Starbucks at Beaufort Town Center

The City of Beaufort desired to connect City Hall and Sycamore Street to Marsh Drive through property
owned by Town Center Inn, LLC. Such a public connection was part of the Citys Boundary Street
Master Plan. In 2012, an agreement was reached providing the City a public right of way through Town
Center Inns property in exchange for property known as Lovejoy Park.

By itself, Lovejoy Park was not large enough to support a building or other development. However,
when combined with Town Center Inns existing land, the Lovejoy property provided Town Center Inn a
greater developable parcel and Boundary Street frontage. Such frontage provided development
opportunities more in keeping with the Boundary Street Master Plan, which shows full development of
this parcel and buildings fronting Boundary Street.

Starbucks has been considering coming to Beaufort for 13-14 years. They are now at a point where they
are very comfortable coming to Beaufort. They do not have prototypical architecture. However, given
the Beaufort marketplace and Starbucks desire to cater to military personnel, some of whom cannot get
out of their vehicles while in uniform, they must have a drive-thru to make this Starbucks successful.

We appreciate the City Architects assistance in developing a site plan that was agreed upon by the City,
Starbucks and the developer in August 2013. We have been working diligently, since that time, toward
designing a building that addresses the requirements of the Boundary Street Redevelopment District
standards.

This project satisfies the requirements of the Boundary Street Master Plan and provides Starbucks their
desired drive-thru. We understand the drive-thru must be approved by the ZBOA, and that application is
currently pending. We are pleased to have the support of City staff as this application goes before the
ZBOA.

We have taken great care to:
Develop a site plan, with the assistance of the City Architect, which places the drive-thru in the
rear of the building, as required by the Boundary Street Redevelopment District Standards.
Weve also met Starbucks request that there is a very clear delineation where pedestrians are to
cross the drive-thru.
Develop a site plan that preserves as many of the trees as possible.
Design a building that provides the mass and scale set forth by the Boundary Street zoning
ordinance even though the tenant has no true need for the mezzanine.

During the previous reviews, the City Architect has made several comments and surfaced some questions
that it is appropriate to address at this time. These are as follows:

Mezzanine The City Architect asked if we had considered extending the mezzanine even further down
Boundary Street (from 358 SF currently to 408 SF allowed by Code). Yes, we have considered this, but
our client prefers the current configuration, as do we. The current configuration achieves the stated
objectives of the two-story massing and providing primary floor space on the second story (both
internally and on the porch) without pushing the mezzanine too far over the dining area. Starbucks has
significant concerns about having a mezzanine over the dining area and the health issues that may create.
They are comfortable with the current configuration.

Trees and Parking As the City Architect and the Citys Landscape Architect requested, we requested
Preservation Tree Care to conduct an ISA risk assessment of all significant trees on site. Mr. Murphy was
headed out of the country for several weeks and his schedule would not allow a full survey until later in
June; however, he conducted a preliminary survey of the trees to be removed, which is included with this
application. The full report will be forthcoming. Two of the trees on the western side, in the midst of
parking and driving area, have a reasonable risk of failure. The third tree on the western side has a low
risk of failure. We have gone through great efforts to preserve the largest number of trees as possible on
this site. Myriad site plans have been studied to both maximize parking and save the greatest number of
trees. As described in section 7.3.b of the UDO, we wish to proceed with removal of this tree, as we
believe the criteria for removal of this tree are met.
Parking is critical to the success of this project. We understand that, per the Boundary Street
Redevelopment standards, 1 parking space per 1,000 SF is required. However, this standard does not
consider the use of any building within the Boundary Street corridor. It is reasonable for restaurants to
have a higher parking demand than an office user, for example.
At the rate established by the Boundary Street Redevelopment Standards, we are permitted 2
spaces for the Starbucks building. We have a strong prospective tenant for a building to the east of
Starbucks for a 2,500 SF building, which would equate to 3 parking spaces. While the Code dictates that
only 5 spaces are required, that is a far cry from what these businesses actually need to conduct business
and be successful. If we were to apply the parking requirements established by section 7.5.A of the UDO,
Starbucks would be permitted a minimum 16 spaces. (This is based on 58 seats and 4 employees. A
tentative schematic layout is included in this application. It should be viewed only for these purposes.
Starbucks will submit their own set of plans for interior upfit permitting.). If we assume the neighboring
building is a 2,500 SF restaurant, with 118 seats and 6 employees, that would equate to 33 parking spaces.
Thus, these two buildings require 49 parking spaces. Alternatively, if we are to look at Beaufort Countys
current restaurant standards, Starbucks would be permitted 18 spaces (14 spaces per 1,000 SF for a
restaurant with a drive-thru), and the neighboring building would be permitted 30 spaces (12 spaces per
1,000 SF for a restaurant without a drive-thru), for a total of 37 spaces. Currently there are 43 spaces on
this site. The amount of parking being provided is certainly within the local code requirements as well as
the end users requirements for these spaces. The Boundary Street Redevelopment District standards are
not realistic in this circumstance.
Furthermore, the Boundary Street Redevelopment District standards would require any additional
parking over what is being required to be pervious, which is normal when you have properly populated
the parking field; however, in this case, using the Boundary Street Redevelopment District standards, the
field would be under parked with the majority of the parking being pervious. A parking lot that is
comprised of mainly pervious parking is not only inordinately expensive, it is difficult to maintain and
can propose trip hazards when compared to traditional lots. As currently designed, the parking lot and
site meet all stormwater requirements, as well as normal and customary parking rates for this type of
development.

