The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council-Agenda Packets-4/6/2011~,~ r City of Colleyville 100 Main Street o~~ ~~,~,~~ ~~~'~~~o,G'~ Colleyville, Texas 76034 Age nda 817. 503.1000 ~,.,K,;,.. www.col leyvil le.com Joint City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission and Architectural Review Commission Worksession Wednesday, April 6, 2011 6:00 PM Central Fire Station 5209 Colleyville Boulevard 1. Call to Order 2. Presentation and Discussion 2a Discussion of commercial development and design standards and possible amendments to the Land Development Code, Chapter 6-Building Design Attachments: 2a briefing Surrounding City Comparisons of Commercial Design Standards American City and County Magazine Artide Staff Explanation of Original Building Design Standards Building Design Standards-Current Design Examples 3. Adjournment I hereby certify the above agenda was posted on the bulletin boards at City Hall on Friday, April 1, 2011, by 5:00 p.m. Cynthia Singleton, TRMC, CMC City Secretary Any matter on this agenda may, at the discretion of the governing body, be opened for public comment and discussion. If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special accommodations, please advise the City Secretary at least 48 hours in advance at 817.503.1133, and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you. City of Colleyville Page 1 Printed on 4/1/2011 R:~'~',5:..+~~~ J~ p ~~ ~~ f~~ I~6q~ ~mm ~ , City of Colleyville Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 817. 503.1000 www.colleyville.com File Number: Version: 1 Requester: Community Development Department File Type: Presentation and Discussion Agenda Date: 04/06/2011 Agenda No.: 2a Status: Presentation and Discussion Controlling Body: Joint City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission and Architectural R evi ew Commission Worksession Final Action: File Name: Discussion of commercial development and design standards and possible amendments to the Land Development Code, Chapter 6-Building Design Attachments: Surrounding City Comparisons of Commercial Design Standards • American City and County Magazine Article • Staff Explanation of Original Building Design Standards • Building Design Standards-Current Design Examples History of Legislative File Version: Date: Acting Body: Action Text: 04/06/2011 Joint City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission and Architectural Review Commission Worksession Title Discussion of commercial development and design standards and possible amendments to the Land Development Code, Chapter 6-Building Design Explanation At the February 15, 2011 Pre Council meeting, City Council advised staff to hold a joini worksession with the Planning and Zoning Commission and Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to discuss possible amendments to Chapter 6-Building Design in the Land Development Code. The purpose of this worksession is to review and discuss those proposed amendments and their relationship to the broader commercial development standards in the Land Development Code. Colleyville first adopted specific citywide commercial design requirements in 1995 and the regulations have remain unchanged. Staff is proposing changes that will enhance the current regulations while adding new regulations that address current deficiencies, as the City continues to edge closer to buildout. Attached to this briefing is a document created by City of Colleyville Page 1 Printed on 4/1/2011 Apenda Briefinp Continued City staff in 1995 that explains and illustrates the current design standards, along with an article published in American City and County magazine in 1997 that reports on these standards. City staff began the process of reviewing the current building design standards by convening a group of Colleyville citizens who are architects. In conjunction with City staff, the group met several times this past fall and formulated some proposed conceptual changes to Chapter 6. Staff took those changes into account in drafting the proposed mark-ups attached to this briefing. The proposed changes are summarized as follows: Building Design: The building design section of the regulation currently contains five design sections: (1) Facade Articulation Variables - This rule gives points for breaking long facades by a variation in the buildings surface. (2) Vertical Departure Variables - This rule gives points for breaking walls in the vertical plane such as providing roof slopes. (3) Shade Coverage Variables - Points are awarded in this category for building facades that have projections or other features that provide building shadows that visually break up long flat building facades. Examples include awnings and covered patios and entryways. (4) Horizontal and Diagonal Roof Planes Variables - These include