Planning Commission

TOWN OF FORT MILL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 21, 2021 112 Confederate Street 6:30 PM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Regular Meeting: November 16, 2021 [Pages 2-9] NEW BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Appearance Review: Star Investment Group [Pages 10-17] Request from Star Investment Group to grant commercial appearance review approval for a proposed Bojangles located at 322 Sutton Road. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION 1. 2022 Meeting Schedule [Page 18] 2. Recognition of Service: Chris Wolfe and Ben Hudgins ADJOURN The following press was notified of the meeting by email or fax in accordance of the Freedom of Information Act: The Herald; CN2; WRHI; Fort Mill Times and WBTV. The agenda was also posted at the entrance to Town Hall the required length of time and on the Town website. The Town of Fort Mill is committed to assuring accessibility with reasonable accommodation, of Town services and facilities for all individuals, in compliance with federal law. Please contact the Town Manager’s Office at 803-547-2116 if you need assistance. 1  MINUTES TOWN OF FORT MILL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 16, 2021 112 Confederate Street 6:30 PM Present: James Traynor, Dan Stout, Hynek Lettang, Chris Wolfe, Ben Hudgins, Matthew Lucarelli, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Planner Nick Cauthen, Planner Alex Moore Absent: Andy Agrawal Guests: See Attached Sign-in Sheet Chairman James Traynor called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 pm on Tuesday, November 16, 2021. Chairman Traynor gave the opportunity to the Planning Commission to review and comment on the October 19, 2021, meeting minutes. Commissioner Wolfe made a motion to approve the minutes and Commissioner Stout seconded the motion. The minutes of the October 19, 2021, Planning Commission were approved by a vote of 6-0. Commissioner Agrawal was absent. OLD BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Appearance Review – Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital: Mr. Cauthen provided a brief overview of the request, the purpose of which was to review and consider granting commercial appearance review approval for a rehabilitation hospital. The site is part of the Pleasant Vista MXU district. The Planning Department recommended in favor of the request. Staff noted only phase 1 was under consideration at this time. Staff also noted this project had been deferred from the previous meeting due to concerns over building materials from the Planning Commission. Staff presented updated exterior elevations which featured more brick than previously submitted. There were also 2 options for the roof screen wall. The applicant presented a sample board with brick and EIFS. EIFS is limited to the interior courtyard which is not visible from the street. The brick colors will be blended along the façade as depicted in the staff report. Mr. Lucarelli asked about if the metal screen wall on the roof was corrugated metal. The applicant stated there are different styles. The proposed style is a 3 panel look that is flush. Mr. Lucarelli also asked about the height of the screen wall. The applicant stated the screen wall will be approximately 12 ft. in height to hide the hide the mechanical equipment which is approximately 9 ft. Mr. Lucarelli asked if the equipment could be moved further back on the roof to reduce the height of the wall. The applicant responded it would be very difficult to push them back due to the configuration of the building but that will certainly be 2  considered. Mr. Wolfe asked if other buildings used this wall system for screening. The applicant stated 90% of the buildings that he designed use this screen wall. Mr. Wolfe also asked about the durability of the wall. The applicant stated these walls are used in Florida and are secured with steel posts welded to the roof joists and are very durable. Mr. Lettang noted the colors looked very good, but he would not accept the corrugated metal roof screen wall. Mr. Stout agreed. Mr. Wolfe asked about the aesthetic appeal of the detention ponds. The applicant noted they