Design Review Board

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD JULY 26, 2017 MINUTES Present: Brian Wurst, Brian Boan, Mickey Seabrook, Michael Bertin. Absent: Beth Santilli, Jeff Fort, Napporn Kichanan. Staff: Michael Robertson, Chris Luly, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Robertson called the meeting to order at 5:10 pm and stated that the Board would need to elect a chairman to run this meeting. Mr. Seabrook moved for Mr. Wurst to chair the meeting. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Wurst reviewed the procedures with the public. 1. Approval of Minutes Mr. Seabrook moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Public Comment and General Correspondence A. Request for one year extension of previously DRB approved Belle Hall Executive Offices Phase 2 in accordance with §156.049 Vested Rights Mr. Robertson stated that under the vested rights act, a project that has received approval can ask for extension. Mr. Boan moved for approval of the extension as required by state law. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Luly noted that all correspondence has been distributed to the Board. There being no comments, Mr. Wurst continued with the agenda. 3. Business A. Wendy’s Remodel, 361 Highway 17, 517-00-00-057, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Andy Blackburn reviewed the request with the Board. He stated that the patio would be eliminated. He stated that they would also like to have an  Design Review Board July 26, 2017 Page 2 of 10 awning over the side door. He stated that revised plans would be submitted showing the patio removed and the side door awning. Mr. Seabrook asked the differences between this location and the location on Chuck Dawley. Mr. Blackburn distributed photos of the Chuck Dawley location for the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked if the area above the windows would be the same color as the Chuck Dawley location. Mr. Blackburn answered in the affirmative. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Boan asked if staff recommends restudy. Mr. Robertson answered in the affirmative and stated that the comments are similar to what was included for the Chuck Dawley location. He stated that both locations are in the Urban Corridor Overlay District (UC-OD). Mr. Wurst stated asked if the blade is on the front. Mr. Blackburn answered that the plans show it on the front, but would like to move it to the side. Mr. Robertson clarified that the plans show the blade on the Houston Northcutt façade and they would like to move it to the US17 façade. Mr. Seabrook stated that he would be comfortable with approving the structure as it is similar to the other location. Mr. Boan asked why the blade is proposed to the moved. Mr. Blackburn answered that they would like to move it to the US17 façade for better visibility. Mr. Wurst moved for approval of the request with with restudy of the design of US17 facade and integration of blade centered with some type of treatment for the top portion. 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 Mr. Seabrook recused himself due to a conflict of interest.  Design Review Board July 26, 2017 Page 3 of 10 Mr. Lewis Seabrook reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Adam Baslow reviewed the architecture with the Board. Mr. Boan asked if the intention to remove the existing plantings along Chuck Dawley. Mr. L. Seabrook answered that there is an existing loop driveway. He stated that the larger trees would be preserved, with the remaining lower plantings removed. Mr. Baslow stated that many of the trees are crepe myrtles and the intention is to relocate them to an open space area. Mr. Wurst asked what was approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. L. Seabrook stated that only the footprint of the buildings was shown on the preliminary plat as the building design had not been finalized. Mr. Brett Champion, 1224 Penny Circle, stated that the townhomes would be near Penny Circle. He suggested that the building would not have the required buffer. He stated that the building does not meet the buffer requirements. He expressed concern that the townhomes would be seen because of the proposed eight foot buffer. He stated that there is a drainage easement between the homes on Penny Circle and this development, which would mean additional plantings would not be allowed. Mr. Jeff Bates, 1265 Penny Circle, expressed concern with the buffer requirements and that the eight foot proposed buffer is not sufficient between the townhomes and his home. He expressed concern with the proximity of the pond to his home. Mr. Frank Blanc, 1220 Penny Circle, also expressed concern with the narrow buffer. He expressed concern that these were townhomes and not duplexes. He asked the difference between a duplex and a townhome. He suggested that as defined, these would be considered townhomes and should have a 15 foot buffer. He asked that a more dense buffer be considered. Mr. Bernard and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Bertin asked the difference between a duplex and townhome. Mr. Bernard answered that there is a portion of the buffer that is 8.34 feet. He stated that the ordinance allows the buffer to be averaged. He stated that there are some  Design Review Board July 26, 2017 Page 4 of 