Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/14/2024 - Planning Commission - Minutes - RegularPlanning Commission Meeting MINUTES Wednesday, August 14, 2024, 7:00 PM Work Session 6:00PM Regular Session 7:00PM Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street: WORK SESSION 1. Call to Order 2. New Business A. Discussion of items on the August agenda 1. 101 Corporate Blvd - SEP amendment B. Discussion of items on the September agenda 1. Simms Farm - Proffer and condition amendment 2. Code Changes 3. Adjournment Chair King adjourned the meeting at 6:55pm REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order Chair King called the regular session to order at 7:02 pm 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Consent Agenda A. Minutes Consider acceptance of the minutes from the July 10, 2024, work session and regular meeting. Mark Henrickson motioned accept the minutes from the July 10, 2024, work session and regular meeting. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Garst, Henrickson, King, Routt 4. New Business A. Special Exception Permit Amendment Hold public hearing to consider the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, to amend the existing special exception permit to allow for a second elementary educational facility on the property located at 101 Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 117-2-1). Chair King opened the public hearing at 7:03 p. m. Barney Horrell, Brushy Mountain Engineering, 3553 Carvins Cove Road, appeared before the Commission and presented the idea of constructing a second elementary school facility on the lot that previously received approval for one elementary school in 2011. Mr. Horrell stated that the need to move out from across the GE building to a new building was great, especially as it ages out of its useful life span. Mr. Horrell noted that the wooded lot that received approval in May of 2023 was initially slated to fulfil the need for the additional school; however, the geometry of the lot and the physical constraints of the lot prevented the owner from pursuing that plan. They did find, as shown on the concept plan submitted, that there is a location that a building would work. They went from a single-story building on the triangular lot to a two-story building on this parcel. The reason they went to a two-story building was because of topography. In reviewing the original covenants in 2011 when this was approved for a school, one of the covenants discussed keeping it as a single-family structure and limited heights and stuff like that. In this case, the two-story building will appear as a one-story building as you see it from Lynchburg Turnpike so in fact it will sit below the centerline of Lynchburg Turnpike keeping with the intent to look residential in nature. Mr. Horrell stated the intent is to use residential-sourced-style windows. There is a little front porch almost in appearance on the one side. They talked about probably bricking that side of the building, just so it looks and matches the houses across the street. They are mostly brick buildings, brick houses. So again, from Lynchburg Turnpike, it will appear as a single-story building. He also pointed out that if you look closely at that elevation, you will see a dotted line across the front of the building. That is the elevation from the center line of Lynchburg Turnpike so the building will sit below Lynchburg Turnpike by a couple of feet, so it will appear even shorter from Lynchburg Turnpike. They will be well below the height concerns of 2011. From the Corporate Boulevard side, all access would come from the Corporate Boulevard. They would not have any driveways, not any permanent driveways. There may be a construction entrance, but it would be removed. The situation they have now is that they have the school that is on this property and there is the adjoining school down below which has a much larger parking lot. They are only open during the day. The lower parking lot is a third to a half full. There’re quite a few spaces, 20 or more, that are vacant. That is because they have a lot of parents who have kids at both locations, and so they come and drop their kids off, and then they circulate out, and do not stick around all day long. They have more than adequate parking for our teachers. They do not have that much of a heavy administrative staff, and the fact that they would all be on one campus would help that even more. So, they have more than adequate parking now. They meet the code requirement as it is now, but with this additional building, they would need additional parking. They are proposing on that preliminary site plan an additional row of about 10 spaces. And then they would set up some sort of cross-parking agreement, if necessary, with the lot down below to utilize it all. It is a joint campus of sorts. They are trying to create a campus feel. So, the idea is even though there are separate lots, it is the same ownership. It would be very easy for them to grant cross-use of the parking lots. All the traffic would come in from Corporate Boulevard. The side facing the parking lot is a two-story side. They would probably not brick that entire side because of the cost. They are in a very conceptual stage right now. They have some programming done on the inside of the building for space needs. They have got that figured out. This size of building will serve their needs. He will be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Beamer asked if there would be a breezeway between the two buildings. Mr. Horrell answered that the two buildings are not at all connected and would not be connected in any way. Right now, there is a property line between the two existing buildings. They are separate parcels. The plan would be to subdivide the upper parcel so they