Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD JUNE 28, 2017 MINUTES Present: Beth Santilli, chair, Brian Wurst, Mickey Seabrook, Nopporn Kichanan. Absent: Brian Boan Staff: Michael Robertson, Chris Luly, Lynnette Lynes Ms. Santilli called the meeting to order at 5:05 pm and reviewed the procedures with the public. 1. Approval of Minutes Mr. Wurst moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Public Comment & General Correspondence Mr. Luly stated that all correspondence received was distributed to the Board. Mr. Wurst moved for approval of item C and D. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Mr. Wurst moved for approval of item C. Mr. Kichanan seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further comments, Ms. Santilli continued with the agenda. 3. Business A. 349 Coleman Blvd, 349 Coleman Boulevard, 517-06-00-060, Final Approval of Site and Landscaping Mr. William O’Neill and Mr. Michael Cain reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked about the curb and gutter and on-street inlet at the corner of Broadway Street and if the water would sheet into the bio-swale. Mr. O’Neill answered in the affirmative and showed where the new inlet is located within the bio-swale on the plans for the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked if the size of the bio-swale is sufficient and if the number of plantings be reduced near the  Design Review Board June 28, 2017 Page 2 of 8 canopy trees. Mr. O’Neill answered that the plantings could be reduced if needed. Mr. Seabrook asked if Mount Pleasant Waterworks (MPW) has approved the trees being placed within the easement on top of the sewer mains. Mr. O’Neill answered in the negative. He stated that the trees proposed meet the line of site restrictions. He stated that they are willing to work with staff and all agencies for a final plan. Mr. Luly reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Wurst suggested that the sidewalk could be moved with the bio-swale inside the property line. He suggested that it would be best to comply with the design of the overlay district. Mr. Kichanan suggested that completing the curb with inlet cuts might be a better option in terms of stormwater detention and be more of an urban design. He suggested that the plantings could be removed from under the trees and different plantings used. He stated that it is difficult as the other jurisdictions have not commented on the proposed plan. Mr. Kichanan moved for deferral for restudy with approval of the project through a committee and staff. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. B. Sea Island Hamlet, 1047 Chuck Dawley Blvd, 532-08-00-001, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Ms. Santilli noted that the applicant has withdrawn this application. C. Baker Motors Parking Facility, 2121 Highway 17, 558-00-00-203, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture This item was approved through a consent motion. D. Brookgreen Town Center Lot C-2, 730 Coleman Blvd, 532-02-00-129, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Rivers Cape and Mr. Eddie Fava reviewed the submittal with the Board.  Design Review Board June 28, 2017 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Kichanan asked about the proposed changes. Mr. Cape answered that the pavers were removed from around the tree to better preserve the tree and to provide a better definition for the entrance. Mr. Kichanan asked how the pavers would be installed. Mr. Cape answered that they would be installed in cast-in- place pavers, which would only encroach approximately 1 ½ inches. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan suggested that only one paver type should be used to provide better uniformity and simplicity. Mr. Cape answered that this could be accomplished. Mr. Kichanan moved for approval with the condition that the entrance pavers are restudied. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. E. Freddy’s Frozen Custard & Steakburgers, Lowe’s at Oakland Outparcel, Highway 17N, 600-00-00-067, Conceptual Approval of Site Mr. Quinten Ellis and Mr. Mike Lucas reviewed the application with the Board. Mr. Wurst asked if the retention wall would be extended. Mr. Ellis answered in the affirmative and stated that it is required because of the grade of the property. Mr. Seabrook expressed concern with the alternate plan and traffic pattern. He suggested that the other plan would be a better option. Mr. Lucas answered that they would prefer the first plan. Mr. Luly reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan stated that he agrees with Mr. Seabrook that the first option with the drive-thru surrounding the building would be preferred. Mr. Seabrook suggested that this is a similar plan to the McDonalds on Johnnie Dodds Blvd. He suggested that the conceptual plan would be preferred to the alternate.  