FAQs • But what about Developers?

But what about Developers?: As we’ve stated in other answers, our code is designed to make the rules fair and evenly applied across the city. A new developer may want to build a house that’s 50% of the lot coverage, this would be a self-imposed hardship. There’s nothing that would prevent them from building a smaller house that only covers 35% of the lot with the driveway included in the 35%. There should be very few new single family homes that would be able to meet the threshold for a variance. This should help bring the scale of new single family homes closer to that of the existing homes, so they don’t dominate the block.

Lot Coverage

1. Is the City increasing the lot coverage for single-family to 50%?: Yes and no. The new code proposes both lot coverage and a total Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR). As mentioned with the ADUs, one of the goals of the new plan is to encourage existing homes to stay. Part of the reason older homes are torn down and new ones built is because the lots are valuable, and more often than not, variances were approved to allow for bigger houses. However, a lot of variances were also approved to just allow existing homeowners to add amenities to their back yard, like pools, patios, outdoor or summer kitchens. Under the new proposal, there would still be 35% lot coverage. \That 35% would only include the house and required driveway. The remaining 15% (what’s left over from 50% minus the 35% for the house and garage) will now be called ISR. The ISR can only be used for accessory uses, like patios, pool decks, sheds, etc. That 15% could not be used to make the house bigger.

2. Won’t the City just grant more variances anyway?: One of the ways the City intends to help reduce variances is by allowing for these accessory uses, without the need for a variance. But to make that work, the City has also adjusted the minimum required lot sizes and setback. Most residents may not know this, but a large amount of the City was divided into lots all the way back in the 1920s through the 1940s. When these lots were made, they were a lot smaller than what our current code calls for as minimum lot sizes. This means almost everyone has a “hardship”, in that their lot is too small. This is the first criteria to meet to get a variance. The new LDC should make it so more lots now match what’s in the new code. This means most lots will no longer qualify for a variance. But with the additional 15% the average homeowner will no longer need one to put in a new patio.

3. But what if they just want more, or use more percentage for the house?: Unless there’s something unique about the lot or house that makes it impossible to follow the rules, they would not qualify for a variance and staff would not recommend approval to the Board of Adjustment (the board that hears variance requests). This should cut down on the number of variances substantially, but also make it easier for the current homeowners to use their property as everyone expects to, with the options for reasonably sized patios and pool decks.

4. But what about Developers?: As we’ve stated in other answers, our code is designed to make the rules fair and evenly applied across the city. A new developer may want to build a house that’s 50% of the lot coverage, this would be a self-imposed hardship. There’s nothing that would prevent them from building a smaller house that only covers 35% of the lot with the driveway included in the 35%. There should be very few new single family homes that would be able to meet the threshold for a variance. This should help bring the scale of new single family homes closer to that of the existing homes, so they don’t dominate the block.