Design Review Board

TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD – AGENDA Summerville Municipal Complex Annex Building 2nd Floor Training Room March 15, 2018 4:00 p.m. Approval of February 13, 2018 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. Pet Suites of Summerville – Development of a pet boarding and grooming facility (B-3) The applicant is requesting Conceptual Review of a proposed pet boarding and grooming facility on N. Main Street. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Central and Orangeburg Road Shipping Center – Redevelopment of the former Piggly Wiggly shopping Center (B-3) The applicant is requesting Conceptual Review of a proposed redevelopment of the shopping center at 1605 Central Avenue. 2. Signs Any additional signs as needed MISCELLANEOUS: None ADJOURN: Posted March 6, 2018  Commercial Design Review Board Minutes Thursday, February 15, 2018 Summerville Municipal Complex –Annex Building Training Room Members Present: Staff Present: Bill Beauchene Tim Macholl, Zoning Administrator Michael Gregor Jessi Shuler, Director of Planning Chris Campeau Rich Palmer, Chief Building Official Jennifer Palmer Candace Pratt Items on the agenda: OLD BUSINESS: 1. Firestone Complete Auto Care – Grandview Drive – New building construction (B-3) 2. Spinx – 930 W. 5th North St – New Gas Station Construction (I-1) 3. Dorchester Village Redevelopment – Redevelopment of Dorchester Road Bi-Lo Shopping Center (B-3) 4. Brickyard Crossing Lot 8 – Grandview Drive – New Building Construction (B-3) NEW BUSINESS: 1. Popeye’s Summerville – Development of a new Drive-Thru Restaurant at 106 Parkway Avenue (B-3) 2. Aldi – Development of a new Aldi Grocery Store at N. Main Street and E. 9th North Street (B-3) 3. Avid Hotel – Development of a new 125 room hotel on Holiday Drive (B-3) 4. Pet Suites of Summerville – Development of a pet boarding and grooming facility (B-3) 5. Signs MISCELLANEOUS: The meeting was called to order at 4:01 pm by the Chairman. Mr. Gregor asked for consideration of the minutes of the January 18, 2018 regular meeting minutes. Mr. Campeau made a motion for approval of the minutes and Ms. Palmer seconded. The motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS 1. Firestone Complete Auto Care: The first item under old business is a request for a revision to the previously approved elevations for the proposed Firestone at Berlin G. Meyer’s Parkway and 78. Chris Orman and Andrew Davies of Pavilion Development presented the proposed changes and explained that the request is based on a desire to save some money due to some unforeseen expenses due to site engineering issues. Mr. Beauchene asked for some clarification of the proposed changes, specifically materials being proposed. He recommended that it be permitted that the wall not visible from the streets be converted to split face block (CMU) painted to match the rest of the building. Mr. Gregor expressed support of the change to the split face block on the rear of the building. Ms. Palmer and Mr. Campeau asked about the removal of the requested awnings above the roll up doors. They explained that the awning set the tone for the façade and that they add a lot to the elevation. Mr. Davies explained that the awnings themselves were extremely expensive. Ms. Palmer suggested that the board allow the applicants to only install the awnings above the four central overhead doors, to help balance the elevation. Mr. Beauchene asked if they could remove the sidewalk along the Berlin G Meyers Parkway, and it was determined that the applicant could work with staff to determine if that can be removed. Mr. Campeau made a motion for Final Approval with the following conditions: that the north elevation and the trash enclosure will be permitted to be constructed of CMU and that the applicant will be permitted to revise the south elevation and will only be required to have four awnings over the central overhead doors. The motion was seconded by Mr. Beauchene. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Spinx: The second item under Old Business is a request for Final Approval for a new gas station to be located at 930 W. 5th North Street. Greg Minton of Spinx, Ron Felkel of HLA Inc., and Andrew Todd burke of HLA Inc. came to the table to discuss the project. Mr. Minton discussed with the board the staff comments, and the take aways from the last meeting. The berms have been removed as requested. The underground tanks have been approved at their proposed location by the Fire Marshall. They have chosen to go with a hedgerow instead of a brick wall to provide the requested screening. Mr. Campeau asked to verify that there would be irrigation for these hedges. Mr. Minton Confirmed. The proposed LED light fixtures would be the same bronze color as the ones used at the Berlin G Meyers Parkway site, 16-18 feet tall, 22 feet overall with the base. The brick and mortar color was presented to the board