Design Review Board June 28, 2017 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Kichanan suggested that the area around the transformer should be better landscaped. Mr. Wurst suggested that the building should be pushed back from US17 to provide more space for the patio and mitigate the amount of sod. He stated that he prefers the first conceptual plan as well. F. Hotel Indigo (formerly Holiday Inn), 250 Johnnie Dodds Blvd., 514-00-00- 110, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Ms. Mary Martsnich and Mr. Christopher Alrecht reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Wurst asked if the columns are existing steel columns. Mr. Alrecht answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kichanan asked if this is proposed for final approval. Mr. Luly answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kichanan which landscape plan is the final plan. Ms. Martsnich answered that the plan reviewed with the Board is the final plan. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan asked about L1.1 and suggested that the layout should be coordinated with the main building. He suggested that scored concrete near the left entrance might be a better option. Mr. Wurst agreed that the base of the building should be simplified in addition to simplifying the color scheme under the port cochere. He suggested that the roof area at the center section is too thin and should be widened with the projected mullion and banding more “knitted” with the façade. He suggested that the area around the windows should be a different color to better emphasize the window areas and feel more vertical. Mr. Wurst moved for approval including all staff and board comments with study of the addition of color to make the white segments on the main tower portion  Design Review Board June 28, 2017 Page 5 of 8 more slender; simplify base to be more continuous; width of the roof on main entry façade reconsidered. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. G. Heartland Dental, 1100 McKnight Rd., 578-00-00-034, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Kevin Berry and Mr. Dan Sherer reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked about the proposed future office building and that it would be too close in proximity to the proposed building. Mr. Berry answered that it is only showing potential future building area with a shared courtyard. Mr. Berry asked about the sidewalk and how it would connect to the parking. Mr. Berry showed this on sheet C-200 for the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked about parking for the future building and if the site could provide sufficient parking. Mr. Berry answered in the affirmative and stated that they would have the parking be more linear as recommended by staff. Mr. Seabrook stated that he is not opposed to a 50-foot buffer on the front. Mr. Wurst asked if the attic space would be used and if the pitch of the roof could be lowered. Mr. Sherer answered in the negative and stated that this could be considered. Mr. Wurst also suggested that the gables could be lowered as well. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan suggested that the site might not provide sufficient parking and as proposed should be restudied. He agreed that the buffer could be reduced to 50 feet. He suggested that future buildings should be more fully shown to see the massing in relation to the parking. Mr. Seabrook asked for clarification on comment #12 and if the existing service needs to be relocated. Mr. Luly answered that the route should be relocated so it does not go through the buffer. Mr. Berry stated that they are not opposed to re-routing the sewer line. Mr. Seabrook suggested that there could be restrictions and suggested that trees should be preserved as much as possible.  Design Review Board June 28, 2017 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Wurst suggested that roof line should be lowered. He suggested that the columns appear thin and the windows under the gable should be combined. He suggested that the window awnings should attach to the lap siding and not the board and batten. He suggested that the same should be done for the doors. He suggested that the water table should be restudied and lowered to ensure a window is not sitting in that table. Mr. Seabrook moved for deferral for restudy of the landscape as recommended by staff and review and inclusion of architectural comments. Mr. Wurst seconded the motion. All in favor. H. Offices at Belle Hall Bldg. 1, Point Drive at Belle Isle Dr., 540-00-00-110, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Rush Dixon and Mr. Taylor Critcher reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked if an arborist has reviewed the pecan trees in the parking area. Mr. Critcher answered in the negative. Mr. Seabrook suggested that this should be considered as they may be reaching the end of their life cycle. Mr. Kichanan asked if palmettos would be used near the building. Mr. Critcher answered in the negative. Mr. Wurst asked how the brick would be utilized for the entrance. Mr. Dixon showed this on the plans for the Board. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Wurst cautioned about the size of the glass. Mr. Dixon answered that they could go to a maximum of 50 feet. He stated that he has no problem with the metal siding. He asked if final materials have been submitted and what type of brick would be used. Mr. Wurst moved for approval including all staff comments with approval of the metal siding. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor.  Design Review Board June 28, 2017 Page 7 of 8 I. Ferry Wharf Office Building, Tract 3W, Parcel 1, 558-00-00-100, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Ms. Abigail Richardson, Mr. Nathan Schutte, and Mr. Taylor Critcher reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Schutte reviewed the materials with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked if there is a sample of the pavers. Mr. Critcher answered that they can provide a sample. Mr. Kichanan asked if they would be a standard 4x8 paver. Mr. Critcher answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kichanan asked if there were any flower varieties proposed with the grasses. Mr. Critcher answered in the negative. Mr. Wurst asked about the corner detail near the top floor. Mr. Schutte answered that because it is separate from the other details, it was considered the best option to have it match the other corner details. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Robertson suggested that the corner should be aligned with the crosswalk to avoid a slight “jogging over”. Mr. Schutte answered that this could be considered. Mr. Wurst applauded the design and revisions. Mr. Kichanan agreed that more interest in the plantings should be considered for the public path area to better match the other facades. He suggested that the paver under the angled canopy should be differentiated from the vehicle access. Mr. Kichanan moved for final approval with further study of the trail side for more emphasis on the planting plan and drop-off. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor.  Design Review Board June 28, 2017 Page 8 of 8 J. Towne Centre, Barnes & Noble Parking Addition, Mount Pleasant Towne Centre, 558-00-00-203, Final Approval of Site and Landscape This request was withdrawn by the applicant. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:22 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes DRB06282017  Attachment 1 COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Staff Report June 28, 2017 1. 349 Coleman/Kickin Chicken, 349 Coleman, 5170600060, Final Approval of Site and Landscape Site and Landscape Comments- This submittal is for a plan revision requesting the Board’s after the fact approval of a site and landscape change. DOT has denied the request for on-street parking closest to Coleman Blvd. as approved previously by DRB. The project improvised by removing from the plans both the on-street parking along with the curb and gutter, filling in this area with sod and a single species of ground cover. What is installed at present and is now up for review and approval this month is not in keeping with the quality of design the Town is seeking along Coleman Boulevard, arguably the Town’s most design focused district. If curb and gutter, components of an urban corridor, are going to be left off for a “bioswale”, this swale should be better designed and not left in its current state as an afterthought on a prominent corner. Also, there is no buffer requirement for this side street but there is a street tree requirement of one 4” canopy tree per 100 linear feet along Broadway. Now that on-street parking is not present, there is adequate room to fulfill the street tree requirement. At present there are three 4” street trees along approximately 270’ feet of Broadway frontage. All of this being said, the sidewalk that is supposed to be in the public right-of-way in accordance with the code is now inside the property lines of the project and any new street trees will need to be located in the public right-of-way which DOT may or may not allow at this point. Staff recommends the applicant restudy the bioswale area to meet the requirements as set forth in the Town’s code of ordinances and to also feature a higher quality of landscape design with a resubmittal to staff for final approval. Architecture Comments- N/A 2. Sea Island Hamlet, 1047 Chuck Dawley, 532-08-00-001, Final Preliminary Approval of Architecture, Site and Landscape Site and Landscape Comments- The residential project on Chuck Dawley Blvd. is before the Board for review and comments on the activity zone. The submittal has not followed the provided checklist of submittal requirements and is highly cluttered with information that is illegible on most sheets. Unrequired information has also been provided that makes the submittal even more difficult to decipher. Any information not required by the provided checklist shall be eliminated on the next submittal. Some checklist items that require fixing include: The project address is not listed on pages 35-37, the submittal type is not specified on pages 15-20, pages 15-20 and 35-37 need complete dates, building setbacks are not clearly identified on the site plan, flood zone and silt fencing is not indicated clearly on the grading plan, the required bufferyard and landscape