ttcda board meeting agenda · revised, 6/3/04 ttcda board meeting agenda monday, february 6, 2006...

Revised, 6/3/04

TTCDA BOARD MEETING Agenda

Monday, February 6, 2006

4:00 P.M.

Main Assembly Room City/County Building

1. Declaration of Quorum

2. Adoption of Minutes of the January 23, 2005, Rescheduled Meeting

3. Applications:

06.007.0 Saddlebrook Development Rezoning 06.008.0 Judy and Charles Cowden Building Permit 06.009.0 Stuart Anderson Building Permit

Tabled

05.029.0 Stuart Anderson Building Permit

4. Other Business

5. Adjournment

Next Board Meeting: March 6, 2006

PLEASE NOTE: Beginning with the February meeting, the monthly meeting of the TTCDA Board will be in the Main Assembly Room of the City County Building.

Tennessee Technology Corridor Development Authority

Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes

January 23, 2006

Page 1

The Tennessee Technology Corridor Development Authority (TTCDA) Board of Commissioners met in regular session on January 23, 2006, in the Main Assembly Room of the City County Building. The following commissioners were present:

Pete Crowley

Craig Leuthold

Frank Robinson

Teresa Shupp

Also present was Buz Johnson, TTCDA Executive Director. The following guests and applicants were also present:

Paul Cass, representing Huddle House/Southern Lights

Craig Huber, representing HV Properties

Edd R. Mabe, representing Ashley Sling, Inc.

Rick Jones, representing Stonecraft, Inc.

Andy Powers, representing Ross Fowler

Brian Ewers, representing Ashley Sling, Inc.

(Please note that the January 23, 2006, meeting was rescheduled from January 9, 2006, and January 17, 2006, due to the lack of a quorum.)

1. DECLARATION OF QUORUM

Chair Craig Leuthold called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. It was determined that a quorum of the TTCDA Board of Commissioners was present. A copy of the meeting agenda is attached to the record copy of these minutes.

2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

Terry Shupp made a motion to APPROVE the minutes of the September 6, 2005, meeting.

Pete Crowley seconded the motion.

The motion was adopted by a unanimous vote.

3. APPLICATIONS

FILE # 06.001.0 RICCIARDI JONES



January 23, 2006

Page 2

Staff Recommendation:

Based on the application and plans, as submitted, the staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Variance to reduce the required parking stall size from 200 sq. ft. to 180 sq. ft. (9 ft. x 20 ft.) This request is consistent with the trend toward smaller parking stall sizes. Similar requests have been approved by the TTCDA.

Based on the application and plans, as submitted, the staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Building Permit, subject to the following conditions, waivers and variance:

1. Meeting all relevant requirements of Knox County Engineering. 2. Meeting all relevant requirements of the Knox County Health Department. 3. Meeting all relevant requirements of the Knox County Zoning Ordinance, as

appropriate. 4. Waiver and variance to reduce the required parking stall size, from 200 sq.

ft. to 180 sq. ft. (9 ft. x 20 ft.) This request is consistent with the trend toward smaller parking stall

5. Waiver to reduce the front yard setback, from 92 ft. to 5 ft. The reduction in the front yard setback will still result in a setback comparable to the adjacent storage building.

6. Revise and/or expand the parking area next to the proposed building to provide sufficient width (25 ft.) for the drive aisles. A revised plan will need to be reviewed by TTCDA staff to ensure that this requirement has been met.

Buz Johnson presented the staff report and the rationale behind the staff recommendation. The applicant, Mr. Ricciardi Jones, is asking for the addition of a storage building on his property and may want to clarify his type of business. Buz stated that the business prepares counter tops for kitchens and other uses that require stone. The addition is fairly simple and is in an area where there have been several applications for small expansions to existing businesses. The property is zoned CB and is in the Technology Overlay. The addition will be a 50ft. by 30 ft., 1,500 sq. ft. storage shed for his product line. It will be a metal building with the same color scheme as the metal building located to the west. No outside mechanical units will be required. No landscaping has been proposed because it will have no real impact on the visual appeal of the building. No additional signage is required. The parking area next to the building will be re-striped as part of this project. The building will have a flat roof, with a slight pitch, but it will not be visible as far as I can determine looking at the property from Lexington Dr. The visibility will be minimal at the very best. The plans conform to the Design Guidelines, except for parking stall size and front yard setback. It will require a waiver and a variance to the parking stall size, which has become a pretty standard request and approval, from 200 sq. ft. to 180 sq. ft. Buz then noted a required setback