One reason we were able to successfully convince Starbucks to locate in this location is due to the
fact that there is, indeed, pedestrian activity and shared parking throughout Beaufort Town Center. The
parking that was carefully crafted on the existing site plan to protect as many trees as possible while
maximizing spaces cannot be further diminished.
At one point it was asked why the site plan no longer showed parallel parking along Marsh Drive.
SCDOT will not permit parallel parking this close to Boundary Street due to safety concerns with cars
trying to back into these spaces at the main signalized entrance. In fact, one of the factors in redesigning
the roadway through the Quality Inn parcel was to move the ingress/egress point onto Marsh further away
from Boundary Street.

Colonnades and Arches In the City Architects previous staff report, it was noted that the minimum
depth of the colonnade is 8. We have provided a depth greater than that where possible, 10. In areas
where the porch intrudes into the colonnade the depth is 56. The average depth of the colonnade is
74. We would be happy to increase the overall depth of the colonnade, but this is not possible, as it
would extend the colonnade past the property line. Similarly, we cannot shift the building to the north to
accommodate a greater depth, as that would detrimentally affect the entire site plan. Rather than abandon
the idea of the colonnade idea altogether and the idea of the 2
nd
floor vibrancy it will provide, we
respectfully request the City Architect grant a staff-level variance to this requirement. When
consideration is given to the ground-level activity that will occur not only along the colonnade, but along
the gracious patio area along the southwest corner of the building (see landscape plan and Starbucks
schematic plan), we believe this southern faade of the project will provide the pedestrian friendly
experience envisioned by the Boundary Street Master Plan.

Lighting We work with SCE&G to provide consistent lighting throughout Beaufort Town Center. The
lighting plan that is included proposes to use 100MWH Acorn lights on 14 poles to match what is
currently in the parking lot behind One Beaufort Town Center. More information on the fixtures can be
found at http://www.sceg.com/en/small-business/lighting-solutions/decorative-lighting/. These lights
were approved as the standard light fixture for the Marsh Gardens PUD many years ago.

Signage As we have discussed, the tenant will submit their own signage package as a separate
application. They are aware of the Citys signage ordinances and have been involved in the building
design process.

Thank you for your continued involvement in and assistance with this project. Please do not hesitate to
contact me with any questions you may have.
Page 1 of 7
Design Review: Starbucks (Proposed New Construction) Tax Map/Parcel No.: R122-001-000-0012-0000 p.1
City of Beaufort Department of Planning and Development Services

BOUNDARY STREET REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

Design Review

Date: June 10, 2014

Project: Starbucks New Construction
Tax Map/Parcel No.: R122-001-000-0012-0000
Date of Submittal: 05.22.14
Stage of Review: Final Review

Reviewed under the City of Beaufort, South Carolina, Unified Development Ordinance
Article 6, Section 6.8, Boundary Street Redevelopment District.