requirements chart is missing, location of trees to be saved have not been shown on all plans and individual sheet titles we’re given. Staff recommends the Board defer the project as there is either not enough information to properly review the project or the necessary information is not readable. Architecture Comments- The applicant has met with staff to discuss this project. Section 156.318 O.3.a requires the primary entrance of buildings facing boulevards to have their entrance from the street. As a result, the end units should appear to front Chuck Dawley Boulevard. The design seeks to address Chuck Dawley by creating a secondary gable to break down the massing of the long side of the unit. Doors face this side but the detailing needs to be refined to create a true primary façade. The second floor doors are larger than the primary entrance below. Side lights and a transom could help establish a more prominent entry and focal feature. The second floor deck is a mere extension of the primary porches that are covered facing the internal street. The porch should be extended and roofed like a porch. Ideally both porches should wrap the end unit. While the design has a strong start to create a nice façade for the end units facing Chuck Dawley, it should be further refined to establish the primary façade on the boulevard. The primary facades on the internal street have a strong vernacular design with subtle variations in material and design to create interest and variety without appearing too forced. Staff would recommend some further study to alter the triple gable more in the overall streetscape mixture similar to  Building C or add more of this unit type throughout. Also, the gable projections appear to hang over the driveway without any support. The corner columns should appear to support the structure above and be an extension of the house to the ground. Staff recommends preliminary approval with further study and refinement of details as noted. 3. Baker Motors Parking Facility, 2121 Highway 17 North, 558-00-00-203, Final Approval of Site and Landscape Site and Landscape Comments- This submittal features a tear down of an existing strip building to make way for a parking area that will serve the Baker Motor Company’s dealership next door. The project has gone before the Board of Zoning Appeals for a number of variances and the vested site plan approved by that body matches what has been submitted to DRB. 1. Dates and information on variances shall be provided on the title sheet as stated on the provided checklist so that staff, the Board and the public are aware of the history of this project. 2. There is a large oak set to be saved at the back, eastern corner of the site. There are proposed changes in grade to the tree’s protection zone. No existing grades were easily identified for this area on the grading plan so staff cannot verify impacts. Adding or removing earth in this area will impact the tree’s health. Also, there is a gas line running through the protection zone currently that may be removed. If this tree is to be saved, the line should be cut and abandoned or pulled out but not dug up. The encroachment into the protection zone was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals and the site plan is vested but the applicant may need to remove and mitigate for the tree is these impacts will affect it’s life. 3. No paver detail was given showing what the pavers will look like. 4. The buffers cannot count off site trees nor may they count parking island trees towards requirements. Staff recommends final approval with minor comments addressed and resubmitted to staff for review and stamping. Architecture Comments- N/A 4. Brookgreen Outparcel, 2121 Highway 17 North, 5320200129, Final Approval of Architecture, Site and Landscape Site and Landscape Comments- Three areas clouded in red are proposed for site and landscape changes. All revisions are minor in nature and are mainly in response to ADA requirements. The back/north side of the building adjusts an already approved ramp to accommodate a new door. The left/west of the building expands an area of sidewalk to provide a mean of egress from the building. The third area under consideration to the east of the building is less clear. The change to the originally approved plans shows the adjustment of cast in place concrete pavers within the tree protection zone. The pavers shifted from one side of the tree to the other and changed in form. The applicant shall explain the rationale behind the alteration. Staff recommends final approval. Architecture Comments- The applicant has met with staff to discuss revisions to the original design. In addition to the minor changes listed in the site and landscape comments above, the window on the east front elevation is being changed to an ADA door. Staff recommends approval. 