Design Review Board

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AUGUST 30, 2017 MINUTES Present: Beth Santilli, Chair, Michael Bertin, Napporn Kichanan, Brian Boan, Brian Wurst, Jeff Fort, Mickey Seabrook. Staff: Michael Robertson, Eddie Bernard, Lynnette Lynes Ms. Santilli called the meeting to order at 5:08 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes Mr. Seabrook moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Wurst seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Wurst moved for consent approval for item #1, Village Park (Schirmer Commons), 105-109 and 145-149 Bratton Cir., 532-07-00-258 & 532-07-00-259 & 532-07-00-267 & 532-07-00-268, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Wurst moved for consent approval for item #3, Wendy’s Remodel, 361 Highway 17, 517-00-00-057, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor with Ms. Santilli, Mr. Kichanan, and Mr. Fort abstaining. Mr. Wurst moved for consent approval for the following items excluding comment #1 of the site comments:  Market at Mill Creek Grocery, 2110 Highway 41, 594-05-00-228, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture  Market at Mill Creek Gas, 2100 Highway 41, 594-05-00-228, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture  Market at Mill Creek Retail A/10 Unit, 2114 Highway 41, 594-05-00-228, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture  Market at Mill Creek Retail B/7 Unit, 2118 Highway 41, 594-05-00-228, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor with Ms. Santilli, Mr. Kichanan, Mr. Fort and Mr. Bertin abstaining.  Design Review Board August 30, 2017 Page 2 of 9 2. Public Comment and General Correspondence There being no comments, Ms. Santilli continued with the agenda. 3. Business A. Village Park (Schirmer Commons), 105-109 and 145-149 Bratton Cir., 532-07- 00-258 & 532-07-00-259 & 532-07-00-267 & 532-07-00-268, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture This item was approved through a consent motion. B. Saltwater Cowboys Signage, 130 Mill Street, 517-15-00-018, Final Approval of Signage Mr. Tim Murray, Murray Signs, reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked about visibility from Shem Creek Bridge and if this was a necessity. Mr. Murray answered in the affirmative. Mr. Seabrook asked if the gazebo sign could be seen from Shem Creek. Mr. Murray answered in the negative. Mr. Fort asked if the length of the building was provided. Mr. Robertson answered in the affirmative and reviewed these with the Board. Mr. Fort asked if the sign on the gazebo would be reduced to meet the signage requirements. Mr. Murray answered in the affirmative. Mr. Fort asked if there would be a free-standing sign. Mr. Murray answered in the affirmative. Mr. Robertson stated that the free- standing sign would not be included in the calculations for the building signage. Mr. Kichanan asked how the channels would be mounted for the gazebo signage. Mr. Murray answered that they would be mounted on an aluminum frame with gloss white background. Mr. Kichanan asked if the sign could be lowered. Mr. Murray answered that this would not allow sufficient height clearance. Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Robertson noted that surrounding buildings do have roof mounted signs. Mr. Kichanan suggested that because of the location and position of the building and given that surrounding buildings have roof signage, he is comfortable with the request.  Design Review Board August 30, 2017 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Boan expressed concern with the gazebo signage. He suggested that having the sign on the fence might be a better option. Mr. Murray stated that the fence would be too low and would be at a height that could be disturbed by pedestrians, children, etc. Mr. Wurst suggested that having a painted sign on the gazebo might be a better option. He asked if other materials other acrylic letters were considered. Mr. Murray answered in the negative. Mr. Wurst stated that he is comfortable with the building sign, but is still concerned with the gazebo sign. Mr. Fort stated that he is comfortable with the signage. Mr. Wurst moved for approval of the roof sign with details to be approved by staff and denial of the gazebo signage. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. Mr. Seabrook asked if the motion includes the signage coming back to the Board. Mr. Seabrook moved to amend the motion for restudy of the gazebo signage be approved by a committee of the board. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. Ms. Santilli called for a vote on the amended motion. All in favor. C. Wendy’s Remodel, 361 Highway 17, 517-00-00-057, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture This item was approved through a consent motion. D. Kids R’ Kids, 3650 Bessemer Road, 583-03-00-183, 184, 185, 186, Preliminary Approval for Site, Landscape and Architecture. Mr. Ernest Robinson reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Wurst asked for clarification on the change to the porte cochere. Mr. Robinson answered that the porte cochere would be lowered to meet the side gable roof line. Mr. Giles Branch, Earthsource Engineering, reviewed the site and landscape with the Board.  