Title
Discuss Possible Amendments to the Architectural and Site Standards Ordinance (Section 146-139 of the Code of Ordinances)
Summary
MEETING DATE: January 13, 2015
DEPARTMENT: Planning
CONTACT: Michael Quint, Director of Planning
RECOMMENDED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION:
· Discuss possible amendments to the architectural and site standards section of the Zoning Ordinance.
ITEM SUMMARY:
· Staff is requesting feedback from the Commission as to the basic framework of an architectural standards ordinance and feedback on a preliminary set of draft regulations.
· At the July 28, 2014 work session, the City Council directed Staff to re-evaluate and draft amendments to the architectural and site standards section of the Zoning Ordinance. These amendments were to focus on the following stated topics:
o The standards should mandate quality but should be flexible enough to remain competitive with sister cities;
o The standards should allow more material types; and
o The standards should focus more on architectural design including, but not limited to façade offsets.
· Additional focus points that have been provided by the development community and the Planning and Zoning Commission include:
o The existing standards are too restrictive;
o The current point system is too confusing; and
o The current architectural and site design standards create delays in the overall development timeline.
· Prior to drafting any ordinance amendments, Staff first set out to thoroughly evaluate the City of McKinney's existing architectural standards, the stated issues with these standards, and possible ordinance frameworks. The result of this evaluation is a document titled "Architectural and Site Design Standards: Analysis and Recommendations." This document, which was written by Staff, includes a preliminary set of draft regulations (due to the significant number of changes, a "tracked changes" version could not be produced) and the original analysis from 1999. It also identifies a number of issues with the existing regulations and recommends a significant overhaul (save and except changes to recently adopted amendments pertaining to multi-family residential uses) to the existing ordinance which will introduce more flexibility and subjectivity. It's Staff's opinion that the objectivity of the existing ordinance adds to its confusing nature, restrictiveness, and inability to address a wide variety of architectural design without needing approval of a meritorious exception application. This overly objective approach to architectural design standards may put the City of McKinney at a disadvantage when comparing our regulations to those of our sister cities; Plano, Frisco and Allen. These municipalities rely on flexible and more subjective regulations to govern architectural design.
· NEXT STEPS:
o Staff met with the City Council to discuss the City's architectural standards on December 15, 2014.
o Staff has posted the draft regulations on our website to solicit any feedback from the public and or development community at large.
o Staff tentatively met with McKinney Economic Development Corporation's Development Advocacy Group to solicit feedback on January 7, 2015.
o Staff will then bring the draft ordinance amendments back to a joint meeting between the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission on January 26, 2015 for any last minute feedback before starting the adoption proceedings.
o It is anticipated that Council's approval could come as early as March or April of 2015.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
· The Architectural and Site Standards section of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 146-139 of the Code of Ordinances, was originally adopted in May of 2000 and has not been significantly updated since that time, with the exception of design requirements for multi-family residential uses which were updated in 2013.
· In August of 2009, Council Member Day expressed concerns about the existing Architectural and Site Standards and requested amendments. Staff worked with the Development Community, City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission and McKinney Economic Development Corporation's Development Advocacy Group between 2010 and 2012 to draft significant amendments to this section but the City Council ultimately decided to abandon these efforts due to a lack of consensus.