Loading...
St Andrews Est-CS100218CITY OF COPPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CASE NO.: S- 1251- SF -12, St. Andrews Estates, Lot 5, Block 1 P &Z HEARING DATE: February 18, 2010 (Continued to the March 18 Planning Commission Meeting, with the hearing left open) C.C. HEARING DATE: March 9, 2010 (to be rescheduled after the March 18 Planning Commission meeting) STAFF REP.: Gary L. Sieb, Director of Planning LOCATION: 620 Inglenook Court SIZE OF AREA: 0.33 of an acre of property CURRENT ZONING: SF -12 (Single Family -12) REQUEST: A zoning change from SF -12 (Single Family 12) to S- 1251 -SF- 12 (Special Use Permit - 1251 - Single Family -12), to allow 100% stucco finish in lieu of 80% masonry for the proposed residence to be constructed on this lot. APPLICANT: The Holmes Builders Terry Holmes 1445 MacArthur Drive Suite 200 Carrollton, TX. 75007 (972) 242 -1770, Ext. 201 Fax: (972) 242 -2931 Email: office theholmesbuildier.com ITEM # 4 Page 1 of 5 HISTORY: This lot is on land that was, until the early 2000's, a part of the City's Service Center. The Center moved to Coppell Road in 2002, and the vacant building and its surrounding 10 acres was put out for bid. The Holmes Builders was the successful bidder and subsequently developed a 23 lot subdivision known as St. Andrews Estates. This subdivision was approved by Council in January of 2004, and has slowly developed since that time. In the last 6 -8 months, several lots in this subdivision have been enlarged in size by combining two lots into one to accommodate larger homes. TRANSPORTATION: DeForest Road is an unimproved asphalt road contained within a variable width right -of -way ranging from 40 to 50 feet. It is eventually planned to be a 27 foot wide concrete street with 50 feet of width, and our Engineering staff is in the design stage of that project, anticipating beginning of construction in the fourth quarter of this year. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North- single - family residences; PD -184 SF -ED South- single family residences; PD -137 (zero lot line) East — single- family residences; PD- 161 -SF -12 West- single- family residences; SF -12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan of May 1996, as amended, shows the property as suitable for low density single family residences. DISCUSSION: In the normal course of reviewing zoning applications, we generally make few comments regarding design issues. With regard to this case, however, it is prudent to make several comments regarding the structure and how it relates to the residential uses around it. In driving the area in which this house is to be built, one is struck by the cohesive architectural styles contained within the neighborhood. The houses are predominately brick with a mix of complementary building materials. They are defined by gabled roof lines, the colors are light and compatible with one another, only 3 of the 13 on the block have any stucco, and they "fit" together making a cohesive whole. That can not be ITEM # 4 Page 2 of 5 said of this application. The house proposed for this lot is 100% stucco creating a sameness and uninteresting flat fagade, there is no texture or grain to the building surface, it is proposed to be dark grey in color, has a variety of roofing materials, several different window styles and includes gabled, shed and barrel roof lines. It has a very contemporary feel to it and is unlike any other house in this subdivision and for that matter, the entire city. It does not have any positive architectural character and will appear to stand out like the proverbial sore thumb in this neighborhood. It does not reflect any of the tenants of "old world" architecture best illustrated in this neighborhood by a neighboring home (Photo 1), three doors south of the applicant's property— gabled roof, majority stone /brick materials, rough sawn timbers, articulated sides, stucco proportional to overall building materials used. Generally, these design elements are repeated throughout this subdivision with the exception of stucco which, as stated above, is present on only three of the existing houses. To convey our concern with this application, attached are a series of photos of existing homes on the same street which can be used to better make our point. These photos convey the concerns we have with the applicant's design. Photos 2 and 3 are existing houses immediately to the north and south of the applicant's proposal. Photos 4, 5, and 6 show the overall character of the neighborhood. These exhibits convey a design respect for each other. The scale, building materials, color, roof lines all possess a relationship to one another that gives the streetscape relevance and compatibility. The requested building reflects none of these qualities. In short, the requested structure has little relevance to the old world architectural style we have nurtured over the years, and needs a great deal of redesign. More importantly, it does not respect nor compliment the design of the existing neighborhood. Although the Planning Department does not normally publicly criticize the design elements of a proposed project, in this case we believe we have an obligation to protect the interests of citizens already established in this neighborhood. The proposal needs a great deal of design work to compliment what is already there. That said, staff can not support this request. At the February 18 meeting, the Commission expressed concern regarding how the proposed structure would fit into the existing neighborhood. There were concerns with ITEM # 4 Page 3 of 5 the building materials, roof structure, number of different roof forms, flatness of exterior surfaces, window design and general proportion of the home. These design concerns warranted re- analysis of the building, and prompted the Commission to delay taking action on the application and directed the applicant to revise the building to be more in line with the architectural style and building materials of the existing subdivision. The Commission further directed the applicant to be prepared to explain the revised design at the March 18 public hearing. We have received a revised design for the residential structure. Basically, the floor plan has been slightly modified, the footprint of the building has been changed, and the overall square footage of the 2 -story home has been reduced to 5,858 square feet (reduced by 31 square feet). Elevations have been altered to include more shed roof forms, the gables and barrel vaults remain essentially unchanged. Building materials show to include stone materials on each view of the building, but the material symbol and the notes on the elevations do not match. For example, the East Elevation shows considerable stone exterior, but the notes indicate a stucco material. In addition, the roof symbol suggests a standing seam roof, but the note states "composition ", and in some cases "stucco ". These inconsistencies show on each elevation. With regard to the overall design of this structure, it remains a judgment call whether this style fits the neighborhood. It is certainly an improvement over the first submittal, and the addition of the stone exterior substantially improves the appearance of the building. The variety of roof forms still bothers staff, and the barrel vaults and shed roof members are problematic. By replacing these members with gables —the predominate roof form in the neighborhood —the result would compliment the existing architectural style of the community. We have subsequently received an additional notice in opposition to this case, the latest from the property owner directly behind the subject lot. In totaling neighborhood concerns, this case has generated a little over 12% opposition (12.6 %) ITEM # 4 Page 4 of 5 RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Staff is recommending DENIAL of this request as submitted. It is incompatible with the existing houses in the neighborhood, needs extensive redesign with attention directed toward greater use of brick and stone, more muted colors, reconsideration of the variety of roof forms, more identifiable window shapes, and greater thought directed toward becoming more compatible with the existing homes in the subdivision. After review of the revised plan, staff could recommend APPROVAL of the revision subject to the following conditions: 1. Consider revising the vault and shed roof forms. 2. Make necessary changes to Elevations sheet to correctly identify roofing materials and building facade materials on all elevations ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the request 2. Recommend disapproval of the request 3. Recommend modification of the request 4. Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Rendering of front of proposed structure 3. Floor plan /elevations 4. Photos of other homes on Inglenook (6) 5. Perspective drawing of front elevation 6. Notification map ITEM # 4 Page 5 of 5