Design Review Board August 30, 2017 Page 4 of 9 Mr. Bertin asked about the fencing with the pond and the preference to landscaping. Mr. Branch answered that staff recommended that the fence be removed, but the applicant is amenable to the Board’s desire. Mr. Kichanan expressed concern with the amount of fencing and asked if it could be simplified or reduced. Mr. Tim Favor, owner, answered that there would be a wrought iron fence with brick columns along the front. He stated that the fence is to provide safety for the children. He stated that there would be another fence included with the buffer. Mr. Kichanan suggested that the fencing by the pond might not be needed as the children would be supervised while in the parking lot. He suggested that the fence on the rear could be moved back to incorporate more plantings and reduce the amount of “double fencing”. Mr. Favor expressed concern with moving the fencing given the age of the children and for safety reasons. Mr. Kichanan suggested that the fence around the play area could be lowered to “soften” the fencing. Mr. Branch stated that the fencing could be reviewed. Mr. Boan asked if the parking lot would have lighting. Mr. Robinson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Boan asked if there would be lit signage. Mr. Robinson answered in the affirmative and stated that there would also be a lit monument sign. Mr. Wurst asked if there is access to the roof. Mr. Robinson answered in the affirmative and stated that it would provide access to the HVAC units. Mr. Seabrook asked if the abandonment of the easement has already been accomplished. Mr. Branch answered that once purchase of the property is finalized, the easement agreement would be finalized. Mr. Seabrook expressed concern with child safety especially around detention ponds and suggested that the fencing should be allowed. Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan suggested that the fencing should be restudied. He suggested that some shade should be provided throughout the playground.  Design Review Board August 30, 2017 Page 5 of 9 Mr. Boan stated that this is a heavy residential area and suggested that there should be consideration of this when considering lighting and signage. Mr. Wurst agreed that porte cochere should be lowered. He suggested that the columns should be moved in. He suggested that board and batten should be considered. He suggested that the window on the south elevation should be moved over and the pediment lowered. He suggested that outer gables should be moved in. he suggested that the flat roofline should be reconsidered and the columns be sturdier. Mr. Fort agreed with Mr. Wurst. Mr. Wurst moved for approval including all staff and board comments. Mr. Kichanan seconded the motion. All in favor. E. East Cooper Lock and Safe, 4253 Highway 17, 632-00-00-026, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Giles Branch and Larry Spears reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Spears stated that he would like to have impervious parking so that it reduces the amount of stormwater runoff for the area. He stated that he is required to have a sidewalk, but it would not connect to another portion of sidewalk at this time. Mr. Kichanan asked about the landscape plan asked about sod proposed for the buffer and the plantings scattered throughout the lawn. Mr. Branch answered that the entire buffer has been cleared and would need to be replanted. He stated that this is an existing plan and suggested that some revisions could be made in order to be more appealing. Mr. Branch stated that this could be done. Mr. Branch stated that the applicant understands that a variance would be needed for deviance from the parking and sidewalk standards. Mr. Wurst asked the future of this project. Mr. Spears answered that he would like to business to stay in the family. Mr. Wurst asked if hardiplank would be used. Mr. Spears answered in the affirmative.  Design Review Board August 30, 2017 Page 6 of 9 Mr. Fort asked if the buffers meet the requirements. Mr. Robertson answered that the buffers would have to meet Town standards and would be verified by staff. He stated that the Board has purview over reduction of the buffer. Mr. Seabrook asked about stormwater and if the sod for the landscape would have to be added to the calculations. Mr. Branch agreed and stated that this would be reviewed. Mr. Seabrook suggested that reduction of impact to stormwater should be considered and encouraged the applicant to pursue reduction approvals, especially in transitioning to a more rural location. He stated that he is comfortable with the reduction of the buffer. Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan suggested that the landscape plan should be restudied to reduce the number of plantings throughout the property. Mr. Wurst suggested that there should be an awning of some type for the rear door. Also, consider having larger overhangs and guttering to help with water sheeting from the roof. He suggested that a treatment would be needed at the bottom of the structure. Mr. Kichanan moved for approval including all staff and Board comments. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. F. Vision Center at Seaside Farms, 1342 Long Grove Road, 561-00-00-194, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Brian Felder reviewed the architecture with the Board. Mr. Branch reviewed the site and landscape with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked if tree #1 would be preserved. Mr. Branch answered in the affirmative. Mr. Seabrook asked about tree #5 and #6. Mr. Branch answered that #6 would be preserved. Mr. Boan asked about the photometric plan. Mr. Felder answered that staff’s comment was that the lighting was too intense and there was existing lighting for the Target. He stated that they would review this and submit to staff for approval. Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1).  Design Review Board August 30, 2017 Page 7 of 9 Mr. Boan agreed with staff comments concerning the photometric plan and suggested that it should be restudied. Mr. Seabrook moved for approval subject to removal of only #7 and #8 trees, addressing site and landscape comments with staff and approval of photometric plan by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. G. Gregorie Ferry Storage, 1154 Gregorie Ferry Road, 580-00-00-022, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Paul Peeples, SWA reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked about the drainage easement. Mr. Peeples answered that this is still being finalized. Mr. Seabrook asked about the force main connection given that the adjacent site is proposing a gravity sewer system. He suggested that this should be coordinated. Mr. Seabrook suggested that the access should be determined and finalized before the project is approved. He suggested that a joint-use connection between the sites is important. Mr. Peeples stated that they have contacted both property owners regarding shared access with no success. Mr. Seabrook stated that the Board has purview over this issue. Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Seabrook asked if clearing and grading permit can be issued with preliminary approval. Mr. Robertson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wurst commended the applicant for addressing the architectural comments. Mr. Seabrook moved for deferral of the request to address the easement and drainage issues and determine a resolution of the curb cut issue with the adjacent property owner. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 6 to 1 vote, with Ms. Santilli, Mr. Boan, Mr. Fort, Mr. Bertin, Mr. Seabrook, and Mr. Kichanan in favor; Mr. Wurst opposed.  Design Review Board August 30, 2017 Page 8 of 9 H. Barnes and Noble Towne Centre Parking Expansion, 1716 Towne Centre Way, 558-00-00-100, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Dalton Hunter and Julie Kim, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked about the passive areas. Ms. Kim answered that the Oak area would be more active, with the Acorn area being a more passive area, with both providing more seating. Mr. Kichanan asked if the entire platform was raised with one step. Ms. Kim answered in the affirmative and stated that it would be raised a totoal of eight inches. Mr. Kichanan asked how the planters would be treated. Ms. Kim answered that there would be plantation mix for the planters. Mr. Kichanan asked about the grading and potential impacts for the protected trees. Mr. Russ Seamon, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, answered that this would be coordinated with the arborist to ensure there is no impact to the root system. Mr. Kichanan asked if the walls around the acorn area would match the existing walls in height and material. Ms. Kim answered in the affirmative. Mr. Fort asked about the island and if it is too big or too small. Mr. Hunter answered that the concern is that the island is under 300 square feet. Mr. Fort asked if there are other islands in Towne Centre that are similar. Mr. Hunter answered in the affirmative. Mr. Robertson stated that the minimum requirements are outlined in the ordinance. Mr. Bernard agreed and stated that there was a change in the requirements after the construction of Towne Centre. Mr. Robertson stated that the Board does not have purview to waive or reduce this requirement; it would require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Hunter stated that this is an existing parking configuration. Mr. Robertson stated that the parking would need to come into compliance. Mr. Seamon stated that they are amenable to working with staff on a resolution and submitting to the Board of Zoning Appeals if necessary. Mr. Fort asked if a pervious paver system is proposed. Ms. Kim answered in the affirmative. Mr. Fort asked if the project would meet the Town’s requirement for pervious pavers. Ms. Kim answered in the affirmative. Mr. Bernard clarified that the maple island lot was larger to accommodate a protected tree during the initial construction of Towne Centre. He stated that the  Design Review Board August 30, 2017 Page 9 of 9 tree later failed and was removed. He reviewed his initial comments to the applicant to the board regarding parking in this area. Mr. Bernard reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Wurst asked if there has been consideration of removing the roundabout. Mr. Seamon answered in the negative and stated that the desire is to keep the area as a focal point. Mr. Kichanan commended the applicant on their design. He suggested that additional seating should be considered for the gathering areas with banding along the planters for additional seating as well. Mr. Wurst moved for approval including all staff and Board comments. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. I. Market at Mill Creek Grocery, 2110 Highway 41, 594-05-00-228, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture J. 10. Market at Mill Creek Gas, 2100 Highway 41, 594-05-00-228, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture K. 11. Market at Mill Creek Retail A/10 Unit, 2114 Highway 41, 594-05-00-228, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture L. 12. Market at Mill Creek Retail B/7 Unit, 2118 Highway 41, 594-05-00-228, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture These items were approved through a consent motion. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:25 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes DRB08302017  ATTACHMENT 1 COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Staff Report August 30, 2017 1. Village Park (Schirmer Commons), 105-109 and 145-149 Bratton Cir., 532-07-00-258 & 532-07-00-259 & 532-07-00-267 & 532-07-00-268, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments- 1. The roof overhangs need to be shown on the site plans as they may encroach setback lines. 2. A portion of the last tread of the rear steps of lot 3 encroach into the 3’ setback which they are not able to. 3. A grading plan was not included in this submittal however the footprint of the building is nearly identical to the originally approved set which does have a subdivision grading plan. If using the original grading plan a note should be added to refer to that plan for clarity sake. Staff recommends approval with the building, overhangs and stairs to have minor adjustments needed to meet setbacks. Architectural Comments—This project was originally approved in 2014 through the staff design review process. The applicant has modified the design of the two duplex units on lots 2&3 and 11&12. Since the original approval, the process for design review now requires Board approval of changes to the duplex units. The submittal shows the proposed elevations on sheet A4.1. Color renderings are also provided showing the duplex units (center) in context with the other single-family units. The previously approved units are shown on Sheet A4.1-B. The revisions are an improvement on the previous designs and in keeping the design guidelines; therefore, staff recommends approval. 2. Saltwater Cowboys Signage, 130 Mill Street, 517-15-00-018, Final Approval of Signage  Site and Landscape Comments- n/a Architectural Comments—The width of the building has not been provided to determine the amount of building sign area allowed. The building width should be shown graphically on the application (provide at meeting). Section 156.150 Purpose and Findings states: (A)(2) To encourage signs that are of a quality design, pleasing in appearance, and are appropriate in size, materials, and illumination to the type of activity to which they pertain; (A)(3) To encourage signs that are compatible with the architectural style, characteristics and scale of the building to which they may be attached, and to encourage signs that are compatible with adjacent buildings and businesses; (B)(6) In furtherance of this objective, such design elements shall be tastefully integrated into the architectural design of the building or incorporated into the landscape features of the site as approved through the Design Review Process. Section 156.155 (J) Roof signs. states “Roof signs shall not project or extend above the ridge line of a roof.” The proposed signs do not project above the roof line but staff is concerned that they do not meet the purpose of the sign ordinance as stated above. The photograph of the gazebo element with a roof mounted sign shows room to incorporate the sign on the building wall behind in a more aesthetically pleasing manner. Placing the sign on the accessory structure is out of keeping with most building signs in the Town. The large roof sign on the main building roof could also be incorporated on the wall of the building directly below on the main floor level wall. Staff recommends that the building signs be located on the wall in areas appropriate for sign bands since the building has areas where these could be incorporated. The signs must be reduced to meet the allowable sign area. If the Board requires the signs to be relocated, future approvals could be handled by staff, if desired. 3. Wendy’s Remodel, 361 Highway 17, 517-00-00-057, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments-  1. The August meeting date is required on the title sheet and title block of all plans. July is given. The submittal type shall also be given. 