decorative features, roof or wall designs like parapet breaks, ridges, eaves, etc. that provide added visual interest. (5) Fenestration Variables - Doors, windows and other framed building openings help to break up the "bleak" look of a long bland wall. Points are given for the amount of openings in a building surface. Staff proposes removing the vertical departure section altogether. This section awards points primarily based on roof pitch. The other four sections would remain but would be limited to a maximum of 10 points each where there is currently no point limit per each section. This would require building design to be more balanced in meeting the other four design sections. A new section has also been proposed called Environmentally Friendly and Sustainable Design. This section would allow up to 10 points if the building was to be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified. LEED is an internationally recognized green building certification system, providing third-party verification that buildings are designed and built using strategies intended to improve performance in metrics such as energy savings, water efficiency, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts. The addition of this section also adheres to the strategic plan objective to "be an environmental leader in Tarrant County" under the strategic goal of "brand Colleyville with a unique identity". City of Colleyville Page 2 Printed on 4/1/2011 Apenda Briefinp Continued Lastly, the proposed changes would require all buildings, both institutional and commercial , to adhere to the requirements of the chapter regardless of zoning district with a minimum design score requirement of 30 for all buildings. Prior to City Council consideration of these amendments, staff will add graphical representations to Chapter 6 that illustrate the five sections above, similar to illustrations in other chapters of the Land Development Code, thereby making the chapter more user friendly. Building Material and Color Requirements: This section seeks to add new regulations and enhance existing regulations. Colleyville currently has exterior material requirements in the Fire Code, which requires a minimum of 75 percent of the exterior wall of a building to be constructed of masonry. The proposed regulations would raise the percentage to 100 percent. New color requirements are also proposed, as none currently exist. These requirements would essentially require all exterior building materials to contain natural earth tones that complement the local natural environment while discouraging bright pastel colors. This section also contains a provision that would require all existing buildings to meet the new color requirements when they are repainted or altered, thereby eliminating the possibility that an existing building be painted with a bright pastel color, such as fuchsia or purple, with no City enforcement authority. Variance Procedures and Architectural Review Commission: Currently, the variance procedure for Chapter 6 requires a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, whose decision is final. Given the formation of the ARC at the January 19, 2011 City Council meeting, staff proposes utilizing the commission as an advisory body to the City Council with regard to variances to Chapter 6. The ARC would meet to review a variance request and then, similar to the Planning and Zoning Commission, forward a recommendation to the City Council for final consideration of the variance request. The ARC would also be available to help applicants with plan formulation that complies with Chapter 6 or issue official opinions that could be utilized in bringing forward future rezoning requests for City Council consideration with regard to building design. Staff also intends to create a Colleyville commercial design style manual with assistance from the ARC that would simply be a"recommended guidelines" document with color graphics and pictures of buildings and style elements that best represent the intent of the new Chapter 6 regulations. These would not be required guidelines and would not be part of the Land Development Code. Rather, this document would be given to developers and architects as an assistive document to better help them design buildings that are true to the intent of Chapter 6. Based on discussion at this worksession, staff may conduct additional research and/or bring forward future amendments to the Land Development Code for review and consideration. City of Colleyville Page 3 Printed on 4/1/2011 Surrounding City Comparisons of Commercial Design Standards North Colleyville Keller Grapevine Southlake Richland Hurst Bedford Euless Hills Has Specific Commercial Design In overlay districts Yes Yes Historic Districts only Yes Yes In overlay districts only No Standards? on~y Descriptive standards