January 23, 2006

Page 3

variance, from 92 ft. to 5 ft., which was a correction from what appeared in the staff report. The building setback will be consistent with that of the building next to it, so that same setback will be maintained for both buildings on the property. Buz noted the recommendation for approval, with the conditions, waivers and variances. He also noted that the parking area will need to be revised slightly to provide sufficient width for the drive aisles at 25 ft., which the site plan showed as being less than 25 ft. Craig Leuthold asked if the applicant was present. Ricciardi Jones introduced himself as the applicant. Craig Leuthold asked if the applicant had any questions and if he agreed with the staff recommendation. Ricciardi Jones said that he did not and that he agreed with the staff recommendation. He mentioned that he appreciated the opportunity to expand his business. Craig Leuthold then asked if there were comments or questions from the board. Terry Shupp said that she did. She wanted to know about the waiver to the front yard setback. She asked Buz if he could explain why the waiver was necessary. Ricciardi Jones said the he could shed some light on that and stated that the waiver was needed due to the location of the retention pond and parking on the site, which reduces the amount of space the building can occupy. If the building is moved back, the parking area cannot be where it is. Terry Shupp again asked Buz if had a comment on his recommendation on the waiver. Buz Johnson said that he looked at the pattern set by the existing building, to which the new building corresponds. If this were the first building, he would have been more inclined to ask for the relocation of the building. Buz felt that the building could be relocated, but the impact would be negligible in terms of where the building is located. If you looked at the building from Lexington Dr., it is set back sufficiently from that street. Because this is an L-shaped lot, you have a situation where the setback is such that it is affected by the unusual shape of the lot, and, in relationship to the existing buildings, the impact will be negligible. The main reason for the waiver is that it is consistent with the setback for the existing building on the left. Terry Shupp noted that what he was saying was that the setback from Lexington Dr. is still being maintained and that the waiver is dictated by the shape of the property in relationship to the other properties. Buz Johnson responded by saying that if you phrase it that way, then there will be a greater setback than the two larger buildings that are located on the property to the west, as noted on the site plan. Terry Shupp noted for the applicant that because of the shape of the lot and the actual distance from the road that this makes sense. Craig Leuthold wanted to know if there were any further questions.

Pete Crowley made a motion to approve the request for a COA for a building permit, as per staff recommendation.

Frank Robinson seconded the motion.



January 23, 2006

Page 4

The motion was approved by a unanimous vote.

FILE # 06.002.0 HV PROPERTIES


Based on the application as submitted, the staff recommends APPROVAL of a Certificate of Appropriateness for CA (General Business) zoning, limited to CA commercial and office uses that do not require outside storage or display of merchandise, with this condition being recorded as a deed restriction.

Buz Johnson presented the staff report and the rationale behind the staff recommendation. He noted that he would explain this and the next request to save time. These are two requests from HV properties. These are very similar to a previous request that the board reviewed on Hardin Valley Rd. further to the southwest and closer to the interchange with the parkway. The ownership was similar to the ownership of the property approved last year. The requests are to rezoned property from BP/TO to CA/TO, which is a general business zone. The properties front on Hardin Valley Drive, which is the frontage for Pellissippi Corporate Center. From the inception of the center, these properties along Hardin valley Rd. have always been considered by the Development Corporation and, to some degree, by MPC as being suitable for commercial development. The BP zone allows commercial uses which are fairly restrictive, but the applicant has requested CQA zoning. At the time that the board reviewed the previous CA zoning, there was a concern by staff as to being allowed to put some limitations on those kinds of development that could be allowed on the property based on CA zoning. Buz continued by saying that he has recommended approval for both this and the next request, with the stipulation that as was done the last time that the uses be limited to those commercial and office uses that do not require outside storage or display of merchandise, with this condition being recorded as a deed restriction. With all things considered, this can satisfy a lot different objectives with regard to these particular sites. One issue that was pointed out, dealing with access, was discussed with the applicant, and this was not made a condition. The issues regarding access to the property was listed as a comment for both requests. Access should try to come off Cherahala Blvd. within the development. However, all the traffic information is not in and we have not consulted with Knox County to get their viewpoint. The reason it is in the report, and I have asked that it be left in the report, to keep it on the table as an identifiable issue as planes brought forward for each particular site. The Planning Commission did recommend approval the companion requests that they were required to do and these approvals will go forward to County Commission for their consideration. Craig Leuthold asked if the applicant was present.



January 23, 2006

Page 5

Craig Huber identified as being the applicant. He noted that he had spoken with Buz about the staff recommendation. They are please with the staff recommendation to approve the CA zoning and don t have any real problem with the condition on outside storage. Craig Huber confirmed that they had talked with Buz about the access issue. They will be bringing a concept plan to the board for approval. They are having Wilbur Smith do a traffic study to determine appropriate access for the property. It may be that they may well ask for some limited access to Hardin valley Rd. The statement in the report does not totally rule out any access options.

Terry Shupp made a motion to approve the request for a COA for rezoning, as per staff recommendation. (This motion also applied to File # 06.003.0.)



FILE # 06.003.0 HV PROPERTIES


Based on the application as submitted, the staff recommends APPROVAL of a Certificate of Appropriateness for CA (General Business) zoning, limited to CA commercial and office uses that do not require outside storage or display of merchandise, with the condition being recorded as a deed restriction.

FILE # 06.004.0 BRIAN EWERS


Based on the application and plans, as submitted, the staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Building Permit, subject to the following conditions and waiver:

Based on the application and plans, as submitted, the staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Building Permit, subject to the following conditions and waiver:

1. Meeting all relevant requirements of Knox County Engineering and Public Works.

2. Meeting all relevant requirements of the Knox County Health Department. 3. Meeting all relevant requirements of the Knox County Zoning Ordinance, as

appropriate. 4. Waiver of the Design Guidelines to allow the location of a loading dock on the

side of the building, and not the rear of the building, as is now required.



January 23, 2006

Page 6

Currently, there are two loading docks on the front of the building. The approval of this request will result in the replacement of one of the docks with a dock enclosure that will extend from the side of the building. There will be no net gain in the number of loading docks on the front of the building.

5. Waiver to reduce the required front yard, as per the Design Guidelines, from 33 ft. to 30 ft. The reduction in the required front will have no appreciable impact on subject property, or adjacent tracts, in this heavy commercial/light industrial area.

6. Installing all landscaping as shown on the plan prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for this project.