2. The only significant change is the removal of the patio space. This patio is not a requirement of the Town but the Board may wish to weigh in on the removal. Staff recommends final approval for site and landscape with minor comments addressed and resubmitted to staff by September 12th or earlier. Architectural Comments—This project received preliminary approval at the July meeting. The Board made the following motion: 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. The applicant appears to have addressed the comments of the Board; therefore, staff recommends approval. 4. Kids R’ Kids, 3650 Bessemer Road, 583-03-00-183, 184, 185, 186, Preliminary Approval for Site, Landscape and Architecture. Site and Landscape Comments- 1. The applicant shall provide Town staff with written agreements between Kids r Kids and all easement holders present on site to allow for any improvements in these areas. 2. Staff cannot gather necessary tree information from the existing conditions sheet due to clutter. Other sheets provide too much unnecessary information for what the sheets are trying to convey. Pare down information unrelated to each sheet. Labels need to be adjusted or rearrange so they don’t conflict with other plan elements and can be read easily. Please fix before next submittal. 3. Bike racks and parking island canopy tree conflict. 4. Consider a shrub row as a deterrent on the pond side of the parking lot. There is already a tremendous amount of fencing on this project. 5. The bioswale conflicts with some tree protection zones. This won’t be allowed. Also, contact Hillary Repik in Public Services about Town standards for bioswales. Also, does the planting plan allow for pond maintenance? 6. Silt fence cannot run through a tree protection zone. 7. Spot grades are not clear around saved trees so staff cannot determine impacts. 8. An unlabeled fence plan is shown on the utility plan. Is this an electric fence for the kids? 9. Landscape buffers are required on all sides of the property. The eastern property line does not provide one. Staff recommends preliminary approval. Architectural Comments—The applicant has met with staff to discuss this design. Similar to other daycare facilities, the large roof creates several difficulties of scale and proportion for the architect. To address the design guidelines, the applicant has built on existing details, such as windows, doors, and stoop coverings to begin to create a rhythm of small gabled porches and traditional paired window patterns. The result helps to create focal points on the elevations and minimize the visual impact of the large roof. East Elevation: The East Elevation is the primary street elevation. This is also the elevation that should establish the major decorative components of the building. The gable element over the center “entry” should be used as the primary feature both in terms of design and scale over the South Elevation drop off. The smaller flanking gable elements may need to be enlarged for better scale on the side of the building. The windows should follow an established rhythm also and include some sort of mullion possibly a horizontal bar near the top to create a storefront or clerestory above the lower windows. All of the windows should follow this triple or double design and be located in a regular pattern. Currently, they are placed adjacent to doors and in single, double, and triple combinations without respect to the overall elevation.  North Elevation. The sloped rear roof should spring from the eaves line across the rear which would result in lowering it a few feet for better scale and to be more typical of porch style designs. Staff is unsure how the second floor space is actually finished—it appears to be a flat, open wall and deck. This area needs further clarification. West Elevation. Same comments as the East Elevation South Elevation: Study the scale and detailing of the drop off canopy to lower the scale and follow the detailing of the East Elevation gable. Staff recommends restudy. The comments could easily be incorporated and presented for final at a future date. 5. East Cooper Lock and Safe, 4253 Highway 17, 632-00-00-026, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments- 1. What is “50’ SB-OD” for the front yard buffer? If the property is in an overlay that shall be stated clearly as part of the zoning on the title sheet. 2. Tree barricades on the rear property line are obscured by other plan elements. Please make this more clear to there is no confusion amongst staff and in the field. 3. The crosswalk shall be striped with thermoplastic banding. 4. No silt fencing in the tree protection zones. 5. If this property is in fact within an overlay district, the overlay front bufferyard requirements shall state which overlay this property falls under. 6. There is no indication of what present use of the adjacent property to the rear is. This determines the bufferyard. 