Overview
B O U N D A R Y S T R E E T M A S T E R PL A N
(Highlighting proposed project location)
The applicant is proposing to construct a new Starbucks coffee shop. The new restaurant
will be developed under the Boundary Street Redevelopment District Ordinance. Variances
and a Special Exception have been granted by the ZBOA to permit the drive-thru with a 5-
car stacking lane, exterior menu board and order board.
Page 2 of 7
Design Review: Starbucks (Proposed New Construction) Tax Map/Parcel No.: R122-001-000-0012-0000 p.2
































=




D E T A I L O F B O U N D A R Y S T R E E T M A S T E R P L A N
(Showing site of proposed project with existing buildings shown in gray)

The general location of this building is consistent with the Boundary Street Master Plan. The
plan depicts a building at the corner of Marsh Drive and Boundary Street, with parking
internal to the site.
Page 3 of 7
Design Review: Starbucks (Proposed New Construction) Tax Map/Parcel No.: R122-001-000-0012-0000 p.3






B O U N D A R Y S T R E E T R E G U L A T I N G P L A N
(Showing area of proposed project)

Regulating Plan

Development under the Boundary Street code is regulated by Street Type. As stated in
Section 6.8-G: The code regulates individual parcels of land based upon which type of
street they front. The front of a building and its main entrance must face the primary
street. The Primary Street fronting the subject parcel is Boundary Street (BS-5 Section),
thus requiring the building to front Boundary Street with its primary entrance. The site will
also front the Marsh Road, which is designated as a Parallel Street in this ordinance, which
also has build-to requirements under the Code.
Page 4 of 7
Design Review: Starbucks (Proposed New Construction) Tax Map/Parcel No.: R122-001-000-0012-0000 p.4
Street Types

The Street types related to this parcel are as follows:
Boundary Street
Parallel Street
These streets are ranked in this respective order of hierarchy from highest to lowest.

Boundary Street (Section 6.8, G.1)
All building size and placement requirements have been met.

Parallel Street Marsh Road (Section 6.8, G.8)
All building size and placement requirements have been met. See notes below with
regard to streetscape.


Permitted Uses (Section 6.8, E)
The proposed uses are permitted within the Boundary Street Redevelopment District, and a
special exception has been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the drive-thru.


General Design Standards (Section 6.8, H)
A revised Site Plan, Sheet 1, listing all plan items including menu and order boards, and
dimensions, will be required. This drawing was submitted on 5/22/14 but an updated Sheet 1
corresponding to the latest civil set received on 6/4/14 was not submitted. The items and
details in the Site Plan should be consistent with the Landscape Plan and the rest of the Civil
drawings.