5. Freddy’s Frozen Custard and Burgers, 2121 Highway 17 North, 6000000067, Conceptual Approval of Site Layout Site and Landscape Comments- The purpose of Freddy’s conceptual submittal is to acquire the Board’s direction on site layout. The projects representatives have met with staff and addressed comments that have arisen. The project sits on an outparcel adjacent to the DRB approved Lowes that is currently under construction. As a part of that DRB process, the Lowes project was required to conceptually design this outparcel to show how the two spaces might work together. What Freddy’s has shown in this submittal meets that “master plan” provided by Lowes to the best extent possible, while maintaining the necessary characteristics that Freddy’s requires to be operational. Two potential site plans have been provided along with the earlier DRB approved plan for Lowes and outparcel. Staff and the applicant seek the Board’s preference on site layout and any additional commentary that may help drive the project. Architecture Comments- N/A 6. Hotel Indigo, former Holiday Inn, 2121 Highway 17 North, 5140000110, Final Approval of Architecture, Site and Landscape Site and Landscape Comments- The existing Holiday Inn near the Ravenel Bridge is undergoing modifications as it becomes Hotel Indigo. Site and landscape work involved removal and replacement of landscaping, adjustment of sidewalk, curbing, asphalt and retaining walls. Much of the proposed work is to take place in the amenity area where the pool and surrounding amenities will undergo a major overhaul. There are no apparent additions or subtractions from the existing building and the parking areas and drive aisles are to remain in the same configuration as they currently stand. Comments include: 1. The applicant shall explain the intention to demolish and rebuild existing sidewalks, retaining walls and such. Staff has concerns with the proposed work around the saved grand trees and requests more information. 2. The applicant shall explain the reasoning for removal of existing landscaping and trees in areas that are not undergoing major changes like the pool area. There are numerous trees called out as removed that require explanation. 3. The bike rack relocation should be shown on the plans. The location shall be somewhere easily accessed and prominent, such as near a building entrance. 4. All parking islands are to have a canopy tree from the list of accepted species in the zoning code. This includes islands that currently do not have trees. Palms, street lamps and sidewalk may not be located in parking islands unless these islands are expanded to accommodate required canopy trees as well. 5. Hardscape around the pool will need to be pulled back to at least 10’ from the property line to meet the landscape bufferyard requirements except when providing a means of egress as seen where the patio extends to the pool gates in the eastern corner. 6. Trees 135-139 that are shown as removed were not found on the tree summary so staff cannot verify if they need to be mitigated. Staff recommends final approval with all minor comments addressed and a full resubmittal made to staff.  Architecture Comments- The applicant has met with staff to discuss this design. The proposed renovation creates a base for the building and seeks to create a visual focal point with the renovation of the elevator lobbies on each floor. A panel has been added to the large, blank wing walls adjacent to the windowed panels to give a better balance to the front façade. A base of brick and stone veneer has been added to the building to create a base. The applicant may want to consider simplifying this feature using one material or the other. The overall building height of the new tower will need to be submitted to verify compliance with the height limitations of the zoning code. Staff recommends approval. 7. Heartland Dental, 2121 Highway 17 North, 5780000034, Preliminary Approval of Architecture, Site and Landscape Site and Landscape Comments- This site’s location falls within a handful of overlay districts with different requirements and constraints. Like numerous projects the Board has seen before, there are three different front yard buffers on Highway 17. The Board has the ability to grant the applicant relief on one of these three. The Board may allow a reduction from 100’ to a minimum of 50’ but only if the applicant demonstrates exceptional conditions. These include parcel size, presence or lack of natural vegetation, any public rights-of-way being acquired for roadways, existence of easements or any other conditions that the Board that agrees constrain the site. Site and landscape comments are: 1. The site layout and parking plan need to be refined. What is shown currently appears to maximize site development at the expense of good design. Staff has requested that the drive aisles be straightened and linked to create circulation and eliminate dead ends. The buildings can shrink to accommodate. 2. Ponds may meander into a required bufferyard but a pond may not take up an entire buffer as shown here. This will need to be redesigned completely. 3. The title sheets needs to go into greater detail on the overlays that this parcel falls under. These overlays have specific requirements on setbacks, buffers, etc. This detailed information must be present on the title sheet as presented to the applicant through the submittal checklist.  