Design Review Board

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD – AGENDA Summerville Municipal Complex Annex Building 2nd Floor Training Room January 4, 2018 4:00 p.m. Approval of November 16, 2017 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. 2. Firestone Complete Auto Care – Grandview Drive – New building construction (B-3) The applicant is applying for final approval of proposed revisions to a previously approved project to construct an auto service facility. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Signs Any additional signs as needed MISCELLANEOUS: ADJOURN: Posted December 21, 2017  Commercial Design Review Board Minutes Thursday, November 16, 2017 Summerville Municipal Complex –Annex Building Training Room Members Present: Candace Pratt Michael Gregor Staff Present: Bill Beauchene Tim Macholl, Zoning Administrator Carolyn Rogerson Rich Palmer, Chief Building Official Chris Campeau Bonnie Miley, Assistant Town Engineer Jennifer Palmer Mildred Blanton Items on the agenda: OLD BUSINESS: 1. Benton Lodge Properties – Bentons Lodge Road – New Building Construction (PUD) 2. Morningstar Storage – Holiday Drive – New Building Construction (B-3) 3. Corner Office – 415 N. Laurel Street – New building construction (B-1) 4. The Armory – N. Hickory Street – Building and site renovation (PL) NEW BUSINESS: 1. Summer Breeze – 600 Boone Hill Road – New Patio Cover (B-3) 2. Spinx – 930 W. 5 th North St – New Gas Station Construction (I-1) 3. Azalea Square – Azalea Square Boulevard and Sheep Island Road - Service Drive Modification (B-3) 4. Signs MISCELLANEOUS: The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm by the Chairman. Mr. Gregor asked for consideration of the minutes of the October 19, 2017 regular meeting minutes. Mr. Campeau made a motion for approval of the minutes and Mr. Beauchene seconded. The motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS 1. Benton Lodge Properties: the first item under old business is a proposal to construct a new office building on Benton Lodge Road. This is a request for Preliminary Approval for a new two story office building. Candace Pratt recused herself from the discussion and left the room. Jason Brawley, Chris Hinson and Eric Bennett presented to the board the revised plans for the development. Mr. Hinson suggested going over the staff report. Mr. Bennett addressed the parking issue and added that the parking justification letter has been provided. He said that due to their projected growth they will require 132 parking spaces. He indicated that the 63 parking spaces will be Impervious and 68 will be pervious. The intent was for these parking spaces to be constructed using gravel. Mr. Gregor expressed concern for the number of parking spaces. Mr. Beauchene pointed out that the majority of the parking will be located behind the structure and will not be easily visible from the street. Mr. Hinson said that they had completely redesigned the entire plan to meet the comments from the previous meeting. The intent would be to use a granite gravel for the parking areas. Ms. Palmer will there be a curb at the edge of the gravel to hold it in place. Mr. Campeau pointed out that there is no curb and gutter in the entire parking lot. Mr. Hinson said that because of the engineering and raising the level of the lot to raise the building pad, the grading changed and the fill required could potentially kill the trees. Mr. Campeau pointed out that there are no trees being saved in the internal portion of the lot. Mr. Beauchene said that he preferred the flush sidewalk and the use of wheel stops. Mr. Gregor said that he preferred curb and gutter in the parking lot. Mr. Macholl read the code concerning parking lot islands and indicated that curb and gutter should be provided around the landscaped islands. Mr. Campeau pointed out that the additional parking lot islands in the pervious parking areas were missing. Mr. Macholl pointed out that it is in the Boards perview to allow for the movement of islands if the intent is to preserve trees. Mr. Gregor said that he was in favor of allowing the shift of islands to preserve trees. Mr. Campeau suggested that the pervious parking areas could start as grass, and when need demands be converted to gravel parking with a ribbon curb to contain the gravel with wheel stops. Mr. Brawley expressed a desire to start as grass with wheel stops. Drainage and detention were discussed. Staff pointed out the use buffer on the west side is a class 2 buffer and that there should be no disturbance, and that include for stormwater purposes. Mr. Brawley asked about the preservation of the 39” grand pine, it is located within the detention areas, and it is in conflict with the needed parking. Mr. Macholl explained that the Tree Committee had already visited the site on November 6th and that they were not comfortable with the removal of 250 trees and the preservation of only six trees with 38 grand trees removed. For mitigation they would require 40 trees on site for the 2.1 acre site, with the six saved trees they would require 34 new trees to be planted. Ms. Palmer