1. Building Heights: All requirements have been met.
2. Corner Radii and Clear Zones: All requirements have been met.
3. Streets:
Boundary Street: all requirements have been met.
Marsh Road:
o Parking: This street section calls for 8 parallel parking spaces, a 5 planting
strip and a 5 sidewalk. The first conceptual plan included the parallel
parking spaces, but the narrative stated that they were removed from the
current plan because SCDOT will not permit additional parking spaces
between the signalized intersection and this new intersection. Please
provide documentation of this.
o Sidewalk/Planting Strip: The landscaping plan shows a sidewalk and planting
strip parallel to Marsh Road. The Civil Drawings, which in an email were
determined to be the most accurate, do not have this sidewalk. This should
be added to the civil drawings in the manner depicted on the landscape plan
to comply with the ordinance.
o Existing Curb Cut: This should be removed, as shown on the landscape plan.
4. Alleys: All requirements have been met.
5. Exceptions from Build-to Lines: An exception from the 0-15 setback line on Marsh
Road will be given due to the large live oak trees on the corner of Marsh Road and
Boundary Street.
6. First Floor Height for Residential: N/A
Page 5 of 7
Design Review: Starbucks (Proposed New Construction) Tax Map/Parcel No.: R122-001-000-0012-0000 p.5
7. Accessory Structures: N/A
8. Drive-thrus: A Special Exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBOA) has been
granted to allow for the drive-thru in the rear of the building.
Variances from the ZBOA have also been granted for the following items:
Outside menu & order boards these item must be shown on the Site Plan
and landscaping plan. The ZBOA required that the menu board should be
located at vehicle space #3, and a pre-order board, if desired, be located at
vehicle space #4.
Maximum stacking allowed for vehicles shall be three vehicle lengths. ZBOA
allowed this to increase to 5.
9. Civic Sites: N/A
10. Parking/Landscaping:
Deck in the SW corner: This is depicted on the Site Plan dated 5/22/14, as well
as in the landscaping plan. It was also depicted in the plans presented to the ZBOA.
However, it is not shown in the updated Civil Drawings dated 6/4/14 (though this
set did not include a Site Plan). Is a deck still planned for this area? If so, details for
deck and any railings will be required.
o The deck seemed to be a solution that was positive and beneficial to
everyone it helped resolve grade issues, it allowed for a shaded seating
area, and it activated that corner, since the large trees prevent the building
from sitting on the corner as depicted in and required by the Boundary
Street Master Plan (see setback exception in #5 above).
o The 6/4/14 civil set shows a retaining wall. If this is the proposed solution,
please explain the rational for this change. Please provide details of this
wall (height, materials, etc).
o Handrail details on the steps and ramp must be submitted.
Parking: the calculations and description in the narrative provided are
reasonable for this project. As a result, Section 7.5.C of the ordinance, governing
maximum number spaces permitted, as well as pervious paving requirements, will
not be applied to this project.
Trees:
o After reviewing the narrative, as well as the arborist report, staff approves
the removal of the 42 and 23 Live Oaks in the eastern portion of the
property. Mitigation will be required for the removal of these trees.
o Staff denies the removal of the 37 Live Oak in the northeast corner of the
property and requests that the plan be revised to retain this grand tree.
This is supported by the arborist report.
o Previous plans show the retention of the large Magnolias and palmetto
trees adjacent to the east side of the Starbucks building. They are shown in
the arborist report to be in the healthiest category. In addition, the plan
the arborist reviewed showed them to be retained. This current plan shows
them all to be removed. If the reasons for removal are the placement of
grease trap, and the soil additions as depicted in the grading plan, staff
recommends the 1,000 gallon grease trap be relocated to the north,
perhaps into the drive-thru lane and tree well(s) be constructed to retain
as many of the trees as possible.
o 32 Live Oak adjacent to 2 parallel parking spaces:
Page 6 of 7
Design Review: Starbucks (Proposed New Construction) Tax Map/Parcel No.: R122-001-000-0012-0000 p.6
Will this require a retaining wall? There appears to be a 12-18
grade change (lower) between the current grade and the new
street grade. Please minimize this as much as possible to protect
the integrity of the retained tree.
As per the arborist report, staff requests that the two parallel
parking spaces south of this tree be paved with a pervious material.
Please provide invoices from arborist to document that these
actions have been completed.
o 34 Live Oak north of drive-thru:
This close proximity between tree root flare and curb and
necessary root pruning will severely limit preservation of the 34
LO tree. Staff recommends removal or shifting of the adjacent
parking space to retain this tree. Eliminating the curb, and using
pervious paving adjacent to the tree may also be a solution. Staff
recommends that the applicant get a recommendation on this
particular situation from the arborist prior to making any site
design changes.
If an adequate distance between the curb and the root flare can be
obtained, staff requests that the diagonal parking space west of
this tree be paved with a pervious material.
It appears there will be a 12 increase in grade around this tree
group. Staff requests revising of grading or provision of tree well to
preserve grand tree grouping.
o Tree Treatment Notes - For all existing trees shown to remain, project
requires:
Crown cleaning and root fertilization should be done a minimum of
3 months in advance of site work. If construction is eminent and
this is not possible, it should be done at least 3 months after site
work begins.
Performance of root pruning by a certified arborist on trees that
will be impacted by construction following staking of curbing and
prior to site disturbance.
Following completion of construction, certified arborist to perform
root invigoration and incorporate mycorrhizae.