Buz Johnson presented the staff report and the rationale behind the staff recommendation. The applicant is Brian Ewers, who is the architect for the project. The property is located on the east side of Dutchtown Rd., southeast of Harding Dr. This board approved an expansion on the rear of this building last year. Mr. Ewers is back for approval for a slight expansion in the front of the building that will allow an enclosed loading dock. The reason that this request is before the board is that they are required to approve such expansions that will require a waiver. He is asking that the loading dock be enclosed. Now normally a loading dock would not be allowed in the front of a building. Technically it is in the front of this building, although the loading dock where it is located would be located behind other buildings fronting on Dutchtown Rd. There is a loading dock already there, and Buz could only determine that, when the authority was established, this may have been a pre-existing condition. But a loading is already there, and he is proposing to enclose it. He is also proposing some landscaping at that location to soften as much as he can the appearance of the dock, which is very minor addition. The size of the enclosure will be roughly 280 sq. ft. There will be gable roof, and the exterior will match the exterior of the existing building. The roof will be a standing seam metal roof. Portions of the parking area will be re-striped to accommodate traffic using the new loading dock. Buz stated that he was actually making some improvements to the existing situation. The request will require the waiver of allowing the loading dock to be in front of the building and also a waiver for a slight reduction in the front yard, from 33 ft. to 30 ft. This is another odd shaped lot where the loading dock will be on the front of the building, but behind other buildings on Dutchtown Rd. Visibility will be somewhat impaired if one actually saw the dock from Dutchtown Rd. With these thoughts in mind, Buz recommended approval, with six conditions. Craig Leuthold asked if the applicant was present. Brian Ewers introduced himself as the applicant and architect for this project. He went to confirm the comments made by Buz. The one thing that this dock will allow is relieving a conflict with semi-truck traffic and the parking area. The existing parking is being relocated so that truck traffic can now use the loading dock. There are two loading docks being used on the front of the building. Craig Leuthold wanted to know if the applicant was fine with the staff recommendation.



January 23, 2006

Page 7

Brian Ewers responded that he was. Craig Leuthold wanted to know if there were comments or questions. Terry Shupp replied that she had a question that was similar to the question she had earlier. She wanted an explanation as to why the applicant needed to reduce the setback from 33 ft. to 30 ft. She stated that what she was getting from this was then when the enclosure is constructed, she wanted to know why it was necessary. Brian Ewers responded that right now, the loading dock were on the face of the building. They were actually going to build out with the enclosure, and in order to get far enough away from building it will also be a means of access coming out of the building with a personnel door a door and a stair have to be provided, but also far enough so that there isn t the chance there isn t enough a room for a 12 ft. aisle. Taking all that into account, he has to come out that far. Terry Shupp responded that this would be for safety concerns with access when this enclosure is built. She stated that shoe would like that reason documented here. Craig Leuthold asked if there were any more questions. Frank Robinson wanted to know how the loading dock got there and did the board approve them. Buz Johnson stated that as far as he could determine the board didn t. He did some research when the applicant added the addition in the back of the building. and there is no record of any previous approval on this building. Brian Ewers added that the age of the building probably preceded the overlay so that it would be a pre-existing condition. Terry Shupp asked Buz if he thought this would be an improvement to this building. Buz Johnson responded by saying that he did and that he agreed with Brian in terms that it will improve circulation for semi-trucks in trying to maneuver. It s a fairly narrow lot; the building takes a good portion of that lot. It can only be improved. As he stated, the visibility of the building will be negligible because it will behind another building, which is on Dutchtown. This is another situation where you have an odd-shaped lot, and he had no problem with recommending approval of the waiver setbacks, or the overall proposal.

Pete Crowley made a motion to approve the request for a COA for a building permit, as per staff recommendation.

Terry Shupp seconded the motion.


FILE # 06.005.0 PELLISSIPPI POINTE II

1. Meeting all relevant requirements of Knoxville City Engineering. 2. Meeting all relevant requirements of the Knox County Health Department. 3. Meeting all relevant requirements of the Knoxville Zoning Ordinance, as

appropriate.



January 23, 2006

Page 8

4. Waiver to reduce the required parking stall size, from 200 sq. ft. to 139.5 sq. ft. (9 ft. x 15.5 ft.) This request is consistent with the trend toward smaller parking stall sizes and complies with the requirements of the Knoxville Zoning Ordinance.

5. Waiver to reduce the required southeast side yard setback, from 28 ft. to 15 ft. (From previous approval.)

6. Waiver to reduce the front yard setback, from 73 ft. to 69 ft. (From previous approval, as amended.) The reduction in the front yard setback will still result in a setback comparable to the adjacent office building and will not change the building s spatial relationship to either Cogdill Rd., or Pellissippi Parkway.

7. Waiver to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces, from 85 to 78. In this particular case, the number of required parking spaces can be reduced if the Knoxville Zoning Ordinance requirement is used. Parking for professional offices is based on the square footage of useable floor space divided by 250 sq. ft. The Design Guidelines require 1 space for every 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Although 73 spaces are shown on the plan, more than enough spaces can be provided for both this and the adjacent properties if a shared parking arrangement is approved by the City of Knoxville. A total of 138 spaces will be provided, which is well over the city requirement.

8. Recording of a subdivision plat that extends the subject property to the southwest, the result of which will allow the proposed floor area ratio to meet the requirements of the Design Guidelines. This plat must be recorded prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building. The subject property owner also owns the adjacent property, which can be added to the subject property through the platting process.

