228 Castano

1. Case # 631F
Significance & Compatibility
Review
228 Castano
Presented By: Jason Lutz
Community Development Services Director
City Council Meeting
Agenda Item # 5
July 25, 2016

2. CASE # 631F - SUMMARY
 The applicant is seeking to demolish
100% of the existing main structure in
order to construct a new single family
residence with detached accessory
structure.

3. 3
BACKGROUND
 Zoned SF-A
 South side of Castano, between
Nacogdoches Rd. & Alamo Heights Blvd.
 Significance Review was approved by the
ARB on 12/02/14 and by Council on
12/08/14.

4. 4

5. 5
LOT COVERAGE EXISTING PROPOSED
Lot Area 7,514 7,514
Main House Footprint 935 2,156
Front Porch 108 124
Side Porch 1
Side Porch 2
Rear Porch
Garage Footprint 224
Carport Footprint 216
Shed(s) Footprint 75
Breezeways
Covered Patio Structure 178
Other Accessory Structures
Lot Coverage / Lot Area 1,010 / 7,514 2,898 / 7,514
Total Lot Coverage (Max 40%) 13% 38%

6. 6
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) EXISTING PROPOSED
Lot Area 7,514 7,514
Main House 1st Floor 935 2,156
Main House 2nd Floor 1,002
Garage 1st Floor 224
Garage 2nd Floor
Other Structures 216
FAR / Lot Area
935 / 7,514 3,598 / 7,514
Total FAR (45% or max 50% with bonuses) 12% 47%

7. 7
POLICY ANALYSIS
 2% bonus added to the F.A.R. for a one
story accessory structure (garage).
 27’-11 ¼” in height (max allowed 33’).
 Complies with all regulations concerning
setbacks, height, and looming
standards.

8. 8
POLICY ANALYSIS
 Building Materials
 Stucco
 Stone Veneer
 Composition Shingle Roof

9. 9
POLICY ANALYSIS
 Heritage Tree Removal (54 total inches)
 (1) 26” Oak
 (1) 28” Oak
 Other Tree Removal (38 total inches)
 (2) 17” Oak
 (3) 21” Oak

10. 10
POLICY ANALYSIS
 Tree Mitigation (54 total inches)
 (1) 26” Oak
 (1) 28” Oak
 Fees In Lieu
 $4,000.00
 Max $2,000 per tree

11. 11
POLICY ANALYSIS
 The existing 935 sq. ft. home was built in
1910.
 (Significance Review) No evidence that
the home was:
 built by a noted architect
 belongs to a distinct architectural style
 or has any major historical significance

12. 12
EXISTING
SITE PLAN

13. 13
EXISTING
STRUCTURE

14. 14
EXISTING
STRUCTURE

15. 15
PROPOSED
SITE PLAN

16. 16
FRONT ELEVATION

17. 17
REAR ELEVATION

18. 18
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION

19. 19
LEFT SIDE ELEVATION

20. 20
STREETSCAPE

21. 21
ARB RECOMMENDATION
 ARB Review – June 21, 2016
 No significance in existing structure
 Replacement structure is
compatible
 Approved with recommendations

22. 22
ARB RECOMMENDATIONS
 Try to fit additional oak trees on the site
instead of “Fees in lieu of mitigation”.
 Two additional large trees (non-
heritage) would need to be removed
from the front yard.

23. 23
ARB RECOMMENDATIONS
Red = Heritage Tree Removal
Orange = Other Oaks to be
removed.

24. 24
ARB RECOMMENDATIONS

25. 25
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: (1)

26. QUESTIONS?