10 building elements that differ between a duplex and a townhome. He stated that the ordinance states that a building with three or more units is considered a townhome. Mr. Wurst asked if a different buffer is required for a duplex. Mr. Bernard answered in the affirmative and stated that a buffer is not required between a duplex and a single family home. Mr. Wurst asked if a buffer would be required between the pond and single family homes. Mr. Bernard answered in the negative. Mr. Boan asked the building height. Mr. Robertson answered that it would be 40 feet. Mr. Boan asked if the rear property design took into consideration the existing residences. Mr. L. Seabrook answered that the stormwater design had an effect on the project design. He stated that there was some preliminary discussion on flipping the location of the pond with the rear townhomes, but the proposed design was considered the most appropriate. He stated that it desired, these could be flipped with a redesign of the cul-de-sac, and rear detention area. Mr. L. Seabrook stated that final design elements such as dumpster locations, landscaping, etc. would be submitted for final approval. He stated that because Chuck Dawley is a state road, the access and plantings along Chuck Dawley would have to be approved by SCDOT. He stated that some of the design details such as the location of the transformers were not included on the preliminary plat as the design was not finalized and required approval from third party agencies. Mr. Bertin asked if the intention is to relocate the existing trees on the property. Mr. Baslow answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wurst agreed with staff comments on architecture elements for the Chuck Dawley façade. He also suggested that the porch gable should come off of the band board as opposed to the lap board. He asked the material for the garage doors. Mr. Baslow answered that this has not been finalized. Mr. Wurst agreed with staff on showing division of the units. He asked if there would be gutters for the roofs. Mr. Baslow answered that it would be included with the final design.  Design Review Board July 26, 2017 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Boan moved for approval of the request including all staff and board comments to include restudy of rear portion of the development based on adjacent resident comments. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor. The Board convened for a short break at 6:21 pm and reconvened at 6:24 pm. C. Vision Center at Seaside Farms, 1342 Long Grove Road, 561-00-00-194, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Giles Branch reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Brian Belder reviewed the architecture with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked if the two driveways align. Mr. Branch answered in the affirmative and stated that the curvature gives the appearance that they are slightly off. Mr. Seabrook asked if parking could be accommodated to the left of the building. Mr. Branch answered that this could be considered, but tried to keep the development as compact as possible. Mr. Wurst asked about roof. Mr. Belder answered that the there is a “notch” for the roof and building section. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Bertin asked if the driveway on Long Grove is necessary. Mr. Branch answered that because the parking is located to the rear, the access would be needed. Additionally, access from the adjacent parcel would be difficult as it would be from the service entrance. Mr. Boan asked about lighting for the parking lot. Mr. Belder answered that they have not finalized the photometric plan. Mr. Boan suggested that they consider the lighting trespass. Mr. Seabrook asked if an arborist has inspected the trees. Mr. Branch answered that the report was completed and received this afternoon. Mr. Seabrook asked the condition of the trees. Mr. Branch answered that they were not in good shape with being “C” and “D”.  Design Review Board July 26, 2017 Page 6 of 10 Mr. Luly asked if the parking could be reconfigured to be outside of the tree protection zones. Mr. Branch answered that this could be considered. Mr. Luly suggested that the drive aisle could be changed to a one way and the parking area configured around the trees so that the trees could be better preserved. Mr. Branch answered that this could be considered in addition to considering pervious material. Mr. Wurst asked if the stacked roof elements could come from the inside the brick element. Mr. Belder answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wurst suggested that the windows should be moved slightly away from the piers. Mr. Belder answered that this could be accomplished. Mr. Seabrook moved for approval including all staff and board comments with more detailed information on the condition trees from the arborist be submitted with the final submittal. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. D. Aiden Fabrics, 1117 Highway 41, 580-00-00-028, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Mr. Kevin Berry and Mr. David Shook reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked about drainage. Mr. Berry answered that there is a pipe extension from the manhole that is not shown on the plans due to an error. Mr. Boan asked the reason for the height of the gable and suggested that it is out of scale. Mr. Shook answered that they would like it to be above the parapet to avoid any flashing issues and to be a single design element. