Significance and Compatibility Review for 239 Wildrose

1. Case # 600F
239 Wildrose
Significance & Compatibility
Review
Presented By: Jason Lutz
Community Development Services Director
City Council Meeting
Agenda Item #5
November 9, 2015

2. CASE NO. 600F
 Consider a request of a request of Dabney
Homes, LLC, owners, for the significance and
compatibility review of the proposed main
structure located at 239 Wildrose Ave under
Demolition Review Ordinance No. 1860 (April
12, 2010) to demolish 100% of the existing main
structure and construct a new single family
residence with detached accessory structure.

3. SUMMARY
The applicant is seeking to demolish all
existing main and accessory structures in
order to construct a 3,509 square feet main
structure and a 623 square feet accessory
structure.

4. 4
BACKGROUND
 The property is zoned SF-A.
 CB 5571A, Block 6, Lots 36, 37, and 38.

5. 5
PROJECT LOCATION

6. 6
POLICY ANALYSIS – LOT COVERAGE
LOT COVERAGE EXISTING PROPOSED
Lot Area 10,875 10,875
Main House Footprint 1,176 2,764
Front Porch 40 253
Side Porch 1 0 0
Side Porch 2 0 0
Rear Porch 0 156
Garage Footprint 620 623
Carport Footprint 0 0
Shed(s) Footprint 0 0
Breezeways 0 94
Covered Patio Structure 0 0
Other Accessory Structures 0 0
Lot Coverage / Lot Area 1,836/10,875 3,890/10,875
Total Lot Coverage (Max 40%) 17% 36%

7. 7
POLICY ANALYSIS – F.A.R.
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) EXISTING PROPOSED
Lot Area 10,875 10,875
Main House 1st Floor 1,176 2,764
Main House 2nd Floor 0 745
Garage 1st Floor 620 623
Garage 2nd Floor 0 0
Other Structures 0 0
FAR / Lot Area 1,796/10,875 4,132/10,875
Total FAR (0.45 or 0.50 with bonus) .17 .38

8. 8
POLICY ANALYSIS
 The proposed structure is 26’ 4” in
height (max allowed 35’) as measured
from average grade.
 The proposed structure complies with
the required setbacks for an SF-B
zoning district.

9. 9
POLICY ANALYSIS
 The proposed structure complies with
the required front yard setback of 30’,
side yard setbacks of 6’, rear yard
setback of 20’, and rear yard setback
of 30’ for 2nd story structures.

10. 10
POLICY ANALYSIS
 The front porch will encroach into the
front yard setback by 6’. This
application was submitted prior to the
modification of the encroachment
provision (from 6’ to 4’).

11. 11
POLICY ANALYSIS
 A 15” Pecan and 20” Pecan will be
removed from the property. No
mitigation is required as neither tree is
considered a heritage tree.
 A circular drive is permitted and will be
constructed on this property.

12. 12
POLICY ANALYSIS
 The proposed structure will have an
exterior comprised of hardie board
planks and a composition shingle roof.
 The existing home was built in 1951 and
staff has found no historical significance
concerning the architectural style or a
noted architect of record.

13. 13

14. 14

15. 15

16. 16

17. 17

18. 18

19. 19

20. 20

21. 21

22. 22
ARB RECOMMENDATION
 On October 20, 2015 the ARB found no
significance in the existing structure,
determined the proposed replacement
structure to be compatible, and approved
the applicant’s request with the following
conditions:

23. 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 to
stone (error on submitted plans).

24. 24
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
 Postcards were mailed to property owners
within a 200-foot radius of the property,
appropriate notice was posted on the City
website and a sign was posted on the
property
 Responses received:
 Support: (2)
 Oppose: (0)

25. QUESTIONS?