Descriptive standards and specific styles and specific styles Prescriptive based on based on overlay Prescriptive, Prescriptive, based on overlay urban Design Standards Type architectural design Descriptive standards as None for new urban design plan. All written written design plan. All new N/A illustrated in master plan commercial formula newstructures standards standards structuresrequire require separate separate Council Council approval. approval. Exterior Requirements 75% Masonry 75% Masonry 70% Masonry 80% masonry 100% gp~ 100% in overlay 100% districts only Yes. Yes. In overlay districts Fluorescent Yes. In overlay only. Earth tones Color Standards No Yes. No fluorescent Yes, for historic districts only. Earth colors No recommended. No No colors allowed structures only prohibited. tones recommended fluorescent colors Earth tones allowed encouraged process Urban Revitalization: Site plan point system helps standardize review process May 1, 1997 12:00 PM Site plan approval is sometimes a highly subjective process, one in which politics can come into play. In an effort to standardize the process and help ensure a stable urban growth pattern, Colleyville, Texas has adopted a scoring system for its commercial building district. Colleyville, a suburb in the Dallas-Ft. Worth metro area, is a primarily residential community developed in heavily landscaped subdivisions with homes ranging in value from $300,000 to over $1 million. Its residents enj oy one of the lowest tax rates in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Because Colleyville is surrounded by other cities, space available for development is scarce, leaving little room for trial and error. Sq rather than depend on the commercial real estate market to build asset value into development sites, the council studied the capital improvement and growth management needs of the State Highway 26 corridor where most of the commercial and industrial properties are located. According to Doug Henderson, Colleyville's community development manager, the city strove to prevent words lilce appropriate, harmonious, compatible and attractive from getting into its draft ordinance. Rather, the city decided it needed an ordinance incorporating architectural standards written in concrete algebraic terms. This is because front yards, lot sizes, floor area ratios, the percentage of masonry constniction and various other measurable zoning standards have been in place in American cities for decades and rarely face court challenges. Moreover, Colleyville has had measurable tree preservation, site planning and landscaping ordinances on the boolcs for years with no major problems. The city council aclcnowledged in adopting its ordinance that it is difficult to quantify or regulate some subjective design aspects such as color or the "loolc" of a building. However, other design features with general community acceptance can be defined so as to discourage a"featureless redundancy," says Henderson. The council determined that future maintenance will require a stable tax base resulting from the preservation of high property values in every commercial and residential neighborhood. With that in mind, the council adopted its Design District Worlcsheet as part of the site plan application paclcage mhtml:file://M:~Ron Ruthven\General Documents\Urban Revitalization Site plan point sys... 8/25/2010 Urban Revitalization: Site plan point system helps standardize review process Page 2 of 3 submitted along with landscaping, parlcing and civil engineering drawings for review by city staff prior to issuance of building permits. In the design model, points are given for horizontal and vertical changes in a building fa$ade, for use of proj ections or other features that create shade, and for providing interesting design features, roof slopes or wall openings. Architectural designers can generate points in any of the five categories, and even ignore some of the categories if they wish. Each project requires a minimum number of total points for approval, but there is no point minimum for any one of the five factors. This performance-based system allows more creative freedom than systems that require comnuttee review, says Henderson. Builders also appreciate the fact that there is no architectural review board to slow down the process. The practical obj ective of the ordinance is to enhance visual interest in a building's appearance from the street as well as to encourage more aesthetically pleasing designs. Enforcement of the Design District ordinance means property owners in both residential and commercial districts need not worry about what vacant lots will loolc lilce in a few years, says Henderson. Fifteen projects have been approved since adoption of the ordinance. For more information, contact Colleyville Community Development Manager poug Henderson, (817) 577-7587. A~~~~a~~1a1~ ~J~~ Pali~v .. ..