can separate the financing for the two buildings. The ownership would remain the same. Both parcels have a ton of frontage. With this, it is important to remember the 2011 special exception permit did have quite a few proffers in it. Mr. Horrell spoke of letters A-K pertaining to that special exception. Some of those proffers would prevent this development. For instance, proffer B stated the building should be a one story, red brick structure with white trim on a slab with a gray metal hip roof. This new proposed building will not be a single story. It would be a two-story building from the lower elevation. They would prefer to not commit to a metal roof. The lower building is an asphalt shingle roof. The second building will most likely have asphalt shingle roof making it look more residential from the street than a metal building up there. There are a couple other covenants that talk about height and color of the roof that they would like to have removed. He doesn’t know if they need to go through them itemized. he doesn’t know how a special exception permit would go. He is open to a discussion on that. With permission from the Madam Chair, Ms. Wines spoke to the purpose of the meeting which was to amend the special exception permit to allow a second building. Mr. Guynn spoke up to say the amendment would be taking off the conditions for this building. Commissioner Henrickson asked how much square footage the proposed building footprint is. Not first story or second story, but just the footprint. Mr. Horrell answered the outline of the second story is about six thousand square feet. The lower story is slightly smaller at about four thousand five hundred square feet or so. Commissioner Henrickson asked if this is two separate parcels and the Montessori School chooses to sell, can they sell this other building to another school. It was agreed that the Montessori School could sell the property. Ms. Wines explained that whatever the property is zoned you have those allowable uses within that zone without any special exceptions. The additional uses such as an educational facility needs a special permission or special permit to be allowed. But the original by right uses are still allowed. Chair King asked that if the committee were to allow the property to be subdivided, then whatever is decided in this meeting would cover the entire property. Ms. Wines stated that even if they subdivided after the approval, the special exception is attached to both parcels. Chair King inquired for the record if any comments, phone calls, or emails had been received from anyone with regards to this item. Ms. Wines answered stating that Mr. Dillon did receive one phone call. The caller left a message. Max left a message with her explaining the item, but they never heard anything back. Commissioner Henrickson asked about the façade matching. He understood standing seam metal roof is very expensive, but the concern would be the complimentary façade. Is there any brick figured on this or is it to early? Mr. Horrell answered that it is not to early. John Fulton, who did the lower building design will be the architect for this project. The architect who did the upper building is no longer practicing. The upper building, which is the same building on this parcel is entirely brick façade with the standing seam roof. The lower building is brick on the two wings, the center corridor is white siding, giving it a color element. This building would be brick facing Lynchburg Turnpike. Again, because they want it to look that way from Lynchburg Turnpike, residential. On the lower side they have not decided exactly what they are doing, but he is envisioning some white siding on that lower side. It is two story and to run brick two stories is quite expensive. Chair King inquired if the overall design is to make all three buildings look like a campus. Mr. Horrell responded affirmatively. The same brick color will be used as the first two and then take the white siding used down below or something similar on this new building. We have the asphalt shingles down below; they will probably use those up above. We will use the same things again. Commissioner Routt asked if the siding would be vinyl or fiber cement? Mr. Horrell answered that he did not remember. Commissioner Henrickson noted that he is happy with what the school has done with the property. He feels that they have been very good for the City of Salem and a good neighbor and not disruptive in any means. He does have a concern of Lynchburg Turnpike, and they discussed it in the work session. And even where the school is now, he feels that there is some vulnerability of a vehicle going through the fence. Mr. Henrickson asked Chuck Van Allman to explain what could be done to help prevent this from happening. Mr. Van Allman noted that guardrails are typically used to prevent cars from exiting their lane as opposed to protecting things outside of the guardrails. But they can have that discussion. They can look at it and see what other alternatives or methods might be available to ensure safety. Commissioner Henrickson stated that his concern is the safety through there. They do not want to have a vehicle go through there. Any precaution that can be placed to make it safer through there would be encouraged. Mr. Van Allman suggested using something like curbs. He thinks curb is enough to act as a safety measure. Mr. Horrell stated that there will be a part of the site plan review that is a heavy landscaping requirement along the frontage, and that is a frontage. So that would be an installation of quite a few new plantings and stuff. Vice Chair Garst stated that if they recommend approval, that it would not be appropriate as a condition. Commissioner Henrickson noted no. He just wanted to make that as a comment. Just as a