, that's kind of where the the hardship comes in. Um so to that extent that that's what this is all about. Um and u so I I think it fills in all the criteria on the variance hearing. The material itself is the the large pieces of of cottonwood limestone. We're talking big pieces 18 in set. The great thing about that is there's no maintenance issues. you don't have stones falling off. You don't have mortar joints going to to uh uh spalling away as well. So, it's a it's a very attractive limestone uh maintenance-free wall. And um so they they've addressed that issue there. And I want to be sure I even um to be clear I called and had a discussion with Travis Torres because I wanted to make sure of a clear understanding regarding the one foot rise or one foot cut rule. And in my discussions uh via email with Travis is that yes, this obviously occurs to tear down rebuild projects. Um but once the certificate of occupancy is issued then that rule goes away. I guess my point being here to further discuss the hardship issue here is if the NYLES were soon to complete this project we're uh in that process. So if I was here asking

or per wanting to permit this a year later, we we wouldn't even be here asking for a variance. So I guess my point is with respect to the hardship, it it's a timing thing. Uh and and we're just going by the rules. If we have to put it in later, we're going to risk all the damage to all the driveway, the driveway loop, sideyards, and whatnot on the property. That just means more expense, more tearing apart of the property. It's it's it's a detriment for the homeowners. It's a detriment for the neighbors. So, it's just really a matter of timing thing. It's not that this couldn't be done later. It's why are we

I'm not following that. You're saying that you you took from our staff that uh this could be done later after the construction. It is my understanding and and I'll ask them for clarity or back up on it.

The tear it it's a tear down rebuild rule. The grade changes as far as restricting that to one foot grade change for the tear down rebuild. And that's been the interpretation of planning is that it doesn't get applied for the life of the property thereafter. So once it you issued a certificate of occupancy, we've had some come in hey three, four years later for some of the pool projects you might see on a tear down rebuild you don't see before you on an existing home where they're changing the grades more than a foot. I'm still not following that. Wouldn't it still be a variance if they came back later and asked to change the grade by more than a foot?

No, it's only it only applies to tear down rebuilds and that's been the interpretation of of planning. So, okay.

Um well, that's a new one on me, folks. I I wasn't aware of that fact that the that the one one foot um grade change only applies to tear downs and rebuilds. Well, and it it and that's why I I dug deeper and had that meeting that, excuse me, that email conversation with Travis because this has always been very confusing to me as well. I do in addition to homes, I do a number of pool complexes, pool terraces, etc., etc. And that's why I reached out and said, I I really need to get absolute clarity on this. So, we're not really asking for I mean, conceptually, technically, are we asking for a variance here today? Yeah, if we were wanting to build this project a year from now, there's no variance. It just means everything is harder to do and more expensive.

That is very interesting to me. Um and I think you know it's that is something that planning commission might have to deal with right if this is denied but I don't know that um the planning commission's interpretation of the lewood development ordinance for that to only last um exactly I don't know that that application would would affect the our um interpretation of the criteria today. Well, I I don't I don't I don't know. Anybody else?

I think they provided us with the interpretation as it goes forward. So, I think we had don't have any choice other than to adhere to the advice of council and the uh the the folks that do this. Well, as I've pointed out a number of times and probably will the day I leave this board is um you know, our job is to see whether it meets the criteria of our ordinance or not. It's not to determine whether we think it's a good idea even based on the things you've talked about. I wasn't aware of that before we talked today, but um I mean I don't know how that can affect what we do. We have to apply the ordinance we've been given to apply and determine whether the criteria has been met to allow that to be done at this point in time.

Okay. Well, my my evidence hopefully my comments is that that further enhances the hardship factor.

Yeah, I got you. I will say just to complete kind of the explanation, the intent is that when someone goes in and tears down and rebuilds a home that they don't raise arbitrarily raise or lower it keeps the existing landscape of the neighborhood. Someone with in an existing home that's doing an addition or doing their own pool or landscape project doesn't have that highest standard that they've applied to tear down rebuild. So that was that's the intent behind it and that's why it's different for someone who has an existing home and someone who's doing a tear down rebuild. Again, that was Mark Klein's not planning commission but Mark Klein's interpretation of that as the planning director.