11. Large Footprint Buildings: N/A

Building Elements (Section 6.8, I)
1. Door and Window Openings:
All standards have been met.
2. Turrets and Cupolas: N/A
3. Colonnades / Arcades:
Minimum depth 8 unfortunately, the 8 minimum depth is very clear in the
Boundary Street Master Plan. Section 6.8.I.3 states Colonnades shall only be
constructed where the minimum depth can be obtained. Colonnades are
required on 75-100% of a building. If we were to look at an average, or
percentage, of the proposed colonnade that complies with the ordinance,
Page 7 of 7
Design Review: Starbucks (Proposed New Construction) Tax Map/Parcel No.: R122-001-000-0012-0000 p.7
wed consider it from a linear frontage perspective, rather than an area
perspective. The colonnade is shown at 5-4 for greater than 50% of the
colonnade width. The purpose of a colonnade is to provide covered seating
and protected walking area along the sidewalk/street frontage. As per the
seating layout, no seats are proposed for the narrow portion of the
colonnade, because it is too narrow. If this dimension is not possible to
achieve, given the site constraints, building program, and other code
requirements, a variance may be requested. However there is no provision for
a staff level variance on this issue.
Minimum height: 10 clear this standard has been met.
4. Balconies: N/A
5. Marquees & Awnings: All standards have been met.
6. Porches: N/A
7. Stoops: N/A
Architectural Standards (Section 6.8, J)
Mechanical Equipment: This may not be visible from any public right of way
including Boundary Street and Marsh Road. Please provide a view angle from
Marsh Road so that it may be evaluated. The view angle from Boundary Street
shows that it is slightly visible from the opposite side of the street. Please adjust
the location of the units and/or the height of the parapet wall to eliminate this.
All other standards have been met. Signage must be submitted under a
separate application. This will include the design of the menu and order board.

Other Items
Lighting: Lighting should be incorporated as a streetscape element where
possible along Lovejoy Extension and Marsh Road. Additional parking lighting and
building lighting should supplement street lights located along Lovejoy extension
and Marsh Road.

Final Review Summary & Recommendations

This final application has outstanding issues in the following areas:
Site Plan:
Updated overall Site Plan (Sheet 1) with all site elements is required;
Marsh Road streetscape;
Deck and/or retaining wall decision and details;
Tree to be removed and retained;
Lighting configuration;
Building:
Colonnade depth; and
Mechanical equipment screening.


Site for Starbucks
(in front of the Quality Inn at 2001 Boundary Street)

View to the South from the Site
View to the Southwest from the Site
View to the West from the Site
View to the North from the Site
View to the East from the Site
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.1
0.7
0.4
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.3
1.6
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.5
1.8
1.4
0.8
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.4
1.7
1.4
1.1
1.4
0.9
1.4
1.3
1.7
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.3
1.3
0.6
0.8
1.5
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.4
1.2
0.8
1.0
1.6
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.9
1.5
1.1
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.9
1.3
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.8
1.1
0.9
0.4
1.0
1.4
1.4
0.9
0.3
0.9
1.6
1.5
0.8
0.3
0.7
1.6
1.3
0.7
0.3
0.9
1.5
1.7
0.9
0.3
0.8
1.2
1.1
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
1.9
L
O
V
E
J
O
Y
Designer
R. SPROWLS
Date
5/15/2014
Scale
Not to Scale
Drawing No.
Summary
1 of 1
SCHEDULE OF TREES TO BE REMOVED
TREE TYPE 11" 14" 15" 16" 17" 18" 25" 27" 37" 42" TOTALS (TYPE)
LIVE OAK 1 1 1 3
MAGNOLIA 1 1 2
PALMETTO 1 3 2 1 1 8
PINE 1 1
TOTALS (SIZE) 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
SCHEDULE OF TREES TO BE SAVED
TREE TYPE 4" 8" 12" 16" 30" 31" 32" 34" 35" 37" TOTALS (TYPE)
LIVE OAK 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 11
PALMETTO 1 1 2
TOTALS (SIZE) 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 13
N
/
F

3
0
3

A
S
S
O
C
.