~ ..~ .. ..~ Aclcl Ne~~~ Comment Sho~~~ing 0 comments Sortbv Populal' noW ,~"~:~ Subscribe b~~ einiil ~,~ Subscribe b~~ RSS bloq mhtml:file://M:~Ron Ruthven\General Documents\Urban Revitalization Site plan point sys... 8/25/2010 Staff Explanation of Original Building Design Standards r~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ -~~"~, .~~~~ ~... .~: ~ ~ ~ ' ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ,.,~....~ ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES For the CITY OF COLLEYVILLE COMMERCIAL DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT As adopted by ORDINANCE 0-95-1013 Community Development Department Febniary 19, 1996 COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DESIGN DISTRICT ORDINANCE PURPO.S'E of THLS' BOOKLET.• This booldet is designed to give the reader an idea of how the commercial building design regtilations in the Colleyville Zoning Ordinance worlc in practice. Included are the following: • Goals and Objectives of the ordinance. • Summary of the Rules and a general description of how the factors are calculated. • Illustrations and Photos of typical buildings in Colleyville (the last illustration is a building in Colleyville contrasted with one in the same chain from outside Colleyville.) • Section 24.17 of the Zoning Ordinance which is formatted in "worksheet" fashion. (Exhibit I- Ordinance 0-95-1013), along with some helpful instnictional illustrations. GOALS' & OBJECTIVES': The goal of Section 24.17 of the Colleyville Zoning Ordinance is to provide a method to create better design for commercial buildings in Colleyville. The Colleyville Boulevard Corridor Plan, approved in 1994, recommended several ways that the built environment along the Boulevard might be improved. The ultimate design of anything is an artistic expression, and is therefore subjective in nature. Subjective factors such as color, the "loolc" of building, etc. cannot be quantified or easily regulated. However, some design features with general community acceptance can be defined and this ordinance will go a long way towards discouraging a featureless redundancy. With the realization that total aesthetic agreement within the community is not lilcely, the practical objective of the ordinance is to encourage visual interest in a building's appearance from the street. At the same time, these guidelines should be encouraging more thoughtful, aesthetically pleasing solutions. The regulatory concept is to calculate design points for five different aspects of a building's design. The five design niles or factors summarized below are fashioned to give a developer / architect some flexibility in achieving the minimum number of total points for a particular building. There is no minimum for any of the five factors. S'UMMARY OF RULES': The Design District Worksheet for Section 24.17 is a part of the site plan application paclcage presented to the Community Development staff long with landscaping, parlcing and civil engineering drawings for review prior to building permit review. The scoring system is designed to achieve a simple minimum number as low as 15 in the ML (Manufacturing) District to a high of 30 in the CC-1 (Village Retail) District. This score will be calculated during the normal site plan review process. The niles are divided into five categories designed to rp event long, uninteresting facades. Points are given for changing the plane of a building fa~ade, for providing contrast with shade, or providing interesting design features, roof slopes or wall openings. Since most designs would not score enough points from one category, the objective for the building designer is to gain sufficient points in several categories to achieve the minimum number for the particular zoning district. The categories are: A. FA~ADE ARTICULATION VARIABLES: This nile gives points for brealcing long facades by a variation in the buildings surface. B. VERTICAL DEPARTURE VARIABLES: This nile gives points for brealcing walls in the vertical such as providing roof slopes. C. SHADE COVERAGE VARIABLES: Points are awarded in this category for building facades that have projections or other features that provide building shadows that visually break up long flat building facades. D. HORIZONTAL & DIAGONAL ROOF PLANES VARIABLES: Decorative features, roof or wall designs lilce parapets, ridges, eaves, etc. that provide visual interest will gain a small number of points, but can be useful to the designer as a tool to get the points needed. E. FENESTRATION VARIABLES: Doors, windows and other framed building openings help to break up the "bleak" look of a long bland wall. Points are given for the amount of openings in a building surface. City of Colleyville Commercial Design District The Commercial Design