03-09-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#14-3685 2335/2340 Oliver Hill March 5,2015 Page 3 Analysis Staff would note that the developer's original premise during the subdivision review was to build modestly sized homes, and the conceptual footprints shown on the approved development plans had no footprint larger than 2200 s.f. (see survey, Ezhibit B). Following this concept would have resulted in none of the homes approaching the 15% lot coverage limit. T'he builder submitted for a building permit for Lot 2, Block 2 in January 2015 for a house with footprint of approximately 4,000 s.f., i.e. lot coverage of just over 22% (see permit survey, Ezhibit E). The permit application recently received for Lot 5 also shows a footprint much larger than the original conceptual plan (3,000 s.f. proposed footprint vs. 1,768 s.f. concept) but because that lot is larger, it still meets the 15%limit. The developer has sold some but not a11 of the lots to buyers/builders. Apparently there was inadequate communication between the developer and builders as to limitations on these lots. The development improvements for this subdivision have not been completed and building permits cannot be issued until the road has been completed, which is likely not going to be until April or May. The issue for the Council to consider is whether it is reasonable to allow the transfer of unusable excess lot coverage allotment from one lot to another lot. That has not been done previously. On a lot by lot basis, staff would recommend denial of a variance for lot coverage exceeding 15%. From an overall development standpoint,the request may be reasonable. If the request is not approved, the subdivision will have homes ranging from less than 2,000 s.f. footprint to more than 3,000 s.f. footprint. If the request is approved, the proposed residence on Lot 2 Block 2 will have a 4,000 s.f. footprint, likely double that of the probable home directly across from it on Lot 2 Block 1. Staff Recommendation Council should consider whether the request is reasonable given the above analysis, and ask any questions of the developer and builder as to why this request is justified. Staff recommends that Council consider how you would have responded to the inequities between buildable area of each lot vs the 15% lot coverage limits if this request had come during the subdivision review. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Provide direction as to whether any of the developer's suggested options is acceptable, and if so, direct staff to draft an amendment of the Development Agreement.