HomeMy WebLinkAboutSite Plan showing Antimonotony code complianceI
FINLAY GRIER FlNLAY GRIER
IN
n
JOSEPH R. KITTERYAN. TRUSTEE
THE JOSEPH R. KITTERYAN UVING TRUST
JAMES T. VOURERT A ANGELA
L GOOOWIN-10LPERT
DAVID RILN k MOA RIOT
AUSTIN OAKS
HOMEOWNERSASSOCIATION
u
MARK G HALVORSENHALVORMARGARETD. HALVYJRSENE
UJOSEPHM. SZMED a
F
tkji{
AMY L SZIED
SARA wAmERc
JERRY L RUSNTON i
ELIZABETH B. RUSHTON
M .QAM
KISHUI ZHANG 3
JIAPNG YUE
SITE MAP
JOSEPH R. KITTERYAN. TRUSTEE
THE JOSEPH R. KITTERYAN UVING TRUST
JAMES T. VOURERT A ANGELA
L GOOOWIN-10LPERT
DAVID RILN k MOA RIOT
Application of Anti-Monotony Code to Available Lots and the
Construction of Homes with less than 50% Masonry on Front Façade
Attached is a plan showing the 28 lots in the Copperleaf Subdivision. If a home is under
construction or about to start construction on any lot, the home plan and elevation are shown on
the lot. Lots that have no plan and elevation noted are not under construction and do not have a
plan and elevation selected. Currently, 22 of the 28 lots are under construction or about to start
construction. All 22 of these homes comply with the anti-monotony code included with the
Copperleaf PUD. Of these 22 lots on which construction has commenced, five homes have less
than 50% masonry on the Front Façade. These 5 lots and the plan and elevation are as follows:
Lot Plan Elevation
9 Deer Valley HR2H
15 Castleton HR2H
19 Castleton HR2H
24 Allison NC2J
26 Deer Valley HR3W
The remaining number of lots where construction has not commenced and the plan and elevation
have not yet been selected is six, and those lots include Lots 1, 7, 12, 16, 18 and 27. Given the
five lots that currently have less than 50% masonry on the Front Façade, five of these remaining
six lots could contain a home with less than 50% masonry on the front façade IF the requested
development standards variance were approved. Any one of these six lots could contain one of
the plans and elevations that do not comply with the 50% masonry requirement. For example,
Lot 1 could contain a Castleton HR2H, Lot 7 could contain a Maple Valley CR2H, Lot 12 could
contain a Maple Valley CR2H, Lot 16 could contain a Deer Valley NC2G, Lot 18 could contain
an Allison HR2H, and Lot 27 could contain a Maple Valley NC2G. In this scenario, each of the
six lots contains a home that does not meet the 50% front masonry requirement, but does meet
the anti-monotony code requirements. Of course, one of these lots will have to have a plan and
elevation that meets the 50% masonry requirement given the 10 lot limit, but several plans and
elevations exist that meet the anti-monotony code and 50% masonry requirement to allow each
of the six lots to also include a compliant home. In summary, therefore, Lots 9, 15, 19, 24 and
26 will have homes that do not meet the 50% masonry requirement, and, if the variance is
granted, five of the following six lots – Lots 1, 7, 12, 16, 18 and 27 – could have homes that do
not meet the 50% masonry requirement, all while complying with the anti-monotony code.
I\15084888.1