District is just one product of a strategic planning process, which itself is the product of a citizen driven master planning process. Colleyville is primarily a residential community, developed in heavily landscaped subdivisions with homes ranging from $300,000 to $1,000,000 and more. Because of high residential values, Colleyville's tax payers currently enjoy one of the lowest tax rates in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. There is good reason to worry about the future, though. A study of typical urban growth patterns indicates that future maintenance of the still maturing City is going to require a stable tax base, resulting from the preservation of high property values in every commercial and residential neighborhood. Since Colleyville is completely surrounded by other cities, the finite space that is left must be thoughtfully planned, particularly the commercial areas, which will cover only about 10 percent of City's land area at full buildout. That means there is little room for trial and error development, or a blind dependency on the commercial real estate market to build asset value into development sites. The first step in talcing control of the community's economic future was to study the capital improvement and growth management needs of the State Highway 26 (Colleyville Boulevard) corridor where most of Colleyville's commercial properties are found. The 1994 Colleyville Boulevard Corridor Plan identified the need for architectural control in the commercial corridor as one method of building community asset value. Soon after that, the staff began researching the two sides of the ongoing debate regarding the legislation of aesthetics. Colleyville ignored ordinance models using words lilce appropriate, harmonious, compatible and attractive. Though effective in older communities with cultural identities to protect, such vague ordinances are difficult to defend in most cities. Front yards, lot sizes, floor area ratios, and a wide variety of "normal" measurable zoning standards have been in place in American cities for most of this century. Many cities also regtilate the percentage of masonry constniction, clearly a measurable form of architectural controL Measurable tree preservation, site planning and landscaping ordinances have been worlcing in Colleyville for several years. Since these lcinds of ordinances rarely face court challenges, it is logical to assume that an architectural standards ordinance written in concrete algebraic terms should be viable. The Design District Worlcsheet adopted by Ordinance 0-95-1013 is a part of the site plan application paclcage submitted along with landscaping, parlcing and civil engineering drawings for review prior to building permits. The design model is short but detailed, and architects are happy because of the creative freedom it provides. Commercial builders are happy because there is no architectural review board to slow down the process. This success has also begun to attract the attention of other cities in the region where development professionals wonder why such ordinances are so uncommon. Section 24.17 of the Zoning Ordinance City of Colleyville Regtilating Buildings within the Commercial Design District as adopted by Ordinance 0-95-1013 It shall be the duty of the Community Development Director to calculate the design score for all buildings in the Commercial Design District as part of the building permit and site planning process using Subsections A through G below as a design calculation worlc sheet. Commercial Building Design Factors Work Sheet A. Fa~ade Articulation Variables L= Length in feet of building perimeter visible from the street. ft. 2. F= Length of the longest horizontal straight section of the exterior fa~ade visible from the street. ft. In order to determine that any two horizontal straight sections of wall in the same plane are separate walls: a. There shall be an intervening physical separation of space or other wall sections which separate the two subj ect walls by not less than three feet. b. The average off-set distance of the intervening space and/or wall section shall be not less than one foot from the subj ect plane. c. The total perimeter beam length of the intervening space and/or wall section shall not be less than five feet. d. Materials used within the intervening separation may not be identical to materials used in more that one of the two same plan test sections. e. Any two or more same-plane wall sections which do not meet all of the requirements of Paragraphs a, b and c above shall be determined to be part of one complete wall section. 3. A= Articulation ratio or L = F 4. Kcc= Articulation Score = A x 2= ~~'~9"R,~ "~ ~:~~~a~~ ~.~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~"~SC~L.~ ~!