Well, I I I understand what you're saying and I certainly can't argue with it, Travis. It's just I wasn't really aware of that before. Um, so I don't know where we go with that. Chuck, does staff know whether the house on either side has a slope down to the golf course or are they have a flat backyard? They're similar. They might not be as drastic, but they're similar. This one is more drastic than the neighbors. Is that what you're saying? I believe so.

It's the applicant might know better. It's exceedingly steep and I will tell you it was difficult to develop and the entire with the exception of this wall that we're now talking about. The entire project was done by the book. Every tea crossed, every eye dotted. And I will point out as I often point out on these grade change applications we get that the uh the way this works is I if you were to approve this um they would have to demonstrate to our professional staff that they have not increased or or changed the increase the water flow to the neighbors property as a result of making this grade change. Am I saying that correctly Travis? public works has actually signed off on this plan.

Okay. So, you you understand what I'm saying? We we we're here to approve whether they can they can change the grade or not, not whether they can dump a bunch of water in their neighbors lawns. That's if they if that's what's going to happen, then it won't get built. Do do you have additional drainage in your plan for the flatter backyard? I'm sorry. Do you have additional drainage either the way sloped or or graded or do you have drain pipes in there to make sure that nothing goes to the neighbors? It just goes down to the golf course.

It's It's at the very Well, it's I'm trying to get this to come on it. You know, it's at the very back of the yard here. Neighbor's house is up here. Neighbor's house is up here. We're We're talking about right back here. The only drainage is right here to to a fairway

and the Country Club of Leewood has approved this or have you talked to them about it because it'll the complete mailing list um you know the 200 foot buffer radius. I'm not aware of any uh uh complaint or negative comment from them. Thank you.

And just just for everybody up here's information, I'm not aware of any projects where we've approved a grade change that that we people have come back later to show that it it added significant water runoff to their property because that's our staff's job is to asssure that doesn't happen. And I guess what I'm saying is I think they do a pretty good job of it. But it sounds like I'm I'm in favor of this. I'm not trying to push you one way or the other. I just want to make sure we're clear on the facts we're dealing with here. And you brought up a new one here today that I wasn't even aware of. So, I don't know how that affects our

Well, I mean, it was some tough due diligence and and yeah, I appreciate your concerns and that's why I I dug deeper. You've been talking to too many lawyers. You're starting to sound like anyway. Um, any other questions for the applicant? I know we have people here that I think want to speak on this. So, if you'd take your seat. Is there anybody here that wants to speak on this one way or the other? Come on up. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Katar Mahobian. And I'm Cassan Mahobian. We live at 12400 Overbrook, which is just to the west of this property.

Um, before I give my presentation, I have a question about this. rule that we just heard. Um, so if I live in a house, my next door neighbor to put upt

that's a different ordinance. Just give her the microphone. I'm just I was just wondering about that. So, um, we live just next door to this. Uh,

you turn that on. Do you have it on? Yeah. This is our property.

We This is our property. We did have a a rebuild. When we bought this property, we bought it for the view of the golf course and the natural landscape of the backyard. We had a messy backyard when we uh rebuilt on this property. We stayed we cleaned up the backyard. We stayed within the same orientation and the same pretty much the same uh footprint of the existing building. This is the This is our house and this one is the house that was next to us. We had a full view of the golf course and everything was all u natural landscape. This new house that has come in the orientation of the house compared to the old house is completely turned towards us. As you can see just if you see that Compare the top and the bottom. It has completely turned towards us. So the house itself it's also has moved south to accommodate a four fourc car garage up front. So it has moved so far south and the house itself has blocked our view. Now this is what we used to have. This is the view of the h of the of what we had. The house well there was no house. The property behind this tree is the is this new house.

This is the house. Same perspective.