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Luly stated that correspondence was received outlining concern with the roadside buffer and read ordinance 156.201 regarding roadside buffers for the Board. He stated that based on the ordinance a ten foot buffer would be required. He stated that the Board does have purview to allow a larger buffer if desired.  Design Review Board July 26, 2017 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Boan asked for clarification on the buffers. Mr. Luly answered that the ordinance requires a ten foot type B buffer, but the Board can require additional buffers if desired. Mr. Seabrook asked if boring within tree protection zones would be allowed. Mr. Luly answered that this has been allowed in the past and would have to be approved by staff. Mr. Wurst suggested that the building lacks hierarchy and asked why there are no windows on the Hwy 41 façade on the gabled component. Mr. Shook answered that this could be accomplished. Mr. Wurst suggested that a larger band board should be considered over the windows and the horizontal sections above the windows be broken up. He also suggested that the same be considered for the gable section to provide more interest. He agreed that the same be considered for the rear façade facing Sherwin Williams. Mr. Boan suggested that a 5/12 slope for the gable should be considered. Mr. Wurst agreed. Mr. Wurst suggested that color and materials should be submitted. Mr. Seabrook moved for approval with consideration of the written public comments, staff comments regarding the suitability of the proposed ten foot buffer along Hwy 41 and existing nearby building locations, subject to satisfactory resolution of staff and board comments with final submittal. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. E. Heartland Dental, 1100 McKnight Rd., 578-00-00-034, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Kevin Berry and Mr. Dan Sherrin reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Boan asked about parking lot lighting. Mr. Berry answered that the photometric plan has not been finalized, but will be submitted to staff. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1).  Design Review Board July 26, 2017 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Wurst asked if the cupola could be larger with a less pitched roof. He suggested that the header and trim could be increased. Mr. Boan moved for approval of the request including all staff and board comments. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. Motion carried on a 3 to 1 vote with Mr. Boan, Mr. Wurst, and Mr. Seabrook in favor; Mr. Bertin opposed. F. Gregorie Ferry Storage, 1154 Gregorie Ferry Road, 580-00-00-022, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Paul Peoples and Ms. Veronica Graham reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked if there is an easement on the property. Mr. Peoples answered in the negative and stated that there is an existing ditch. Mr. Seabrook suggested that an encroachment permit from SCDOT would be needed. He asked about the force main and proposed gravity line. Mr. Peoples answered that they have been coordinating with the Aiden Fabric project. Mr. Seabrook suggested that an easement should be considered. Mr. Wurst asked about parking spaces. Mr. Peoples answered that the parking is calculated based on the office space and is consistent with calculations for other storage facilities. Mr. Wurst asked about the pavers. Mr. Peoples answered that this depicts the loading zone. Mr. Seabrook suggested that an easement agreement should be considered to protect all parties in the event repairs are needed in the future. Mr. Peoples agreed and stated that this would be considered. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Seabrook moved for approval with satisfactory resolution of board and staff comments. Mr. Wurst seconded the motion. Mr. Wurst suggested that there should be some finesse of the elements such as brick treatment above the large openings, awnings along the street side moved to the second floor level, and restudy on the roofline as recommended by staff.  Design Review Board July 26, 2017 Page 9 of 10 Mr. Wurst called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. G. Houston Northcutt Offices, 966 Houston Northcutt Blvd., 517-00-00-069, Final Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Mr. Berry and Mr. Losse Knight reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Wurst asked if uplighting is allowed. Mr. Robertson answered that this is within the purview of the Board. Mr. Wurst asked if the awnings could be lowered with a wider band. Mr. Knight answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wurst asked about staff’s comment regarding the north elevation. Mr. Robertson answered that the two sections should correlate better with consideration of the hyphen being a lighter color. Mr. Berry stated that the intention was to stay in keeping with the existing buildings. Mr. Robertson suggested that this building should be made more of a focal point. Mr. Berry stated that the thought is to have this building blend in and