ah council meeting 11/9/15 - item #5 - 239 wildrose

Case # 600F239 Wildrose

Significance & CompatibilityReview

Presented By: Jason LutzCommunity Development Services Director

City Council MeetingAgenda Item #5

November 9, 2015

CASE NO. 600F Consider a request of a request of Dabney

Homes, LLC, owners, for the significance andcompatibility review of the proposed mainstructure located at 239 Wildrose Ave underDemolition Review Ordinance No. 1860 (April12, 2010) to demolish 100% of the existing mainstructure and construct a new single familyresidence with detached accessory structure.

SUMMARYThe applicant is seeking to demolish allexisting main and accessory structures inorder to construct a 3,509 square feet mainstructure and a 623 square feet accessorystructure.

4

BACKGROUND The property is zoned SF-A. CB 5571A, Block 6, Lots 36, 37, and 38.

5

PROJECT LOCATION

6

POLICY ANALYSIS – LOT COVERAGELOT COVERAGE EXISTING PROPOSED

Lot Area 10,875 10,875Main House Footprint 1,176 2,764Front Porch 40 253Side Porch 1 0 0Side Porch 2 0 0Rear Porch 0 156Garage Footprint 620 623Carport Footprint 0 0Shed(s) Footprint 0 0Breezeways 0 94Covered Patio Structure 0 0Other Accessory Structures 0 0Lot Coverage / Lot Area 1,836/10,875 3,890/10,875Total Lot Coverage (Max 40%) 17% 36%

7

POLICY ANALYSIS – F.A.R.

FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) EXISTING PROPOSEDLot Area 10,875 10,875Main House 1st Floor 1,176 2,764Main House 2nd Floor 0 745Garage 1st Floor 620 623Garage 2nd Floor 0 0Other Structures 0 0FAR / Lot Area 1,796/10,875 4,132/10,875Total FAR (0.45 or 0.50 with bonus) .17 .38

8

POLICY ANALYSIS The proposed structure is 26’ 4” in

height (max allowed 35’) as measuredfrom average grade.

The proposed structure complies withthe required setbacks for an SF-Bzoning district.

9

POLICY ANALYSIS The proposed structure complies with

the required front yard setback of 30’,side yard setbacks of 6’, rear yardsetback of 20’, and rear yard setbackof 30’ for 2nd story structures.

10

POLICY ANALYSIS The front porch will encroach into the

front yard setback by 6’. Thisapplication was submitted prior to themodification of the encroachmentprovision (from 6’ to 4’).

11

POLICY ANALYSIS A 15” Pecan and 20” Pecan will be

removed from the property. Nomitigation is required as neither tree isconsidered a heritage tree.

A circular drive is permitted and will beconstructed on this property.

12

POLICY ANALYSIS The proposed structure will have an

exterior comprised of hardie boardplanks and a composition shingle roof.

The existing home was built in 1951 andstaff has found no historical significanceconcerning the architectural style or anoted architect of record.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ARB RECOMMENDATION On October 20, 2015 the ARB found no

significance in the existing structure,determined the proposed replacementstructure to be compatible, and approvedthe applicant’s request with the followingconditions:

23

ARB RECOMMENDATION – CONDITIONS That the windows be modified so that they are

of a consistent type/design.

That the columns be changed from stucco tostone (error on submitted plans).

24

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Postcards were mailed to property owners

within a 200-foot radius of the property,appropriate notice was posted on the Citywebsite and a sign was posted on theproperty

Responses received:

Support: (2)

Oppose: (0)

QUESTIONS?