as well as the coping material. The carwash would be an all brick structure with a bronze colored coping. The canopy over the pumps was discussed, Mr. Minton explained the design with the blue band above and a white band of color below, with LED lighting washing down the white band from behind the blue to create a glowing effect. The lighting would not project out from the canopy just provide highlights. Mr. Campeau said that he was not in favor of the lighting because it would make the canopy one big sign. Ms. Pratt agreed. Mr. Minton agreed to remove the lighting from the canopy and that the wall lights would be shielded. Mr. Minton then described the proposed potted plants for the patio area, and that there would be an eight (8) foot canopy over the patio area. Mr. Minton explained that they were uncertain where to show the requested sidewalk along 78 due to the uncertainty of the future road design. Ms. Palmer and Mr. Campeau told the applicant to work out the details of the sidewalks with staff. Mr. Minton explained that the access on 78 has been approved by DOT based on current conditions. Concerning the parking count. Mr. Macholl explained how the count was calculated and Mr. Minton asked if there could be some relief. Mr. Campeau requested that any pervious parking areas should be constructed with pervious pavers with colors to match the building, not pervious concrete, and Mr. Minton said that Spinx was no longer using the pervious concrete. Mr. Campeau explained his concerns with the installation of a hedge instead of a wall, and that he is hesitant to approve based on previous performance and maintenance of hedges. Mr. Todd-Burke explained that the hedge would be podacarpus planted 24-30” on center at 24-36” of height from the beginning. Ms. Pratt indicated that it would look better than the wall if maintained properly. Mr. Campeau asked for a row of native grasses in front of the hedgerow. Mr. Campeau made a motion for Final Approval with the following conditions:  That the landscaping be completed as described  That the canopy not have a lighted band  That the parking surplus construction materials be worked out with staff  That the sidewalk location be worked out with staff  That a canopy will be installed over the patio The motion was seconded by Ms. Palmer. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Dorchester Village Redevelopment: The third item under Old Business was a request for Preliminary Approval for the redevelopment of the Bi-Lo shopping center on Dorchester Road. Mr. Kevin Berry of Earth Source Engineering and Ryan Mosser of Collet came to the table to discuss the project. Mr. Berry explained that they had added more greenspace to the plan, moved some of the parking lot islands as requested, rotated the outparcel building and moved it closer to the street, created a more formal entrance to the building by adding a 3’ landscaped strip in front of the front doors and adding concrete pavers to break up the asphalt. Mr. Campeau and Mr. Gregor stated that they could add some lower shrubs to the landscaped islands. Ms. Palmer asked them to review their parking counts to verify the need for any pervious parking spaces. Mr. Campeau asked if they could add a foot to the to the landscaped strips , possibly using the diamond cut out for the trees, suggested using bald cypress and a ligustrum hedge. Mr. Campeau then asked about reducing speeds in the front drive aisle, he suggested reducing the width of the drive aisle from 30’ to 24’ to add a landscaped bed along the back of curb. Mr. Gregor said that the architecture on the building was an opportunity missed. And that it has a long way to go. Mr. Berry explained that they are trying to maintain the bones of the building and provided a material sample of a Dryvit Brick material they are proposing to use on the building. Mr. Beauchene said that he felt they were wasting money by removing the sloped roof above the walkway and that they are using too much stucco. The board suggested looking at Sawmill Village (Harris Teeter shopping Center) for a good redevelopment example. They should add more brick, and brick colors to the elevations, consider removing the spandrel glass on the façade. It was suggested to continue to restudy the architecture of the building. Mr. Campeau told them to enhance the pedestrian experience across the front walkway. Mr. Campeau made a motion to table the submittal with the comments noted. The motion was seconded by Ms. Palmer. The motion passed unanimously. 