Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves Okeetee Bluffs certificate of appropriateness with design conditions
Summary
The Bluffton Planning Commission approved a certificate of appropriateness for the 150‑unit Okeetee Bluffs apartment project on Highway 170, subject to detailed design revisions and staff review of resubmitted elevations and mechanical screening.
The Bluffton Planning Commission voted to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness (COFA) for Okeetee Bluffs, a proposed apartment complex of about 150 units on a 16‑acre parcel at the northeast corner of Highway 170 and Shippet Road, subject to conditions requiring revised elevations and additional design work.
Staff reviewed the application and described the proposal as six multifamily buildings, four parking garages, a clubhouse and associated infrastructure. "The development plan has been approved and it does include 6 apartment buildings," staff said during the presentation. Staff flagged missing elevations and several design issues that must be resolved before a final development plan and building permits can proceed.
Why it matters: the project fronts Highway 170 and falls within the Highway Corridor Overlay District, so commissioners emphasized that any elevation facing 170 must read as the building's front. The commission directed changes intended to reduce the visual mass of buildings along the corridor, screen rooftop mechanical equipment from public view and ensure consistent, reviewed elevation drawings before permits are issued.
Key details and conditions - Materials and detailing: commissioners asked for narrower board‑and‑batten spacing to break up long wall spans and improve proportion. Staff and commissioners set a maximum spacing of 16 inches on center for the board‑and‑batten treatment on reviewed elevations. - Roof pitch and dormers: the commission required raising any 3:12 roof pitches to at least 4:12 where the UDO requires it, and asked that ornamental dormers be removed or substantially revised so they serve a functional purpose rather than appearing applied. - Mechanical screening: staff recommended rooftop HVAC be fully screened and not extend above the parapet; commissioners suggested a taller parapet than the 42 inches shown, noting typical packaged units and installation curbs can make a 42" parapet insufficient to hide equipment from Highway 170. - Utilities and meter banks: commissioners told the applicant to relocate or architecturally screen meter banks and service panels so front elevations facing Highway 170 do not present as service yards; staff suggested deliberate courtyard or architectural screening solutions rather than ad‑hoc fences. - Fenestration and shutters: where false panels remain on 170‑facing elevations, the commission said any Bahama‑style shutters used to conceal them must be consistent, steep/long enough to hide the panels and integrated across buildings; several commissioners preferred authentic fenestration where feasible. - Resubmittal process: the commission approved the COFA subject to the list of conditions discussed (staff's numbered items 1–9). Staff will require a full resubmittal demonstrating compliance; appointed commissioners will be provided the revised plans for review before final sign‑off.
Commissioners and applicant Adrian Miller, representing the owner/developer (Millstone), said the team would work with staff and the commission to make the requested adjustments. Dan and Charlotte of staff led technical reviews of the landscape and architectural issues; Dan presented tree calculations showing the proposed plantings and retained trees exceed the town's 15‑trees‑per‑acre requirement.
Commission process and vote A commissioner moved to approve the COFA with the stated conditions and another commissioner seconded. The commission carried the motion on a voice vote; no opposed votes were recorded on the public audio. Staff advised that final development plan approval is required before issuance of the COFA and before building permit submittal.
What’s next The applicant will revise drawings to address the conditions, resubmit to staff and share revisions with appointed commissioners for confirmation. Staff will coordinate the review and confirm whether submitted revisions meet the conditions before issuing the COFA. The commission noted that if the applicant fails to make required changes at final DRC, the COFA approval can be held at that stage.
Quotes "The development plan has been approved and it does include 6 apartment buildings," Charlotte, staff, said during the presentation. Adrian Miller, the applicant, said the team would "work with staff to figure out a way that we can make it all work."