7. The numbers for the 110’ type E buffer are incorrect and do not account for the separate evergreen requirement. Staff recommends preliminary approval. Architectural Comments—The applicant has met with staff to discuss this design and the applicant’s vision for the property. The parcel was recently annexed into the Town. The  owner would like to relocate an existing business to the property but maintain the rural, residential feel of Hwy17N, hence, the residential design of the building which is adjacent to his home. The building is a pre-manufactured structure and is typical of many of the residential structures that dot Highway 17N. Staff recommends study of the details on the primary façade such as the size of the columns and the size and location of the dormers. The dormers should be smaller to fit the window or double window installed for better scale. Ideally, they would align with one of the windows below. Staff recommends approval. 6. Vision Center at Seaside Farms, 1342 Long Grove Road, 561-00-00-194, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments- 1. The submittal is disorganized and shall better follow the outline of the checklist. 2. There are four grand oaks removed with two being in arborist graded “good” condition. Staff feels there are opportunities to design the building and site around these large, quality oak trees. It was mentioned at the last submittal that the building can be shifted and possibly save at least one of these trees 3. Sheet C-200 has a Note 2 with no explanation. 4. The sidewalk to the rear building entrance must avoid tree protection zones. There is ample room for the sidewalk to wind around the trees. The landscape plan has an organic design for this area so the sidewalk can easily be changed from its rigid geometry. The applicant may even dress this area up with elements such as benches to provide a park like setting. 5. The beveled building corner should be paid close attention as this will be one of the most prominent corners in Seaside Farms. This corner shall interplay with that adjacent business corner across the drive. The adjacent corner has a plaza-like feel where this does not and also features some low brick columns creating an entranceway to the high traffic Target. Staff recommends restudy of the site and landscape plans.  Architectural Comments—This project received Preliminary Approval at the July meeting. The Board made the following motion: 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. Board comments included moving the stacked roof elements inside the brick elements and that the windows be moved away from the piers. The photometric plan appears a little high. The plan states that poles are 25 feet tall but the ordinance limits pole height to 18 feet. The pole and fixture should match those already used along the entrance drive in height, style, and design (the light source could be LED in a matching fixture). Cut sheets of the pole and a drawing of the complete unit proposed were not included in the submittal. Staff recommends final approval of the architecture with lighting to be restudied and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. Gregorie Ferry Storage, 1154 Gregorie Ferry Road, 580-00-00-022, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments- 1. There are differences in tree species of the southwest corner when comparing between the survey and demo plan. This may affect tree mitigation. Please clarify or fix. The survey identifies two proposed removed trees as substantially sized oaks while the demo plan calls them out as gums, an unprotected species. If these are in fact oaks, they need to remain because there is no clear reason on the plans for removal. The applicant shall clarify. 2. There may not be adequate driveway spacing between Gregorie Ferry Storage and the preliminary approved Aiden Fabrics next door. The Assistant Town Administrator has made it clear that if there is a conflict between the two driveways, both projects will be required to obtain a variance for curb cut separation from the Board of Zoning Appeals.  3. The Demo Plan needs to provide more information on removed trees: species, size, etc. 4. Landscaping is required between the building and sidewalk. The maximized building size shouldn’t come at the expense of better design and zoning code required landscaping. 5. No depth dimensions are given for the parking spaces. 18’ is the requirement. 6. No distance to the nearest intersection is given on the site plan. 7. Two utility plans were provided. Please remove one. Staff recommends denial as there may be a curb cut separation zoning violation requiring a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Architectural Comments—This project received Preliminary Approval at the July meeting. The Board made the following motion and comments: 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. The applicant has met with staff to further refine the design and finesse the details as requested. A notch has been added to the roof to express the three primary building masses. The material palette and application has been simplified to reference the three elements from the primary façade on all elevations—a brick base with light third floor. The photometric plan complies with the ordinance requirements. Staff recommends approval. 