Leawood BZA approves grade-change variance for Meadow Lane property but denies detached motorized pool-cover structure

The Leawood Board of Zoning Appeals voted Sept. 24 to grant a variance for maximum grade change at 8708 Meadow Lane so the property owner can install retaining walls and an engineered drainage system, but the board denied a separate request to permit a detached, motorized pool-cover structure that the applicant proposed as a sliding deck.

What the board approved: Staff described the grade-change request as two retaining walls associated with a teardown-and-rebuild property and a proposed outdoor-living project that would require a maximum grade change of about 3.9 feet in some locations. Contractor Mark Rao and homeowner Shannon Ryan presented engineering and drainage plans, and Brett Hoagland of Continental Consulting Engineers described a drainage design that includes downspout collection, an infiltration trench and a linear 6-inch perforated pipe and detention facilities to capture groundwater and reduce runoff to downstream neighbors. Hoagland said the plan would redirect the site’s runoff to a north-end inlet in the cul-de-sac via a right-of-way agreement that will go before the city council. Board members found the five variance factors were met and approved the grade-change variance 6-0.

What the board denied: The homeowner separately asked for a variance to allow a detached accessory structure — described as a motorized, rolling cover built as a deck that would slide over the pool and lock in place — because Leawood’s ordinance permits only decks attached to the primary structure. The applicant described the design as a hard, lockable cover intended to increase safety for her neurodivergent child and to make a small yard more functional. Planning staff and several board members noted the LDO explicitly precludes detached decks and said the application lacked sufficient technical detail on the track and motor system. After discussing the five factors, the board determined most factors were not met for the detached-deck variance and voted to deny that request unanimously.

Other action: A separate variance to the rear-yard setback related to the deck was withdrawn by the applicant after the denial of the detached-deck variance.

Why it matters: The grade-change approval permits engineered work intended to address persistent drainage problems, a high groundwater table and runoff that neighbors reported; the denial conserves the city’s extant interpretation of accessory-structure rules and signals the BZA’s reluctance to authorize a new class of detached, load‑bearing pool covers without ordinance changes or additional technical review.

Details from the meeting: Board members and staff repeatedly cited the property’s severe slope, documented spring and ongoing drainage impacts to adjacent yards as the basis for the grade-change hardship and uniqueness findings. The applicant reported she had a geotechnical analysis completed (cost not specified in testimony) and that sump pumps and flows had repeatedly affected downstream yards. The engineering presentation noted the plan would reduce the area draining northwest to approximately 1,000 square feet by capturing roof and deck drainage and routing it to an inlet at the north end of the cul-de-sac. The denial on the detached-deck item centered on the ordinance language requiring accessory structures be attached to the primary structure and concerns about the lack of detailed, tested safety specifications for a motorized, load-bearing cover.