will be dry ponds. Mr. Lucarelli noted that planting street trees beside the pond could enhance the appeal. Mr. Wolfe asked if trees will be saved on the site. The applicant stated there are areas of undisturbed buffer where the trees will be kept. Mr. Wolfe asked if the internal signage would be internally lit. Staff noted the ordinance allowed for that outside of the corridor overlay but signage was in the purview of appearance review. Mr. Hudgins said the more appealing signs have a hard surface with lit letters versus the entire face glowing. After no further questions or comments Chairman Traynor asked for a motion. Mr. Hudgins made a motion to grant commercial appearance review approval as submitted. Mr. Wolfe seconded the motion and added an amendment with the condition for staff to have the ability to approve minor modifications to the site plan and elevations if needed. Mr. Lettang added an amendment to refrain from using corrugated metal for the screening wall. Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Hudgins agreed to the amendments. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0. 2. Commercial Appearance Review – Star Investment Group (Bojangles): Mr. Traynor noted the Board is responsible for appearance review only and the use is allowed by the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission’s responsibility is to make sure the project meets the appearance review requirements. Chairman Traynor offered David Cordes, a citizen concerned about the project an opportunity to speak. Mr. Cordes noted he lives in the Masons Bend subdivision. The concerns of he and his neighbors are the increased demand on the traffic circle, the propensity of the drive-thru line to potentially back up into the highway, and the potential issue of cars attempting to make a left turn into the Bojangles from Sutton Road even though it is a right-in only. He noted there will be a break in the median to allow full access for the existing property across the street on Sutton Road. Mr. Cordes asked if the access from Sutton Road to the Bojangles could be eliminated to prevent the anticipated illegal left turns. 3  Mr. Traynor reiterated the scope of the Commission is the appearance of the project. He asked staff which party would be best served to address Mr. Cordes’ concerns. Staff noted SCDOT is the party responsible, and they have approved the ingress/egress as currently proposed. SCDOT is trying to narrow the right-in, right-out as much as possible to try and eliminate left turns into the Bojangles. The TIA required for the project also analyzed the drive-thru stacking and it was found there was ample room due to the dual stacking. The Commission expressed concerns over the potential cluster this project will create from a traffic standpoint. Mr. Wolfe asked about the parking requirements for the Bojangles, he noted based upon some research of other local Bojangles that this location will have significantly fewer parking spaces. Staff noted the parking requirements will be confirmed once the occupancy numbers are verified by the building department, but the requirements are met given the information given. Mr. Stout stated he would like to ask the applicant if the layout could be flipped, and he also had concerns about the proximity of the elementary school less than a mile away. After no further questions or comments Chairman Traynor asked for a motion. The Commissioners agreed the agenda item should be deferred due to the absence of a representative to address their concerns of the project. Mr. Lettang made a motion to defer the commercial appearance review request due to the absence of the applicant. Mr. Stout seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0. 