<br /> <br /> <br />Byoung Jun Residence <br />Adjustment Review Written Statement <br />May 28, 2024 <br /> <br />Property Address: 3755 E. Amazon Dr. <br />Map: 180308310 Tax Lot:2700 <br />Zoning: R-1 <br /> <br />Project Description <br />Applicant proposes to construct a new single family dwelling (SFD) on the east portion of his property, behind the <br />existing SFD where he currently resides at 3755 E. Amazon Dr. <br /> <br />The creation of a detached SFD on the property increase the traffic trip count by 50% or more, which triggers review <br />for compliance with EC 9.6735(2) and EC 7.420. For purposes of compliance with these LDC sections, E. Amazon is <br />categorized as a “Minor Arterial”. <br /> <br />EC 9.6735(2) requires that access from a public street to a development site comply with EC 7.420. <br /> <br />EC 7.420(2)(b) requires access connections to a Minor Arterial to be spaced no closer than 150’ apart. <br /> <br />Because this is an existing developed property, proximity to existing neighboring driveway locations do not comply <br />with this requirement. The driveway on the neighboring property to the north is 98.3 feet away, and the driveway on <br />the neighboring property to the south is 20.2 feet away. <br /> <br />Because the current driveway on the subject property is at the south end of the parcel, it is not possible to move it any <br />farther south to increase the distance from the northern neighboring driveway. And because the current parcel <br />frontage is 98.4 feet in length, it is not possible to move the driveway far enough to the north to bring the spacing to <br />the south into compliance. And of course, such a change would only decrease compliance to the north. Further, the <br />current driveway aligns with the existing garage in the existing structure, making any relocation of the driveway <br />highly impractical. Obviously, we cannot require neighboring properties to move their driveways. In other words, <br />there is no location on the subject property to move the driveway that will bring it any closer to compliance. It is <br />therefore not possible for the subject property to comply with this requirement. <br /> <br />EC 9.6735(3) allows the standard required by EC 9.6735(2) if consistent with criteria described under EC 9.8030(28). <br /> <br />EC 9.8030(28) states that this requirement may be adjusted if (a) Physical conditions preclude compliance with EC <br />7.420. As demonstrated above and on the attached site plan, the current physical conditions of the existing property <br />and neighboring properties do in fact “preclude compliance” with the 150’ access spacing requirement. Therefore, an <br />adjustment is hereby requested consistent with EC 9.6735(3) and EC 9.8030(28)(a). <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Michael D. Magee <br />BDA Architecture and Planning, PC <br /> <br />Attached: Site plan demonstrating existing driveway spacing <br />