Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2013

Home

Review File: McDonalds Site Plan Review December 28, 2012 Page 3 of 6 Development Plan 6.1, neither the building front nor the main entrance faces the public road. However, the intention of the COR TWO plat was to function more as a campus setting with the buildings fronting the private drive serving each of the three lots. As proposed though, it appears that the rear elevation of the building fronts Sunwood Drive with the front elevation (as noted on the submitted elevations) facing the south (toward Lot 3 Block 1 COR TWO) rather than the private drive; although there is an entrance to the building on the east wall that is facing the private drive. As stated previously, City Staff is working to prepare an exhibit that visualizes traffic patterns and conflict points to supplement the written text submitted. City Staff feels this shall be an important component to assist the Planning Commission and City Council in fully understanding the proposal as submitted. Color, three-dimensional renderings were subsequently submitted showing an architecturally enhanced north (rear) wall (windows) facing Sunwood Drive. Again, it is assumed that the orientation of the building and floor plan, as well as the drive-thru configuration, is the result of the business model and efficiencies related to food preparation and service, and City Staff generally supports these assumptions. However, Staff would recommend that you prepare an exhibit that shows why alternative configurations for the building/drive-thru orientation (facing Sunwood Dr and facing the `campus' center) cannot be implemented and why the floor plan could not be mirrored or flipped' from its present layout. This exhibit should also include turning/maneuvering patterns and the potential points of conflict accompanied with a narrative outlining the specific design constraints that are not only driving the proposed orientation but also why alternative orientations are not feasible. Note that if no other orientation is possible, the north (rear) wall of the building must be architecturally enriched to enhance the street view at one of the major gateways into the COR. City Staff acknowledges that you have enhanced the architecture of this facade, and appreciates the additional work that has been completed thus far. The applicant should be prepared to expand on and demonstrate why the building/drive-thru orientation must be as proposed and why alternative configurations are not feasible at the Planning Commission meeting, both in terms of building orientation and floor plan. Building Height: The COR -2 Subdistrict allows for building heights between one (1) and four (4) stories. The proposed building is a single story with a flat roof and parapet wall. Per correspondence from Landform, dated December 20, 2012, all mechanical equipment will be located on the roof and screened from pedestrian view by a parapet wall that is incorporated into the building design. Maximum Structure Area: The COR -2 Subdistrict does not have maximum building coverage or minimum floor area ratio requirements. Setbacks: While the COR -2b Subdistrict requires build -to lines, the Development Plan is the driver for building placement. Within the COR -2b Subdistrict, the currently approved Development Plan (version 6.1) depicts all the buildings on the north side of Sunwood Drive setback as far as possible from Sunwood Drive. While the Design Framework does identify build -to requirements, Development Plan 6.1 does also show the building location for Lot 4 Block 1 COR TWO as proposed on the site plan. In an attempt to address the street edge contemplated within the Design Framework, the submittal does include decorative fencing (combination of stone columns and decorative aluminum fencing), which matches what was approved on Lot 5 Block 1 COR TWO (Super America site), to create a street edge along Sunwood Drive. The plans indicate that the decorative fencing will cover forty-two percent (42%) of the street frontage along Sunwood Drive.