3. Preliminary Plat: Design Resource Group (Patterson Pond) Senior Planner Alex Moore provided a brief overview of the request, the purpose of which was to review and consider granting approval of a preliminary plat. The request was submitted by Design Resource Group (DRG) on behalf of Land Investment Resources, LLC. Moore stated that the proposed preliminary plat, known as Patterson Pond, is located on W. Hensley Road and consists of approximately 8.12 acres. The property is zoned R-5, One- Family Residential District. R-5 is a legacy district. Thus, in this instance the town’s zoning ordinance indicates that such legacy districts exist to allow for consistency in the future development of such areas. There will be no new R-5 zoning districts in the future. Additionally, the boundaries of such districts cannot be expanded. Senior Planner Moore then went into the specifics of the preliminary plat. He indicated that this would be an age-targeted community. Moore then noted that this project had originally come before Planning Commission as a sketch plan in July 2020. During that review, Planning Commission expressed some concern with the plan which proposed 24 lots. Since that time the applicant has modified the plan to reduce the project to 19 lots. With this reduction in density there has been an increase in open space from 1.64 acres to 3.15 acres (38%). 4 Moore then stated that the transportation technical memorandum (TTM) from 2020 indicated that a TIA was not required. Thus, with the reduction in the number of lots to 19 from 24, the findings of this TTM stand. Senior Planner Moore then presented the landscaping plan for this project. He stated that the R-5 zoning district requires that a 35’ wide landscaped buffer be placed at the perimeter of the project. This buffer may be comprised of undisturbed wooded areas or planted material consisting of a minimum of 9 evergreen trees and 20 evergreen shrubs for each 100 linear feet. With this project, the proposal is to implement new plantings within this buffer consisting of the required trees and shrubs. Additionally, there will be a 6’ tall, opaque fence along much of the perimeter of the lots. The placement of this fence will allow the developer to reduce the width of the buffer by 25% to 26’3”. Moore summed up the proposed Patterson Pond Preliminary Plat is consistent with Town of Fort Mill standards. Should Planning Commission choose to approve this Preliminary Plat, it is requested that Staff be permitted to review and approve the required civil construction drawings. Final Plats will then come back to Planning Commission for review. Civil construction plans will also be subject to review by SCDOT for encroachment permitting so that access to W. Hensley Road may be obtained. This review may necessitate a revision to the entrance alignment and/or other design features. Moore also stated that the review by Planning Commission of the Preliminary Plat needed to consider the proposed street names of Fordham Court and English Arbor Drive. Planning Commissioner Hynek Lettang asked for clarification on a portion of the project located within the northern cul-de-sac of English Arbor Drive. Moore stated that the area in question consisted of Lot 7. Planning Commissioner Chris Wolfe then had some questions regarding the project. First, Mr. Wolfe asked about the entrance of the proposed subdivision in relation to the existing 12’ wide driveway easement on the adjacent property to the immediate west. Moore stated that this respective driveway easement would remain and that this was the reason that the ingress/egress point for Patterson Pond had been shifted as far as possible to the east. Mr. Wolfe then asked about the overall density of the project. Moore noted that the project now consisted of 2.3 dwelling units per acre and that the maximum density within the R-5 zoning district is 3 dwelling units per acre. He also indicated that the smallest lot as proposed within Patterson Pond consisted of approximately 6,000 square feet. Mr. Wolfe asked what the common open space located along Fordham Court would consist of. Moore responded that he would allow the applicant to speak as to what this open space area would consist of. He did note that the preliminary plat indicated that this open space was currently of an undetermined use. The project developer, Mr. Philip Hayes, interjected that this section would consist of a pet park and that it consisted of approximately 2,000 square feet. 5 Mr. Wolfe then asked about recreational opportunities for children within this project. Mr. Hayes addressed this inquiry from Mr. Wolfe by noting that there would be open space in the