Design Review Board

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 MINUTES Present: Beth Santilli, Chair, Michael Bertin, Napporn Kichanan, Brian Wurst, Jeff Fort (entered at 5:20 pm), Mickey Seabrook (entered at 5:25 pm) Absent: Brian Boan (excused) Staff: Michael Robertson, Chris Luly, Lynnette Lynes Ms. Santilli called the meeting to order at 5:16 pm and reviewed the procedures with the public. 1. Approval of Minutes Mr. Wurst moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Wurst moved for consent approval for the following items: ➢ Staybridge Suites, 251 Sessions Way, 517-00-00-006, Final Approval for Architecture Revisions ➢ Hotel Indigo, 250 Johnnie Dodds, 514-00-00-110, Final Approval for Architecture Revision ➢ East Cooper Lock and Safe, 4253 Highway 17, 632-00-00-026, Final Approval for Site, Landscape and Architecture ➢ Solana, 601 Solana Way, 540-00-00-032, Final Approval for Site, Landscape and Architecture Revisions Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Fort arrived at this time (5:20 pm). 2. Public Comment & General Correspondence Ms. Santilli noted that Indigo Square Phase 4A (Commercial), Highway 17N and James Nelson Road, 558-00-00-933, Final Approval for Site and Landscape Revisions was withdrawn by the applicant. There being no further correspondence, Ms. Santilli continued with the agenda.  Design Review Board September 27, 2017 Page 2 of 8 3. Business A. Staybridge Suites, 251 Sessions Way, 517-00-00-006, Final Approval for Architecture Revisions This item was approved by consent motion. B. Home Depot, 2213 Highway 17N, 588-00-00-145, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Wurst recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Edward Allen reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Seabrook arrived at this time (5:25 pm). Mr. Josh Good reviewed the architecture with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked if the archway is original. Mr. Good answered that they are proposing to use the original archway. Mr. Fort asked what the setback requirements are for Six Mile. Mr. Luly answered that his understanding is that there is a range for the setbacks between 20 and 30 feet. He indicated that buffer on the plans for the Board. Mr. Fort asked about the plantings. Mr. Chris Haynes answered that the canopy trees would address the space between the bump outs. Mr. Fort asked about the horizontal lap siding. Mr. Good answered that it would be a pre-cast concrete wall with detailing. Mr. Fort asked if the tree mitigation plan comments have been addressed. Mr. Luly answered that there appear to be some discrepancy. Mr. Haynes answered that they would be preserving as many trees as possible. Mr. Kichanan asked about the landscaping for the parking and if a more columnar tree could be considered. Mr. Haynes answered that the overall plan was to have the parking with “pods of plantings”. Mr. Kichanan suggested that the spacing of the trees should be restudied. Mr. Haynes agreed and stated that they would be meeting with staff to review the landscaping and plantings for the site. Mr. Kichanan asked about the detail brick elements and suggested that  Design Review Board September 27, 2017 Page 3 of 8 the brick should be carried to the corner edge. Mr. Good answered that the intent was the brick areas would be secondary. There being no comments, Ms. Santilli closed public comment. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Seabrook expressed concern with some of the staff comments concerning landscape and site. He suggested that these should be more fully addressed before moving forward with approval. Mr. Fort asked the definition of vehicular activity. Mr. Luly answered that there is not a specific definition but would include parking, loading, driving, etc. Mr. Fort asked about parking and if it was previously approved. Mr. Allen answered that the impact assessment was approved with the proposed parking as recommended by the International Traffic Engineer standard. Mr. Luly stated that staff’s comment was to provide the parking documentation to be verified by staff prior to final approval. Mr. Fort asked about the buffers. Mr. Luly stated that a wall and additional plantings would be required. Mr. Allen answered that they are confident that there would be room for the plantings required. He stated that the exact plantings would be reviewed with staff. He stated that they intend to have plantings on both sides of the wall. Mr. Luly stated that staff’s preference is the plantings be located on the property side of the wall so that they can be sufficiently maintained. Mr. Kichanan agreed with staff that if the staff comments are addressed, it could mean an alteration in the site design. He suggested that a table of existing conditions should be included on the plans in addition to including the symbol for the trees to better represent the crown of existing trees. He suggested that the columnar trees should be restudied. He suggested that the brick should be carried to the corner end. Mr. Kichanan asked about staff comment regarding trim material. Mr. Robertson answered that because of the scale of the building, cementitious siding might not hold over time. He stated that the applicant has indicated that a cast material might be used.  Design Review Board September 27, 2017 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Allen suggested that many of the staff comments could be addressed without changing the building. He suggested that preliminary approval could be given with comments addressed prior to final submittal. Mr. Kichanan moved for deferral of site and landscape for restudy and to address all staff and board comments. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. Ms. Santilli asked if the architecture and site can be separated. Mr. Robertson answered in the negative, but suggested that it could be specified in the motion those elements that should be restudied. Ms. Santilli moved to amend the motion to include deferral of architecture. Mr. Seabrook seconded the amendment. All in favor with Mr. Wurst abstaining. Ms. Santilli called for a vote on the amended motion. All in favor with Mr. Wurst abstaining. C. Hotel Indigo, 250 Johnnie Dodds, 514-00-00-110, Final Approval for Architecture Revision This item was approved by consent motion. D. Kids R’ Kids, 3650 Bessemer Road, 583-03-00-183, 184, 185, 186, Final Approval for Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Giles Branch, Earthsource Engineering, reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Earnie Ramos, Dimensions Architects, reviewed the architecture with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked if the eight foot stockade fence located on the north property line was required for the buffer requirements. Mr. Branch answered in the affirmative. Mr. Fort asked if there would be a fence separating the detention pond. Mr. Branch answered in the affirmative and stated that it would be a four foot fence. Mr. Fort suggested that the eave detail should be a more classic style. There being no comments, Mr. Santilli closed public comment.  