~M s'~~~.. (~rw~ w~a. r~~~~° v~~~~a~~ ~ ~ ~~~ • ~~~ • ~a~ ~ ~~p~ . ~~~,~ ~ ~~~~ ( ~~otdN p~~m~n~t~r ~ri~~~i~~ ~c~tm sitir~a~~~ ~'~ ~~ge~r4 t~~~i:a~~~N ~r~ugi!~ ~eu~fifa ~! ~'mar~t'pr r~i~~~1lt~ ~am~ ~9h~ ~a~~ ( a~r 1~~ ~¢~r~a~~o r~~w~ns. ~' ~ ~m ~ ~~~~~ ~ Fz~C~ ~'~ta / r~2c p"~~ ~q ~~ fi&~' ~ ~I ~b ~ Y ~~~~k rS~Awa~+» 1!~ Pa~t ~' ~ '~~' i ~d~'Rr~~^r #~ k~ C~+n~ ~a~~a w~4' ~era~N~rtii. ~ ~~~ ~~ B. Vertical Departure Variables P= Total surface area of a projection of all surfaces visible from the street and which are relative to the four vertical planes of an imaginary cube which would enclose the building. s.f. 2. R= Total surface area of a proj ection of all sloping or vertical departure surfaces of the building relative to the four vertical planes of an imaginary cube which would enclose the building. s.f. For the purpose of the calculation of "R": a. Buildings with principal wall sections which are generally rectangtilar must be aligned so that principal wall sections are parallel to a face of the test cube. b. Only those surfaces which slope at an angle of not less than 15 degrees nor more than 75 degrees from the vertical plane may be included in this area calculation. c. Circular, convex or concave regular surfaces which are offset at the central point of the curve by not less than one foot from the vertical surface and have a central angle of not less than 60 degrees may also be included. d. Q= Number of test cube vertical surface projections (1,2,3 or 4) visible from the street. 3. V= Vertical departure ratio or R= P 4. Kv= Vertical Departure Score = 10 x V= C. Shade Coverage Variables S'= Total covered but unenclosed stnictural exterior area attached to the building as measured in square feet on a horizontal plane. s.f. a. The floor area of covered exterior balconies may be included. Attached canopies, porches, verandas, and other shade oriented stnictural design features may also be included. b. Each vertical opening into the shaded area must be framed on the top and sides by stnictural building materials with a cross sectional area parallel to the face of the opening which is equal in the aggregate to not less than 20 percent of the surface area of the opening. c. The area under detached canopies shall be excluded. 2. G= Total area of the interior ground floor of the building. s.f. 3. C= Shade coverage ratio or S' _ G 4. Kc= Shade Score = 100 x C= ~~~~~~ ~ l~'~~~rar~ ~1' ~ I ~;' ~ ~,, ~~~"~vr~~~~l 1~~~ ~a~r~r~r~u~~~a~~ ~~~~~' ~~ ~"=i~~~°°"" " c~,~~ ~~ ~n: ~nuA°~ e~sv~po~~ rruna ~E k~~ ~rr~;u~ t 5 u~caa:c~~~; ~rrK.~ ~r~~~ ptl~ce~n ~~da~~s~~~ 9r~rrr~ ~h~s v~r~~:~,~ a~~ti. au„~:~? ~'~Ub~M~~+ Ch7i~ v~La4~~C~ i~ i~~ r.arwV~lc~vw~~,~ ~~B,~~V~~am~~r ~ r~~ret~~~~~ ~~er~~~~~ ~r~j~agvtdr,:an D. Horizontal and Diagonal Roof Planes Variables 1. F= "F" as previously calculated in subsection A(2) above. ~% ofF= 2. E= Total visible horizontal and diagonal eave planes, ridge planes and/or parapet top planes on the building. For t he purpose of this paragraph: a. Two eaves in the same horizontal plane but which are separated by not less than 5 percent of "F" shall be considered separate planes. b. Two parapets in the same horizontal plane but which are separated by not less than 5 percent of "F" shall be considered separate planes. c. A parapet with a wall length of less than 5 percent of "F" shall be considered a crenellation and shall not be counted as a parapet. d. For every five crenellations, regardless of elevation, one equivalent plane may be added to the calculation of total planes. In lilce manner, one crenellation shall equal 02 horizontal/diagonal planes. e. For an eave, canopy or mansard which overhangs the vertical surface of the building by not less than 18 inches, one plane shall be counted for the outer edge of the eave and one plane shall be counted at the intersection of the eave and the wall. £ One plane shall be counted for each diagonal ridge or edge of a sloped roof and, if the edge is also an eve which overhangs the wall by not less than 18 inches it shall be counted as two planes. g. For mansards which wrap around a building corner, planes shall not be counted as separate unless there are actual changes in elevation. h. Two parapet tops which intersect at 90 degrees in the same horizontal plane shall be counted as separate planes. 3. Q= Total # of test cube surfaces visible from the street as identified in subsection B(2)(d) above. 4. H= Horizontal / Diagonal Planes Ratio or E _ ~ 5. Kh= Horizontal / Diagonal Planes Score = H if total floor area is less than 50,000 s.£ For floor area greater than or equal to 50,000 s.£, "Kh" shall be not more than 10 points. ~'~~~~ 7 ~~~~~,~~, i~~~ ~ ~•~::~ "~ "~"~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~,~~ ~ ' ""~^~:.s ""•~ '~~ .-~„.~ ~u~ ~ w~wws rr ^~~r~~~s s~u~su~ ~ ~ w'"°.'~,.~;.~ ~~~"~ a~arar~i~aa~r~a~V~irw~ ,~~~ac~r~d~~alr~nwr~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~.