L
L
C
U
.S. H
W
Y. 21
BO
U
N
D
A
RY STREET
R/W
V
A
RIES
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E

S
T
R
E
E
T




3
3
'
R
/
W
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E

S
T
R
E
E
T
CONCRETE STEPPING STONES
FUTURE PLANTING
WOODDECK
DECK RAIL
(1)ILEV
(45)SPAP
(4)SABP
(1)ACER
(28)ILVN
(1)ACER
(23)ILVN
(13)ILLP
(411 sf)EREO
(13)ILLP
(241 sf)EREO
(3)CHIV
(69)TRAA
(16)MUHC
(1)ILEV
(8)ITEV
(2)LONS
(3)SERC
(12) AZAF
(5) PODO
(8) MUHC
(1) SABM
(3) RHAP
(35) MUHC
(31)TRAA
(37)MUHC
(3)SABP
(5)LONS (3)SABP
(17)RHAP
(11)LIRB
(2)LONS
(1)QUEV
(43)TRAA
(3)PODO
(6)LIRB
(24)ILVN
(1)ACER
(9)PODO
(14)MUHC
(14)MUHC
MULCH
(1)MYR3
(44)SPAP
(3)MYR3
(1)ILEV
(1) ACER
(18) ILVN
(4) VIBS
TIE NEWGRASS W/EXISTING
GRASS WHERE NEEDED
(16) SPAP
(4) VIBS
(1) QUEV
(6)TRAJ
(9)PODO
(36)LIRB
(3)SERC
(157 sf) EREO
(7) RHAP
(776 sf) EREO (13)MUHC
(1)ILEV
(6)ITEV
(3)SERC
(20)MUHC
(3)SERC
(36)SPAP
(1)ILEN
(9)VIBS
(1,667 sf)EREO
TIE TO EXISTING GRASS
FUTURE 8' SIDEWALK
FUTURE 8' PLANTING STRIP
PATIO
(521 sf)EREO
3' FENCE -
DETAIL 1
6' FENCE - DETAIL 2
DATE:
PROJECT #:
REVISIONS:
No. Date
Drawing Number
D
ra
w
in
g
T
itle
Drawn By:
Checked By:
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
MSS
MSS
L1.1
L
O
V
E
J
O
Y

