Zero Lot Line Homes--City Council presentation

Re: Item U –Eighth Amendment to the Development Agreement for SCTX to change Exhibit G to allow Zero Lot Line homes.

The proposed language change in Exhibit G appears minor at first glance. But, closer review reveals the potential impact of the change is very substantial, especially for proposed new area of SC which is referred to as DW2500*.

Proposed Change [34020-E Lot Size] Page 5 reads: “3,795 sq. ft. for cluster
lots, up to 20% of total lots; 5,000 sq. ft. for zero lot line lots*, up to 10% of total lots.”

This change would permit the Developer to Build:
--750 "Zero lot line" homes [minimum lot size of 5,000sq. ft.] Plus
--1500 "Cluster lot" homes [Cottages/duplexes, Garden [DW] or other homes
on minimum lot size of 3,795 sq. ft.] or
-- a total of 2250 homes on substandard lots [ City standard is 6000]

The Planning issue caused by the change is that it would apply the 10% for
ZLL and the 20% for Cluster to total lots for the entire 7500 home complex.
As the DW5000** is well along in completion, this “minor change” more than triples the number of permitted substandard lots in DW2500!

By way of illustration, let’s say 70 ZLL homes are built in DW5000; that leaves 680 ZLL for DW2500--that is 27% substandard lots. Add remaining Cluster lots, and the Developer has City approval to build 50 to 60% of the homes in DW2500 on sub-standard lots.

This is certainly not what has been represented to Residents of Georgetown!

Chairman of P&Z, Johnny Anderson says “the change allows for 10 percent of the homes built in the new area of Sun City to have zero-lot-line configurations”; [Sun 10/9].

do not track with the proposed language in 8th Amendment- Exhibit G. Sun City residents believe that no more than 250 ZLL homes will be permitted by the City in DW2500 and perhaps 70 or so in DW5000.

The Developer has represented to residents that the change is a minor
technical modification and that the ZLL homes are merely a replacement for the Cottage/duplex model. [Cluster lot category].

But, these statements, expectations, and representations

For the record, the Zero lot line homes represent an interesting, creative design and are certainly more appealing than the cottage/duplex model. However:

Amendment 7, Exhibit G already allows for 20% substandard “Cluster” lots—it is unclear why there is a need for a higher percentage to build ZLL homes.

It is unclear why ZLL homes need to be placed on substandard lots unless there is a constraint on buildable land.

The need for the variances for ZLL of 70% Building Coverage [vs standard 30%] and 75% for Impervious Cover [vs standard 40%] is also unclear.

These are all additional reasons why City Planners and P &Z Committee should take closer, more detailed look at the Development Planning implications of such changes.

Conclusions
I assume the proposed language change and excessive number of substandard lots permitted is unintentional. Therefore, the Council should defer action. And return the proposed 8th Amendment to the City Planners for modification and alignment with current standards.
The DW 2500 should be, for planning purposes, reviewed as separate from nearly completed DW5000 so appropriate Development Planning Standards can be applied and easily understood.
If the proposed changes are intended as drafted, The Council should deny the proposed Amendment! Such variances to the City standards on lot size would permit radical change in the nature and character of the Sun City
Development. Moreover, authorizing 60% or more substandard lots in DW2500 would represent a travesty in Development Planning.
R.Sloan