Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review Screening topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Smyrna planning commission defers Bailey Equipment site plan, asks for screening and clarity on design-review visibility
Summary
The commission deferred approval for Bailey Equipment’s Trident Drive site plan after architects said design-review visibility rules were ambiguous and costly; commissioners asked the applicant to return with a screening plan (tree species, placement, projected maturity) or material changes that meet design-review visibility requirements.
The Smyrna Planning Commission on Feb. 5 deferred a site-plan decision for Bailey Equipment’s proposed Trident Drive facility, directing the applicant to return with a screening plan or revised elevations that meet the town’s design-review standards.
Staff reported the site meets most dimensional and landscaping standards but identified two elevations (northwest and front) that do not meet the town’s material-percentage requirements for facades visible from public roads and Interstate 24. Architect Trent Sullivan told the commission the project team reduced visible metal on the affected elevation and increased brick/glass to about 55.8% in some areas, but argued the code’s definition of “visible” is ambiguous and that applying the higher-material standard across the entire building adds cost and can be impractical for industrial uses. “We’ve made a lot of accommodations to meet the criteria,” Sullivan said, and estimated the added brick/skin materials have increased costs by roughly $1,200,000.
Commissioners discussed alternatives including planting a continuous row of large evergreen screening between the interstate and the site and reviewing how a nearby building under construction may reduce visibility. Several commissioners said screening could resolve the issue if it demonstrably blocks public visibility; others emphasized consistency with prior design-review decisions and cautioned against making screening a routine substitute for required materials. Staff suggested the applicant could return next month with a clear screening plan showing species, planting locations and projected obstruction at maturity.
Commissioner (mover) made a motion to defer the item to the March planning commission meeting so staff and the applicant could prepare and review a screening plan and, if appropriate, refined elevations. The motion carried by voice vote.
The commission did not deny the project; the deferment asks the applicant to provide precise screening details (tree species and initial height, planting locations and a demonstration of obstructed sightlines when mature) or to revise building materials to meet the town’s visibility test. The applicant also asked staff to consider clarifying language in the design-review manual for future applicants.