area adjacent to the stormwater pond. Mr. Hayes indicated that his intention was to construct a pavilion within this section of open space. Additionally, he stated that this would be an age-targeted community. Thus, the implication was that if the HOA determines in the future that there was more of a need for a children’s recreational use, changes could be made. Mr. Hayes additionally noted the proposed walking trail within the community. Such a use would be conducive to the recreational needs of all ages. Mr. Wolfe then asked Mr. Hayes if he would be willing to make the project age-restricted rather than only age-targeted. This would be less impactful to the school district. Mr. Hayes responded that he understood Mr. Wolfe’s position. However, he had asked this question of the builder. Their response was that they simply did not want to restrict themselves to one age-group. Mr. Lettang then asked Mr. Hayes what the price point for these homes would be. Mr. Hayes responded that these would be $500,000 homes. Planning Commissioner Dan Stout then asked for clarification on whether the stormwater pond would be wet or dry. Mr. Nick Bushon with Design Resource Group responded that the pond would indeed be a wet pond. The purpose of this was to create a more scenic component to be included within the project’s open space. Planning Commissioner Matt Lucarelli asked if this pond could possibly include a fountain for an additional point of interest to coincide with the adjacent gazebo and trail. Mr. Bushon responded that he imagined there would be definite potential for this. Conversely, he indicated that with the pond also serving to replace a portion of existing wetlands on the site that this would need to be handled with care as US Army Corps of Engineer approvals had been obtained. Mr. Wolfe then stated that this iteration was an improvement over what they saw within the sketch plan submittal in 2020. He indicated that he liked the trail and the lessened density. Mr. Lucarelli then asked a question regarding the buffer fence adjacent to the southern end of English Arbor Drive included a retaining wall. Senior Planner Moore responded affirmatively. Mr. Lucarelli asked if it might be possible to push this a bit closer to the property line to allow for an expansion of the trail system within the project. Mr. Hayes responded that the difficulty with such a proposal manifests itself with the amount of buffer plantings that are required to be installed at this location. Mr. Bushon then presented a colored rendering which illustrated the totality of the project buffers. 6 Mr. Stout then asked about the height of the retaining wall at this location. Mr. Bushon indicated that this retaining wall would be approximately five feet tall. Then, around the backside of the project, closer to the BMP area, the wall could be up to ten feet tall. Mr. Lucarelli then asked what the average home size would be within the neighborhood. Mr. Hayes stated that the average home size would be from 2,800 square feet to 3,200 square feet. Ms. Penelope Karagounis, Town of Fort Mill Planning Director, then interjected that Ms. LeeAnn Clark, Town of Fort Mill Stormwater Manager was in attendance if anyone had specific questions for her about the impact of this project. Charmain James Traynor asked Ms. Clark if she was confident that this particular wet pond would be an attractive amenity within this project. Ms. Clark responded that if a wet pond was designed and constructed correctly that it could be very nice. As an example of a well-done pond, she cited the wet pond at Kingsley in Fort Mill. Mr. Wolfe asked if there was language that needed to be added by Planning Commission to ensure that this pond would be attractive rather than an eyesore. Chairman Traynor indicated that it would be expected that town staff would see that the pond be appropriately designed during the civil construction review stage. Ms. Clark responded that the design parameters for wet ponds would preclude negative outcomes. However, she noted that at the preliminary plat stage there was little information to evaluate this proposed wet pond. A much more detailed review would occur at the civil construction