Get email alerts on the Variance Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies setback variance at 7808 Cambridge Drive after neighbors cite backyard impacts
Summary
A requested variance for an addition at 7808 Cambridge Drive was denied after public testimony highlighted impacts to a neighbor's small backyard, concerns over whether that yard is treated as a side yard under the code, and split board deliberations.
The board denied a variance request for 7808 Cambridge Drive after an extended public hearing that included both support for the homeowners and objections from an adjacent neighbor whose rear yard would be most affected.
Staff described the proposal as a modest 14‑by‑12 addition and a two‑story wing that would increase building mass toward the south side of the lot; because existing structures on the lot are legal nonconforming, attaching and expanding would trigger a cumulative side‑setback analysis. Staff noted that the lot would meet absolute setbacks in many places but would not meet the cumulative requirement (about 18.4 feet) without a variance; staff also said the property’s impervious coverage is over 40% and that the proposed expansion would increase coverage from about 45% to 47.5%, which may require a separate exception and drainage work.
Applicant Wade Holtkamp described a 16‑year history on the property, the presence of an approximately 70‑year‑old ash tree the family seeks to preserve and structural constraints that limit alternative designs. "We've been at this property for 16 years and grew to love Prairie Village," Holtkamp said, and he asked the board to allow a modest addition so the family can remain in the home. Supporters read letters into the record praising the couple's neighborhood contributions and urging approval.
Opposing the variance, south‑side neighbor Ashley Felton told the board she has "a very, very shallow, very small backyard" and worried the addition would feel imposing; she questioned whether her yard is correctly treated as a side yard under the code and called the asserted hardship potentially self‑imposed. The board debated uniqueness, hardship and the ordinance’s intent; a motion to approve the variance (staff recommendation) failed after the voice vote recorded three nays and the motion was denied. The denial leaves the applicants the option to redesign within existing setbacks or pursue other compliant approaches.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
