Design Review Board

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD – AGENDA Summerville Municipal Complex Annex Building 2nd Floor Training Room January 19, 2017 4:00 p.m. Approval of December 15, 2016 minutes. APPLICANTS – For additional information regarding this public meeting please contact the Planning Department at 843.851.5200. All applications and related documents for this public meeting are available for review at the Planning Department during regular business hours, Monday–Friday, 8:30–5:00 excluding Town of Summerville holidays. OLD BUSINESS: 1. KapStone Temporary Office – 309 N. Maple Street – Keep building on site (I-1) The applicant is applying for final re-approval to keep a temporary office trailer on the existing site. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Signs Any additional signs as needed MISCELLANEOUS: ADJOURN: Posted January 13, 2017  Commercial Design Review Board Minutes Thursday, December 15, 2016 Summerville Municipal Complex –Annex Building Training Room Members Present: Staff Present: Michael Gregor, Chairman Jessi Shuler, Zoning Administrator Bill Beauchene Tim Macholl, Annexation & Development Jennifer Palmer Coordinator Chris Campeau Bonnie Miley, Assistant Town Engineer Mildred Blanton Rich Palmer, Chief Building Official Carolyn Rogerson Items on the agenda: OLD BUSINESS: There were no items under Old Business. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Villas at Oakbrook – 5010 Ladson Road – New building construction (B-3) 2. Summerville Pediatric Dentistry – 384 E. 5th North Street (Heritage Square) – New building signage (B-3) MISCELLANEOUS: The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm. The Chairman asked for consideration of the minutes of the November 17, 2016 meeting. A motion for approval of the minutes was made by Chris Campeau and a second was made by Carolyn Rogerson. All voted in favor of the motion. NEW BUSINESS 1. Villas at Oakbrook: The first item under New Business was preliminary approval to build new seniors only apartments. Tim Harris with ASI Engineering, Brett Callaghan with Progress Builders, Michael Haynes with Progress Design Studio, Chris Whitener with Bradley Development, and Greg Stewart with Thomas & Hutton presented the application. Mr. Harris explained that they were working to address the staff comments, but that they did have some concerns about the sidewalk on Ladson Road being closer to the road because the road does not have curb and gutter. He also explained that the reduction in parking that they were requesting was based on many other projects and years of experience as they own the sites they develop for 30 plus years. Ms. Shuler stated that staff felt that the parking reduction request was justified based on the data provided. Mr. Campeau asked about the reason for the wheel stops in the parking lot, and Mr. Harris explained that they were to keep cars from extending into the sidewalk area. Mr. Campeau stated that he has seen that they can be tripping hazards and just wanted to make his concern known. The Board and applicants discussed the tree survey and the requirement to go before the Tree Committee for the removal of grand trees. The applicants stated that they understood and the tree survey would be redone. Mr. Callaghan also stated that some of the trees on the site had been topped and they were considering hiring an arborist to look at the trees on the site. The Board members and staff agreed that an arborist evaluation would be helpful in the review and approval of the removal of trees on the property. Mr. Campeau stated that typically the Board likes for trees to be saved in the front borders if possible, and that this should be considered. Ms. Shuler explained that was one of the main reasons that staff requested that the sidewalk along Ladson Road be moved slightly closer to the road as that would allow a significant number of trees to remain. Returning to the discussion about the sidewalk along Ladson Road, Mr. Callaghan noted that in addition to their concern about the safety of the sidewalk closer to the road, the sidewalk would go to nowhere as the Aldi site does not currently have a sidewalk along that road, and staff stated that they would check why that sidewalk was not required and/or installed. The Board understood this concern, and stated that the sidewalk along Ladson Road needed further study, of which the applicant agreed. There was further discussion about the landscaping, including the use of existing trees toward the front border requirement, screening the parking area, plant species selection, and mulch. The Board also asked about the dumpster enclosure and the gazebo. Mr. Callaghan explained that the dumpster enclosure would be brick to match the building with wooden slats along the gate. Mr. Campeau stated that hardi-board tends to be a better material for the slats as it is more durable. Mr. Haynes showed the Board a PDF of the gazebo detail, which is al hardi-wrapped with no exposed wood, which the Board accepted. Mr. Gregor asked about wall packs on the building, and Mr. Callaghan stated that they would not have any wall packs. In terms of the architecture, Mr. Callaghan presented the materials and colors, which included two different brick colors both with grey mortar and two different hardi-siding colors. The Board asked about the color of the roof and material. The applicants stated that the color had not been chosen yet, but the