9. Installing all landscaping, as shown on the site plan, prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for this project.

10. Review and approval of any cross access easements by the City of Knoxville, for shared parking and the access point at Cogdill Rd.

Buz Johnson presented the staff report and the rationale behind the staff recommendation. He went on to say that this was a project that the board approved about two or three years ago. There is an existing office building located to the southeast, and this lot is located to the northwest. The property owner is the same for both tracts. They will build what will probably be a twin building, with a very similar appearance with the same materials and architectural style. They had to back in because the previous approval was for two stories and this approval is for three stories. It has more square footage. Even though staff recommendation is fairly lengthy, and includes some approvals, there are several things he is trying to do for which he should be complimented. He wants to be able to share parking with the existing building, so there are conditions and waivers that will allow that. That should be a laudable objective when



January 23, 2006

Page 9

preparing a site plan. He will use the same signage for both buildings. The board has the authority to approve signage in the Tech Corridor. The same waiver to reduce the southeast side yard setback is incorporated. The is a slight increase in his waiver for the front yard, which is from 73 ft. to 69 ft. Again, the frontage on Cogdill Rd. will essentially be the same for both buildings in terms of setback. There is a substantial landscaping plan that is incorporated. The one thing that he will need to do is to add property so that the requirement for impervious area ratio can be met. He will need to get a subdivision plat approved to meet this requirement. He only missed this by 3%. This has been issue with the board before, the need to maintain gross area coverage, floor area ratio and impervious area ratio. This is condition and he agreed to do that, the area that will be added is shown on one of the plans submitted with the request. With those conditions, requirements and comments, the staff recommends approval of this application. Craig Leuthold asked if the applicant was present. Andy Powers introduced himself as representing the applicant. Craig Leuthold wanted to know if the applicant had anything to add. Andy Powers said that he did not and that Buz summed it pretty well. The only thing that he would add is that area that will be added to the site to meet the impervious area ratio is already owned by the property owner, and will be just a matter of re-platting the site. There would have to be no transfer of property. Craig Leuthold asked if the applicant was fine with the staff recommendation. Andy Powers indicated that he was. Craig Leuthold asked if there were any comments or questions. Terry Shupp said that she had some questions. She wanted Buz to talk about the waivers to the side yard setback and the front yard setback, which are from previous approvals. Buz Johnson responded that this was correct. Terry Shupp said that she was confused about whether or not additional approvals were needed. Buz Johnson said that the waiver is needed for the front yard because there is a slight increase from the previous waiver. He said that he was not sure what the waiver was before, but that it was a difference of about two feet. Buz continued by saying that the setback would be comparable with the existing building. The side yard setback was included in the recommendation, although it could be omitted. Buz felt it was safe to include the previous waiver as a part of this approval. Terry Shupp wanted to know why they had to give waivers to the setbacks. Andy Powers responded by saying that the site plan shows a couple of things. He pointed that this was a complex of two twin buildings, and they are close together to maintain that feeling. In the rear of the property you can see the retention pond in the west end of the property, which is a shared retention pond with the two buildings and is already constructed and in place. It is properly sized. To the move the building towards



January 23, 2006

Page 10

the back of the property, we had to deal with that retention pond or squeeze the building on the back. As Buz stated, there is a lot of landscaping, and this owner is very good about including a lot of landscaping. Terry Shupp responded by saying that site drainage and overall aesthetic considerations for the overall concept of the site development are the reasons for the waivers. Andy Powers responded by saying that this was correct. Craig Leuthold wanted to know if there was anything else. Frank Robinson had a question about the need for a waiver for a higher allowed height per floor. Buz Johnson responded by saying that in recent months, this has been a design issue that has been considered by the board. The standard height is now 15 ft. and this is higher than what the design Guidelines now permit. Terry Shupp thought that the board had revised the Design Guidelines to address this issue and seem to think it was done several months ago. She recalled that it may have been with the Century Park proposal that came through. She thought it was done for that project, but that the change was made across the board. Buz Johnson said that this change may have been done, but that he didn t recall off hand. He said that he would be glad to check on that for the board. If the board wished, that if they wanted to, they could go ahead and make that change today. Frank Robinson responded by saying that this was his point but wanting to know why that this change was necessary. Buz Johnson said that he did note that this was not included as a waiver, but that it should be included for approval today. He noted that the change will be made to the Design Guidelines. Craig Leuthold asked for additional comments or questions, and if there was a motion.

Terry Shupp made a motion to approve the request for a COA for a building permit, as per staff recommendation, and with a waiver to increase the allowable floor height for one story from 12 ft. to 15 ft.



FILE # 06.006.0 PAUL CASS


Based on the application and plans, as submitted, the staff recommends APPROVAL of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Sign Permit, subject to the following conditions:

1. Meeting all applicable requirements of Knox County Engineering and Public Works.



January 23, 2006

Page 11

2. Meeting all applicable requirements of the Knox County Zoning Ordinance, as appropriate.

3. Using a matte or flat finish on the sign material for both the monument and building signs. (From previous approval.)

4. Using indirect lighting on the monument sign. No internal illumination is to be allowed. (From previous approval.)

5. A waiver to reduce the front setback for the monument sign, from 50 ft. to 20 ft., from the Lovell Rd. right-of-way. (From previous approval.)