2 4. Brickyard Lot 8: The fourth item under Old Business was a Conceptual Review for a new strip retail building on Lot 8 of Brickyard Crossing. Mr. Beauchene recused himself from the discussion and left the room. Mr. Elliott Locklair of Locklair Consulting, Carl Berry of Berry Architecture and Emily Mataxas of Atrium Builders came to the table to discuss the project. The parking situation on site was brought up again. Mr. Campeau asked if the parking on site was required for the Buffalo Wild Wings, and explained that the parking agreement would be required for approval. Mr. Locklair provided a drawing of the previous plans. And addressed the staff comments. He has provided a site plan with better dimensions, the proposed second building is not being shown on the plans and they did not intend to make a connection to Gum Street at this time. The requested landscaping along Gum Street and it was questioned whether the existing vegetation would meet the planting requirement at this time. Mr. Locklair explained that the developer will be required to increase the stormwater capacity on site and that it will be submitted as part of the final submittal. The Fire Marshall’s concerns for sprinkling the building were addressed with Mr. Berry indicating that the use of the building should not justify the need for sprinklers. Sidewalk connections to the interior of the site were discussed and a proposed route suggested. Mr. Campeau asked about the connection to Gum Street, and asked why not now? The discussion concerning the need for the connection went back and forth and a compromise was reached that the connection to Gum Street would be made immediately, at the end of the existing drive aisle, and the sidewalk along Gum Street and required landscaping would be deferred until the second building came in for approval. Discussion moved on to the building. With Mr. Campeau stating that the HVAC units will need to be completely screened. Mr. Gregor verified that it would be a mostly brick building with an EIFS sign band. The building material samples and colors were presented to the board. There will be two different colored brick with a buff mortar, the awnings will be metal, and the storefronts are proposed to be clear anodized aluminum. Ms. Palmer made a motion for Final approval with the following conditions:  The handicap parking locations will be addressed  Internal connections to the site will be made  the connection to Gum Street would be made immediately, at the end of the existing drive aisle, and the sidewalk along Gum Street and required landscaping would be deferred until the second building came in for approval The motion was seconded by Mr. Campeau. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Palmer made a motion to Move #2 under new business, the Aldi Conceptual Review, to #1, for scheduling issues. The motion was seconded by Mr. Beauchene. The motion passed unanimously NEW BUSINESS 1. Aldi: The first item under New Business was a request for Conceptual Review for a new Aldi Grocery store to be located at the corner of N. Main Street and E. 9th North Street. Mr. Campeau and Ms. Palmer recused themselves from the discussion and left the room. Jason Smith of Seamon Whiteside and Todd Bonnett of Aldi came to the table to discuss the project. Mr. Smith explained why the building was not pushed up to sit right at the corner. Mr. Beauchene and Mr. Gregor understood the request and the need for the placement of the building as shown. Mr. Beauchene asked about detention and if it was being proposed underground. Mr. Smith indicated that it would be a possibility but that had yet to be determined. He also said that they were trying to save as many of the big trees on site as possible. Mr. Bonnett explained that Aldi had tried to develop a Summerville prototype and felt that the Dorchester Road location had been fairly successful and that they were hoping to reuse that prototype. Because of the placement of the building they had dressed up the back of the building. Mr. Beauchene said that they were quality materials and that they had set a good precedent in Oakbrook. Mr. Gregor told the applicant to do a good landscape plan at this location. Mr. Beauchene said that sidewalks will be required and that there should be a pedestrian connection at least from Main Street into the site. Mr. Smith explained the parking and that though building only required 44 parking spaces Aldi did request the additional parking to meet their needs. He also explained the access needs and that they intended to install the access drives across lot two as part of this project, and that at this time there was no specific plan for lot two. This being a Conceptual Review of the plans there was no vote to be taken. 