be harmonious with the existing building. Mr. Knight suggested that using the brick at the top of the windows might appear too thin. Mr. Wurst suggested that using the brick might give a more modern feel and because the section of the parcel does sit closer to the street, could be used as a focal point. He suggested that a different element could be used underneath the windows as well. Mr. Knight stated that they studied the streetscape and wanted to be consistent. Mr. Robertson stated that many of the existing buildings are not in compliance with the design guidelines and suggested that this building should be the forerunner for redevelopment of the street. Mr. Seabrook asked if this is a separate parcel. Mr. Berry answered in the negative. Mr. Seabrook suggested that it makes sense to have this building less consistent with the existing building so that it is “more special” and has more of a presence.  Design Review Board July 26, 2017 Page 10 of 10 Mr. Wurst suggested that use of the brick would set the building off and provide more dimension. Mr. Seabrook moved for approval of the request including all staff and board comments with final approval through a committee of the Board. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 3 to 1 vote with Mr. Boan, Mr. Wurst, and Mr. Seabrook in favor; Mr. Bertin opposed. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:17 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes DRB07262017  Attachment 1 COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Staff Report 26 July 2017 1. Wendy’s Remodel, 361 Highway 17, 517-00-00-057, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments- 1. All plan elements on all sheets shall be labeled or be clarified through a provided legend. Any items not necessary to each sheet shall be removed. 2. Tree protection of saved trees in work areas is required. 3. The crosswalk shall be of decorative treatment and designed to match the building. Painted asphalt will not be allowed. 4. Patio details are required for furniture, fencing, etc. Staff recommends final approval for site and landscape with minor comments addressed and resubmitted to staff by August 16th. Architecture Comments- The applicant is requesting approval to remodel the existing Wendy’s building to reflect the new prototype design favored by the corporate office. Section 156.310 A. Purpose of district states “The purpose of the district is to protect and provide for the desired character of the commercial district and developments of the town…” Section E.1.b states “Mount Pleasant Vernacular or Lowcountry Architecture. The goal of the Design Review process and the architectural guidelines is to maintain the traditional small village feel of Mount Pleasant as it continues to grow. Mount Pleasant has historically been a small town. By 1970, the population had only grown to roughly 6,000 residents. Since that time, the population has doubled each decade. Buildings were generally small, vernacular structures. While some buildings with formal styles were constructed, they are generally few; therefore, future construction should follow the form and detailing of the more abundant small, vernacular buildings. The vernacular buildings of Mount Pleasant are typical of most small, Atlantic seaboard fishing communities and can be generally described as simple and utilitarian in form, design, material, and detail. The form may be based on  historical models; however, the formal detailing of the historical period styles is absent or extremely simple when present. Primary building materials were limited to those readily available in the area—predominantly wood and some brick. Features include a hipped or gabled roof. Roofs generally feature a broad eaves overhang with exposed rafter tails or fascia trim. Boxed eaves, when present, feature a traditional pedimented gable or return detail. Roofing materials are historically metal standing seam or 5-V crimp and later shingles. Windows were abundant for light and ventilation. Window shapes along with the panes are taller than wide. Windows occur as singles, pairs or in some instances triples with a single, wide “picture frame” trim. Decorative trim and detailing is generally limited to the pedestrian areas of the building such as display windows and entry elements although some simple variations of cornice trim may be found at the eaves and in the gables. Large porches are common at the primary entries with square wood columns which are often chamfered. Simple round Tuscan columns were sometimes used but are primarily seen as later replacement columns. Section E.1.l and m state “Structures that are of symbolic design for reasons of advertising or corporate identity, or corporate continuity shall not be permitted” and “Prototype architecture shall be highly discouraged…”. The design is not consistent with the design guidelines as briefly noted above; therefore, staff recommends restudy. The Wendy’s on Chuck Dawley received Board approval for a similar remodel in November 2016. 