8. Barnes and Noble Towne Centre Parking Expansion, 1716 Towne Centre Way, 558-00- 00-100, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments-  1. Tree barricades are needed at the 46” live oak in the western portion of the project and around the smaller oaks at the dbl 14”/17” oak in the eastern portion of the project. 2. The newly proposed parking island surrounded by parking at the north western project boundary should confirm that in total it is 300 SF in planter size. 3. The existing sidewalk across from Barnes and Noble with the 45 degree turn around the 19” live oak is shown to remain on the clearing plans but showing a 90 degree turn on the site plan. Maintaining the existing alignment would provide a more direct path for pedestrians and limit new disturbances. 4. The bays of parking at the western edge of the project above the 46” live oak currently have 15 spaces without a planter island which exceeds the normal 12 allowed by ordinance with the proposed 4 additional spaces extending this further. The ordinance reads that (a) A maximum of 12 parking spaces in a row will be permitted without a planter island. (b) However, this section may be modified by the zoning administrator, when strict application will seriously limit the function of an area. In talking with the zoning administrator on this extension, nothing has been discussed or approved, thus an island will need to be provided to meet this requirement. 5. Revision dates will need to be used so that the evolution of plans can be easily tracked. 6. The size of the proposed fringe trees is missing on the plant schedule. 7. The pervious paver detail on L1.3 has a note referring to a concrete base which seemingly is not applicable. There should be no concrete base on this application due to proximity to trees. 8. The proposed paver should also be a pervious paver that has apparent gaps and not closely butted up to each other. Architectural Comments—n/a 9. Market at Mill Creek Grocery, 2110 Highway 41, 594-05-00-228, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments- 1. 150’ is the required driveway separation within the Town. The two driveways on Wood Park Drive are shown at 133’. The Zoning Administrator has determined that even thought this layout was shown on the impact assessment, that review cannot allow curb cuts that do not meet the code of ordinances. Only a variance through the Board of Zoning Appeals or an amendment to the PD can allow for a two-way driveway separation of less than 150’. 2. Staff had suggested the rectangular stormwater pond to the north shall be designed as an amenity and extension of the park-like space along the marshfront, creating greater interest for the pedestrian and tying this phase of development to future phases. The Town requires that multi-parcel developments be designed with an integrated site plan. Staff understands how buildings function and the need for a back of house but the rear of Building B shall be refined to better tie into future development. Additional pedestrian connections should be considered. 3. DRB in November required the rear screen wall at the loading dock be extended to the end of the parking row. That has not been done. The DRB should also determine if the additional landscaping as required at that meeting has been completed sufficiently. 4. The landscaping in front of Lowes grocery shall be designed to look more like a main street. There should be a street tree plan in place similar to the Lowes home improvement project, the Indigo Square project, the WalMart project and other large scale developments that have come before the Board. This comment was made in November and not addressed. 5. Town Council’s Planning Committee approval required sidewalk to be installed on both sides of Wood Park Drive within the public right-of-way and built before the CO of any building. Only one side of the street is shown. 6. Silt fence and tree barricade locations must be shown on the grading plan. 7. Type A/wavy bicycle racks are not allowed in the Town. These don’t provide two points of contact and can break bikes. The other style is acceptable. Also, these racks shall be featured at each building and located in prominent areas. Bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the code and a bike parking chart shall be provided with regular parking charts. 8. Landscape bufferyard numbers are incorrect. 9. There appears to be no northern bufferyard on the primary parcel. All property lines are required to have a buffer. The northern bufferyard appears  to have been provided on the adjacent outparcel. There is no provision in the code to allow this but DRB may allow for a development like this to not have internal buffers. 10.The proposed pathways along Highway 41 shall be shown, at least conceptually, and identify how it will tie into the projects pedestrian network. 11.Building B required landscaping between the drivethru and the building. 12.The plant schedule must provide caliper inches for all trees, not just height. 13.More clarity on which trees are meeting mitigation requirements. This may be accomplished by symbols, notes, etc. 14.Tree barricades are to surround the entire 50’ undisturbed buffer as there are not only internal impacts but also proposed traffic improvements along Highway 41. 