2. Popeye’s: The second item under New Business was a request for Preliminary Approval for a new Drive Thru Popeye’s restaurant on Parkway Avenue. David Banks of Southern Partners, Inc. and Teresa Zielaznicki of RRG – Popeye’s came to the table to discuss the proposal. Mr. Banks asked about the requested traffic study and he was directed to discuss with staff the need for it. Mr. Campeau told the applicants that the landscaping in front of the angled parking was not adequate and that they needed to add more. He suggested the addition of wheel stops to prevent vehicular encroachment into the landscaping. Mr. Beauchene suggested moving the curb into the drive aisle to provide additional area for landscaping and that additional landscaping should be 3 proposed at the property line between their lot and Yokoso. Ms. Palmer pointed out that the required pervious parking spaces should be constructed with pervious pavers and not porous cement. Mr. Banks told the board that they had checked with CPW on the location of the proposed underground detention in the existing easement and that they were generally ok with the location. Mr. Banks explained some of the grading issues on the property detailing that there is actually some fall across the property. Mr. Campeau asked if they had considered flipping the orientation of the building and Mr. Banks explained that it was not good for the drive thru circulation. Mr. Beauchene asked about the site lighting, and the height of the proposed poles. He said that 20’ poles should be adequate for a site this size and that they would need to bring the average site lighting down below 3. Mr. Campeau suggested looking further into the proposed plant palate for the landscape plan, and that foundation plantings should be added. Mr. Gregor told the applicants that no stone mulch would be permitted and only pine straw would be permitted. Mr. Beauchene said that he didi not like the tan brick color shown on the proposed drawings. Mr. Campeau said that the bright red coping was too much of a contrast with the tan brick, and that a red brick color may be a better choice and a more muted red coping to blend into the brick. The proposed awnings were discussed and it was suggested that the awnings be changed to black or dark green. Mr. Campeau said that all wall packs must be shielded, and that all doors should have an awning, and that the mechanical enclosure on the back of the building should be painted to match the building. Ms. Palmer made a motion for preliminary approval with comments noted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Campeau. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Avid Hotel: The third item under New Business was a Conceptual Review of a proposed 125 room hotel to be located on Holiday Drive. Mr. Craig Otto of Craig A. Otto Architecture, Inc. and Steve Patel of Courtesy Management Inc. came to the table to discuss the proposal. Mr. Otto explained that this is a new concept from IHG, the Holiday Inn group, to compete with other new concepts like the True Hotels brand from Hilton. The concept is for smaller buildings with smaller rooms, intended to cater to millennials and younger people. He explained that this really is a bare bones conceptual plan. Mr. Gregor asked what the proposed materials were for the walls. Mr. Otto explained that the primary exterior finish was EIFS. Mr. Beauchene asked about the parking and felt that there was a lot of parking on site. Mr. Macholl explained the parking requirements for hotels and Mr. Otto said that they would meet all of the zoning requirements. Mr. Campeau said that they would like to see this building fit into the context of the other buildings on the street. He also said that there should be internal connections from the sidewalk along the street leading to the building, he also suggested moving the open space closer to the building. Mr. Otto suggested that it may be a good idea to flip the building and put the main entrance closer to the curve of Holiday Drive. Mr. Palmer explained that all doors for a hotel should be accessible doors and that the handicap parking should be dispersed throughout the site with some at all accessible entrances. Mr. Beauchene thought that the design of the building was OK, but the materials could use some work. Mr. Campeau suggested that the red accent tower could be constructed entirely of brick, and that the pedestrian experience at the base of the building should really be increased. Mr. Gregor explained that EIFS should not be the primary exterior finish material. Mr. Campeau requested that a specialty paving material be proposed for the drive aisle leading to the main entrance, to set it off. Concerning the overall architecture of the building the board expressed that they did not object to a modern look, but that the applicant should look at the architecture that is being used at the NEXTON development. Mr. Patel asked the board how they felt about the bright red tower, and the board expressed a desire to have that bright red color toned down. This being a Conceptual Review of the plans there was no vote to be taken. 