HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Reportb
CITY OF COIdEGF STATION
Horne of'TexasAcW University`°
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
for
Spring Creek Office & Storage
10-00500251
40 to c ~
u 7y74-ou' (A 0 )6'ver~ c~3
REQUEST: Alternatives to building material requirements
SCALE: 0.826 Acres
LOCATION: 4320 Decatur Drive
ZONING DISTRICT: Planned Development District
APPLICANTS: Dusty Phillips, 3-D Development
PROJECT MANAGER: Matthew Hilgemeier, Staff Planner
mhilgemeier@cstx.gov
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
Design Review Board Page 1 of 4
December 10, 2010
0 0
,III ~
{ ~ H
y i
0
4
.
r i O
- Iy v ar v7 ~."'F ''drr` ur Isla r N
W
r ~
CO
e..
W
I
W
za 4, e O
LLJ
W
39 y,
eye
d 4••. °r a F W
o, \ Y s W
r
- A k
/ z
p, W
~ y JJ n
w
Ni~
i
y E ,
%
0.
Aw~
Design Review Board Page 2 of 4
December 10, 2010
0
ITEM SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to construct a new freestanding self-
storage structure near the intersections of Decatur Drive and Candice Court. The
applicant is requesting the substitution of building materials to meet the standards of
Section 7.9.13.1a, which requires that all building facades that are visible from a public
right-of-way have at least ten percent (10%) of the surface area of the fagade consist of
stone or masonry product, and Section 7.9.B.3.b.5, which allows for a maximum of
twenty percent 20% standing seam metal or remium rade architectural metal on a
facade. The LIDO allows for the substitution of building materials if the material is a new
an innovative material that has not been previously available to the market, is not listed
as an allowed material or prohibited material, is similar and comparable in quality and
appearance to the materials allowed in Section 7.9, or the material is an integral part of
a themed building.`
The applicant is proposing to substitute an alternative material Rigid Rock to meet the
requirements of Section 7.9.13.3.a. Rigid Rock is a synthetic material that is designed
with the look and texture of natural stone. The applicant states that typical masonry
materials are not desired for this building because of the potential damage to the
fagade. He adds that the proposed material can be easily maintained or replaced, while
masonry materials require additional maintenance and would be hard to replace to
match the original color of the material or mortar. The table below shows the total
amount of Rigid Rock proposed for each fagade.
Fagade and Total Area
Amount of
Ri id Rock
Percent
East Elevation 903 sq. ft)
166 sq. ft
18%
South Elevation (2,955 s q. ft)
92 s q. ft
3%
North Elevation 2,976 s q. ft)
102 sq. ft
3%
West Elevation (900 sq. ft)
0
0
As stated above, the applicant is also requesting an alternative to Section 7.9.13.3.b.5,
which allows for a maximum of 20% of any fagade to be covered in standing seam
metal or premium grade architectural metal. The applicant is proposing to use
Stuccolite, a metal paneling material that he states is textured to look and feel like
traditional Stucco materials, in addition to standard non-textured metal paneling on each
fagade. While the Stuccolite material may be designed to look like traditional Stucco, it
is still considered metal paneling and therefore cannot be used on more than 20% of
any fagade. The table below shows the total amount of Stuccolite and non-textured
metal paneling proposed for each fagade.
Amount of
20 % of
Fagade and Total Area
Stuccolite and
percent
total fagade
Variance
non-textured
amount
metal paneling
area
East Elevation (903 sq. ft)
613 sq. ft
67%
181 s q. ft
432 sq. ft
South Elevation 2,955 sq. ft)
2,213 s q. ft
74%
581 s q. ft
1,622 s q. ft
North Elevation (2,976 s q. ft)
2,254 s q. ft
75%
595 s q. ft
1,658 s q. ft
West Elevation 900 sq. ft)
848 sq. ft*
94%
180 s q. ft
668 s q. ft
* Only non-textured metal paneling will be used on the West Elevation.
Design Review Board Page 3 of 4
December 10, 2010
ITEM BACKGROUND: The property is zoned as a Planned Development District. As a
condition of the rezoning, materials used on the building must be similar in style and
character to those used in the surrounding residential neighborhood. Materials used in
the surrounding residential area include bricks, stone, panel siding and Stucco.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for use of alternative materials to
meet the buildings masonry requirement. It is Staff's opinion that both materials are
similar in appearance to the materials that are allowed by Section 7.9 and will serve to
meet the intent of the ordinance. In addition, the proposed materials are similar in
appearance and character to materials used in the surrounding residential area.
Staff recommends approval of the applicants request to exceed the maximum amount
of metal paneling for all facades using the proposed Stuccolite material. The proposed
alternative material is intended to replicate stucco which is a material allowed by the
UDO. The maximum amount of stucco that is allowed on any one fagade cannot exceed
75% of the total area of the facade. As proposed, the amount of Stuccolite that is
proposed for any fapade is not greater than 60% of the fagade.
ISSUES / ITEMS FOR REVIEW:
The DRB may grant a variance from the standards contained in Section 7.9 of up to one
hundred percent (100%) of the total percentage permitted for the following:
1) Substitutions of building materials if the applicant shows that:
a) The building material is a new or innovative material manufactured that has not
been previously available to the market or the material is not listed as an allowed
or prohibited material herein; or
b) The material is similar and comparable in quality and appearance to the
materials allowed in this Section 7.9; or
c) The material is an integral part of a themed building (example: a 50's diner in
chrome).
SUPPORTING MATERIALS:
1. Application
2. Elevations of all building facades (provided in packet)
3. Color and material samples (available at meeting) r~
Design Review Board Page 4 of 4
December 10, 2010