fbpx

Leawood rejects rules that would allow backyard greenhouses — Here’s why

After rejecting proposed rules changes what would have allowed for backyard greenhouses, the Leawood City Council is moving forward with consideration of another type of detached residential structure: pool houses.

In a split decision late last month, the Leawood City Council denied the allowance for greenhouses, and subsequently all detached structures, on private properties within city limits.

The six ordinance amendments had been previously approved by the Leawood Planning Commission and would have allowed for greenhouses in the backyards of properties the size of one acre or larger.

But those measures were rejected by the council in a 4-3 vote at its meeting in late January.

The main concern voiced by the council at that time was that allowing for greenhouses might create what some councilmembers characterized as a slippery slope for residents wanting other larger detached structures on their properties.

“The council was a little bit divided as far as going down the road of larger detached structures because it was also mentioned that there’s a couple people out there who would also like to see sheds,” said Mark Klein, assistant to the director of Leawood Community Development.

Several councilmembers were in opposition to allowing sheds, saying they feared the structures could be too unsightly and not aesthetically pleasing in some Leawood subdivisions.

Pool houses will be looked at more closely

However, even though the council officially denied the allowance for greenhouses and voiced an opposition towards sheds, that does not mean the discussion about other detached structures is over.

At a meeting earlier this month, the council weighed an idea brought forward by several residents to allow for pool houses.

“I know the city of Leawood is concerned about maintaining a certain aesthetic, but there are reasons why these structures are necessary to keep the beauty and charm of Leawood,” resident Jason Holiday said.

Holiday argued allowing for pool houses in which residents could store the necessary  equipment to maintain their property would ultimately create more aesthetically pleasing homes.

“With my property being over 66,000 square feet, I don’t believe a shed or pool house would hinder anyone,” he said.

Plans in the future

After over an hour of discussion following the residents’ testimony, the council unanimously voted to allow city staff the opportunity to work on new regulations that could allow for pool houses.

“I can understand that one size doesn’t fit all with these ordinances,” Councilmember Chuck Sipple said.

He said he recognized that not allowing any type of detached structures in Leawood could be a potential hindrance to some residents, especially those with either larger lot sizes or people with no space to add an additional attached structures to their homes.

Many others on the council came to a similar consensus saying, in theory, they would not be opposed to pool houses as long as they met a set certain requirements that could keep them aesthetically pleasing.

City staff will work in the next following months to construct a plan for what those requirements could potentially be for detached pool houses on private property.

Once a plan has been made, staff will present it before council in a work session. If approved, the regulations would go back to the planning commission before being officially voted on by city council.

About the author

Nikki Lansford
Nikki Lansford

Hi! I’m Nikki, and I cover the city of Overland Park.

I grew up in southern Overland Park and graduated from Olathe East before going on to earn a degree in journalism from the University of Missouri. At Mizzou, I worked as a reporter and editor at the Columbia Missourian. Prior to joining the Post, I had also done work for the Northeast News, PolitiFact Missouri and Kaiser Health News.

We work hard to make it easy for you to keep up on your community with short, to-the-point coverage and easy-to-scan newsletters — but we can’t produce local coverage without local support. To our nearly 7,000 subscribers: THANK YOU! If you aren’t a subscriber yet, we hope you’ll give one a try today — your first month of full access is just $1!

LATEST HEADLINES