2. Sea Island Hamlet, 1047 Chuck Dawley Blvd, 532-08-00-001, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments- 1. The buildings have been pushed back from the street further from the approved planning commission plans and as such the rear decks are now encroaching the buffer and rear drainage element. The buildings will need to be moved forward to avoid this and also provide air space for buffer plantings to grow into. These decks should be dashed in or otherwise shown on the site plan. 2. Several details are missing from the plans such as sign/wall detail, trash can details, raised planter details, private gate details, paver and color details, tree protection plan and suspended bench details. The pavers surround an existing tree to be preserved which when detailed will likely require all the roots to be cut when factoring the paver profile. A grading plan of the activity zone is also missing which would provide further clarification on any grading related tree impacts. The detailing of these elements will be needed for a final approval and are critical to tree preservation. 3. Several wall elements within the activity zone extend into the road right of way which typically the town and State depts. Of transportation would not allow. Any potential approvals of this project should be contingent on receiving approval from the two depts. Of transportation. 4. Driveway and sidewalk details have not been provided as urban corridor projects require stand up curbing and the detailing of these are critical to meet this requirement. 5. The only plantings for review are the ones within the activity zone. Other plantings and buffer plantings have been approved at planning commission. 6. There are some new elements along Gatch Court that appear to be power transformers which seem to conflict with the previously approved street trees. Two examples are between units 3 and 4 and 22 and 23 on sheet L1.00. Sheet 2 of 11 dated 3/13/17 (Seabrook) in this set shows these elements however sheet 2 of 11 in the approved planning commission set also dated 3/13/17 do not show these. Plan changes should include revision dates. 7. Easement, buffer and setback lines need to be shown and labeled on all site plans. Staff recommends preliminary approval with resubmittal to the Board. Architecture Comments- The comments are relatively unchanged since the last meeting as are the designs. Staff has no concerns with the overall design concepts but the designs need more attention to details and specific design elements. 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 deck is a mere extension of the primary porches that are covered facing the internal street. The porch should be extended across the secondary gable element to give the appearance of a full porch facing Chuck Dawley. 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. This is best seen on sheet A19. Simply eliminating the gable within the gable for a simple, single gable unit, would suffice. 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. The applicant addressed this comment from the previous meeting but the small round columns do not appear to be able to support the two and half story mass above. These should be more substantial load bearing columns. In that same manner, detail such as corner boards should appear between units at gable ends on the side and rear elevations, etc. Staff recommends preliminary approval with further study and refinement of details as noted. 3. Vision Center at Seaside Farms, 1342 Long Grove Road, 561-00-00-194, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments- 1. Staff recommends the Board take a close look at whether or not the entrance off of Long Grove is needed as there is another proposed  access provided on the Target side. Removing this Long Grove access will allow for the preservation of two large street trees which will maintain the nice rhythm that exists presently. Also, staff asks that the Board hold the applicant responsible for demonstrating that all efforts have been made to develop the best possible site plan with respect to saving grand trees. Two grand live oaks are shown as removed under the current proposal. Staff believes the building can change in size and/or form and possibly shift to save at least one of the proposed grand trees. The parking lot may also be able to adjust away from the protection zone of the large cluster of saved trees. 2. Individual trees are shown as saved but the large expanse of trees towards Rifle Range Road shall also be protected. 3. All plan elements on all sheets shall be labeled or be clarified through a provided legend. Any items not necessary to each sheet shall be removed. 4. No encroachments into tree protection zones will be allowed. “LOD” lines run through protected street trees. 5. Mitigation numbers are incorrect. Saving trees does not mitigate for removed trees. Mitigation requires replanting and will need to be designated on the landscape plan as separate from other landscape requirements. Staff recommends restudy of the site layout with the building moving out of grand tree protection zones as well as the parking and drive aisles maneuvering around saved trees. Architecture Comments- The applicant has met with staff to discuss this design. The design is in keeping with the other buildings along the street. The design features a two-story design that addresses the corner and both the primary and side streets. Staff would recommend that that western entry wall mimic the east elevation with dual windows and brick that incorporate the entrance on the first floor. Staff recommends approval. 