suggested waiting for the Tree Committees determination. Mr. Beauchene agreed. Mr. Brawley asked what type of bike racks are required and if they can be located under the landing of the exterior stairs. Mr. Campeau asked about the justification for the parking. They explained that they anticipate that they will have 132 employees necessitating the parking number. The pedestrian connection to the public way was discussed and they were told to make a connection on both sides. The curb inlets for the street were discussed and the board deferred to the engineering department at the time of final review. Mr. Campeau asked about the dumpster enclosure and stated that as long as it matches the building design it should be OK. Mr. Gregor asked to move over to the building. Mr. Bennett discussed the reorientation of the building, moving the public access to the rear, that they increased parapet heights to provide mechanicals screening and added some awnings to the Benton Lodge frontage. Ms. Palmer asked if any signage was proposed for the building. Mr. Bennett said that none was intended at this time other than the ground sign. Mr. Campeau asked about the ground sign and lighting. Mr. Bennett said that it will have a brick base and will not be internally illuminated, but could be uplit if approved by staff. Mr. Gregor said that any wall packs must be shielded. Mr. Campeau expressed that he felt that the lighting plan was not very good, and that there were a number of dark spots across the plan, and that he would not support wall packs to provide site lighting, he feels that the site lighting really needs to be restudied. The lighting should be uniform across the site. Mr. Beauchene said that they need to provide parking lot lights with the pole height and fixture heads detailed. Mr. Hinson said that they would revisit the lighting plan and resubmit to staff. Mr. Campeau said that he felt comfortable with the overall plan. Mr. Gregor said that he was good with the building. Mr. Campeau made a motion for Final Approval with the following conditions:  Tree Removal approval by the Tree Committee  The parking Justification Letter to be approved by Staff  Parking is permitted to be grass with wheel stops  The lighting plan will be reviewed and approved by Staff  Bike Racks will be shown under the exterior stairs  Wall packs removed from the building  A sidewalk connection to the Public Right-of-Way will be provided  Curb and gutter throughout the plan except where the plan is sheet flowing for stormwater. The motion was seconded by Mr. Beauchene. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Pratt made a motion to amend the agenda to move the Armory up on the agenda to accommodate a quorum. The motion was seconded by Mr. Beauchene. The motion was passed unanimously. 2. The Armory: The second item under Old Business is a request for Final Approval for the Armory Renovation project by the Town of Summerville. Mr. Campeau and Ms. Palmer recused themselves from the discussion and left the room. Gable Stubbs of SGA Architects and Jordyn Cooper of Seamon Whiteside came to the table to discuss. Mr. Stubbs explained the project. He explained that this is a renovation of the existing building and there will be some new materials including windows, doors, awnings, metal copings and new outdoor spaces. Mr. Gregor started with the staff recommendations. Ms. Cooper discussed the requested sidewalk connection, and the board discussed bringing that connection into the site to provide a true connection between the public and internal pedestrian network. Mr. Palmer said that part of this is an ADA issue, and Mr. Beauchene indicated that a typical requirement would be to provide sidewalk across the full frontage. Mr. Macholl explained that part of the proposed plan to include a bioswale in the Hickory Right-of-Way prevents the installation of the sidewalk in the ROW, and that we are still looking for that connection to the internal pedestrian network that exists on the site. Mr. Beauchene indicated that the best location would to draw the walk across the drive, and through the landscaped island into the site. That would require the movement of a tree. This would be something that the board could approve. Mr. Beauchene asked about the parking justification, Mr. Stubbs said that there is existing parking at Doty Park and at the Senior Center and those parking lots can be utilized and the site takes advantage of those existing connections. Mr. Gregor asked about the landscaping and it 2 was pointed out that the tree is proposed to be located to accommodate the sidewalk connection. Ms. Pratt asked about any lighting changes. Mr. Stubbs said no. Mr. Gregor and Ms. Pratt said that they liked the proposed changes to the building. Mr. Beauchene made a motion for Final Approval with the comments noted. The motion was seconded by Ms. Blanton. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Morningstar Storage: The third item under Old Business is a request for Preliminary Approval for a new three story self- storage facility located on Holiday Drive. Barry Fay of American Engineering and Marshall Macon of Morningstar Properties came to the table to present the revisions to the board. Mr. Fay indicated that they requested Preliminary approval, but if possible they would like to receive Final approval. Mr. Fay indicated that they understand that a tree protection plan will be required and that they will provide a plan, but that there did not appear to be any grand trees on the property. Mr. Beauchene indicated that they will be required to meet the Buffer requirements. Mr. Fay indicated that the changes made were in response to the comments from the previous meeting, and they thought they would be able to do the clustering as shown. Mr. Campeau clarified that you can provide view corridors in the back, but not along Holiday Drive. Mr. Macholl explained that the buffer plantings are designed to provide low, middle and high screening through the use of plantings of different sizes. Mr. Campeau pointed out that there are no foundation plantings and an end island tree and that sod instead of seed should be utilized. Mr. Macon indicated that these could be an easy fix. Mr. Gregor asked if there was a photometric plan. Mr. Fay said that at the time of submittal one was not available but they did bring one to discuss. Ms. Palmer asked about the covered parking in the outdoor storage area. Mr. Macon said that they had addressed the comments and flipped that to the interstate side. Mr. Macon said that for the gravel parking area they would prefer a flat curb, and that the lighting was pushed to the edges for preservation of the light poles. Mr. Campeau asked about the pole height and if the fixtures were LED. 30 foot pole height and LED heads were discussed. Mr. Campeau asked about the dumpster enclosure. Mr. Fay indicated that it would be designed to match the building. Mr. Campeau discussed the required mulch being natural and undyed, typically pine straw, and that the backflow preventer should be screened with shrubs adequately. Mr. Macon asked if a sidewalk was required to be constructed around the entire building. Mr. Palmer explained that the exit doors are required to have access to the public way. Mr. Beauchene said that should be addressed at the time of permit review. Mr. Gregor told the applicants that wall packs are not permitted for lighting. Mr. Campeau stated that the pole height should be limited to 30 feet. Mr. Macon said that holiday drive has split ownership and asked where SCDOT responsibility ends. Ms. Miley said that she thought that SCDOT responsibility ended before it got to their frontage and that Berkeley County would be responsible for their frontage. Mr. Fay addressed a staff comment concerning the enclosure of the outdoor storage area, and said that it would be surrounded by a black aluminum architectural fence, behind the landscaping. Mr. Campeau asked about the building, and the use of brick on the façade, and asked them to explain the proposed changes. Mr. Fay said that they are showing brick around the building up to the top of the first floor. Ms. Rogerson asked what type of material is being proposed. Mr. Fay indicated that it is pre-cast concrete. The panels include the brick detail on the two main facades, and Ms. Rogerson indicated that the lite red brick would be the preferred brick. Mr. Gregor asked what the total square footage of the storage building would be. Mr. Macon said that it is a 33,000 sf plate, bringing the total to just under 100,000 sf. Mr. Campeau said that he felt the building needed more brick, and that the awnings look tacked on, and asked if they would be willing to add more brick to the façade. The board discussed the merits and determined that what was proposed would be adequate. Mr. Fay said that they have made a considerable number of modifications and that a full brick façade would be cost prohibitive. Ms. Palmer asked about the sign. Mr. Gregor said that the base of the sign needs to be brick to match the building. Mr. Campeau said that the sign should be all brick and that the reader board should be eliminated. Mr. Macon said that the company likes to have reader boards. Mr. Gregor said that the sign should be all brick and that there will not be a reader board. Mr. Beauchene said that he felt the wall sign looked fine. The ground sign shown in the plans is taller than what is permitted by code. Mr. Gregor and Mr. Campeau said that the sign needs to be limited to eight feet in height. Mr. Gregor asked about the color of the mortar, and suggested gray. Ms. Palmer made a motion for Final Approval with the conditions noted. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rogerson. The motion passed 5-1, with Mr. Campeau opposed. 