HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportSTAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Appeal to .Section K(1)(a) and (K)(2)(f) of the Driveway Access Location and
Design. Policy to allow a residential driveway for a duplex on Holleman which already has parking
provided for in the rear.
APPLICANT: Joe Ward, Owner
LOCATION: Lots Sa and Sb, Block 2 of Woodway Village ..Section I located at 1916-1918
Holleman.
ZONING AND LAND USE:
Subject Tract R-3, Developed as a duplex
North: R-3, Vacant
South: R-3, Vacant
East: R-3, Vacant
West R-5, Developed as Double Tree Condos
STAFF COMMENTS:. The applicant requests a circular driveway on Holleman for his duplex
fore convenience as well as for additional parking. He says that his tenants will park on the street in
front of the duplex from time to time and suggests that a circular drive would be safer than on-
street parking.
This appeal is not for whether or not the drive can be circular but for whether or not access for
this low density residential development can be taken from Holleman at all.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of this request for the following
reasons:
1. This tract is part of a larger R-3 development platted with a 20' alley in the rear for the sole
purpose that access not be allowed on Holleman since it is a minor arterial. The 20' alley provides
for adequate access to the on-site parking provided for in the rear of the property.
2. It is not the intended function of Holleman, as a minor arterial, to provide access for low
density .residential development. This is standard planning practice and the reason why it was
platted the way it was back m 1981.
3. While this one driveway would obviously not create a traffic problem on Holleman, approving
this request would set a precedent for the 12 remaining duplex having sharing the rear alley. In
order to apply the ordinance consistently and equitably, the City would have to approve any
future requests for access to Holleman. from any of the 12 remaining properties.
4. P&Z may authorize a variance to the driveway ordinance when a strict enforcement of the
ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. Staff feels that denying a secondary access to
this property would not result in an unnecessary .hardship and that approving it could be contrary
to .the public interest due to the potential for the 12 additional curb cuts on Holleman.