~, ,, ",~~, r~.;;~„, y~ r~aw~ .~r~a~n Arwn i~~ ~~aa^irr~ ~ylrars~ . +~ zrr"~" ",~t~~'.-.~ r' ~'~iarwr~n ~~~ ~!i~a~ +~Cx~qri"sr~ ~rr~A~¢a~6.. ~ m . ~~~~~~ ~ E. Fenestration Variables W= Total number of windows, doors, and other openings into the stnicture through which light may pass. For the purpose of this paragraph each opening must be framed on the sides, top and/or bottom by stnictural building materials with a surface area equal in the aggregate to not less than 50 percent of the surface area of the opening. 2. Q= As previously calculated in subsection B(2)(d) above. 3. N= Fenestration Ratio = W = ~ 4. Kn= Fenestration Score = N if total floor area is less than 50,000 s.f. For floor area greater than or equal to 50,000 s.f. "Kn" shall be not more than 10 points. F. G. Total Design Score: Kt = Ka + Kv + Kc + Kh + Kn = Minimum Design Scores (Kt) by Zoning District Zone - CN CPO CC1 CC2 CC3 ML Score- 25 25 30 25 20 15 H. An applicant for a permit to constnict a building which does not meet the minimum design score in Subsection G above may present an appeal of the building design to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Community Development Director may also present an appeal of a proposed design to the Commission or request an interpretation of a particular design gtiideline. Following a review of an alternate design the Planning and Zoning Comnussion shall have the authority to find that the fa~ade, horizontal / diagonal planes, fenestration, vertical departures and shade oriented design features of the alternate design meet the intent of Commercial Design District guidelines. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be final. BUILDING DESIGN CHECKLIST All bizildings constrizcted in non-residential zoning districts mizst meet the minimizm architectizral design standards contained in Chapter 6 of the Land Development Code. All bizildings constrizcted mizst meet the design reqczirements of the zoning district in which the bizilding is located. The score is based on an evalization of the following criteria: fa~ade articizlation, sloping roofs and sczrfaces, shade coverage, horizontal and diagonal roof planes, and fenestration. The applicant is encoizraged to meet with Commiznity Development Department staff or obtain a copy of the ColleWille Bizilding Design Booklet. A. Facade Articulation Variables: 1. L= Length in feet of building perimeter visible from the sT~-eet. ft. 2. F= Length of longest horizontal sT~aight section of the e~terior facade visible from the sT~-eet. ft. 3. A= Articula~ion ra~io = L/ F = 4. Iia = Articula~ion Score = A x 2=( ). B. Vertical Departure Variables: 1. P= Total surface area of a projection of all sui-faces visible from the sT~eet and ~~~hich are relative to the four vertical planes of an imaginaiv cube ~~~hich ~~~ou1d enclose the building s.f. 2. R= Total sui-face area of a projec~ion of all sloping or ver~ical departure surfaces of the building rela~ive to the four vertical planes of an imaginaiv cube ~~~hich ~~~ou1d enclose the building s.f. 3. Y'= Vertical departure ratio = R/P = 4. Iiv = Vertical Departure Score = 10 x Y' _( ). C. Shade Coverage Variables L S= Total covered but unenclosed sT~uctural e~terior area attached to the building as measured in square feet on a horizontal plane. s.f. 2. G= Total area of the interior gaound floor of the building. s.f. 3. C= Shade coverage ra~io or S/ G= 4. Iic = Shade Coverage Score = 100 x C=( ). D. Horizontal and Diagonal Roof Planes Variables: 1. Z= Crenellation spacing factor ="F" as previouslv calculated in subsection A(2) above X 5% __ 2. E= Total visible horizontal and diagonal eave planes, ridge planes and/or parapet top planes on the building = 3. Q= Total number of test cube vertical sui-face projec~ions (1,2,3 or 4) visible from the sT~eet as identi~ied in subsection B(2)(d) of Ordinance 0-95-1013. (see design bool:let). No. of test faces = 4. H= Horizontal / Diagonal Planes Ratio of E/Q = E_ / Q= _ 5. h7e = Horizontal / Diagonal Planes Score = Hif total floor area is less than 50,000 s.f. For floor area greater than or equal to 50,000 s.f. h7e shall be not more than 10 points ( ). E. Fenestration Variables: 1. W= Total ~~~indo~~~s, doors, and other openings into the sT~ucture through ~~~hich lightmay pass = 2. Q= As previously calculated in subsectionD(3) above 3. N= FenesT~ation Ratio = W/ Q= 4. Ii~c = FenesT~a~ion Score = Nif total floor area is less than 50,000 s.f. For floor area gaeater than or equal to 50,000 s.f., Ii~c shall be not more than 10 points ( ). F. Total Design Score: Kt=( )+( )+( )+( )+( )_ _ Kt = Iia + Iiv + Iic + Ii7r + Ii~r = Total score G. Minimum Design Scores (Kt ) by~ Zoiung Dishict: Zone: CN CPO CC1 CC2 CC3 ML Score: 25 25 30 25 20 30 COMMERCIAL BUILDING DESIGN ILLUSTRATION - A ~-------~ /~ - ~ r., - . _~,, ...