Design Review Board

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OCTOBER 25, 2017 MINUTES Present: Michael Bertin, Napporn Kichanan, Brian Boan, Brian Wurst, Jeff Fort, Mickey Seabrook. Absent: Beth Santilli, Chair (excused). Staff: Michael Robertson, Chris Luly, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Robertson called the meeting to order at 5:07 pm and stated that a chair would need to be appointed to run the meeting in absence of the chair. Mr. Wurst moved to appoint Mr. Bertin as chair for this meeting. Mr. Fort seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Bertin reviewed the procedures with the public. 1. Approval of Minutes Mr. Kichanan moved for approval of the minutes with the following correction: ➢ Page 3, last paragraph—"...column trees be restudied for ones that provide more shade”. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Public Comment & General Correspondence There being no comments, Mr. Bertin continued with the agenda. 3. Business A. Sea Island Hamlet, 1047 Chuck Dawley Boulevard, 532-08-00-001, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Seabrook recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Adam Basso reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Wurst asked how the right in/right out would be handled. Mr. Basso answered that there would be a raised median to direct traffic. Mr. Wurst asked who would maintain the plantings in the planters. Mr. Basso answered that it would be the responsibility of the HOA.  Design Review Board October 25, 2017 Page 2 of 7 Mr. Kichanan asked about the activity zone and what the impetus was for this space. Mr. Basso answered that the urban corridor requires pedestrian connectivity that encourages pedestrian activity. Mr. Kichanan asked about the paving abutting the planters with no seating in some areas. Mr. Basso answered that there was one area that because of space does not have the pedestrian seating. Mr. Kichanan asked about the cul-de-sac and what activities are proposed for the open space. Mr. Basso answered that the mail kiosk would be located there and would be used as an open recreation area around the stormwater pond. Mr. Boan asked about street lighting and how it would be handled. Mr. Basso answered that there would be street lighting provided through SCE&G. He stated that they are working with SCE&G for a final plan. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Wurst commended the applicant for working with the surrounding residents and addressing staff comments. Mr. Kichanan expressed concern with separation of public space and private space. He suggested that this should be clarified and there should be more separation and delineation. He suggested that the open space behind the mail kiosk should be restudied with consideration of installation of play equipment and/or picnic tables. He suggested that Indian Hawthorne is not widely used because of their susceptibility to disease and suggested that either a disease resistant variety should be used or a different species considered. Mr. Kichanan moved for final approval including all staff comments. Mr. Fort seconded the motion. All in favor with Mr. Seabrook abstaining. B. Paisano’s Mt. Pleasant, 101 Queensborough Boulevard, 535-00-00-351, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Tony Giuliani, Goff D’Antonio, reviewed the architecture with the Board. Mr. Giles Branch, Earthsource Engineering, reviewed the landscape with the Board.  Design Review Board October 25, 2017 Page 3 of 7 Mr. Seabrook asked if the access easement would be basically in the same location. Mr. Branch answered in the affirmative. Mr. Seabrook asked about the parking in front of the building and if parking bumpers could be added. Mr. Branch answered that the space could be widened. Mr. Seabrook suggested that this should be considered. Mr. Wurst asked if there would be outdoor seating. Mr. Giuliani answered that this has not been finalized. Mr. Wurst asked about parking. Mr. Branch answered that there is sufficient parking on the site and does not include any of the existing parking spaces in the shopping center. Mr. Kichanan asked about the outdoor dining area and if the reason for it being so substantial was to screen from the other building. Mr. Giuliani answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kichanan asked if the building next door is blank. Mr. Giuliani answered in the affirmative. Mr. Boan asked why all the parking is to the rear. Mr. Giuliani answered that it would mainly be for employees. Mr. Wurst asked if the louvers would be operable. Mr. Giuliani answered in the negative. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Boan asked about traffic. Mr. Robertson answered that he is not sure of the amount of traffic. Mr. Giuliani stated that the delivery trucks has a designated pathway for deliveries. Mr. Fort asked about the access easement. Mr. Giuliani answered that it is an existing easement but not marked on the other plan sheet. Mr. Fort asked about the parking agreements. Mr. Giuliani answered that these exist and provide for staff and the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked about construction laydown areas and how this would allow for emergency access. Mr. Branch answered that they have discussed this with the Fire Department and a gravel access area would be provided for emergency access.  Design Review Board October 25, 2017 Page 4 of 7 Mr. Wurst suggested that working louvers should be considered. He suggested that the building materials should have more hierarchy and that hardi-plank considered for the top portion of the building. He suggested that the rear door have a cover over it. He stated that the outdoor cooler should be sufficiently screened. He suggested that the outdoor dining area should be more open. Mr. Kichanan suggested that better pedestrian access should be considered from the rear parking to the front of the building. He suggested that the sidewalk on the right side of the building should be restudied so there is better access. He suggested that angled parking should be accomplished so that the planting beds are not “trampled”. He suggested that more palms should be provided around the dining area to open it up more. Mr. Wurst agreed and suggested that using plantings instead of the louvers would be a better option. Mr. Kichanan suggested that the height of the wall should be reconsidered. He suggested that the outdoor dining area should have a better connection with the building interior as well. Mr. Giuliani stated that they would also like to have more plantings and trees to provide shade. Mr. Seabrook moved for preliminary approval including all staff and Board comments. Mr. Fort seconded the motion. All in favor. C. Gregorie Ferry Self Storage, 1154 Gregorie Ferry Road, 580-00-00-022, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture WITHDRAWN BY STAFF This item was withdrawn by staff. D. SC Federal Credit Union-East Cooper Branch, 910 Houston Northcutt Blvd, 517-00-00073, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture APPROVED BY STAFF This item was approved by staff. E. Home Depot, 2213 Highway 17N, 588-00-00-145, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Wurst recused himself due to a conflict of interest.  