6. A waiver to increase the maximum height of a monument sign from 6 ft. to 10 ft.

Buz Johnson presented the staff report and the rationale behind the staff recommendation. This is a request to move the location of a previously approved sign for the Huddle House. Mr. Cass is the applicant. Back when the sign was approved, the location of it is shown on the approved plan. At the approved height and location, the sign cannot really be seen, which probably should have been noticed before. Buz pointed out that the location is right at the exit of Pellissippi Parkway and coming underneath on Lovell Rd. You would not be able to see the sign, if it were located in its approved location. You would be right on it before you knew it. This is the primary reason to relocate it. Where it is located is below the finished grade of the property. The photographs show the very tip top of the sign, if it were installed as approved. The Huddle House is up now and is a very nice looking building and built according to the plan. They have asked for the sign to be move but for a slight increase in the allowable height of the sign, which is recommended for approval. The sign will be no higher than the Conoco sign that you see in the photograph. From an elevation standpoint, you will have relatively the same height, even though it will higher than six feet. The waiver is from six feet to ten feet, although the applicant will probably not need to full ten feet. The actual height will be more like nine feet. The applicant has assured Buz that if it please the board, he would be glad to shoot a surveying line to the Conoco sign to make sure the height of the Huddle House sign is below that elevation. I have reviewed the past approval and made sure that those conditions are incorporated here in terms of the finish of the sign, the lighting of the sign, and the setback along Lovell Rd. were maintained. Craig Leuthold wanted to know if the applicant was here. He apologized for inconveniencing the applicant with the previously canceled meetings. Paul Cass introduced himself as the applicant. Craig Leuthold asked if there was anything that he would like to add. Paul Cass said the he did not and that Buz covered it all. They will shoot a laser to the Conoco sign to make sure that the Huddle House sign will be no taller. He asked that they are asking for four additional feet, or up to the Conoco sign, whichever is less. Craig Leuthold asked if he was comfortable with the rest of the staff recommendation. Paul Cass responded that he was.



January 23, 2006

Page 12

Terry Shupp made a motion to approve the request for a COA for a sign permit, as per staff recommendation.



4. OTHER BUSINESS

REVIEW OF PROPOSED TTCDA ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND PROCEDURES

Buz Johnson mentioned that there were leftover items from the previous meeting. One was the Administrative Rules and Procedures, and he has had one conversation with Terry Shupp about some minor changes, and didn t know if anyone else had any changes. He said that he had copies if any member wanted something to refer to. He would be glad to answer other questions and recommended that they be approved. Terry Shupp pointed out that one of her changes was a typo and the other was in Section 7., to have as a third criteria related to the staff being given the ability to make minor changes. The addition would be to make a report to the board on minor changes that were made by staff. Craig Leuthold wanted to know if this was something the County Commission would have to approve with two readings. Buz Johnson responded that these rules are the board s rules and only have to approve on one reading. Craig Leuthold asked if there were more comments. Buz Johnson pointed out that a fourth statement was added to Section 7. to further tie the change on staff approvals to changes that were being made to the zoning ordinances for the TO and TO-1 zones in the city and the county. This was a comfort level kind of change. Craig Leuthold called for a motion.

Pete Crowley made a motion to adopt the Administrative Rules and Procedures, with the changes discussed at the meeting.



PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE KNOXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCES ALLOWING STAFF APPROVAL OF MINOR CHANGE TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Buz Johnson then mentioned the item regarding amending the two zoning ordinances to reflect staff approval of minor changes. These changes were heard and approved by



January 23, 2006

Page 13

MPC and will be on the January 23, 2006, County Commission agenda on first reading. You did approved this last time, but wanted to know if there any other comments. Craig Leuthold asked Buz to confirm whether or not the change had been made to the Design Guidelines on the allowable height of a floor so that the board can consider the change if it is necessary.

DISCUSSION ITEM

Terry Shupp said that she had an item that she wanted to discuss, which dealt with the Saddlebrook proposal on the last agenda. One of the main issues dealt with connectivity and the problem with the separation of the residential area with a gated situation from the commercial and office uses. There were a lot of problems with this, but it looks like staff has been able to resolve this with a connection across that site. She mentioned that it was really troubling to her, and that she would like to put this out there to be in the comprehensive plan update. There s the whole idea of mixed use. What was approved and how that developer even had residential use in that property was a part of mixed use. We are looking at these properties as economic development, so that they can set aside the business park, and commercial or office use. In the attempt to improve and keep up with the times, MPC is bringing in this idea of mixed use that would incorporate residential opportunities into office and business parks so that the residential is integrated into the design of the office and commercial spaces. There is no integration when you put residential as gated away from those other uses. The proposal would be contrary to the zoning request that originally came through that we allowed, in my view. As we go forward, if we are looking at this comprehensive development plan and we are going to propose mixed use opportunities in the corridor, then she would want it spelled out very clearly, what is mixed use and what mixed use looks like. Something that the board can hang there hats on. Buz Johnson added that a lot of what the board deals with is more about process, and not the quality of the development. In this case it would have been nice if we had had something in the place that would have required a preliminary concept prior to the submission of the plan. This is not to add additional time to the process, because they have money tied up in the project. But if you take additional time on the front end of the project before an application is made to have that conversation about mixed use, connectivity, and all the other issues regarding a site, you are actually going to take no more time than when you started out. In this case, the item was postponed twice. The original plan showed some aspects that were superior to the one that was submitted. If we had been on our toes, then we could have done that back in September or August of last year. But we are looking at this at MPC, but it will only pertain to major projects. He honestly felt that it would take no more time. Terry Shupp responded that she thought that this would be a good idea, but that she wanted to make sure that we had some criteria and definitions for mixed use out there.