It's the exact same perspective. This is the house that we've had. We have dealt with this view for the last three years. At times it's been much worse than this. We've had a lot of debris, construction, um, uh, junk and all of this. So, if you can, as you can see, the house itself is already um, covering our view. To us, this has devalued our property, the one that we bought for the specific purpose of having that view on top of it. Now, they want to extend this the yard 20 ft and put it 5 and 1/2t retaining wall that would completely cover our view of the of the golf course. And for them to be able to do this a year from now, I'd like to know how I can go in front of anybody and find out how I can stop this. Because like I said, you cannot go, you won't allow somebody to go and put a 10-ft wall a year after they've moved in, but you would allow them to do anything else. They want to put a retaining wall. It's going to take the natural landscape from our our house. Our house has been the most um affected by this construction than any any other house around us. And that is not what we bought this house for. That is not what we rebuilt on this property.

I'd like to add a few items as well. Some of the conditions that the property owner needs to meet. The first item regarding the uniqueness of the property also states that does the variance requested arise from a condition which is not created by an action of the property owner or applicant. In our opinion, it does. It was affected by the actions of the property owner because they built a huge house on this lot with a four fourc car garage with the twocar garage that face west which that Is that a speech? Okay. Um, this is the twocar garage. Can you see this? We are over here on the west. This is a twocar garage that's accessed from the west. This is the other twocar garage. By placing a fourcar garage house on here, they were required to push the house back to meet the front setback. So, it's a condition they created by pushing this back and now they want to put a wall back here to extend the uh backyard back to create a level spot. It is a condition they created. The other the second item was will grading the variance adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. I believe my wife has has spoken to that effect. Item number three

is will the strict application of the provisions of development ordinance from which the variance is requested constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner? represented in the application. I don't think it does. The hardship is on us in our opinion. So, we leave it to your judgment to make a decision in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who's here to speak on this project one way or the other? Come on up.

Hi, I'm Steve Neble. We're purchasing the home. Oh, okay. Did you want my address or You could give us your address. I I think we know what it is now. Well, we don't live there yet, so I didn't know if you wanted my current address. Yeah, give me your current address. It's 10482 Gulf Shore Drive, Naples, Florida. Okay, thanks.

Um, there is a to the I guess it would be the east. That house does have a retaining wall already. Um, obviously when we drove by saw this lot, we like the lot. We like the view, but when there's no house there, you don't know what it's going to end up. And um we didn't realize that when the house was done, how much of a drop off there would be in the back. And um so we are asking for a retaining wall to level it out. My wife likes to um have flower gardens. And I've always been known in my neighborhood for having the nicest yard. And we would like to have a nice yard. And by it being so steep, I think the runoff is going to cause erosion back there. And um the retaining wall would would stop a lot of that, flatten it out. Um I've kind of got a bad hip already mowing on a side of a hillside back there. I don't and I'm not getting younger and um I don't think that's going to be very conducive to mowing back there, you know, trying to mow on a hillside. So that would cause a hardship for me personally. Um but um you know I I think the retaining wall is not going to stick up and block their view. I I do apologize that their view has gotten blocked somewhat. Um you know we didn't know building it exactly what was you know what was going to end up there when when you're looking at a vacant lot. And the the builder had the plan. We like the plan. Um, and it does have a fourc car garage.

And before you built this house, your plan was submitted to the city of Leewood and approved as meeting the criteria of our ordinances for where you place the house. I assume I would ask the Okay. builder. Okay. But, um, yeah. So, you know, I think the the the retaining wall is not going to be sticking up. In fact, it'll be lower than the the back corners of the grade of the house. It will be down lower than that. So, I don't think it will block their view um at all um any more than what the house blocks it now. Um any questions? So, has a certificate of occupancy been given? No,

not quite yet, but soon. That would be a question for our builder. Yeah. Well, you need to do it in a microphone though. If you would, please come on up. microphone either either at this one or the

and Travis can speak to this as well, I'm sure. Um, in terms of everything that has to be done to get the certificate of occupancy, we're um on hold on putting all the infrastructure in the front yard, the driveway, and everything because we don't want to tear all that up to do the back wall. So if we get the CO, the only way to get the CO is everything in the front has to be installed. I see. Okay. Well, but but that was the point of my question was is that Come on, back up, architect. Sorry.