P
A
R
C
E
L
C
I
T
Y
O
F
B
E
A
U
F
O
R
T
B
E
A
U
F
O
R
T
C
O
U
N
T
Y
, S
O
U
T
H
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
J
a
c
k
s
o
n
&
S
m
a
l
l
A
s
s
o
c
ia
t
e
s
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
c
h
it
e
c
t
u
r
e
A
l
a
n
H
. J
a
c
k
s
o
n
, l
l
c
Is
l
a
n
d
P
o
s
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
ic
e
1
3
B
o
w
C
ir
c
l
e
, P
M
B
2
0
9
H
il
t
o
n
H
e
a
d
Is
l
a
n
d
,S
C
2
9
9
2
8
8
4
3
--3
3
8
-3
0
1
7
a
ja
x
1
6
@
m
a
c
.c
o
m
M
ic
h
a
e
l
S
. S
m
a
l
l
, l
l
c
P
O
B
o
x
1
7
8
8
T
y
b
e
e
Is
l
a
n
d
, G
A
3
1
3
2
8
9
1
2
-7
0
4
-1
1
1
8
m
ic
h
a
e
l
s
m
a
l
l
.a
s
l
a
@
g
m
a
il
.c
o
m
The designs and concepts shown are the sole
property of Jackson & Small Associates and
may not be used without the prior written
consent of Jackson & Small Associates.
T U
LI
A C
S
O
H R
N
O
A
March 27, 2014
0
SCALE:
feet 16 32 48
DIM16
TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CAL CONT. HEIGHT/SPREAD REMARKS
SABP 10 Sabal palmetto Cabbage Palmetto N/A Bare Root 12-15`H
ACER 4 Acer rubrum`Florida Flame` Florida Flame Red Maple 2.5" Cal 30 gal 10-12`
ILEN 1 Ilex x `Nellie R Stevens` Nellie Stevens Holly 3"Cal 30 gal 7-8`
ILEV 5 Ilex vomitoria `Pride of Houston` Pride of Houston Yaupon 2"Cal 15 gal 5-6`
QUEV 2 Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak 2.5" Cal 30 gal 12-15`H
CHIV 3 Chionanthus virginicus White Fringetree 2"Cal 15 gal 6-8`
SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT. HEIGHT/SPREAD REMARKS
ILLP 26 Illiciumparviflorum Anise Tree 3 gal 24-30"
RHAP 27 Rhaphiolepis indica nana Dwarf Indian Hawthorn 3 gal 12-15"
SABM 1 Sabal minor Dwarf Palmetto 7 gal 2-3`
ILVN 93 Ilex vomitoria `Nana` Dwarf Yaupon 3 gal 12-15"
AZAF 12 Azalea indica Formosa Azalea 3 gal 24-30"
ITEV 14 Itea virginica `Henry`s Garnet` Henry`s Garnet Sweetspire 3 gal 15-18"
PODO 26 Podocarpus macrophyllus Podocarpus 7 gal 30-36"
VIBS 17 Viburnumsuspensum Sandankwa Viburnum 3 gal 24-30"
SERC 12 Serenoa repens `Cinerea` Silver SawPalmetto 3 gal 12-15"
MYR3 4 Myrica cerifera Wax Myrtle 3 gal 24-30"
VINE/ESPALIER QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT. HEIGHT/SPREAD REMARKS
TRAJ 6 Trachelospermumjasminoides `Confederate` Confederate J asmine 1 gal 2-3`
LONS 9 Lonicera sempervirens Coral Honeysuckle 1 gal 2-3`
GROUNDCOVERS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT HEIGHT/SPREAD SPACING REMARKS
143 Trachelospermumasiaticum`Asiatic` Asiatic J asmine 1 gal 4-6" 30" o.c.
53 Liriope muscari `Big Blue` Big Blue Lilyturf 1 gal 8-10" 24" o.c.
143 Muhlenbergia capillaris Pink Muhly 1 gal 12-15" 30" o.c.
141 Spartina patens Salt MeadowCord Grass 1 gal 12-15" 36" o.c.
SOD/SEED QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT HEIGHT/SPREAD SPACING REMARKS
3,772 sf Eremochloa ophiuroides Centipede Sod sod
PLANT SCHEDULE
April 10, 2014
DATE:
PROJECT #:
REVISIONS:
No. Date
Drawing Number
D
ra
w
in
g
T
itle
Drawn By:
Checked By:
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
MSS
MSS
L2.1
L
O
V
E
J
O
Y

P
A
R
C
E
L
C
I
T
Y
O
F
B
E
A
U
F
O
R
T
B
E
A
U
F
O
R
T
C
O
U
N
T
Y
, S
O
U
T
H
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
J
a
c
k
s
o
n
&
S
m
a
l
l
A
s
s
o
c
ia
t
e
s
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
c
h
it
e
c
t
u
r
e
A
l
a
n
H
. J
a
c
k
s
o
n
, l
l
c
Is
l
a
n
d
P
o
s
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
ic
e
1
3
B
o
w
C
ir
c
l
e
, P
M
B
2
0
9
H
il
t
o
n
H
e
a
d
Is
l
a
n
d
,S
C
2
9
9
2
8
8
4
3
--3
3
8
-3
0
1
7
a
ja
x
1
6
@
m
a
c
.c
o
m
M
ic
h
a
e
l
S
. S
m
a
l
l
, l
l
c
P
O
B
o
x
1
7
8
8
T
y
b
e
e
Is
l
a
n
d
, G
A
3
1
3
2
8
9
1
2
-7
0
4
-1
1
1
8
m
ic
h
a
e
l
s
m
a
l
l
.a
s
l
a
@
g
m
a
il
.c
o
m
The designs and concepts shown are the sole
property of Jackson & Small Associates and
may not be used without the prior written
consent of Jackson & Small Associates.
T U
LI
A C
S
O
H R
N
O
A
March 27, 2014
3' VINE FENCE ELEVATION & SECTION
1/2" =1'-0"
1
FG-WI-VIN-01
6'-0"
6' VINE FENCE ELEVATION & SECTION
1/2" =1'-0"
2
FG-WI-VIN1-01
STREET ELEVATION
3/16" =1'-0"
00
April 10, 2014