Holiday City hearing: staff recommends denying Holiday Peaks Lot 2 lot-coverage variance

A Holiday City administrative appeals hearing on March 17, 2025 heard arguments over a request to increase structural coverage on Lot 2 of the Holiday Peaks subdivision.

City planner and GIS manager Justice Tufour told the hearing that the lot in question measures about 0.24 acres (approximately 10,451 square feet) and falls in the R-1-10 zone, where the city’s lot-coverage table permits a 31% maximum structural coverage and 36% total impervious coverage. The applicant, represented by Ivory Homes, requested a 35% structural-coverage allowance — a 4 percentage-point variance from the code provision referenced in the staff report as city code section 13.14 0.08.

"The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated ... the presence of unique circumstances or hardships that would occur if the variance is not granted," Justice Tufour said, summarizing staff’s analysis. Staff’s review concluded the lot is similar in size, shape and configuration to others in the subdivision and that nearby lots (including those identified as Lots 102, 105, 108 and 109) are subject to the same 31% structural limit and are moving through the permitting process without evidence that the ordinance produces an unfair result.

Ivory Homes’ representative, Peter Gamverlis, described a so-called "coverage inversion" in the ordinance, saying the numerical tiering can produce an anomaly where a slightly larger lot is permitted a proportionally smaller home than a slightly smaller lot. "What we find here with this particular lot is that we are in a minute area where... though a larger lot, [we are] required to have a smaller home," Gamverlis said, arguing the rule produces an inconsistent outcome for home size.

Jake Harouni, the contracted buyer and owner of Lot 2, testified about personal reasons for the requested footprint, saying he and his wife need a larger main-floor layout to address health and caregiving needs and to enable them to return to Holiday after living elsewhere for several years.

Tufour’s staff noted the city’s ordinance allows a 10% bonus for total impervious area when owners implement mitigation measures but said that bonus does not apply to the structural-coverage maximum for the primary structure. Staff also identified potential self-imposed hardship concerns because the property was purchased from the developer as a finished lot and the buyer’s preference for a larger single-level home underpinned the narrative rather than a demonstrated, site-specific physical condition.

Hearing Officer Frank Nakamura emphasized the limited scope of the appeal: his role is to decide whether strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship tied to unique property circumstances, not to rewrite the code. After questions about comparable lots and additional explanations from the applicant, Nakamura took the matter under advisement and said he will issue a written decision within five business days.

No formal decision was announced at the hearing.