comment to be on record. Commissioner Routt asked what other conditions do they need to look at? Considering this special exception permit, so if it passed, it would go through without any conditions from the previous. Ms. Wines explained that you would have to remove the current conditions. That would be part of the motion. You could remove the current conditions and add any other conditions you felt appropriate. And the Commission can discuss that after the public hearing in case there is anybody else that would like to talk. It might bring up another item for discussion. Mr. Horrell stated that he was prepared to go through the conditions on the previous one if the commission feels that’s a better way than doing it itemized wise. Mr. Horrell began. What he cited was the deed of purchase from the city to the Montessori School. He cited instrument 11-0001303 page 3. The convenances of tract 1 and 2 is expressly subject to the following reservations, and covenants shall run with the land as follows. A. Tract 2 will not be developed in any manner whatsoever without amendment to the Special Exception approved by Salem City Council on February 28, 2011, and shall be kept wooded and the existing trees shall be fully preserved possible. B. The building on Tract 1 shall be a one-story, red brick structure, with white trim, on a slab, with a grey metal hip roof. C. All traffic to and from the building on Tract 1 shall be oriented onto Corporate Drive and away from Lynchburg Turnpike. D. The color of the roof on Tract 1 of the building shall be grey/slate and shall be a metal seamed roof with no corrugated metal. E. The building on Tract 1 shall be between 19 and 25 feet in height. F. The existing trees and landscaping on Lynchburg Turnpike on Tract 2 shall be maintained and preserved. G. The boundary line between Tract 1 and 1208 Lynchburg Turnpike shall be fully landscaped. H. The only lighting on Tract 1 shall be after-dark security lighting. I. The exterior air conditioning units on Tract 1 shall be screened in an enclosure and landscaping will be placed around such units. J. Any fencing on Tract 1 shall be solid cedar or black wrought iron type fence. K. All electric utilities on Tract 1 shall be buried. Tract 2, which is the triangle tract, the wooded triangular tract with no building on it. That covenant was removed when they came before you before when they were going to develop that triangular lot. The city removed that requirement. Covenant B, the building on tract one shall be a one-story red brick structure with white trim on a slab with a gray metal hip roof. That is the existing structure that is there, and it does comply with those requirements. Again, this Covenant B, they’re asking to be stricken because the new building will not be single-story. All traffic to and from the building on tract 1 shall be oriented onto Corporate Drive and away from Lynchburg Turnpike. That is currently the situation and will be the situation going forward. Covenant C can remain. Covenant D, the color of the roof on tract 1 of the building shall be gray slash slate and shall be a metal seamed roof with no corrugated metal okay so standing scenes what they used on the first building again they’re asking that you strike covenant D to allow us some flexibility and roofing materials for cost reasons. Covenant E reads the building on tract 1 shall be between 19 and 25 feet in height it’s lower than the street. He would ask that covenant be stricken as well. With a two-story building, if you measured it from the lower parking lot side, they would exceed those 25 feet in height. Commissioner Beamer asked by how much. Mr. Horrell answered he does not know exactly. It is a two-story building with a sloped roof on top of it. So, it depends on where it is measured. If you measure it from the Lynchburg Turnpike side, then they would probably be close to that twenty-five. Commissioner Routt questioned elevation wise, peak of roof to peak of roof, how much variance do you think there is. Mr. Horrell explained in looking at the rough grading, the first floor of this proposed building would be close to the floor of the existing building. The topography on that site goes up quite a bit to Lynchburg Turnpike. That second story would be considerably higher than your existing building. But if you were to go out there, you’ll see this bank of dirt that rises with it. They plan on rising with the ground level. Again, the elevation from Lynchburg Turnpike shows that dash line of the road going across the front of the building. It will not appear that tall from Lynchburg Turnpike. Commissioner Routt inquired as far as the difference of the peak of the roofs, what do you think that would be- a guesstimate. Mr. Horrell guesstimated they are probably going to have twelve to fourteen feet between floors. Commissioner Routt responded that the new building would be twelve to fourteen feet higher than the peak of the roof? Mr. Horrell stated the peak of the roof, yes. Mr. Horrell continued with Covenant F, the existing trees and landscaping on Lynchburg Turnpike on Tract 2 shall be maintained and preserved. He believes there’s a typo in that because Tract 2 is the triangular lot that doesn’t face on Lynchburg Turnpike. It’s down on Corporate. So, he believes it’s a typo. he believes there was reference there from memory, the neighbors across the street, again, were wanting to preserve some of those nice, large trees that were along Lynchburg Turnpike, and they have done so. There are some trees that sit a little further off Lynchburg Turnpike. There was an old caretaker house on that parcel where they were going to be now. he says little. Some smaller trees, they’re not the big grand oaks that you’re thinking of that would probably be killed during the grading process so he guesses