Design Review Board

Staff Comments for the DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 10, 2015 Magnolia Planned Unit Development Design Principals Staff Comments: Staff has worked with the applicant on the creation of the proposed design principals. We are satisfied with the outcome of the document with the following revisions: 1. The term “should” is used extensively throughout the document which implies the standard is not a requirement but a suggestion. Staff would like to further work with the applicant in changing the term “should” to “shall” in various areas of the document as a way of making the document more enforceable. 2. The name “Magnolia Design Committee” is used in Section 4.4 Exterior Building Materials, Section 5.3 Hardscape and Chapter 6 Signage Principals. With the use of this term, the private review committee is given approval authority over certain building and site materials along with certain sign elements. Change this term to “Magnolia Design Committee/City of Charleston Design Review Board. 3. Revise Subsection 4.2.8 Parking Structures to prevent parking garage from being located on any street designated as Primary or Secondary Frontage without the incorporation of a liner building. 4. Revise Chapter 6 Sign Principals by deleting references to sign sizes. Currently both the DRB and BAR operate under section 54-402 of the City of Charleston Sign Code which allows both the boards and staff the ability to approve sizes of signs based on the appropriateness for individual buildings. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends “Final Approval” with the conditions noted. 1934 Summerville Avenue Staff Comments: 1. This project falls within one of the DRB staff review areas. However, the applicant has chosen to come before the board in order to expedite the approval process. 2. Staff feels that the simple clean material palette and building design are appropriate to the building’s context and use. 3. Supplement the landscape plan in order to further soften the building. The amount of landscaping proposed for a project of this size is minimal. I high concentration of the landscaping should focus on the use of trees to help with the building’s scale. 4. A different approach is needed for the landscaping along King Street. The currently proposed landscaping will not adequately screen the parking from view. Also, the landscaping in this area needs to help bring down the scale of the building. A combination of canopy trees, shrubs and fencing is needed. 5. Provide information and designs for how the refuse will be handled. 6. Identify any outdoor storage areas and properly screen them. 7. Provide screening for the loading area. 8. Provide information on site lighting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends “Conceptual Approval” with the conditions noted. 2060 Bees Ferry Road Staff Comments: General: 1. This project does a good job at properly addressing both street frontages, with its use of storefronts and building entrances along the street and with its parking tucked behind the building.  2. Locating the mechanical units on the rooftop down the spine of the building is a good solution in helping to reduce their visibility and noise. Site: 1. Provide a 36” high brick screen wall between the parking area and Shadowmoss Parkway. 2. Provide a brick dumpster enclosure and details. 3. More needs to be done to provide connectivity from the Bees Ferry storefronts to the sidewalk along Bees Ferry Road. This may necessitate the use of steps, ramps or boardwalks to bridge the change in topography. 4. Provide street trees along Shadowmoss Parkway within the tree lawn between the sidewalk and curb. 5. Provide information on site lighting. Building: 1. Although the building is overall pleasing, the architectural direction seems predictable and safe. If the current design direction is to continue, the following modifications should be made: a. Eliminate the use of stucco and split face cmu and use an all brick material palette. Rely on the use of brick detailing for architectural interest and depth of detailing. This will result in a much cleaner and more elegant design. b. Eliminate the use of the goose neck lighting for signs. Look for a more subtle way of lighting signs. c. Currently the building appears top heavy with a lot of visual weight above the storefronts. Look for ways to improve the buildings proportions by lowering parapet heights or raising storefront heights. d. The canvas awnings should extend low enough to engage the tops of the windows to not only be more functional but also appear more proportional. 