To: Aaron Rector, Interim City Manager
From: Sarah Hensley, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Title
Consider a resolution approving a Site Plan with variances for an existing approximately 1,260 square foot structure on 0.17 acres located on the south side of Taylor Street, approximately 85 feet southeast from the Taylor Street and South Main Street intersection, legally described as Lot 2A, Block 11 of Keller, City Addition, zoned Old Town Keller (OTK) and addressed 110 Taylor Street. David Simmons, Owner. Cary Stillwell, Applicant. (SP-24-0005)
Background:
The Applicant is proposing to convert an approximately 1,260 square foot structure into a medical/office facility. The subject property has previously been used as a single-family residence and is in the Neighborhood Subdistrict of the Old Town Keller (OTK) Zoning District. The existing structure was built in 1955 and has been vacant since 2017.
This request first came to City Council on Feb. 6, 2024, where it was unanimously denied following the denial of the Applicant’s related Specific Use Permit (SUP) request. The Applicant contacted staff shortly after the City Council meeting and requested to go back through the process.1.
Site Layout:
The subject property includes the main structure and an approximately 466 square foot detached garage in the southeast corner of the lot that is accessible via an asphalt drive off Taylor Street. The Applicant intends to update the exterior siding and front access ramp but does not plan to increase the footprint of the enclosed space or modify the detached garage.
The Unified Development Code (UDC) describes the Neighborhood Subdistrict as being “more residential in character and contains a mixture of some of the early homes built in Keller and some infill residential structures from the 1900's through the 1970's. The structures in this subdistrict are set back farther from the street than the structures in the Main Street Subdistrict to allow for additional landscaping. Most of the streets have wide right-of-ways (approximately eighty feet [80']) that will accommodate ninety-degree (90°) head in parking within the street right-of-way.”
Elevations:
The UDC does not have specific Design Standards for the OTK Neighborhood Subdistrict. The Applicant proposes Smart Siding for all elevations. The new porch will be expanded with cedar posts and an ADA-compliant ramp. The Applicant also intends to add a concrete walkway from the porch to the street. The existing detached garage is wood on a concrete slab.
Lighting: Variance Requested
The subject property is adjacent to one residential property (116 Taylor Street). The Applicant has requested not to provide a photometric plan but did include an inventory of the existing exterior lighting in their submittal, which is included in the agenda packet.
1. The Applicant requests a variance to provide no photometric plan for the project.
Parking - Variance Requested:
The total parking requirement for a 1,260 square-foot office is 4 spaces plus 1 accessible space. The existing asphalt drive off Taylor Street can accommodate about three vehicles, but is not constructed, striped or fitted with wheels stops according to UDC standards. The Applicant is proposing no new parking and provided a justification narrative that is included in the agenda packet.
The UDC parking requirements for the OTK Neighborhood Subdistrict state that “As existing structures in the Neighborhood Subdistrict are redeveloped, the developer or property owner shall be responsible for constructing the ninety-degree (90°) head in parking within the right-of-way composed of either concrete or asphalt. The developer or property owner is also responsible for the construction of a concrete curb adjacent to the sidewalk and a concrete valley gutter between the street edge and the head-in parking space. If head in parking does not provide an adequate number of parking for a particular use, parking may be added at the rear of the building if accessible, or the property owner may contribute funds for the construction of remote parking facilities. These requirements also apply to new developments.
2. The Applicant requests a variance to construct no parking as part of this project.
Landscaping - Variance Requested:
In the Neighborhood Subdistrict, the UDC requires two large canopy trees between the building and the property line and requires foundation plantings in front of the building.
The Applicant has requested not to provide a landscape plan but included a justification narrative and tree survey that are included in the agenda packet.
3. The Applicant requests a variance to install no new landscaping as part of this project.
Variances Requested:
1. A variance request to provide no photometric plan.
2. A variance request to construct no new parking.
3. A variance request to install no new landscaping.
Planning and Zoning Commission Action:
At the February 27, 2024, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Commissioners voted 5-2 to recommend approval of the Site Plan as presented with three variances.
Summary:
Section 2.07(A)(2) of the UDC lists criteria for approval of a variance, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following factors:
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that the strict application of the provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
b. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to other properties in the area.
c. That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other lands in the area in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
d. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a violation of any other valid ordinance of the City of Keller.
e. That strict compliance with the regulations, and/or that the purpose of the regulations will be served to a greater extent by the alternative proposal.
Citizen Input:
A Site Plan application, even with variances, does not require a public hearing, so no public hearing notifications were sent out to the surrounding property owners for this request. The public will have an opportunity to speak on this agenda item during “Persons To Be Heard.”
Alternatives:
The City Council has the following options when considering a Site Plan with variances:
§ Approve as submitted.
§ Approve with modified or additional condition(s).
§ Table the agenda item to a specific date with clarification of intent and purpose.
§ Deny.