|
Title:
|
Consider/Discuss/Act on a Fa?ade Plan Appeal for Retail, Restaurant and Medical Office (Victory at Stonebridge), Located on the Southeast Corner of U.S. Highway 380 (University Drive) and Stonebridge Drive
|
Title
Consider/Discuss/Act on a Fa?ade Plan Appeal for Retail, Restaurant and Medical Office (Victory at Stonebridge), Located on the Southeast Corner of U.S. Highway 380 (University Drive) and Stonebridge Drive
Summary
COUNCIL GOAL: Direction for Strategic and Economic Growth
MEETING DATE: April 25, 2017
DEPARTMENT: Planning
CONTACT: Brian Lockley, Director of Planning, AICP, CPM
Danielle Quintanilla, Planner I
APPROVAL PROCESS: The action of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the proposed Fa?ade Plan Appeal may be appealed to the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed fa?ade plan appeal.
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE: April 6, 2017 (Original Application)
April 11, 2017 (Revised Submittal)
ITEM SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a Fa?ade Plan Appeal to the Architectural Standards Ordinance for Victory at Stonebridge. The proposed elevations for building 1 and building 2 feature elevations that do not strictly conform to the requirements of the architectural standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Facade Plan Appeal is being requested because the proposed elevations:
1. Do not provide a parapet at least one foot taller than the roof-mounted HVAC equipment.
Typically, fa?ade plans can be approved by Staff; however, the applicant is requesting approval of a fa?ade plan appeal, which must be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The fa?ade plan appeal is detailed further below.
COMPLIANCE WITH ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS: The purpose of the architectural standards is to set minimum standards for the appearance of non-residential and multi-family buildings and corresponding site elements, which are recognized as enhancing property values and are in the interest of the general welfare of the City of McKinney. The standards are intended to serve as a baseline for the minimum design expectations of the City. These standards are not intended to prohibit architectural innovation nor are they intended to mandate specific architectural styles and concepts. Rather, they are intended to provide for development of enduring quality that provides visual character and interest.
The proposed elevations do not feature a parapet wall of at least one foot taller than the HVAC equipment in order to screen it from view from the subject property line. As such, the proposed elevations are not in compliance with the architectural standards of the Zoning Ordinance (approved in March of 2015).
Facade plan appeals state that the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following factors in determining the extent of any exception to be granted:
1. The extent to which the application meets other specific standards of this ordinance;
2. The extent to which the application meets the spirit and intent of this chapter through the use of building materials, colors, and fa?ade design to create a building of exceptional quality and appearance;
3. The positive or negative impact of the proposed project on surrounding property use and property values, in comparison to the expected impact of a project which could be built in conformance with the standards of this ordinance;
4. The extent to which the proposed project accomplishes City goals as stated in the Comprehensive Plan or other approved documents; and
5. Convenience to the applicant and/or reasons related to economic hardship shall not be grounds for approval of an application.
The applicant has requested the following variance to the fa?ade plan:
* Do not provide a parapet at least one foot taller than the roof-mounted HVAC equipment.
o The applicant is requesting approval to reduce the required screening height of the roof-mounted HVAC equipment. The applicant has indicated that the height of the HVAC equipment will not extend above the top of the lowest parapet. The lowest parapet will sufficiently screen the HVAC equipment from view of public right-of-way and it is Staff's professional opinion that the equipment is unlikely to be seen at the street level. As such, Staff recommends approval of the fa?ade plan appeal.
IMPACT ON EXISTING DEVELOPMENT: Staff believes the proposed design would have no significant negative impact on existing developments surrounding the subject property.
MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: A Facade Plan Appeal shall not be granted to serve as a convenience to the applicant or for reasons related to economic hardship. Staff believes that this is not the case with the proposed architectural design and Fa?ade Plan Appeal.
OPPOSITION TO OR SUPPORT OF REQUEST: Staff has received no comments or phone calls in support of or in opposition to this request.