4. Pet Suites: The fourth item under New Business is a Conceptual Review of a proposed pet boarding and grooming facility located at N. Main Street and E. 4 th North Street. Todd Simmons of Freeland & Cauffman and Chris Bishop of Par 5 Development came up to the table to discuss the proposal. Mr. Simmons explained that they had met with staff concerning the site and layout of the property, they had tried to address the concerns of staff and meet their recommendations but they tried to stay true to the PetSuites brand. Mr. Bishop explained that PetSuites is a luxury lodging and daycare for pets, with additional grooming services as well. They are currently building a number of facilities throughout the east coast. He indicated that they have a number of designs but this is a new proposed prototype that they would like to use at this location. He indicated that a couple locations in Georgia have used a brick façade. Ms. Palmer told the applicants that stone would not be a permitted finish material for the building. Mr. Gregor asked what the purpose of the pocket park is. Mr. Bishop explained that they were trying to preserve the large oak on site and that staff had expressed that they didn’t want parking right up front on N. Main Street. The board asked what the base material for the play yard was, and it was explained that it is a concrete base. Mr. Campeau said that it may be a good idea to visit the site to get a better idea of the tree and layout issues. He also said that the building needs to address 4th Street, and Ms. Palmer agreed that the site should be restudied to try to bring the building closer to 4th. Mr. Gregor asked what the fencing material was for the outdoor play 4 area. Mr. Simmons explained that it is a six foot tall solid white vinyl fence. Ms. Palmer in reference to the building told the applicants that rock would not be supported as a finish material, and that the dog silhouette should be removed from the façade. She suggested that it needs to be more “Summerville”. Mr. Bishop presented a different elevation for an older prototype that looks like a barn. The board generally liked the barn styling because it had a roof line and front porch. Mr. Campeau told the applicants to make it fit into the fabric of the downtown area, it shouldn’t be overly modern, and shouldn’t be a prototype. Mr. Macholl suggested looking at the two buildings right at the corner to get design cues. Mr. Campeau also indicated that the site needs to be functional. The current parking layout with dead end parking does not work very well and the parking layout should be addressed to make it flow better. Mr. Simmons asked if the board liked the pocket park. Mr. Gregor and Ms. Palmer thought it was a good idea. The board directed them to restudy it, with a recommendation to add screening at the front, possibly using a one-way drive with angled parking and specialty paving. This being a Conceptual Review of the plans there was no vote to be taken. 5. Signs: There were no signs to discuss. MISCELLANEOUS: No miscellaneous items at this time. ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:14 PM on a motion by Mr. Gregor and a second by Mr. Beauchene. Respectfully Submitted, Date: ________________ Tim Macholl Zoning Administrator Approved: Michael Gregor, Chairman _____________________________________; or, Chris Campeau, Vice Chairman ______________________________________ 5  STAFF REPORT CDRB Meeting March 15, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. TO: Town of Summerville CDRB FROM: Planning Staff DATE: February 8, 2018 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Pet Suites of Summerville Property Owner: Par 5 Holding LLC Requested Action: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Review for the construction of a new Pet Suites, Pet Grooming and lodging Requested Approval: Conceptual Review Existing Zoning: B-3 General Business Location: 423 N. Main Street 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. Recommendation: Based upon preliminary staff review, the project does not meet all zoning ordinance requirements. No landscape plan has been submitted at this time and will be required. Staff Requests that all construction activities stay outside of the dripline of the 62” Live Oak being preserved on-site. A full tree survey and Tree Removal Permit will be required. Staff prefers the previous layout, with a fully landscaped pocket park, and the removal of the paving around the Oak. The building is still not fully addressing E. 4th North Street, the CDRB has the authority to reduce the required setback to equal the required landscape buffer. The proposed dumpster enclosure will be fully visible from the N. Main Street frontage. Staff would recommend working with the adjacent property owners at 437 and 445 North Main Street for a cross access and a parking easement, utilizing the existing access point to E. 4th North Street, and eliminating the need for the access to Magnolia. Pedestrian connections will be required to connect to N. Main Street and E. 4th North Street. A photometric plan will be required. Engineering Comments: The Stormwater Management Facility shown on the plan does not appear to be adequate. A sidewalk will be required across the E. 4th North Street Frontage. PARCEL BOUNDARY INFORMATION FROM AVAILABLE GIS RECORDS. TOPOGRAPHY FROM USGS MAP. AN ALTA SURVEY WILL NEED TO BE PERFORMED FOR THIS SITE TO ACCURATELY SHOW THE EXISTING BOUNDARY LINES AND ANY EASEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCES. A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WILL NEED TO BE PERFOMED FOR THIS SITE TO SHOW ACCURATE ELEVATIONS. THIS EXHIBIT IS FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION OR RECORDATION PURPOSES. 