4. Aiden Fabrics, 1117 Highway 41, 580-00-00-028, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments- Aiden Fabrics and Gregorie Ferry Storage are two adjacent projects under separate ownership and representation both appearing before the Board this month. Staff has previously seen a unified site plan where the two projects work together and share parking in a layout that is considerably better than the two separate layouts submitted this month. Staff strongly encourages the two owners to make efforts towards an integrated plan that works well for both projects and provides the Town with higher quality site design and function. 1. The site itself is unique providing challenges to designers but staff recommends against the overall layout and the dominating sodded stormwater pond. 2. Tree protection shall be maximized to its full extent as required by the ordinance. No silt fence or “LOD” will be allowed to run through these protection zones. There are numerous occurrences on site of improper adjustments to the tree protection zones. 3. Some trees are not identified. Trees have to be identified. 4. More information is required on tree removal such as size, species, quality, etc. 5. 9’x18’ are the required dimensions for a parking space. 8’ width is not allowed. 6. Sidewalk is required to run the length of the property within public right-of-ways on both street fronts. None is shown on Gregorie Ferry. 7. There appears to be grading impacts around saved trees. No fill or removal will be allowed in protection zones and impacts shall be limited in the vicinity. Tree wells may be required. There is too much clutter to verify these impacts as spot grades and other necessary items are overlapping and obscured. 8. Underground electric lines may run through tree protection zones. As no protection zones were drawn in the area of concern, staff cannot verify. 9. Offsite trees appear to be counted towards buffer requirement. This will not be allowed.  10. No building exits can provide a concrete landing in the buffer. Staff recommends final approval for site and landscape. Comments shall be addressed and resubmitted to staff prior to August 17. Architecture Comments- The applicant has met with staff to discuss this design. This simple strip center anchored by Aiden Fabrics, features a gabled structure along Hwy 41 in keeping with other rural and residential designs along the Hwy 41 corridor. The gable screens the flat roofed area of the shops behind the main building. Staff’s only comment is that the wall area above the windows and below the roof line appears very large in scale and proportion. Staff would recommend lowering the roof on both the front portion and the rear flat roofed area for better scale and proportion. 5. Heartland Dental, 1100 McKnight Rd., 578-00-00-034, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments- 1. The definition of LOD shall be clarified on plans and re-routed away from tree protection zones. No encroachments into the protection zones of saved trees will be allowed. Tree protection will need to be expanded for the cluster in the southeast corner of the site. 2. The drive aisle shall be extended to the property line for future interconnectivity with phase 1 as there is no guarantee that phase 2 will ever come to fruition. Interconnectivity is a requirement of the Sweetgrass Overlay. 3. Plan elements unnecessary to each individual sheet shall be removed. The site plan and the grading plan do not need to show utilities. The utility plan is to show utilities. The grading plan is indecipherable where drawn grades conflict with unnecessary utility lines. Please clean up the submittal. 4. The math on the rear yard 25’ buffer is incorrect. This requires adjustment.  5. Utilities appear to run through tree protection zones on the western side of the building. This will not be allowed. Staff recommends final approval for site and landscape with all minor comments addressed and resubmitted for staff review and stamping. August 16th is the deadline. Architecture Comments- This design was deferred at the June meeting to study site and landscape comments along with a few architectural comments. The architect has addressed all architectural items requested for restudy including: 1. Lowering the pitch of the roof 2. Lowering the projecting gable elements 3. Combining the windows under the projecting entry gable elements 4. Increasing the size of the columns 5. Lowering the watertable to the window sill or lower A photometric plan was not included in the plan and should be submitted for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit if site lighting is desired. All architectural items have been addressed as requested by the Board; therefore, staff recommends approval. 6. Gregorie Ferry Storage, 1154 Gregorie Ferry Road, 580-00-00-022, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments- Aiden Fabrics and Gregorie Ferry Storage are two adjacent projects under separate ownership and representation both appearing before the Board this month. Staff has previously seen a unified site plan where the two projects work together and share parking in a layout that is considerably better than the two separate layouts submitted this month. Staff strongly encourages the two owners to make efforts towards an integrated plan that works well for both projects and provides the Town with higher quality site design and function. 