15.Some saved trees need to expand the tree protection zones to their full extent. 16.Canopy trees are required at the ends of all parking rows. See diagonal sidewalk between Buildings A and B. 17.Trees 245, 175 and 182 show encroachments. This won’t be allowed. 18.There are questions about whether or not tree 96 is to be saved. Staff recommends denial due to curb cut separation distances not being in accordance with the zoning code. No record of a PD amendment or variance addressing this was found. Architectural Comments—This project received Preliminary Approval at the November 2016 meeting (see minutes at end of staff report). The applicant has worked to address all Board comments. The design complies with §156.310E architectural guidelines and the photometric plan complies with §156.310G; therefore, staff recommends approval. 10. Market at Mill Creek Gas, 2100 Highway 41, 594-05-00-228, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments- See item #9 Architectural Comments—See item #9 11. Market at Mill Creek Retail A/10 Unit, 2114 Highway 41, 594-05-00-228, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments- See item #9 Architectural Comments—See item #9 12. Market at Mill Creek Retail B/7 Unit, 2118 Highway 41, 594-05-00-228, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Site and Landscape Comments- See item #9 Architectural Comments—See item #9 November 2016 DRB Minutes Excerpt for Market at Mill Creek A. Market at Mill Creek--Grocer, Hwy 41 at Wood Park Drive, 594-05-00-228, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture B. Market at Mill Creek—Gas Canopy, Hwy 41 at Wood Park Dr., 594-05-00- 228, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture C. Market at Mill Creek—Building A, Hwy 41 at Wood Park Dr., 594-05-00- 228, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture D. Market at Mill Creek—Building B, Hwy 41 at Wood Park Dr., 594-05-00- 228, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Mr. Warren Pruitt, Mr. Jack Copeland, and Mr. Josh Allison reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Pruitt stated that the landscaping was revised to meet staff comments as well as the plaza. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Thomas Parker, 212 Fair Sailing Road, and board president for Egrets Walk HOA, expressed concern with the rear wall near the loading dock. He stated that there are residences approximately 200 feet to the loading area. He expressed concern that the lighting would intrude into the residences as well. He asked that the wall be extended to further shield the business. He expressed concern about the location of the dumpsters as they are not shown on the plan. He expressed concern that the business would have increased noise for the neighborhood. He suggested that the building could be turned so that the loading area is not adjacent to the residences. Mr. Seabrook asked if the buffer requirements are met. Mr. Luly answered in the affirmative. Mr. Seabrook asked if the wall is extended would it affect the marsh front staff comments. Mr. Robertson answered in the negative and stated that a ten foot wall is required which is higher than what is normally required. Mr. Luly stated that his understanding is that the building placement was approved by Town Council. Mr. Wurst asked if the compactors were located to the rear. Mr. Copeland answered in the affirmative. Mr. Seabrook asked if additional buffer landscaping could be installed. Mr. Pruitt answered in the affirmative. Mr. Seabrook suggested that the wall could be extended and additional landscaping required in order to provide more screening to the neighborhood. Mr. Boan agreed with Mr. Seabrook. Mr. Wurst asked about the roof profiles on the gable ends of the grocery store were thin and suggested that they should be similar to the others. Mr. Wurst agreed that the white siding could be board and batten as well as the retail insets. Ms. Santilli asked if there is a reason not to extend the wall. Mr. Copeland answered that the wall was done according to the requirements and was reviewed by staff. He stated that the intent was to have the wall extend to screen to the end of the loading dock. He stated that there would not be any additional dumpsters because of the compactor. Mr. Seabrook asked the species of the tree directly opposite the compactor. Mr. Pruitt answered that it is a live oak. Mr. Seabrook moved for preliminary approval of the grocery including staff and board comments with additional landscaping in the buffer area between the neighborhood and to extend wall to the end of parking bay with sensitivity to the tree protection areas. Mr. Wurst seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Seabrook moved for preliminary of the gas canopy. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Wurst moved for preliminary approval of building A including all staff and board comments. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Wurst moved for preliminary approval of building B including all board and staff comments. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor.