03-09-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

w �R�s �R�s #14-3685 2335/2340 Oliver Hill �23� Z'Q 3� March 5,2015 Page 2 Oliver Hill-Individual Lot Standards BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 Standard Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 1 Lot 2 Front Setback 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' Rear Setback 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 35' 35' Side Setback(Interior) 10' W=10' W=15' 10' N=10' 10' 10' E=15' E=10' Side Setback Exterior NA NA NA NA S=15' NA E=15' Side Street Setback 40' NA NA NA NA 40' NA Willow 15%Maximum Lot 6,042 4,963 3,493 4,862 3,694 2,932 2,684 Coverage by Strurtures s.f. Floor Area Ratio FAR Not A licable Wetland Setback 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' NA NA The two lots in question are Lot 2, Block 1 (2340 Oliver Hill) and Lot 2, Block 2 (2335 Oliver Hill): - Lot 2, Block 1 (N. side of the road) has a total lot area of just over 33,000 s.f. including wetland , and 15% lot coverage allowed is 4,963 s.f. ; but because so much of the lot is wetland, the actual buildable area after taking into account wetland and lot line setbacks is only 3300 s.f. or 10% of the lot, and due to the shape of this lot an actual footprint of perhaps no more than 2500 s.f is feasible, or less than 8% lot coverage. - Lot 2, Block 2 (S. side of the road) has a total lot area of just under 17,000 s.f., no wetlands, and 15% lot coverage allowed is 2,680 s.f.; but because the lot is entirely dry buildable, the actual buildable area after taking into account lot line setbacks is nearly 8,300 s.f. Applicant has sold off Lot 2, Block 2 to an owner who wants to build a house exceeding the 2,680 s.f. lot coverage limit. Applicant suggests that from an overall development standpoint, it would be feasible to take excess unusable lot coverage allotment from Lot 2 Block 1 and grant it to Lot 2 Block 2, while resulting in no overall increase (and potentially a decrease) in the overall lot coverage for the development as a whole. He has suggested three schemes for doing this - see letter of request, Ezhibit A. T'he City has not had a request such as this in the past, and the code does not specifically provide for a transfer of development credit from one existing lot to another. Because this development was done as a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), Council does have the option of revising the Development Agreement to make such a change if Council determines it is appropriate.