Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ray Skillman Mazda DPR continued after commissioners question building waivers and rear façade design
Summary
The Advisory Plan Commission continued the development plan review for a proposed Ray Skillman Mazda dealership on U.S. 36 while asking the petitioner to revise or better justify multiple design waivers for the building’s materials and long, unarticulated side and rear elevations.
The Advisory Plan Commission continued a development plan review for a proposed Ray Skillman Mazda dealership at the southeast corner of U.S. 36 and County Road 900 East after commissioners asked the petitioner to return with changes responding to several design waivers.
Staff described the site as roughly 6 acres in a C-2 zone located in tiers 1 and 2 of the U.S. 36 overlay and said the Board of Zoning Appeals had already granted variances for a 250-foot front setback and multiple rows of display parking. The petitioner sought a collection of design waivers to allow use of metal panels and expansive glass typical of national franchise dealership prototypes instead of the UDO’s masonry and articulation requirements, and a separate waiver to shift some required foundation plantings away from the building front into other landscape areas of the site. Staff said the project meets the UDO’s other development standards and recommended approval of the foundation-planting waiver because the applicant would meet the overall landscape-quantity requirement by relocating planting to other parts of the site.
The petitioner’s architect, Tom Montgomery, described the building as a roughly 40,000-square-foot dealership with a roughly 14,700-square-foot service department and a second floor of about 9,500 square feet. He said the design followed Mazda’s corporate prototype using aluminum composite material (ACM) panels, curtain wall glazing and painted precast concrete for the service-side elevations. The petitioner said similar materials are used at nearby dealerships.
Commissioners raised design concerns focused on the building’s east and south elevations — the sides and rear that will face Kingston Street and other secondary roadways — noting those elevations showed long, largely uninterrupted precast walls that lack the architectural articulation required in the UDO. Commissioners suggested the petitioner provide additional articulation, material variation or other architectural treatments on the non-fronting elevations (or alternate landscaping/screening) so the building’s rear and sides do not present an unbroken wall along streets that the town plans to use as secondary thoroughfares.
Recognizing the DPR consolidated multiple waiver requests, commissioners asked the petitioner to return with either design revisions that provide greater articulation/material variation on the long facades or an explanation why such changes are infeasible. The petitioner requested a continuance; the commission voted to continue DPR-25-08 to the July 28 meeting with no additional public notice required.
No members of the public remonstrated at the hearing. Staff and the petitioner will continue working on materials, detailing and construction plans; the commission’s continuation gives the petitioner time to refine the elevations and respond to commissioner direction.