1. The meeting date is incorrect in the title block. 2. The survey needs to be cleaned up. As it stands, there are areas around the property lines of this project that are impossible to decipher due to overlapping labels. 3. There are concerns with protecting the maple tree in the southernmost corner of the site. A retaining wall is shown but there are still grading/fill impacts to the protection zone. Also, the protection zone needs to be expanded to its full extent. No encroachments will be allowed. 4. There are overlapping plan elements on numerous sheets that obscure visibility of necessary information. 5. More information is needed for offsite work. There is a proposed utility extension/connection that does not appear to account for tree protection, tree removal and other items of interest. 6. Demo plan needs a chart of what trees are to be removed. 7. Staff discourages using bald cypress trees in parking islands and near the building or any areas where they may create unintended disruptions. Staff recommends preliminary approval for site and landscape. Architecture Comments- The applicant has met with staff to discuss this design. The building is unique because it fronts three streets and must create three “primary” facades. The architect has created visually interesting building that addresses all three streets. The interior corridor is positioned along the exterior wall throughout most of the building allowing windows to be located throughout the building in keeping with the ordinance requirements but also allowing natural light throughout the storage facility. The overall design breaks down the large massing to help the building better fit in to the architecture of the corridor. Staff’s comments are limited to study of detailing: 1. Hwy 41 elevation: This elevation features two corner elements as focal points. The long façade is broken by a strong vertical window flanking a traditional office design in the center. The office design could feature more glass, especially on the third story to create the appearance of a clerestory and lighten up the large mass. Most  importantly, the main roof should break or be lowered between the corner units and the center unit over the vertical glass elements. Breaking the roof line by projecting the center, dropping the connection slightly, or creating a break by inserting a short parapet over the vertical window section will help to break down the mass of the building significantly by simply following the architectural features below. 2. Gregory Ferry South Elevation. See roofline comments above 3. East Elevation Gregory Ferry Entrance—This elevation could follow the basic elements of the previous two elevations by treating the entire entry and brick area as the principle entry façade while allowing the hardi-panel wall sections to remain simpler, plainer wall sections. This would concentrate the design elements at the entry and loading areas while allowing the remainder of the façade to be simple and disappear like the north façade. Staff recommends approval with the above referenced comments. 8. Houston Northcutt Offices, 966 Houston Northcutt Blvd., 517-00-00-069, Final Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments- 1. Required critical plan elements such as the north arrow are required to be present on ALL sheets. 2. All items on all sheets need to be labeled or have an accompanying legend. LOD is not clear on sheet “C-100” and runs through tree protection zones and into the drive aisle. Correct these issues and provide more information on these plans as to what exactly LOD is. It is unclear to staff if this is tree protection, silt fencing, both or simply an exercise on paper. 3. Staff is concerned about the ADA loading zone nearest the building. The applicant shall specify how an exterior door will open outward from the building, a ramp from an ADA vehicle can utilize the space and pedestrians simultaneously have a clear path to the building. 4. Wheel stops shall be considered for the new building side parking spaces so that cars do no overlap the pedestrian thoroughfare.  5. New sewer appears to run through tree protection zones on sheet “C- 400.” The applicant shall ensure this does not happen and adjust plans accordingly. 6. Parking islands are to be 150 square feet in area. The one closest to the building does not appear to be of required size. Staff recommends final approval for site and landscape. All comments are minor and may be addressed with staff prior to August 17th. Architecture Comments- This design received Preliminary Approval at the January meeting. Staff’s only comment would be to study the materials. Higher quality materials should be considered. Although stucco is allowed as a primary building material in the Urban Corridor, it is generally only allowed as a secondary material in other parts of Town. Brick should be considered where stucco is currently proposed and stucco where hardi-plank is considered. The rear design is so thoroughly part of the front element that the materials should be more closely related. The panels and trim lines of the rear hardi- panel are not in keeping with the overall design of the building, the buildings within the immediate and general vicinity, and the guidelines in general.