4. Town trees on Highway 17 need to be surveyed, labeled and protected to the full extent of the tree protection zones. 5. No trees may be removed from the natural buffers unless they are dead or hazardous. 6. Silt fence cannot run through a trees required protection zone. 7. All trees that are saved must have required tree protection in accordance with the code. Some tree protection zones need to be expanded. 8. A schedule of all removed trees is needed. Show size, species, rating, etc. 9. A building corner encroaches into the 50” undisturbed buffer. This corner and any footings cannot fall within tree protection zones or undisturbed buffers. 10.The applicant shall explain the rationale for removing trees within a proposed landscape buffer. Without the required tree chart there is no way to tell if these are dead trees that need to be removed or of good quality that should be saved. 11.Fill or grading cannot affect saved trees. As shown there appears to be dirt placed on top of tree protection zones. Again, the tree barricades must encompass the entire tree protection zone as stated in the zoning code. Staff is particularly concerned with the cluster of large trees to the north of the site. The grading plan needs to be restudied. 12. Utilities need to run perpendicular to the front yard natural buffer and not through the buffer in a parallel manner as shown. Tree protection barricades may need to be broken up to accommodate a perpendicular utility line installation but these utility lines cannot run through the protection zones. There is a utility easement on the other side of the buffer than may be utilized. 13.Numerous checklist items are missing. Staff recommends restudy of the site and landscape plans. Architecture Comments- The applicant has met with staff to discuss this design. In addition to the standard design review guidelines, the building is located in the Sweetgrass Basket Overlay District (156.316 I.2). Section 156.316 I.2.a and a.1 state “The intent of the design requirements for this district is to reflect a more rural visual context rather than a suburban or urban look. Therefore, building materials should consist of cementitious siding to give the appearance of wood siding rather than brick or adorned  masonry siding, pitch [sic] roofs are preferred over flat roofs, and the use of porches are [sic] encouraged.” The building has been redesigned slightly from the original proposal. The gable elements have been increased in height for a more vertical appearance and also to break the eaves line of the large hipped roof. Exposed rafters have been added for a more rural feel. The cupola must be a working roof vent in order to meet the ordinance requirements for roof appurtenances. Staff recommends approval. 8. Offices at Belle Hall Bldg. 1, 2121 Highway 17 North, 5400000110, Preliminary Approval of Architecture, Site and Landscape Site and Landscape Comments- The first phase of the Office at Belle Hall (called Building 2) has been completed along with some of the site work for this second phase (called Building 1). This plan is in keeping with the original master plan and shows the building located on an already cleared and graded pad along with parking to the side and rear. Staff’s greatest concern is the growth of trees over time since this plan was created. There are two large pecans that are saved in a parking island that appear to have inadequate protection zones. Also, the trees along the existing stormwater pond to the rear of the building have likely grown since the original plan was created and the protection zones may now be encroached upon. Tree protection shall be designed and installed according to the zoning code in areas around saved trees and silt fence, etc. should not encroach into these areas. On another note, bicycle parking in accordance with the code will be required. Staff recommends final approval for this preliminary submittal with tree encroachment addressed with staff before stamping. Architecture Comments- The applicant has met with staff to discuss this design. This is the third design proposed for the site. The first two matched the building designs approved for the adjacent office building number 2. The design features the traditional panel elements featured throughout the buildings in the Belle Hall Shopping Center but in a more interesting and contemporary interpretation. The design draws from the existing design elements of the center but puts them together in a unique way creating a much lighter feel to the building. Metal wall panels, not cementitious siding, is proposed for the second floor and primary entrance. The  ordinance prohibits the use of metal siding except when used between floors at interstitial space or metal cladding used as an architectural accent; however, the Board may grant relief from the strict interpretation of the guidelines. Staff recommends approval. 