material is architectural shingles and it is typically and dark charcoal or black. The Board members agreed that they liked the contrast of the darker roof color, so the darker the better. Ms. Palmer asked why shutters were shown only in certain areas, and Mr. Haynes explained that the shutters were used as an accent at the entries to the building. Based on the continued discussion, the following comments were made: - The sidewalk along Ladson Road needs further study. - Palms should only be used as an accent, not as required trees. - Move the location of the sign to save the grand tree in that area, and work to save more trees in the front border areas. - Consider hiring an arborist to evaluate the condition of the existing trees, and go before the Tree Committee before returning to the Board for final approval. - Where grass is shown, use sod not seed, including the slopes of the pond. - If the pond requires a fence, the fence will need to come before the Board (no chain-link) - Use more of a low evergreen hedge to screen the parking area and screen the backflow preventers. - The Board would be willing to consider allowing the existing trees saved in the front borders to count toward the landscaping requirements beyond the 250 square feet section stated in the ordinance. - Consider using more heirloom plants, such as, camellias and azaleas. - Do not use Indian Hawthorne because of disease threats (can replace with viburnum or azaleas). - Mulch should be pine straw only. - Sign design and materials look good. If lit, the sign should be ground lit. - Building placement and architecture/materials are good. - Black is preferred for the roof color. Mr. Campeau made a motion for preliminary approval with the comments noted, and Ms. Palmer made the second. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Summerville Pediatric Dentistry: The last item under New Business was approval of a projecting building sign at Heritage Square for a dentist office. Bill Marshall with Architrave presented the application. He stated that the dentist has an existing office in Summerville chose this location to expand. Mr. Marshall explained that the signage related to the interior design of the office, as the dentist uses a cypress swamp theme. He add that the lobby/foyer would have 3D animals in the same cartoon style, and partial 3D trees on the walls, and the floor would look like water with stepping stones. Mr. Marshall did state that the original submittal was reduced in size to meet ordinance requirements and would project out probably about 32”, and they did not intend to light the sign at this time as the business would not be open at night. The Board members stated that they liked the smaller design. Ms. Rogerson stated that she was okay with the projection as long as it did not extend beyond the building canopy, of which the other members agreed. Mr. Marshall stated that he was not sure of the width of the canopy, but he agreed that it would not extend that far. Mr. Gregor made a motion for approval, and Mr. Campeau made the second. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS There were no items under Miscellaneous. ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:44 PM on a motion by Mr. Gregor seconded by Mr. Campeau. Respectfully Submitted, Date: ________________ Jessi Shuler Zoning Administrator Approved: Michael Gregor, Chairman _____________________________________; or, Chris Campeau, Vice Chairman ______________________________________ 2  STAFF REPORT CDRB Meeting January 19, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. TO: Town of Summerville CDRB FROM: Planning Staff DATE: January 13, 2017 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: KapStone Property Owner: KapStone Requested Action: The applicant is requesting final re-approval to keep a temporary office trailer on the site. Requested Approval: Final Approval Existing Zoning: I-1, Light Industrial Location: 309 N. Maple Street Existing Land Use: Office Ordinance Reference: Sec. 32-141. Commercial design review board. (b) Mission statement. The purpose of the commercial design review board is to establish a review process that will protect and improve the visual and aesthetic character and economic value of commercial development within the town. In turn, this establishment of scenic corridors will contribute to the community's sense of place and pride further strengthening the town's unity of character. Through this process, the assurance of respect for the character, integrity, and quality of the built environment of the town will be established without stifling innovative architecture and/or development. All development shall adhere to the definitions and terms outlined in all of the town's zoning ordinances and codes as preliminary criteria. The commercial design review board is granted the authority to determine the appropriateness of the construction of the commercial site in pursuit of achieving that style which is characteristic of the region and of the town in particular as stated in the guidelines of this section. Recommendation: Based upon preliminary staff review, the project meets the Zoning Ordinance. The existing building on the site still has significant mold issues. The applicant is proposing to keep the temporary office on the site. The previous approval back in December 2015 required the applicant to return to the Board after a year if the temporary trailer was still on the property.