January 23, 2006

Page 14

This month s issue of Planning magazine has an excellent article on how mixed use is or is not properly being used and getting this out to the developers. Craig Leuthold said that this would be helpful since everyone has their own concept of what mixed use is. Frank Robinson agreed and stated that it appeared that the residential was being segregated from the rest of the development.

5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

Revised, 6/3/04

TTCDA BOARD MEETING Agenda

Monday, January 23, 2006

10:00 P.M. (Rescheduled from January 9 and January 17, 2006)

Main Assembly Room City/County Building

1. Declaration of Quorum

2. Adoption of Minutes of the December 5, 2005, Meeting

3. Applications:

06.001.0 Ricciardi Jones Building Permit 06.002.0 HV Properties Rezoning 06.003.0 HV Properties Rezoning 06.004.0 Brian Ewers Building Permit 06.005.0 Pellissippi Pointe II Building Permit 06.006.0 Paul Cass Sign Permit

Tabled

05.029.0 Stuart Anderson Building Permit

4. Other Business

Review of proposed Administrative Rules & Procedures

Review of proposed amendments to the city and county zoning ordinances

5. Adjournment

Next Board Meeting: February 6, 2006

Meeting Date: February 6, 2006 Application #: 06.007.0 Applicant: Saddlebrook Development, LLC Permit Requested: Rezoning

CLT Map & Parcel #: Location:

Current Zoning: Requested Zoning: Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: History of Zoning:

Extension of Zone: Appx. Size of Tract: Accessibility:

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

118 017 (Part, as per map on file with TTCDA) Northwest of Lovell Rd., northeast of Yarnell Rd.

PC (Planned Commercial)/TO (Technology Overlay) OB (Office, Medical & Related Services )/TO (Technology Overlay) Vacant parcel Apartment complex (Lovell Crossing) Property was zoned PC in 2005 as part of a mixed-use rezoning proposal for this property.

Yes, from the northwest 2.1 acres Access is via Lovell Rd., a two-lane, minor arterial street proposed to be widened to a five-lane cross section in the next few years.

North: OB/TO

Vacant land proposed for apartment and office development

South: PC/TO

Vacant land proposed for commercial development East: PC/TO

Centerpoint Business Park West: PC/TO

Vacant land proposed for commercial development

Neighborhood Context: This parcel is located to the west of Centerpoint Business Park, which has been developed under BP and PC zoning. The overall site has been approved for apartment and office uses under the OB zone, which permits residential development as a use by right. At the time the larger property was rezoned to OB and PC, it was the developer s intent to include this portion of parcel 017 as part of the apartment complex. Other properties in the area are developed with large lot and suburban density residential uses.

Analysis and Concerns:

The subject property is designated for Technology Park uses under the Comprehensive Development Plan and Mixed Uses under MPC s Northwest County Sector Plan. The property is part of a larger tract that has been approved for apartment and office development under the OB zone. (The application was approved by default, consistent with TTCDA procedural requirements.)

It was the original intent of the developer of the party to include this portion of the site for the proposed apartment complex. OB zoning allows multi-family development, consistent with the RB general residential requirements of the zoning ordinance.

A companion request will be on MPC s February 9, 2006, public meeting agenda for consideration. The MPC staff has recommended approval of the request.



Based on the application as submitted, the staff recommends APPROVAL of a Certificate of Appropriateness for OB (Office, Medical & Related Services) zoning. Approval of this request will result in a small extension of the OB zone, which will not have a major impact on the surrounding area. The OB is a less intense zone that the PC zone, in terms of the uses permitted, and will allow the property to be used for multi-family development.

2/1/2006 Revised:Original Print Date:

Jurisdiction:

Map No:

Petitioner:

County

118

Rezoning

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS

N

Metropolitan Planning Commission * City / County Building * Knoxville, TN 37902

SaddlebrookDevelopment, LLC

06.007.0

Purpose of Request:

0 500'

1-4 DU/AC

1-3 DU/AC

1-3.5 DU/ACPR/TO

RB/TO

RB/TO

A/TO

PC/TO

BP/TO

OB/TO

A/TOPC/TO

BP/TO

BP/TO

A

A/TO

BP/TO

CA/TO

PR/TO

A/TO

CB/TO

PROB/TO

VIK

CENTERPO

INT

BLVD

CENTERPOINT BLVD

LO

YARNELL RD

BOB GRAY RD

FER RD

MERCURY DR

O

DR

HIGHVUE

LOV

ELL

RD

HIGH

MEADOW DR

6.01

1.01

3.01

16.02

15.01

16.01

16.03

16.04

16.0516.06

16.07

16.09

16.10

69.02

16.15

17.01

16.13

28.0228.01

30.01

16.11

25.03

30.02

16.12

21.01

.03

25.02

36.13

25.01

70.05

-15.02G

2

4

1

8

23

10

24

30

31

29

1516

17

18

19

32

33

34

35

7

45

66

25

6

67

21

20

26

27

69

104

28

22

1114

12 13

2.00C

2.80C

1.07C

2.29D

2.20D

1.88D

2.78D

2.12D

3.47D

4.47D

5.92D

2.58C

2.95C

1.5D

1.13D

1.33D

1.42D

1.59D

7.85D

6.85D

6.15D

4.75D

2.19D

2.26D

2.36D

5.62D

4.29D

1.87D

47.92D

10.96D

U/C

21 10

7

27

20

8

17

12

4

21

1511

26

8

5

25

19

9

23

9

20

18

6

14

8

11

9

13

12

24

5

7

26

2

9

30

8

15

8

12

28

23

16

6

22

19

13

6

2

9

9

5

31

25

18

22

4

5

5

2.12D

13

10

7

13

2

3

13

16

8

2520

22

7

16

2

11

1

24

18

1

2229

2228

23

3

10

21

20

3

29

10

1117

14

26

106

8

14

5

26

23

20

25

12

7

19

19

4

7

18

1

7

0

15

11

6

5

30

21

13

2

2.20C

12

15

27

1

11

15

2

14

10

1414

17

27

8

9

16

311

4

1

24

16

6

7

28

10

24

21

15

19

9

1

9 12

06.0

07.0

• S

addl

ebro

ok D

evel

opm

ent,

LLC

• R

ezon

ing

• 10

703

Yarn

ell R

oad

Meeting Date: February 9, 2006 Application #: 06.008.0 Applicant: Judy and Charles Cowden Permit Requested: Building Permit


Zoning: Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Appx. Size of Tract: Accessibility:

Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses:

103 104 Northwest of Hardin Valley Rd., northeast of Blue Meadow Ln.

BP (Business & Technology Park)/TO (Technology Overlay) Vacant land Single-family dwelling 1 acres Access is via a private easement to Hardin Valley Rd., a three-lane, minor arterial street at this location.

North: BP/TO Vacant land, community college campus South: CB/TO A/TO vacant land East: BP/TO Community college campus West: A/TO, PR/TO Large lot residential, suburban residential

Comments:

This is a request for approval to construct an approximate 2,300 sq. ft., one story, single-family dwelling on property zoned BP. The BP zone allows development of individual single family dwellings on lots with a minimum size of one acre, with review approval of a site plan by the TTCDA Board. Plans for such construction must comply with minimum requirements set forth in the Design Guidelines.

The one-story structure will have a red-brick exterior, with black shutters.

Access to the house will be by means of an existing gravel driveway to Hardin Valley Dr. The driveway will connect with a concrete apron next to the garage.

The house will be placed on the lot to comply with setback requirements of the Design Guidelines.

Some low level landscaping will be placed around the perimeter of the house, and trees will planted throughout the yard.

The lot will subdivided fro the larger tract through MPC s administrative plat process.

Design Guideline Conformity:

The proposal conforms to the Design Guidelines.

Waivers and Variances Requested:

None required.


Based on the application and plans, as submitted, the staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Building Permit, subject to the following conditions:

1. Meeting all relevant requirements of Knox County Engineering and Public Works. 2. Meeting all relevant requirements of the Knox County Health Department.


3. Meeting all relevant requirements of the Knox County Zoning ordinance, as appropriate. 4. Approval, certification and recording of an administrative plat for this lot. 5. Approval by MPC of the companion use on review request, file # 2-D-06-UR.

PLEASE NOTE: The applicant intends to bring to the TTCDA meeting an elevation of the proposed structure.

1-5 DU/AC

0-0.5

1 - 3 DU/AC

1 - 4 DU/AC

P/TO

BP/TO

A/TO

BP/TOOB/TO

PR/TO

A/TO

PR/TO

A/TO

A/TO

PR/TO

A/TOPR/TO

PR1-3DU/AC

AWAR

D W

INN

ING

WAY

BRYANT LN

1.04

1.02

1.03

99.01

25.01

25.02

25.03

101.01

102.01

103.01

104.01

104.02

104.03

112.06

112.04

112.03

112.01

110.08

110.07

110.04

114.01

107.01

108.01

107.03

110.02

107.04

114

36

35

101

39

2

1011 38

12

16

3

18

4

19

5

13

20

102

6

7

8

115

1

113

112

111

9

106

104103

21

17

37

3029

1415

34

33

32

31

24

22

28

27

26

2523

1.00C

5.50D

1.70D

1.75C

5.10C

26.59C

2.08D

1.62D

U/C

ATHLETIC FIELD

TENNIS COURT

17

19

37

9

U/C

15

11

16

26

9

10

17

3

721

20

8

31

33

25

11

20

281

10

2

U/C

27

5

6

2216

U/C

13

2

35

14

14

12

3

14

1821

2

15

2

1

3

U/C

U/C

22

30

U/C

29

24

3

4

34

25

7

11

U/C

25

5

23

23

13

7

15

4

10

12

1

366

8

26

12

16

19

20

9

1

24

18

4

17

5

6

38

32

BLUE M

EADO

W LN

CONNERS CREEK CIR

500'0

Purpose of Request:

06.008.0 Judy & CharlesCowden


N


Building Permit

103

County

Petitioner:

Map No:

Jurisdiction:

Original Print Date: Revised:2/1/2006

06.0

08.0

• J

udy

& C

harl

es C

owde

n •

Bui

ldin

g P

erm

it-N

ew C

onst

ruct

ion

• 10

925

Har

din

Val

ley

Roa

d

Meeting Date: February 9, 2006 Application #: 06.009.0 Applicant: Stuart Anderson Permit Requested: Building Permit


Zoning: Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Appx. Size of Tract: Accessibility:

Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses:

103 119.06 Southeast side Hardin Valley Rd., southwest side Castaic Ln.

PC (Planned Commercial)/TO (Technology Overlay) Vacant land Shopping center 2.49 acres Access is via Castaic Ln, a local street, with 32 ft. of pavement within a 70- ft. right-of-way.