they would ask that Covenant F be stricken they have no intent to cut down the great big oak trees that are there. Covenant G the boundary line between Tract 1 and 1208 Lynchburg Turnpike shall be fully landscaped this is the property line to the east. It’s between their playground area and the neighbor to the east, Mr. Mullins. At that time, Mr. Mullins was an opponent to this development. He has since become a wonderful neighbor of theirs, and they have a very good relationship with him. They did fully landscape between there with some evergreen trees, so they did comply with that one, no issue there. Covenant H, the only lighting on Tract 1 shall be after dark security lighting. No issue with that. Covenant I, the exterior air condition units on Tract 1 shall be screened in an enclosure and landscaping will be place around such units. Again, there was concern that the residents across the street would be looking at AC units, and they did not want to see that. Vice-Chair Garst stated that there will obviously be new HVAC since it is a new building. Mr. Horrell explained they have new HVAC and the landscaping requirements that are significant. That entire area will be landscaped heavily. he doesn’t see an issue there. He stated that it is almost redundant to have in here again because of the landscaping code. Item J any fencing on Tract 1 shall be of solid cedar or black wrought iron type fencing. That is the type of fencing that they have went to great expense to put in and intend to continue to do so. Vice-Chair Garst asked if the fencing was marked in the drawings. Mr. Horrell answered he did not believe there was any fencing shown. Then corrected by stating on the two-story elevation, there is fencing on either side. That is more of a handrail. There is some retaining wall there. Vice-Chair Garst inquired if the plan was to put fencing up along the retaining wall. Mr. Horrell answered yes. It would be black iron. Vice-Chair Garst stated it would then conform to item J. Mr. Horrell agreed stating that Item J was more concerning perimeter fencing that right against the door. They did not want ugly fencing up along Lynchburg Turnpike. Item K is the last one. It reads all electric utilities on Tract 1 shall be buried. That is standard and they will do so again. Obviously, it is your discretion. We are asking that Covenants B, D, E, and F are stricken, and they feel like Item I, about the air conditioning unit screening is sort redundant. Item A is also null and void at this point. Item D, the color of the roof shall be metal seam roof. We ask that D be stricken. We do not want a metal roof. E is about the height of the building. We ask that be stricken. Commissioner Henrickson asked if Item E could be amended. Mr. Horrell stated the only hesitation they would have, is they do not know the exact height of the building to give the committee right now. Commissioner Henrickson questioned if the committee could put a “not to exceed” in the conditions. That Mr. Horrell stated that it is probably fourteen to fifteen, and the building span is less, so the pitch will be less. He would like to see something in there that says it will not exceed twenty feet above the peak of the other building. Mr. Horrell wanted clarification asked twenty feet beyond the peak of the other Building? Commissioner Henrickson responded twenty. Mr. Horrell laughing said fair enough 20 feet. Mr. Horrell verified with the owner and agreed Commissioner Beamer wanted clarification of which covenants would have the changes or be null and void. Mr. Horrell stated that it may be easier to just read the ones you want to keep. Chair King asked if there was anyone else here to speak on this matter. No response was made. Chair King closed the public hearing at 7:32pm Chair King asked if there were comments from commissioners or if there was a motion. Commissioner Beamer questioned Mr. Horrell on the expected time this is to start and how long do you expect it to take. Mr. Horrell answered the intent is he encouraged the owner to wait and to make sure they got through this public hearing process and then the design will start right away so one of the things they are running into is that the existing facility they’re in is aging out quickly, so they are under pressure internally to get it done as soon as possible quick as they can. Hopefully breaking ground next year will be the goal. Chair King asked the commissioners if they wanted to ask anything else or call for a motion. Vice-Chair Garst made the motion that would recommend approval of the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, amending the existing special exception permit by striking conditions A through G, maintaining H. I. J. K, and adding the condition that the height not exceed 20 feet over the existing building that will allow for a second elementary educational facility on the property located at 101 Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 117 - 2 - 1) Commissioner Routt seconded the motion. Chair King called for role. Mr. Routt, aye; Mr. Henrickson, aye; Mr. Beamer, aye; Mr. Garst, aye; Chair King, aye. Chair King states the motion passed. She noted the item will go to city council, and you the applicant be notified. She asked if Ms. Wines, will be the one notifying them a to when it’s set on council’s agenda. Ms. Wines stated that the clerk’s office will notify them. Chair King asked if there was anything else. Rob stated that just for the benefit of the applicant, regarding issues such as this, typically, there would be a council meeting in between so they’re looking at the first meeting being in September. The clerk’s office will communicate with the applicant as soon as possible. 5. Adjournment On motion made, seconded, and all approved Chair King adjourned the meeting a 7:35pm.