Um the the point of my question was that the the house has been planned and laid out in accordance with our ordinances. Is that correct? That is correct. Everything passed. All right. That that's really all I was asking. You you you placing the house where you did didn't require a variance. No. Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure we were clear on that because a lot of the discussion of the problems with this project is where you place the house and we don't you you've done it within the law. Yes. Okay. Are there

is there a picture? Oh, go ahead. I think we have to be a little visionary because we can see that the house is going to be built and the new owner at some point is going to ask for this wall. So, uh, if if that's the case, and it looks like it certainly is, why are we hesitating now to go approve a very minor revision to a wall that's going to be built at some point in time anyway? I concur. Is there a picture of the um slope of the back? Because it looked from your neighbors that it was pretty flat. Um but six feet.

I may have one on my cell phone if I if you give me time to look through and try to find it. Their their lot is much more gradual going back. Mhm. I think ours kind of goes back and drops off steeper than um I think the one to the east side of us would be more similar to ours. Theirs is more of a I think more of a pie shaped pieshaped lot that kind of comes back to a point at the very back corner of our lot. So they're much more gradual slope than ours. But I'll look and see if I can find a picture. I'm trying to see if I can find one now. While they're looking for those pictures, are there any other questions?

Based on the site plan, the numbers that are highlighted in pink are what the existing grade was up at the at the top it's 932 and at the back it's 924. So there was 8 foot of fall in that distance. That looks to be over about 35 to 40 feet 8 foot of fall. So, is there a retaining wall in the house or on the property to the south? And how large of a retaining wall compared to this proposed wall is it? I'm sorry. Is there a retaining wall to the house to the south of you? It would be to the east of us. To the east of you there. They have a retaining wall.

And what how what's the dimension of that wall compared to what you're proposing here roughly? I I would say probably fairly similar. Um we can't see it very well. There's a they've got a lot of landscape in front of it and pine tree beside it. So I mean unless you literally walk over in their yard to see it, but there there is one there. But there's a retain there. There is a retaining wall. I don't think you can see it in this. You can't. I mean I can come up and show you this picture if you want. That's all right. Would you like to see the picture or can you put it under them? Yikes.

That didn't work, does it? So, I want to make sure I understand. So, once we get certificate of occupancy, CO, this will be a moot point.

Sounds like it. I I honestly don't think that we should concern ourselves with the certificate of occupancy and the subsequent procedure. I I think we just need to focus on our factors right in front of us. And I can see why that, you know, is something that's popping into our minds. It's been brought up by the applicant. It's an interesting point, but it's not one of our factors. I I think we just need to really limit our um our approach and consideration here exactly to just specifically what the Leewood Development Ordinance has put in front of us. We don't have any broader power than that.

And and with that, does the applicant have anything further to present until we consider before we consider our criteria and make a decision on this? Um would you like to see the slope here? I I don't want to see the slope. Okay. I don't know if anybody else wants to see the slope or not. I don't think the slope's going to affect my decision one way or another. Okay. Okay. Well, I guess I I would just like to add to the write up submitt as part of the hardship that I did not put this in is that denial is going to fact increase the hardship of doing this project six months from now. That will be legal.

The only thing we'll accomplish is it's going to cost a lot more. It's going to tear up the neighbors. It's going to be more difficult. No, we're not going to tear up the neighbor's property. Everything about it becomes more difficult. And what you're saying is the hardship that you are describing in your opinion is created by our uh I don't know, lack of a better term, screwed up ordinances. No, I'm not saying they're screwed up. I'm saying it's just a it's a factual timing thing. Okay. Okay. But I just want to make sure we're clear on the record. You're saying it's the hardship and the hardship according to you is that is that um we're just being held up and and forced to do this at a later time and a higher cost.

Yes. Okay. So, any other questions? All right. Um now it's time for us to consider our five criteria. The first one is uniqueness of the property. Does anyone like to comment on that? No. All right. All those who believe that this application has met the uniqueness of property criteria, please say I. I. I. Oppose. Nay. Rights of adjacent property owners. Any further discussion?

