Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> A preferred home design or features of the home are economic factors that alone shall not <br />constitute practical difficulties. <br /> <br />Variance #2 – The proposal for lot 3 includes a request for a reduced side yard setback on off-street <br />parking to allow the existing driveway for 675 Keller Parkway to remain as is. This design would then <br />necessitate the use of a driveway easement over lot 2. As previously mentioned, city staff has <br />reviewed several variations of how a lot split may occur on 675 Keller Parkway. In almost all of those <br />concept plans in which three lots would be proposed with access via Keller Parkway Mr. Yargici has <br />shown the driveway easement over lot 2. These concept plans have shown a new driveway access for <br />lot 2 with also a driveway easement for lot 3 (i.e. two separate driveway accesses on Keller Parkway <br />via lot 2) or a shared driveway for lots 2 and 3 where the design uses the existing access and has a “T” <br />design to each house for lots 2 and 3. There are three code provisions that specifically speak to this <br />design – <br />1. Definition of Lot. Land occupied or to be occupied by a building and its accessory buildings, <br />together with such open spaces as are required under the provisions of this Zoning Regulation, <br />having not less than the minimum area required by this Zoning Ordinance for a building site in <br />the district in which such lot is situated and having its principal frontage on a street, or a <br />proposed street approved by the Council. A lot shall not be considered to be buildable unless it <br />can take its physical access from the street upon which it has its frontage, without the use of <br />easement or other access over separate property. <br />2. General Provisions 903.050.F.7, Off-Street Parking, it says “In the case of single family, two- <br />family, townhouse, and quadraminium dwellings, no paving or parking areas shall be allowed <br />within three (3) feet of any side or rear property line”. <br />3. General Provisions 903.050D.8.g says “curb cut openings shall be at minimum five (5) feet, not <br />including curb radius, from side or rear property lines”. <br /> <br />The applicant has indicated that the existing driveway could be altered to be entirely on lot 3, but the <br />parking grade elevation would not comply with the 5% requirement in 903.050.D.8.i. Mr. Yargici <br />estimates moving the driveway would result in a grade elevation of 10%. Again, the proposal requires <br />use of an easement over lot 2 for the driveway which by definition of lot would not be complaint. <br /> <br />With the recommended action for variance request #1, city staff is recommending denial of the <br />variance request #2 for a reduced side yard setback for lot 3 as proposed based on the following: <br /> The applicant has not submitted sufficient information that shows evidence of there being no <br />alternate design in which the driveway for lot 3 could be established in a manner compliant <br />with code requirements. <br /> City staff finds that the practical difficulty threshold has not been met for granting the <br />variance as proposed based on the comments of the City Engineer and that alternative lot <br />layouts may be considered in which the proposal complies with city codes. <br /> <br />If the Planning Commission’s recommendation above is denial, it will likely result in Mr. Yargici <br />reapplying at a later date with a revised Simple Subdivision plan in which lot access is via Keller <br />Parkway. The Planning Commission is also asked to consider if access to lot 3 should be established <br />via an easement or a shared driveway scenario. Your discussion is not a binding directive of how <br />future action would be handled, but the feedback is helpful in his design planning because it provides <br />Mr. Yargici some level of context to whether or not there is support for this driveway layout. This