Design Review Board September 27, 2017 Page 5 of 8 Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan thanked the applicant for addressing the fence comments. He suggested that the portion of the eight foot stockade fence that shifts over should be located at the property line. Mr. Branch asked for clarification and suggested that the picket fence could be expanded and additional plantings accomplished with the eight foot fence at the property line. Mr. Kichanan agreed with the suggestion. Mr. Kichanan suggested that the plantings along the front of the building should be reconsidered to better address the architecture. Mr. Wurst asked about shade for the play area and if any shade structures were proposed. Mr. Branch answered that some shade structures would be installed with the playground equipment. Mr. Wurst agreed with staff comments to have final approval through a committee of the Board. Mr. Seabrook moved for approval of a two member committee of the Board to review this project for final approval of both site and architecture. Mr. Fort seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Kichanan and Mr. Wurst stated that they would be willing to serve on the Committee of the Board. E. East Cooper Lock and Safe, 4253 Highway 17, 632-00-00-026, Final Approval for Site, Landscape and Architecture This item was approved by consent motion. F. Indigo Square Phase 4A (Commercial), Highway 17N and James Nelson Road, 558-00-00-933, Final Approval for Site and Landscape Revisions This item was withdrawn by the applicant. G. Indigo Square Phase 3 (Mixed Use), Highway 17N and James Nelson Road, 558-00-00-153 & 916, Conceptual Submittal for Board Comment on Site, Landscape and Architecture  Design Review Board September 27, 2017 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Russ Seamon, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, and Nathan Schutte with McMillan, Posda, Smith, reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked the limitations of the use of the roof-top space. Mr. Chase Wilston answered that the roof-top space would be for the residents and would have limited hours and restricted access. Mr. Seabrook asked if all residents of Indigo Square would be able to utilize the space. Mr. Wilston answered in the affirmative. Mr. Seabrook asked the visibility to Wando Lakes. Mr. Seamon answered that there would be minimum visibility due to the substantial buffer and the distance from the adjacent residential homes. Mr. Seabrook asked if the homes would be seen. Mr. Seamon answered that they did run some graphics and could bring those back with the preliminary submittal. Mr. Seabrook suggested that this should be done. Mr. Fort asked the height of the building. Mr. Wilson answered that the maximum height would be 40 feet. Mr. Fort suggested that this is a unique opportunity. Mr. Wurst asked if the sections would be insulated from the inside. Mr. Schutte answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wurst suggested that there should be some additional elements such as exterior stairs, a better relationship between the roof-top amenity with ground level, etc. He suggested that there could be an opportunity to play with the position of the containers and “turn them” for better architectural interest. Mr. Schutte and Mr. Wilston agreed. Mr. Bertin asked the size of the units. Mr. Wilston answered that they would be 40 foot containers. Mr. Kichanan asked the longevity of the material, particularly when damaged. Mr. Schutte answered that the it is corrugated steel and are very sturdy and strong. Mr. Wilson stated that they are built to withstand hurricane winds. Mr. Kichanan suggested that there could be an opportunity to have more windows on the stormwater side. Mr. Seabrook asked if they would be rental units. Mr. Wilson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Seabrook asked how access would be restricted. Mr. Wilson  Design Review Board September 27, 2017 Page 7 of 8 answered that it would be some type of key access. Mr. Seabrook expressed concern with noise and late-night events. There being no comments, Ms. Santilli closed public comment. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan stated that the issue would be addressing the ordinance regarding metal structures. Mr. Robertson stated that the Board has purview over sections E and F. He suggested that specific justification should be provided if the structure is approved so there is differentiation between this metal structure and a future metal structure. Mr. Wurst expressed concern with sound transmission between floors and stated that this should be taken into consideration. He stated that he looks forward to seeing further plans. Mr. Fort agreed and stated that it is a great challenge. Mr. Seabrook expressed concern with sound issues, but is looking forward to seeing future plans. Mr. Kichanan agreed that justification on the metal building should be completely flushed out before allowing the applicant to proceed. Mr. Wurst moved for approval of a committee of the Board to review the project prior to preliminary submittal. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Fort agreed that he would serve on the Committee of the Board. H. Solana, 601 Solana Way, 540-00-00-032, Final Approval for Site, Landscape and Architecture Revisions This item was approved by consent motion.  Design Review Board September 27, 2017 Page 8 of 8 I. Indigo Square Phase 2B (Hotel), Highway 17N and James Nelson Road, 558- 00-00-153 & 916, Final Approval for Architecture Revisions Mr. Steven Overcash reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Fort moved to allow the additional renderings to be introduced and reviewed as part of the request. Mr. Wurst seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Overcash reviewed the additional renderings with the Board. Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). He clarified that the comments were based on the original submittal. Mr. Seabrook suggested that the units should not be relocated, so some type of screening solution should be determined. Mr. Fort asked the height of the tallest screen. Mr. Overcash answered that it is approximately 9 ½ feet high. Mr. Fort asked if it is pre-cast aluminum. Mr. Overcash answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kichanan suggested that having the screens the same color as the bump out sections might be too much. He suggested that a different color should be considered. Mr. Fort asked if the white is the best color to use for the screening. Mr. Overcash answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wurst moved for approval of the request with the screening color changed from white to light blue with similar detailing as with the light blue component of the main structure with the variance of the depth of the metal pieces. Mr. Fort seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:18 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes DRB09272017