4. Corner Office: The fourth item under Old Business is a request for Preliminary Approval for a new office building located at 415 N. Laurel Street. Mike Taylor of Taylor Coastal Construction came to the table to present the revised drawings to the Board. Mr. Gregor suggested that they start by going over the staff’s comments. Mr. Taylor stated that the building was placed at 10 feet from W. 4th North Street at staff’s recommendation to address the street. Mr. Taylor said that he was unaware of the landscaped island requirement, but he is willing to put those in. The surface of the parking lot he intends to be the asphalt millings like his other developments on 78. He is working on the application to SCDOT for encroachment on 4th. Mr. Gregor asked if there is a sidewalk 3 along North Laurel, Mr. Taylor said there is one on W. 4th north, Mr. Beauchene said that staff is requesting a sidewalk to be installed across the frontage on Laurel. Mr. Taylor did not understand the request and indicated he did not see the need for the sidewalk along there. Mr. Macholl explained that the reason for the request is to expand our pedestrian network in the area, and that we have been asking for it on all new developments. Mr. Gregor asked what the drive aisle material was intended to be. Mr. Taylor indicated again that the aisles will be the millings like the parking. Mr. Campeau asked about the required five foot buffer between lots. Ms. Palmer asked if the lot was to be subdivided. Mr. Taylor explained that he intended to subdivide and build on the second lot later. Mr. Beauchene said that by adding the lot, with the required buffers and parking aisle widths, there may not be enough room a second building. Mr. Taylor moved on to the next issue which is the requested drainage easement for the drainage canal that runs through the eastern side of the property. Ms. Miley explained that the Town would request a 15 foot easement measured from the top of bank along the length of the ditch. Mr. Gregor stated that a landscape plan is required. Mr. Taylor said that he had completed the requested overlay of the tree survey and site plan, and that he intended on saving the 43 inch Water Oak. Mr. Taylor asked the board if his proposed setbacks were ok. The board responded that they supported the reduced setback/buffer area at 10 feet across the 4th street frontage. Mr. Taylor switched to discuss the architecture of the building. He said that he still wanted to do the new building like he had shown before, but he is showing brick parapets on three sides. He had taken their recommendation to heart, and altered the parapet walls to mirror two buildings found in Summerville. There would be Galvaloom standing seam metal roof, and matching aluminum store fronts. Ms. Palmer, Mr. Campeau, and Mr. Gregor all expressed liking the brick color chosen. Mr. Gregor and Ms. Rogerson both said that gray mortar should be used. Mr. Taylor indicated he is still debating on the proposed color of the board and batten walls, but the trim and eaves would all be white. The board generally expressed support for the neutral natural color shown previously. Mr. Campeau said that the board really needs to see a landscape plan and more detailed site plan. Mr. Gregor recommended that gutters be put on the building. Mr. Campeau made a motion for Final Approval with the following conditions:  That an acceptable landscape plan be provided to staff for approval  A more detailed site plan be provided to staff for approval  That all staff comments will be addressed.  That the applicant will come back to the board for signage and light approval Ms. Rogerson seconded the motion. The Motion passed 5-1 with Mr. Gregor opposed. NEW BUSINESS 1. Summer Breeze: The first item under New Business was a request for Final approval for a previously constructed Patio Cover that comes to within one foot of the property line. Mr. Macholl explained that the applicant had started construction before obtaining a building permit and that the patio cover was within one foot of the property line. The Board has the discretion to reduce the required buffer. Ms. Tonya Adams of Summer Breeze explained that she built the cover to provide an outdoor seating area and that she was told that a building permit was not needed because the structure was not attached to the main building. Once she tried to get the building permit she was referred to CDRB for approval of the location of the patio cover. Ms. Adams said that there was a patio existing there previously. Mr. Beauchene asked about the ditch that runs adjacent. Ms. Adams said that she actually has her staff clean it out so that her patrons do not have to look at a garbage filled ditch. Mr. Beauchene made a motion for Final Approval of the reduced setback. The motion was seconded by Ms. Palmer. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Spinx: The second item under new business is a request for Conceptual Review of a new proposed gas station at the corner of 78 and N. Maple Street. Ron Felkel and Greg Minton of HLA came to the table to present the Conceptual plan for a new gas station. Mr. Felkel explained that this location is the previously approved Sunoco site and that Sunoco is pulling out of the retail gasoline business, and that they are acquiring a number of their other locations. They had met with staff and had incorporated some of the suggestions into the plan shown in the plan. Those changes include the location of the buffers, the canopy orientation, location of the car wash and others. The building now faces the road, with the canopy on the side, and they are looking for board comments prior to full submittal. Ms. Palmer explained to the applicants that this is conceptual review and that now approvals or vote will be given today. Mr. Felkel explained that he is aware of the improvements proposed for both N. Maple Street and 78 and that they continue to work with the town concerning the N. Maple Street improvements. Mr. Gregor asked why the proposed plan exceeds the permitted parking requirements. Mr. Minton explained that when you break down the uses on the property they calculate that they will need this much parking. Mr. Felkel discussed the proposed 72 foot long tunnel car wash. That the building would be all brick. Mr. Campeau having looked at the previously approved Sunoco plan pointed out that they did not have an 4 asphalt circulation all the way around the building. Mr. Felkel responded that the previous plan did not take into account the extent of the required takings for the roadway improvements. Mr. Campeau asked about the requested buffer reductions. Mr. Felkel explained that due to the expected roadway takings and the uncertainty of when the 78 improvements will be completed, they would like to have the building addressing the street as much as possible with a requested 10 foot buffer on 78 and five feet on N Maple. They tucked the proposed stormwater pond in the back corner and included a 20 foot buffer to the existing residential. Mr. Felkel told the board that part of the sale agreement that Sunoco would be removing the excess fill that was placed on the lot previously. Ms. Palmer asked where the underground storage tanks will be located. Mr. Felkel pointed out the location of the tanks in the required buffer area and explained that they try to keep the tanks out of the traffic flow areas so they tucked them off to the side. Ms. Palmer asked what the permitted separations are for the tanks and ponds and streams. Mr. Felkel explained that the system is state of the art and has a double wall that is alarmed so if there is a leak of any sort they know immediately and send crews out to fix the issue. Mr. Campeau pointed out that the tanks are shown in the buffer area, and Mr. Macholl pointed out that the buffer is not supposed to be disturbed. Mr. Felkel said that they would revisit the location of the tanks. Ms. Palmer and Mr. Campeau pointed out that there are large areas of paving. Mr. Minton pointed out that the permitted lot coverage is 80%. Mr. Campeau expressed concern that there is too much paving visually. Ms. Blanton asked about landscaping and expressed concerns about the maintenance of the landscaping at the location at 78 and Berlin G Meyers Parkway. Mr. Felkel said that they will take that under advisement and they will get that addressed as soon as they can. Mr. Campeau told the applicants that this store should look like a neighborhood convenience store, there will be a lot of foot traffic in this area, and there should be pedestrian access internal to the site and that this will become a major gateway into town. Ms. Palmer told the applicants that the complaints that she gets from residents of the town concerning their other location at 78 and Berlin G Meyers Parkway is the big yellow stripe on the canopy. Mr. Felkel explained that the yellow strip is the brand identity for Spinx and the canopy is important to that identity. He pointed out that they have agreed to modify the sign and the building to meet the requirements and requests of the board. Ms. Palmer explained that this is a public board and that they need to listen to the public. Mr. Palmer suggested that they could try to tie the canopy into the support pillars better like some of the other projects previously approved by the board. Mr. Gregor asked when does the stripe become part of the signage. Ms. Palmer suggested eliminating the stripe and placing the Spinx logo on the ends of the canopy. Mr. Campeau told the applicants that he was not inclined to approve the architecture of the proposed building at this time. Mr. Felkel asked if going to an all brick building like the proposed carwash would help. Ms. Palmer and the board liked that idea. This being a Conceptual Review there was no vote taken on the request. 3. Azalea Square: The third item under new business is a request for Preliminary Approval of a proposed parking lot and access drive reconfiguration due to new road construction at the Azalea Square shopping center at Azalea Square boulevard and Sheep Island Road. Elliotte Quinn of Parker Poe and Randy Bowber of RPAI came to the table to discuss the request. Mr. Quinn explained that the reconfiguration is due to the Sheep Island Road project, and that the Town as part of the project will be taking some of the property and the intersection of Azalea Square Boulevard and Sheep Island Road will be moving closer to the existing service access drive. This move will require the access drive to be closed and another drive further in to be modified to accommodate the turning movements of delivery trucks for the shopping center. Some