Design Review Board October 25, 2017 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Edward Allen reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Chris Haynes, Davis and Floyd reviewed the landscape with the Board. Mr. Josh Good reviewed the architecture with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked about the wood slats. Mr. Good answered that it would be a treated lumber. Mr. Seabrook asked about the drainage easement and if there is a maintenance shelf included. Mr. Allen answered that the agreement would not require a maintenance shelf. Mr. Seabrook asked if there would be sufficient room for equipment with the plantings. Mr. Allen answered that they have indicated that there would be sufficient room. Mr. Kichanan asked about the sweetgrass basket stands and if there would be parking provided. Mr. Allen answered that they would add an area for access to the stands from the parking area. Mr. Kichanan asked about the paving beneath the canopy. Mr. Allen answered that they are proposing decorative pavers, concrete, and asphalt and showed the different areas on the plan for the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked the lumber area and front would have stamped asphalt. Mr. Allen answered that he was not sure and suggested that it might be concrete. Mr. Luly stated that staff recommends the center being decorative pavers with other materials sufficient for the other areas. Mr. Boan asked about lighting and if the decorative lights would be located on the building. Mr. Allen answered that would be mounted on the building. Mr. Good stated that they would be mounted above the signage and the location would be finalized with the signage. Mr. Allen stated that only the main Home Depot signage would be inner lit. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Ms. Pearl Ascue, Laing School Association, stated that they agree with the project and asked to see how the arch would be incorporated with the new building. Mr. Good showed how the arch would be preserved and incorporated with the new building for the Board. He stated that in the event the existing arch cannot be preserved, it would be replicated for the new building. Mr. Fort asked if the applicant understands staff’s comment regarding the upsizing of some of the tree areas. Mr. Haynes answered that the reason for  Design Review Board October 25, 2017 Page 6 of 7 some of the trees were not to size because of consideration of existing protected trees and not overcrowding the existing trees. Mr. Fort asked about the criteria used regarding using decorative pavers versus stamped concrete. Mr. Allen answered that it would depend on the uses and stability for the material. Mr. Fort asked if the applicant would be amenable to using more decorative pavers for other areas. Mr. Allen answered in the affirmative. Mr. Fort asked about the landscaping and if it would complement the architecture. Mr. Haynes answered in the affirmative and stated that the trees were positioned within the voids of the building. Mr. Luly stated that typically the buffer would provide screening, but the proposed plan is acceptable to staff. Mr. Haynes stated that they are willing to work with staff to ensure there is sufficient screening while correlating with the architecture. Mr. Fort asked about the truck delivery area and the wall. Mr. Robertson answered that staff would like to see there is not a solid wall and that there is sufficient screening with plantings and the best way to handle this would be with a committee of the Board in the field during construction. Mr. Fort asked how this would be handled. Mr. Robertson answered that seeing the position of the trucks parked in relation to the wall will give a better idea of where the plantings should be positioned for optimal screening. Mr. Allen stated that the wall would step down as well and determining where this should occur for the optimal screening. Mr. Robertson also noted that the bus stop would be located as well to provide additional screening. Mr. Fort asked when the deliveries would occur. Mr. Allen answered that there are deliveries at different times during the day, with the lumber deliveries occurring at night. Mr. Seabrook asked about the arch and suggested that the applicant meet with the Historical Commission to have a plaque done and located inside the entrance of the building. Mr. Allen answered that this could be done and were planning on a plaque located outside near the archway. Mr. Seabrook suggested that the undergrounding of the powerlines should be done to preserve the large oak tree at the rear entrance on Six Mile Road. Mr. Allen agreed and stated that they would work with SCE&G. Mr. Kichanan expressed appreciation for the work completed and the efforts made to break down the massing of the building. He suggested that there should be a pathway to the sweetgrass basket stands and there should be a visual corridor. He also suggested that inclusion of sweetgrass in this area should be considered. Mr. Kichanan suggested that the paving treatment  Design Review Board October 25, 2017 Page 7 of 7 should correlate more with the architecture and entrances. He suggested that pavers should be considered for the entrance and arch as opposed to stamped concrete. He suggested that the landscaping should also better correlate with the entrances. He suggested that planters with more vertical evergreens should be considered as well as using sweetgrass closer to the building as well. He suggested that Confederate Jasmine would be a better option and a faster growing plant. Mr. Boan suggested that light levels for the parking area is elevated and suggested that a lower level should be considered. Mr. Seabrook moved for final approval subject to addressing all staff and board comments with review by a subcommittee of Board to meet with staff and the applicant in regard to outstanding issues for additional comment and approval, all easement agreements in place, meet with Christ Church Parish historical group, Historical Commission, and Lang School Association for a historical plaque located in the entrance. Mr. Fort seconded the motion. Mr. Kichanan asked for clarification on the subcommittee of the Board. Mr. Seabrook answered that his motion was for a subcommittee to oversee the outstanding items of the project in its entirety due to the complexity of the project. Mr. Bertin called for a vote on the motion. All in favor with Mr. Wurst abstaining. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:07 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes DRB10252017