16 .5' DUMPSTER 6 ENCLOSURE SIGN 24' 7 5 9' 39 ' 6 ARTIFICIAL TURF AREA ±1 18 01 ' ' 24' 10 18' 7 ±2 24' 34 ' 3 ±2 33 ' ACCESS EASEMENT FROM RESIDUAL PARCEL ±1 01 ' 24' PARCEL BOUNDARY INFORMATION FROM AVAILABLE GIS RECORDS. TOPOGRAPHY FROM USGS MAP. AN ALTA SURVEY WILL NEED TO BE PERFORMED FOR THIS SITE TO ACCURATELY SHOW THE EXISTING BOUNDARY LINES AND ANY EASEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCES. A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WILL NEED TO BE PERFOMED FOR THIS SITE TO SHOW ACCURATE ELEVATIONS. THIS EXHIBIT IS FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION OR RECORDATION PURPOSES. 16 .5' DUMPSTER 6 ENCLOSURE SIGN 24' 7 5 9' 39 ' 6 ARTIFICIAL TURF AREA ±1 18 01 ' ' 24' 10 18' 7 ±2 24' 34 ' 3 ±2 33 ' ACCESS EASEMENT FROM RESIDUAL PARCEL ±1 01 ' 24'  FK Pet Suites.xlsx Tree Number DBH Speices Grade Comments Comments Condition 1 5.5 maple C Scale Decline Fair 2 4.5 maple D Scale Decline Poor 3 4.5 maple D Scale Decline Poor 4 6.5-14.5 camphor F Invasive species Poor 5 6-9 camphor F Invasive species Poor 6 5.5-8-8.5 camphor F Invasive species Poor 7 6.5 camphor F Invasive species Poor 8 13.5 mulberry D Poor form Decline Poor 9 7 camphor F Invasive species Poor 10 5.5-7.5 camphor F Invasive species Poor 11 5-5.5-5.5 camphor F Invasive species Poor 12 6-6.5-9 camphor F Invasive species Poor 13 5.5-6-7.5 camphor F Invasive species Poor 14 7.5-11 camphor F Invasive species Poor 15 22.5 water oak C Leaning Hollow base Fair 16 15 water oak C Poor form Fair 17 7.5 elm B Good 18 28 water oak C Hollow Fair 19 29 water oak D Hollow base Poor 20 15 water oak C Hollow base Fair 21 19.5 pine B Good 22 27 pine B Good 23 31 pecan C V shaped crotch Storm damage Fair 24 25.5 water oak C Fair 25 14 pine C Damaged Crook Fair 26 25 pine C Fair 27 27 pine C Fair 28 34 water oak D Broken top Hollow Poor 29 20.5-33 sweetgum C V shaped crotch Poor form Fair 30 21 pecan B Good 31 10.5 sweetgum C V shaped crotch Leaning Fair 32 8 sweetgum C Poor form Fair 33 9-9.5 sweetgum C V shaped crotch Fair 34 7-8.5-17.5 elm C V shaped crotch Poor form Fair 35 11 laurel oak B Good 36 14 pecan B V shaped crotch Good 37 22.5 pecan C V shaped crotch Poor form Fair 38 20 pine B Good 39 16.5 sweetgum C Poor form Fair 40 62 live oak B Good 41 22.5 water oak B Good 42 15 live oak C Utility pruned Poor form Fair 43 12 black cherry D Diseased Poor 44 12.5 black cherry D Diseased Poor 45 16 water oak C Poor form Fair 46 21.5 pecan C Decline Fair 47 18.5 laurel oak C Poor form Fair Page 1 of 2  FK Pet Suites.xlsx 48 13.5 red oak C Leaning Fair 49 6-7.5-9.5 water oak D Stump sprouts Poor 50 5-6-9.5-10.5 laurel oak D Stump sprouts Poor 51 10 live oak B Good 52 11 live oak B Good 53 18.5 live oak B Good Page 2 of 2  SC_Summerville (Site Pictures) Primary Road (N Main St) 1 2 3 Facing Into Site From the Opposite Side of Road 1 2 3  SC_Summerville (Site Pictures) Secondary Road (E 4th St) 1 2 3 Facing Into Site From the Opposite Side of Road 3 2 1  STAFF REPORT CDRB Meeting March 15, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. TO: Town of Summerville CDRB FROM: Planning Staff DATE: February 8, 2018 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Franklin Ridge of SC Property Owner: Knightsville Crossing Financing LLC. Requested Action: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Review for the redevelopment of the former Piggly Wiggly shopping center at Orangeburg Road and Central Avenue. Requested Approval: Conceptual Review Existing Zoning: B-3 General Business Location: 1605 Central Avenue 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. Recommendation: Based upon preliminary staff review, the project does not meet all zoning ordinance requirements. No landscape plan has been submitted at this time and will be required. A photometric plan will be required for the future development parcels. The proposed location of the dumpster enclosure for the gas station si prominent on the Central Avenue side. Pedestrian connections will be required from the requested sidewalks on Orangeburg and Central internal to the site. Any tree removal on site will require TAP approval. A tree removal permit will be required prior to removal of any trees onsite. Engineering Comments: Sidewalks will be required along both Orangeburg Road and Central Avenue. The applicant will need to do a complete remodel of the stormwater plan, and get full MS4 approval. A traffic study will be required to be completed with the addition of a gas station, potential fast food and outlot on Devon Road.