Public works has approved the proposed drainage plan. And approved means that they've approved that it's not going to significantly impact any. Yes, the plan for the home has been approved, right? It's almost filled. Anyway, um all those who believe it's met the rights of adjacent property owner criteria, please say I. I. Opposed? Nay.

Hardship. Interesting discussion. Any further discussion before we vote? Well, based on f further expense to the land owner and the homeowner, I I I sub submit that we we provide some hardship protection for him and increase increase his cost which because we know it's going to happen. I I think this is very unfair.

Mr. Chairman, I'll comment on that as well. Um I the hardship is defined under the Leewood Development Ordinance as um as unnecessary hardship upon upon the property owner. I think in in this case if the property owner were to choose to go forward with this in a year's time they would have to calculate the expense and the burden at that time. Um and that would by definition mean that they have decided that the hardship is worth it to them. Um however, at this time the application doesn't appear to meet this criteria. I note that the staff has noted there's an approved plan on file that requires no BZA action. Um and um I think the fact that um adjacent property owners have come here today to speak about the hardship that it would pose on them speaks a lot um about what what we could potentially be voting for here. So I don't think that's met that factor.

Any further comments? City I do think it creates a hardship because of the future approval and the fact that there's a approved plan on file. Um, and I think it's an opinion of a neighbor that it would be a hardship when it may be not at the end. No, not right now. Um, any further comments from up here on hardship? All right. All those who believe it's met the hardship criteria, please say I. I. And those opposed, nay.

Nay. So, it's two to two. And once again, I have to agree with um my vice chair here that we're expanding this beyond the scope of our charge. Our charge is to determine whether this application meets the criteria for a variance as it currently exists, not as it may exist sometime in the future based on differing plans. and and in that being the case, I don't believe it meets the hardship criteria. So, I'm going to vote no.

Public safety and general welfare, all those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I oppose. Nay. Nay. Spirit and intent. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. Oppose. Nay.

Nay. With those responses, we can entertain a motion to deny the request for a variance. Do I have such a motion? I'll I'll make a motion that case number 23-2026 at 140 12402 Overbrook Road. A request for a variance to the maximum allowed grade change in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.3 parent G in an R1 district. Second. All those in favor of the motion to deny the application, please say I. I.

Oppose. Nay. Let me see hands. Nay.

Wait a minute. All those in favor of of denying the application, raise your hand. Okay. Thank you. Then it's been denied. Thank you for coming in. I'm sure staff will be in contact with you. That leaves us with uh two cases, but they really are the same property and really the same issue. Essentially, it's just Well, anyway, I'll take them one at a time. 24-20268415 Meadow Lane, request for a variance in the front yard setback. Does staff have a report? The applicant has proposed a garage addition placed approximately 61 ft from the front property line. The front build line for this lot is approximately 68 ft. A variance of seven feet is needed to build the garage addition as proposed.

Any questions for staff? Ronnie, could you could you make some comments on the diagram with the 61.11 and then the 7 ft on the side um because it looks like the front porch or the front door of the property is in is is shorter than 61. The home is legal non-conforming. So all we're considering is the setback needed for this addition.

The garage the garage. So even though that other corner is will be what's that about 18 ft closer to the build line. Um that doesn't have doesn't affect our decision. Any other questions? Okay. Is the applicant here?

Ma'am, are you the applicant? Okay. Well, thank you. I guess the applicant's not here, so we can continue. Yeah. Both cases. Both cases. Yeah. Do I have a motion to continue? 25 20 26 and 26 24 20 26 move second. All in favor? I say I I oppose. Nay. All right. Thanks very much, folks. Um, this was this was an interesting one. We can talk afterwards if you want. Yeah. You do a motion to adjurnn, please. Oh, yeah. Could I have a motion to adjurnn, please? So moved.

Thank you. We're adjourned. Thanks, Kelsey. Aren't you glad that's the only one you had to remind me about today? So, do we talk somewhere not so public?