North: BP/TO Community college campus South: PC/TO

Commercial business East: PC/TO

Convenience store West: A/TO

Vacant land

Comments:

This is a request for approval of a COA for a 12,000 sq. ft. shopping center. The subject property contains approximately 2.49 acres and is part of a small business park that includes convenience retail, business and office uses.

The building s exterior treatment primarily will include brick and stone veneer, and Dryvit Infinity rainscreen system, or equal material.

The roof will be a Galvalume metal roof, with a slight pitch toward the rear of the building. The roof can be seen from the property located to the south.

The site plan shows 61 spaces, which is well above the minimum required by the Design Guidelines, based on building square footage.

The landscaping plan includes a mix of high and low level materials. An 8 ft. wide landscaped strip will be installed between the two sections of the parking lot.

No signage is being proposed at this time. Separate sign permit requests will have to be considered at a later date.

Design Guideline Conformity:

The plan, as submitted, is consistent with the Design Guidelines, except for: (1) front yard (Castaic Lane) setback, (2) rear yard setback, (3) exposed rear roof line where mechanical units will be located, and (4) maximum floor height for one storey.

Waivers and Variances Requested:

(1) Waiver to reduce the front yard (Castaic Lane) setback, from 75 ft. to 30 ft.; (2) waiver to reduce the rear yard setback, from 33 ft. to 10 ft.; (3) waiver to allow the rear portion of the roof, where mechanical units are to be located, to be exposed from the adjacent property; and (4) increase the maximum floor height for one storey, from 12 ft. to 18 ft.



Based on the application and plans, as submitted, the staff recommends APPROVAL of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Building Permit for a 12,000 sq. ft. shopping center, with the following conditions and waivers:

1. Meeting all relevant requirements of the Knox County Department of Engineering and Public Works.

2. Connection to sanitary sewer and meeting all other relevant requirements of the Knox County Health Department.

3. Meeting all relevant requirements of the Knox County Zoning Ordinance, as appropriate. 4. Waivers to reduce the front yard (Castaic Lane) setback, from 75 ft. to 30 ft., and the rear yard

setback, from 33 ft. to 15 ft. This setback and the rear setback are necessary to allow the applicant reasonable use of the property. A 100 ft. power line easement, which crosses the property diagonally, from north to south, and a detention facility located along the Hardin Valley Rd. frontage, remove a substantial amount of property that could used for locating the proposed building. At the request of staff, the applicant reduced the number of parking spaces that were originally shown, which adds to the amount of land that will be left in open space on the site. A landscape screen is proposed on the rear of the property to reduce the impact of the smaller setback at this location.

5. Waiver to increase the maximum allowable floor height for one storey, from 12 ft. to 18 ft. Similar waivers have been approved in the past in keeping with changing trends in building design and construction.

6 Revise the width of the two parking drive aisles to show 25 ft., as required by the Knox County Zoning Ordinance.

7. Extend the parapet wall to the rear of the building. The Design Guidelines require that mechanical units be screened from view, regardless of their location on a site. In this case, based on notes on the building elevation sheet, the building s mechanical units will be installed on the roof. The plan, as submitted, indicates that they will not be seen from the front or the two sides. The building s parapet wall needs to be extended to the rear of the building to complete the screening effect. The parapet wall also needs to be extended to hide the building s roof, which shows a slight pitch.

8. Relocate the dumpster pad so that it will not violate the TTCDA side yard setback. In addition, the plan needs to include a description of how the dumpster pad will be screened.

9. Installing all landscaping as shown on the site plan within six months of the completion of this project, or posting a bond with Knox County Engineering and Public Works to guarantee such installation.

10. Prior to the issuance of any permits for this project, submission of a site plan to the TTCDA staff to determine if all conditions of approval have been satisfied.

11. Approval of the companion use on request by MPC (file # 2-L-06-UR.)

BP/TO

CA/TO

CA/TO

CA/TO

BP/TO

A/TOBP/TO

PC/TO

A/TO

PC/TOCA/TO

PC/

CA/TO

LLISSIPPI PKWY

PELLISSIPPI PKWY

HARDIN VALLEY RD

ACC

ESS

SCH

AEFFER R

D

SOLWAY RD

CASTAIC LN

HAR

DIN

VAL

LEY

RD

SC

HA

EFFE

R R

D

NIN

G

WAY

1.01

- 119.04G

94.01

99.01

99.02

119.05

119.02

119.03

101.01

102.01

112.01

119.07

119.06

112.06

115.01

119.04

114.01

119.01

3

95

94

9

96

2

97

115

99

100

118

120

6

114

1

5

103

117

116

113

102

1.00C

2.6C

1.01C

2.13C

5.10C

1.65C

2.53C

26.59C

1.1D

5.52D7.97D

2.96D

2.34D

1.92D

1.91D

1.62D

6.37D

2.49D

2.15D

U/C

ATHLETIC FIELDS

96

U/C

U/C

U/C

100

U/C U/C

98

U/C U/C

500'0

Purpose of Request:

06.009.0 Stuart Anderson


N


Building Permit

103

County

Petitioner:

Map No:

Jurisdiction:

Original Print Date: Revised:2/1/2006

06.0

09.0

• S

tuar

t A

nder

son

• B

uild

ing

Per

mit

-New

Con

stru

ctio

n •

1070

8 H

ardi

n V

alle

y R

oad

ttcda board meeting agenda · revised, 6/3/04 ttcda board meeting agenda monday, february 6, 2006...

Documents