2. An ongoing issue with other double fronted storefronts in the area has been preventing merchants from treating the street side storefronts as the back of the building by locating stockrooms, restrooms, kitchens and other back of house operations against the street. Steps must be taken in the allocation of space to allow these functions to occur along the side walls of the units probably resulting in additional store widths. Provide a solution as to how this will be accomplished. 3. Per the Board’s Lighting Policy Statement, limit all building lighting to entrances only. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends “Deferral” with the conditions noted. Henry Tecklenberg Drive Staff Comments: General: 1. A number of positive refinements have been made to the project, such as: a. The elimination of the pedestrian access through the natural area between the street and the entrance to the building. b. A well designed entry canopy with an improved scale, proportions and a better relationship to the building. c. Building eaves with a slimmer profile. d. The incorporation of the cypress siding. e. Improved window proportions, particularly on the east elevation. f. The change from a running bond to a stacked bond for the fiber cement panels, along with the use of larger panels. g. Overall refinements to building details in general. Site: 1. Although the proposed plant palette contains a number of native species, Staff would prefer to see fewer ornamentals and an even greater number of natives used. 2. How will the three dry ponds be vegetated? At a minimum, their edges should be naturalized. 3. Identify on the site drawings all areas which will remain undisturbed and which areas will receive under brushing only. The goal should be to ensure that as much of the site as possible remains in its natural state. 4. Provide additional details for the dumpster enclosure and transformer screen wall.  5. Provide information on any proposed site lighting. Building: 1. Provide material and color samples. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends “Preliminary Approval” with the conditions noted. MEMBERS PRESENT: BILL MARSHALL, MICHELLE SMYTH, JEFF JOHNSTON, JOHN TARKANY, DAVID THOMPSON, ERICA CHASE STAFF PRESENT: BILL TURNER CLERK: PEGGY JORDAN AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECEMBER 10, 2015 5:00 P.M. 2 GEORGE STREET 1. Adoption of Amended Board Rules of Procedure MOTION: Approval. MADE BY: E.Chase SECOND: D.Thompson VOTE: FOR 6 AGAINST 0 2. Magnolia Planned Unit Development – App. No. 1512-10-2 TMS# 464-00-00-012, 025, 026, 028, 029, 039, 040, 466-00-00-016, 017, 018, 019, 028, 029, 030, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 037, 044, 046, 049, 051, 055 Request Final approval for the adoption of the Magnolia Planned Unit Development Design Principals as per documentation submitted. Owner: Ashley River Investors Applicant: Bello, Garris Architects Neighborhood: None MOTION: Deferral – modify the design principles to address 5-9 story buildings with images; take a stronger stance on shaping the character of the development and address staff comments 1-4. MADE BY: D.Thompson SECOND: J.Johnston VOTE: FOR 6 AGAINST 0 3. 1934 Summerville Avenue – TMS# 466-16-00-086, 087, App. No. 1512-10-3 088, 089, 090, 091, 092, 093, 097, 098, 140 Request Conceptual approval for new construction of an industrial building as per documentation submitted. Owner: Hank Cheves Applicant: Stubbs, Muldrow, Herin Architects Neighborhood: None MOTION: Preliminary approval – address staff comments. *J.Johnston recuses MADE BY: D.Thompson SECOND: E.Chase VOTE: FOR 5 AGAINST 0 4. 2060 Bees Ferry Road – TMS# 358-00-00-099 App. No. 1512-10-4 Request Conceptual approval for new construction of a Retail Shopping Center as per documentation submitted. Owner: Willco Properties, LLC Applicant: MJS Designs, LLC Neighborhood: Shadowmoss MOTION: Denial. MADE BY: D.Thompson SECOND: M.Smyth VOTE: FOR 6 AGAINST 0 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD/DECEMBER 10, 2015 PAGE 2 5. Henry Tecklenburg Drive – TMS# 351-01-00-021, App. No. 1512-10-5 022, 023, 035, 040 Request Preliminary approval for new construction of a Senior Center as per documentation submitted. Owner: City of Charleston/Bon Secours Saint Francis Applicant: Liollio Architecture Neighborhood: None MOTION: Preliminary approval – address staff comments. MADE BY: D.Thompson SECOND: J.Tarkany VOTE: FOR 6 AGAINST 0 Files containing information pertinent to the above applications are available for public review at the Department of Planning, Preservation and Sustainability, 2 George Street, during regular working hours, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., daily except Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, people who need alternative formats, ASL (American Sign Language) Interpretation or other accommodation please contact Janet Schumacher at (843) 577-1389 or email to schumacherj@charleston-sc.gov three business days prior to the meeting.