of the landscaped islands will also be impacted by the modifications. This will also require the movement of the some of the parking spaces, but there will not be a loss of parking due to this project. The board discussed some of the changes, Mr. Beauchene asked why they needed permission. Mr. Macholl explained that because this was previously approved by the board they are required to come back for the modifications. Mr. Campeau asked if the changes will impact the fence with the brick columns. Mr. Quin explained that the scope of the changes are contained to just the parking area. Mr. Campeau said then that if any part of the project is removing any portion of the required buffer, that buffer material must be replaced by the group that removed the material. Mr. Quin explained what trees will be planted to address any that are removed as part of the project. Mr. Quin clarified that this project should not impact any of the existing buffer material. Mr. Campeau agreed and said that if any materials are impacted by the Town’s road project it should be the Town who replaces those materials. Mr. Campeau made a motion for Final Approval with comments noted, with the condition that if any buffer materials are removed it needs to be replaced by whomever removed it. The motion was seconded by Mr. Beauchene. The motion passed unanimously. 5 4. Signs: There were two signs to discuss. a. The Kentucky Fried Chicken at 1801 N Main Street had applied for some canopy signage. Unfortunately Mr. Campeau pointed out that this KFC location is actually outside the Town’s jurisdiction and we therefore cannot approve or deny the permit. Mr. Macholl confirmed that the location was not the KFC location on N. Main Street in the Town and apologized to the applicant for the inconvenience. b. The second sign application to be reviewed by the board was for an electronic reader board and new design for the Dorchester Presbyterian Church located at 10290 Dorchester Road. The board discussed the reader board and their concerns with it being located on the sign. Mr. Ash O’Kelley of Route 66 Sign Company explained the design, and members of the church board discussed with the board possible restrictions to the timing of the messages to be posted on the sign. Mr. Campeau said that stone is typically not permitted as a base material for the sign. The Church board said that they were agreeable to changing out the material. The Board recommended that the stone be removed, and sod be used for the location where the sign is constructed. Mr. Campeau made a motion for Approval with the following conditions:  No stone be used for the base of the sign. It should be replaced with sod  The reader board will hold the posted message for a minimum of one hour.  The sign can be placed at a 10 foot setback  The base of the sign shall be landscaped appropriate to the surrounding area. The motion was seconded by Mr. Beauchene. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS: No miscellaneous items at this time. ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 PM on a motion by Ms. Palmer and a second by Mr. Beauchene. Respectfully Submitted, Date: ________________ Tim Macholl Zoning Administrator Approved: Michael Gregor, Chairman _____________________________________; or, Chris Campeau, Vice Chairman ______________________________________ 6  STAFF REPORT CDRB Meeting December 21, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. TO: Town of Summerville CDRB FROM: Planning Staff DATE: December 15, 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 January 2017 required the applicant to return to the Board after a year if the temporary trailer was still on the property.  STAFF REPORT CDRB Meeting December 21, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. TO: Town of Summerville CDRB FROM: Planning Staff DATE: December 15, 2017 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Firestone Complete Auto Care Property Owner: Pavilion Development Requested Action: The applicant is requesting final approval of façade revisions to construct an auto service facility Requested Approval: Final Approval Existing Zoning: B-3, General Commercial Location: At the northwest corner of Berlin G Meyers Parkway and Highway 78 Existing Land Use: Vacant 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. Staff Comments: The proposed project received Conditional Final Approval at the June meeting. Due to market conditions the cost of construction has risen significantly and the applicants are requesting modifications to the approved façade to address these cost issues. Proposed changes include the removal of the requested canopies over the overhead doors, and a change from brick to painted CMU on the rear, “non-visible” portion of the façade.  QUI K-BRI KAM-1 QUIK- BRI KAM-2 “ PROMENADEBLEND” “ SANDALWOODBLEND” PT- 12“ SANDYRI DGE” QUI K-BRI KAM-3 SW 7535 “ AUTUMN”  QUI K-BRI KAM-1 PAI NTTO MATCHAM- 1 “ PROMENADEBLEND” QUIK- BRI KAM-2 PAI NTTO MATCHAM- 2 “ SANDALWOODBLEND” QUI K-BRI KAM-3 PAI NTTO MATCHAM- 3 “ AUTUMN” PT- 12“ SANDYRI DGE” FI RESTONEMETAL SW 7535 “ CHAMPAGNEMETALLI C”