phase. Chairman Traynor asked if the HOA would be maintaining all the open space areas. Mr. Hayes responded affirmatively and then stated that he would like to make an additional point. He noted that the property in its current state is very overgrown and contains a dilapidated home and that there have been police calls there in response to vagrants. Additionally, the property is ridden with mice and rats and poses a fire hazard. Thus, for the record he believes that they are taking something that is an extreme eyesore for the community and turning it into something that is an asset. Mr. Stout then asked what type of surface would compose the walking trail. Mr. Hayes indicated that though he had not finalized this, he anticipated that the surface would consist of gravel. Chairman Traynor asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Lettang noted that this project as currently configured was a very nice application of the R-5 zoning district regulations. Planning Director Karagounis then stated that she believed that this property was the last undeveloped R-5 property in the town of Fort Mill. 7 Mr. Lucarelli asked if there was any comment on the proposed street names of Fordham Court and English Arbor Drive. Planning Commission members indicated that the two proposed street names of Fordham Court and English Arbor Drive were acceptable. There being no other comments or questions, Chairman Traynor entertained a motion. Mr. Lucarelli made a motion to approve the Patterson Pond Preliminary Plat and street names as submitted. Planning Commission Member Ben Hudgins seconded the motion. Then, by a vote of 5-1, Planning Commission voted to approve the Patterson Pond Preliminary Plat. The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 pm. 8 9  Meeting Information Meeting Type Planning Commission Meeting Date December 21, 2021 Request Summary X Action (Old Bus.) Action (New Bus.) Info/Discussion Request Type Public Hearing Executive Session Other Case Summary Annexation Rezoning Text Amendment Case Type Subdivision Plat X Appearance Review Other Property Information Applicant Star Investment Group d/b/a Bojangles Property Owner Alvin L. Steele / Pete A. Lang Property Location 322 Sutton Road Tax Map Numbers 020-20-01-053 / 020-20-01-052 Acreage 0.89 +/- acres Current Zoning HC, Highway Commercial Existing Use Vacant Title Request from Claude Clark to grant commercial appearance review approval for a Bojangles located at 322 Sutton Road. Background Information Site Characteristics The property is located at the SE corner of Sutton Road and Country Lodge Road. It consists of 0.89 +/- acres and is currently vacant. Neighboring Uses Direction Zoning Existing Use North RC-II Single-Family Residential (County) South HC Loves Truck Stop East HC Loves Truck Stop West RC-II Single-Family Residential (County) Zoning Summary The site is currently zoned HC, Highway Commercial. HC Dimensional Requirements 10  - Minimum lot area—10,000 sq. feet. - Minimum front yard—35 feet. - Minimum side yard—10 feet. - Minimum rear yard—35 feet. - Minimum lot width—75 feet. - Maximum Building Height—75 feet. Applicant Proposal The proposed Bojangles is 1,835 sq. ft. and will provide 21 parking spaces. The applicant has provided a site plan showing the proposed layout of the project. Parking is located on both sides of the building and there is also a proposed outdoor patio area that will be available for dining. Two access points are provided. The driveway from Sutton Road will be right-in only and the driveway from Country Lodge Road will be full access. The proposed building elevations have been provided (attached). They primarily include brick veneer, EIFS, and cement panel. Height was added to the brick sections, additional windows were added, and awnings were added as compared to the preliminary submittal discussed in September. Staff The site plan is pending review and approval by the town’s Fire Marshal Recommendation and Building Official. Should the Planning Commission wish to grant commercial appearance review approval, staff would request including language in the approval motion to allow for minor modifications to be made to the site plan to accommodate comments or concerns made by the Fire Marshal and/or Building Official. The site plan and landscape plan generally comply with all zoning requirements. The proposed building elevations meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance and feature high quality building materials, with variations in vertical and horizontal depth. Staff recommends in favor of approval, with a condition allowing staff to approve minor adjustments to the site plan, landscape plan, signage plan, and lighting plan to satisfy the comments and requirements of the town’s Fire Marshal, SCDOT, and/or the town’s Utilities and Planning Departments. Alternatives 1. Grant commercial appearance review approval with conditions. 2. Grant commercial appearance review approval. 3. Deny commercial appearance review approval. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends in favor of APPROVAL for the request, conditioned Recommendation upon allowing staff to administratively approve minor adjustments to the site plan, landscape plan, signage plan, and lighting plan to satisfy the 11  comments and requirements of the town’s Fire Marshal, SCDOT, and/or the town’s Utilities and Planning Departments. Name & Title Nick Cauthen, Planner II Department Planning Department Date of Request December 21, 2021 Legislative History Planning Commission 9/21/21: Preliminary Commercial Appearance Review Planning Commission 11/16/21: Deferred Planning Commission 12/21/21: Scheduled Attachments • Aerial Map • Zoning Map • Proposed Plans and Building Elevations 12  Aerial Map Zoning Map MXU 13  DATE RELEASE 07.07.21 PERMIT ISSUE FINISH LEGEND BRICK VENEER MODULAR BRICK - RUNNING BOND A TAYLOR CLAY PRODUCTS WIRE CUT 343 GRAY MORTAR: MORTAMIX - HOLCIM ANTIQUE WHITE CHECKED BY: Checker Author B EIFS DRAWN BY: © 2021, AKA STUDIO, P.C. THESE MANUFACTURER: STO DRAWINGS AND DESIGNS ARE PROTECTED BY THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. TEXTURE: FINE SAND FINISH THESE DRAWINGS OR ANY PART THEREOF MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OR REPRODUCED COLOR/FINISH: 16049 74 C1 IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT PARAPET BEYOND OF AKA STUDIO, P.C. ROOF ACCESS LADDER EMERGENCY OVERFLOW SIGN (BY TENANT) CEMENTITIOUS PANEL (FIBER CEMENT BD.) BEYOND SCUPPER (TYP.) MANUFACTURER: NICHIHA 1" EIFS REVEALS, TYP. PRE-FINISHED C COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS METAL COPING T.O. MASONRY STAR INVESTMENT GROUP SW 7518 - BEACH HOUSE 20'-8" LOCATION NUMBER: 288 - C3 T.O. COPING 19' - 0" (DARK COLOR) 4058 BLOSSOM HILL DRIVE DRAWINGS FOR: CEMENTITIOUS PANEL (FIBER CEMENT BD.) MATHEWS, NC 28104 MANUFACTURER: NICHIHA D COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7719 - FRESCO CREAM claudehclark@aol.com LOCATION NUMBER: 288 - C2 (MEDIUM COLOR) A WALL MOUNTED B B B LIGHT FIXTURE (TYP.) CEMENTITIOUS PANEL (FIBER CEMENT BD.) MANUFACTURER: NICHIHA T.O. WINDOW E COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS 9' - 0" SW 7526 - MAISON BLANCHE A LOCATION NUMBER: 288 - CI (LIGHT COLOR) AWNING BEYOND F PRE-FAB. METAL CANOPY MANUF.: CONSTRUCTION METAL PRODUCTS TIGER DRYLAC STEEL RACK ORANGE A A A FLOOR PLAN 0' - 0" PRE-FABRICATED METAL CONDUCTOR HEAD BRICK ROWLOCK DRIVE-THRU WINDOW (TYP.) PRE-FINISHED ALUMINUM BRICK VENEER, STOREFRONT W/ CANOPY (TYP.) W/ DOWNSPOUT (TYP.) COURSE, TYP. DARK BRONZE ANODIZED TYP. 1" INSULATING GLASS (TYP.) DARK BRONZE ANODIZED DRIVE-THRU SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" PRE-FINISHED METAL COPING GOOSE NECK LIGHT FIXTURE (TYP.) 945 WILDE RUN COURT ROSWELL, GA. 30075 (770) 642-9030 info@akastudiopc.com 1" EIFS REVEALS, TYP. PRE-FINISHED T.O. STUD PLATE 21' - 0 1/2" METAL COPING T.O. MASONRY 20'-8" T.O. COPING 19' - 0" EIFS OVERHANG / FASCIA ROOF ACCESS LADDER BEYOND B B AWNING B B CENTERED ABOVE REAR SERVICE DOOR CANOPY (TYP.) PROJECT #: R-2119 A EXTERIOR A A A ELEVATIONS FLOOR PLAN FLOOR PLAN 0' - 0" 0' - 0" CONC. CURB (PAINT) ALUMINUM AND GLASS BRICK VENEER, BRICK ROWLOCK WALL MOUNTED BRICK VENEER, BRICK ROWLOCK STOREFRONT ENTRY DOOR TYP. COURSE, TYP. LIGHT FIXTURE (TYP.) TYP. COURSE, TYP. (DARK BRONZE ANODIZED) RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" A-3.0 14  DATE RELEASE 07.07.21 PERMIT ISSUE TOP OF PARAPET WALL BEYOND CHECKED BY: Checker PARAPET BEYOND AWNING PRE-FINISHED PARAPET WALL CUT-OUT DRAWN BY: Author CENTERED ABOVE METAL COPING FOR ROOF ACCESS © 2021, AKA STUDIO, P.C. THESE DRAWINGS AND DESIGNS ARE REAR SERVICE DOOR PROTECTED BY THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. THESE DRAWINGS OR ANY PART THEREOF MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OR REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS T.O. MASONRY WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF AKA STUDIO, P.C. 20'-8" 1" EIFS REVEAL, TYP. STAR INVESTMENT GROUP GOOSE NECK LIGHT 4058 BLOSSOM HILL DRIVE FIXTURE BEYOND CANOPY ABOVE DRAWINGS FOR: DRIVE-THRU WINDOW WALL MOUNTED A BEYOND MATHEWS, NC 28104 LIGHT FIXTURE (TYP.) FINISH LEGEND claudehclark@aol.com B B BRICK VENEER ROOF ACCESS LADDER MODULAR BRICK - RUNNING BOND A TAYLOR CLAY PRODUCTS WIRE CUT 343 GRAY MORTAR: MORTAMIX - HOLCIM ANTIQUE WHITE DRIVE-THRU WINDOW BEYOND B EIFS MANUFACTURER: STO A A TEXTURE: FINE SAND FINISH FLOOR PLAN COLOR/FINISH: 16049 74 C1 0' - 0" CEMENTITIOUS PANEL (FIBER CEMENT BD.) BRICK VENEER, BRICK ROWLOCK HOLLOW METAL DOOR TYP. COURSE, TYP. AND FRAME (PAINT) MANUFACTURER: NICHIHA C COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS REAR ELEVATION SW 7518 - BEACH HOUSE SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" LOCATION NUMBER: 288 - C3 (DARK COLOR) PRE-FINISHED PRE-FINISHED CEMENTITIOUS PANEL (FIBER CEMENT BD.) METAL COPING METAL COPING MANUFACTURER: NICHIHA 1" EIFS REVEAL, TYP. D COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS T.O. STUD PLATE SW 7719 - FRESCO CREAM T.O. MASONRY 21' - 0 1/2" 945 WILDE RUN COURT LOCATION NUMBER: 288 - C2 20'-8" ROSWELL, GA. 30075 (770) 642-9030 info@akastudiopc.com (MEDIUM COLOR) T.O. COPING 19' - 0" EIFS OVERHANG / FASCIA CEMENTITIOUS PANEL (FIBER CEMENT BD.) CONDUCTOR HEAD AND DOWNSPOUT SIGN (BY TENANT) MANUFACTURER: NICHIHA BEYOND E COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7526 - MAISON BLANCHE WALL MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE LOCATION NUMBER: 288 - CI (LIGHT COLOR) CANOPY ABOVE DRIVE-THRU WINDOW B BEYOND F PRE-FAB. METAL CANOPY T.O. WINDOW MANUF.: CONSTRUCTION METAL PRODUCTS 9' - 0" TIGER DRYLAC STEEL B.O. MTL CANOPY RACK ORANGE 9' - 6" DRIVE-THRU WINDOW PROJECT #: R-2119 BEYOND (DARK BRONZE ANODIZED) EXTERIOR A A FLOOR PLAN FLOOR PLAN 0' - 0" 0' - 0" ELEVATIONS BRICK ROWLOCK BRICK VENEER, PRE-FINISHED ALUMINUM ALUMINUM AND GLASS COURSE, TYP. TYP. STOREFRONT W/ STOREFRONT ENTRY DOOR 1" INSULATING GLASS (TYP.) (DARK BRONZE ANODIZED) (DARK BRONZE ANODIZED) FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" A-3.1 15  SITE LEGEND R Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. B G G G G G G G DIMENSION NOTE G GENERAL NOTES: G G 2 RECOMMENDED PAVING SPECIFICATIONS: C C PAVEMENT STRIPING SPECIFICATION: ” ” SIDEWALK NOTES: THE GROUP 16  R Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. G G G G G G G 2 · · · C C THE GROUP 17  Board & Commission Meeting Dates 2022 2nd Tuesday - 4:30 PM 3rd Monday - 6:00 PM 3rd Tuesday - 6:30 PM Month Historic Review Board Board of Zoning Appeals Planning Commission January 01/11/22 1/17/22* 01/18/22 February 02/08/22 02/21/22 02/15/22 March 03/08/22 03/21/22 03/15/22 April 04/12/22 4/18/22* 04/19/22 May 05/10/22 05/16/22 05/17/22 June 06/14/22 06/20/22 06/21/22 July 07/12/22 07/18/22 07/19/22 August 08/09/22 08/15/22 08/16/22 September 09/13/22 09/19/22 09/20/22 October 10/11/22 10/17/22 10/18/22 November 11/08/22 11/21/22 11/15/22 December 12/13/22 12/19/22 12/20/22 Application Deadline 3 Weeks Before Meeting Date 3 Weeks Before Meeting Date 3 Weeks Before Meeting Date All meetings will take place in Fort Mill Town Council Chambers, 112 Confederate Street, Fort Mill, SC 29715. Meeting agendas will be posted to the town's website (www.fortmillsc.gov) no later than the Friday before each meeting. For more information, or to be added to the Town of Fort Mill's agenda distribution list, please contact: Penelope G. Karagounis (Planning Director) at 803-835-1160 or pkaragounis@fortmillsc.gov * Date may be rescheduled due to Town offices being closed for a holiday. 18