9. Ferry Wharf Holder Office, 2121 Highway 17 North, 5170000245, Final Approval of Architecture, Site and Landscape Site and Landscape Comments- Ferry Wharf has been through the Design Review Board process on numerous occasions with Board approvals for the master plan and the adjacent hotel. This final submittal is a refinement of the preliminary approved plan last seen in November of 2016. The building pad continues to fit in with the already established street grid as seen on all submittals prior to this. The most apparent change is the progression from a generic plaza landscape plan noted for a sea of hardscape and patterned tree cut outs to a softer entry area and a higher level of design throughout. Staff does recommend that the embankment going down to the public waterfront pathway be considered for a higher level of landscape design as experience elsewhere on site. The only ground cover at this time is seeded grass. This side of the building is potentially more visible than the main entrance side by those users of the path, travelers on the bridge and those on the water. Additional landscaping may keep people off the grass reducing the wear on the embankment while also providing a greater level of security for the building. Staff recommends final approval with the Board giving direction on the landscaping of the embankment. Any changes to the plan may be addressed through a submittal and review with staff. Architecture Comments- The applicant has met with staff to discuss this design. The design received Preliminary Approval at the November 2016, meeting. The architect has continued to refine the design and address the comments of the Board. The final design maintains the lightness and large expanses of glass from the original design concept but incorporates the vertical proportions, materials, and design elements consistent with the overall development and the existing buildings at Patriot’s Point. Staff’s only concern is how the building will look in its context. It should be shown in elevation with the adjacent hotel which has been approved. The floor to floor and building element relationships need to be harmonious within the  development. Also, the material palette should be compatible and shown together. Staff recommends approval of the design as a stand-alone building but it should be presented within the broader context of the approved Ferry Wharf hotel building in both elevation and material. The current brick color appears drab. 10. Towne Centre Barnes and Noble Parking, 2121 Highway 17 North, 5580000100, Final Approval of Site and Landscape Site and Landscape Comments- Towne Centre wishes to gain additional parking by adjusting an existing drive aisle and other parking areas near Barnes and Noble. The reformatting of this parking area also features an overhaul of the landscaping in the vicinity. Comments include: 1. No encroachments at all will be allowed into any tree protection zones as stated by the Town Arborist. Compacting earth in the protection zones for plantation mix installation, digging to install 7 gallon southern yews and other proposed work may have a detrimental effect on these trees. The 59” live oak’s protection zone will also need expansion. As shown there are approximately four proposed parking spaces that overlap the edge of the tree protection zone. The Town Arborist has recommended that these four spaces become a parking island to protect this grand tree. He also noted that this tree has been recognized by Town Council as one of importance and therefore greater measures shall be taken to ensure its protection and health moving forward. Stages, sidewalks and concrete plank pavers will not be allowed within the protection zone. The same goes for the 46” live oak that shows brick walls and plank pavers in the protection zone. 2. Contours need to be labeled. Staff cannot determine grading impacts to trees. 3. A schedule of removed trees is needed to assess mitigation. Species, size quality and such must be provided for these trees. 4. Reasoning for removal of trees not directly in the way of proposed parking or drive aisles is required. 5. Proposed sidewalk may not run through tree protection zones to the southwest.  6. Protection zones for numerous trees need to be expanded to their full extent. 7. A great number of parking islands in the vicinity have lost their required canopy trees over the years. Throughout the site, new replacement trees shall be planted where the required trees once existed. Code section 156.200C4 requires the owner to guarantee all landscaping be of good quality and in keeping with Town requirements. 8. Parking islands need to be expanded closest to the roundabout. The openings for the trees shall be a minimum of 150 square feet. 9. The six palms nearest the roundabout will need to be readjusted to account or a required canopy tree at the end of the parking row. 10. As the provided parking chart shows this shopping center is already over parked according to the Town’s code, all spaces for this proposal will need to be porous concrete or a system of pervious pavers. Staff recommends deferral and restudy with a resubmittal to the Board after consultation with the Town Arborist and other necessary staff. Architecture Comments- N/A