__ ~~ r~ - `.,. , FRONT ELEVATION ;,: I r -..,. Nw...n ..~w, .:.:.r.,-~ BUILDING FOOTPRINT i-•.w~«. ~...r...~ . . 1Mf V ~e(t'K C~~MM4'.,~ «P ~M~~MW ~~ ti.n.~...I....~ -~-~,( ,~ -~c> >~- - --' - •- - ~. _ ;~ ` -- -- - _ -- --• -- ~~~'r~ ~~ `,~ ~ ~'~ • ~. . ~ i ~ ~ ~ y ~ L ~ ~I~~. ~~~~ '~u . ~. ...~~~ r~• ~ STREET FRONT ~+ LEFT SIDE (NORTHWES~ & RIGHT SIDE (SOUTHEAST - NOT SHOWN) ELEVATIONS PROJECT: Columbia HCA Medical Office Building // 4301 Brown Trail SCORING: NOTES: ZONING DIST. = CC-1 - Village Retail * score required = 30 points A Facade Articulation: 25.88 pts. * multiple comer breaks on all sides B. Vertical Departure: 6.20 pts. * residential style sloped roof C. Shade Coverage: 4.00 pts. * several porticos on all visible sides D: Horizontal Planes: 17.30 pts. * multiple roof planes E. Fenestration: 16.60 pts. * multiple window and door openings TOTAL POINTS: 69.98 points APPROVED DISAPPROVED COMMENTS: This building scored very high and is approved because of the sloped roof and the many porticos and window and door openings. These features break up the building wall planes providing for much visual relief. Even though the building is long and design features are somewhat repetitive, the end result is an attractive, visually appealing facade that is very comnatible with Colleyville architecture. ts~~~~~~~•h«~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~~"~ ~~~.~r~l~ ~~°~a~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~C~~~ I~~~~ ~~ ~~~N~~~~IN~ ~~~, ~ ~~'~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~"~. ~ ~~~~°~ _ '~~NI~~~ ~~t~~~ ~ ~~~~r~ r~~~Mr~~ ~ '~~ ~~~~°u~~ ~~°~ ~~~ ~~~~~a~~~w~~: ~ ~.~~~ ~~~. ~ ~~r~~ ~~~~a~ ~~~r ~~~~/~ ~i~~~i~u~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ,. ~~ ~'~~~, ~ ~ '~~~~~!~~~~w ~.~~ , ~~~. ~ G'~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ r~~w~~~~ r~~~1i~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~. ~~~~~ ~~~~~r~~~°: ~~.~:~ ~~~, ~ ~~~°~~~ ~r°~~~ p,~r~i',~~ ~~~h ~~~~ ~~V~a~~~ ~~~~~or~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~9~~~~~. ~,~~~ ~~~. ~ ~~~6-~~~f ~~r~p~~~ ~~~ r~~fi~'ur~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~, ~"~~~~~~~~C~~~ ~.~R~ ,~t~. ~ ~~~~{'~~~~r~~°~ ~~~r~i~~~ ~~t~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~d~~~~~ ~` ~ ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"~~ ~~ "~~ .4~ ~~u~w~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~,~~ ~~~~~ ~~.~~~~~'~~ ~a~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ I~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~,»~~ ~@'~'~ ~~~'~~~ '~~~',"~ I~~~"~~a~~~l~ ~~~ ~ . : ~. ... ~ i ~ ..~.. ~. i I .. ~ . ~ ~ ~~~ ,, i .. ~ '. ,...~ . ~ . ~ ~.. :. ~~. i ~w sawrar aa° ~ a+~a,~^ ~~",~ .~,.~,~, ~ .....,~ »... ,~.m. * ,. .. °'."'.~ m„ rv.r ~a +w ""' ~.,.,~',~". ~a"LC~Q:~~~~~~ ~J~E"~,7' ~~m ~.._. ~ m_ . ~~~.. ~ ~~~~~~°~ ~~~~ ~~~~"~"~~~ ~ ~~~~~~° ~lG~~ ~I~~~~'~ ~ ~~~" ~~&~~~~ ~~~~~~"l~~4~ ~~~9~~~:~ ~ ~.~~~~_~1._1_9 . ~._o _; ° ~ ,~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ .,,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ,~_ _. ~~. ~~ .~~ ..~.. m.,_.,~..___..~...~ ~.,:~~ ~ ~w~ ~ r~s~~ ~t~t~~~~'~ ~~~~~~~~~~"' ~ ~.,..~.. ~ . mm..~ ~ w ._.w~. ~~C~P~~` ~~~~~~1"'1~~' ~ ~~ ~ ~ «~ ~"~w I~N~~~~~s:~'~~r "~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ 1~~ ~~r~~ ~a~ C~k~~~ ~~a~~ ~ ,~,_ .~..~.m_ ~u~, ~ _:.. ~~ "~ "~ ~ ~~~~~" „ ~~.~~ ~~~r°~t~ ~~M~ ~~~~ I~~~~~~"~~~`~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~.t~~ ~~,~~ ~~L~N' 7° ~,~°~~~~ ~ ~ ~(~~q.~ ~~~r~~~~ ~~~r~-~~ ~~e~r~~rd~r~ ~°~w~~~ ~N~~ ~.~.~~r~,ri,~r~ ~~~~~ ~~a~~ ~i~e~~ ~~~~~~~~~° ~~~~tak~n Wa~itl~ ~:~~rr~~:~~r°~y ~~ai9r,~ir~c~ ~P ~~~1 ~~i~~~^~ill~ BG~r~. ~ ~~~~~~°~~~ ~~~F~~: ~~ ~~~~1~~"T" ~~~~,~: ~~~ ~_ a ~~ ,~" ~-...~. w~~~._._.~,~.. _ .~.~.....~.....~.___.~~..~..~.._.~~.~....~. _~ .~.~ ~..~_~_~~~_~_..m.~,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~i ~, ~~.~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~u~~~~° ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~r~~;~~~ ~=~~~~ ~~.~r~~~~~~ ~~~r~~~. ~~~~ ~~~~~~~A~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~r~~~~ ~~~__.__ ~~~;~~~~~~": C~-G.µ~1 ~"9~~~i~~, Rr~c,. ~uwl~ir~~ /! ~~~4 ~~Il~~vill~ E~I~~. &~~~~99~~~ ~~~N~'~: ~~ ~T~~~~~~" ~~~F~~: ~,, °;~„ ~ ~~ I ~~~ ~'~~~~~,. ~~~L~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~.~.~~~"~~~"~~~ ~ ~ ~~L ~~~~~°~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~'~~~ ~«:~~-~~' ~ur~c ~~~~~~~~~r~ ~._. ~, ~.. W ~ . ~~~~~I~~°~". E~~~a1~w^~~~rvd ~~~ir'r~~i }~~s~u~~i ~~.~~I~~ii~~~ BB ~4~~ ~~Ml~y~nil~ ~I^~~~~~, EF~~4~~~~~~~':~ ~~~~~r~::4 ~6~ I~~~J~;~~'° ~a~«~F"~'~~ ~ ~~. ~~'` COMMERCIAL BUILDING DESIGN ILLUSTRATION - J(CC-2 District) COLLEYVILLE BLVD. FRONT ELEVATION PROJECT: Kroger Grocery Building // 4904 Colleyville Blvd. REQUIRED SCORE: 25 PROJECT SCORE: 36.31