Design Review Board

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD NOVEMBER 29, 2017 MINUTES Present: Beth Santilli, Chair, Michael Bertin, Napporn Kichanan, Jeff Fort, Mickey Seabrook. Absent: Brian Boan, Brian Wurst. Staff: Michael Robertson, Chris Luly, Lynnette Lynes Ms. Santilli called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm and reviewed the procedures with the public. 1. Approval of Minutes Mr. Fort moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Kichanan moved for consent approval of items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Public Comment & General Correspondence There being no comments, Ms. Santilli continued with the agenda. 3. Business A. 115 Elizabeth Street Mixed Use, 115 Elizabeth Street, 532-01-00-149, Final Approval of Architecture B. Melvin’s Rooftop Signage, 925 Houston Northcutt, 517-00-00-027, Final Approval of Architecture C. Gregorie Ferry Self Storage, 1154 Gregorie Ferry Road, 580-00-00-022, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture D. Aiden Fabrics, 1117 Highway 41, 580-00-00-028, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture These were approved by consent motion. E. Starbucks, 953 Houston Northcutt Blvd., 517-00-00-043, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Jim Neidlinger, representative for the applicant reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked the interior use for the portion of the building without a window. Mr. Neidlinger answered that it is part of the dining area. Mr. Kichanan suggested that a window should be located to keep the façade more symmetrical. Mr. Neidlinger answered that Starbucks was resistant to having a window in that location due to the cost of installation, but this could be accomplished if desired. Mr. Kichanan asked about the historic tree to the left of the drive and stated that it is mislabeled. Mr. Bertin asked about traffic. Mr. Neidlinger answered that this was considered when selecting a site. Mr. Fort asked the number of seats. Mr. Neidlinger answered that he was not sure the exact number. Mr. Fort asked about exterior materials. Mr. Neidlinger answered that Starbucks prefers brick, but have opted for accent stucco and with a graphic for the drive thru façade along with a wood finish for the drive thru window section as well as the entry and columns. Mr. Fort asked the direction of the wood finish. Mr. Neidlinger answered that it would be horizontal. Mr. Fort asked the wall construction for the stucco. Mr. Neidlinger answered that this would be finalized with the final drawings, but it would be a standard stucco application for a block wall. Mr. Seabrook asked about the ponds and that they appear to be higher than the outlet structures. Mr. Neidlinger suggested that it might be a design error. Mr. Seabrook asked about preservation of the pine trees that would be located on top of the utilities and if this could be accomplished. Mr. Neidlinger answered that he would review this as well. Mr. Seabrook asked if there is a grease trap located on the back rear corner. Mr. Neidlinger answered in the affirmative. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan suggested that the historic tree to the left of the drive should be preserved. He suggested that the 24 inch oak on the north side should be preserved with sufficient space between any additional plantings for growth. He suggested that more landscaping should be considered in the parking areas as well as at the end of the parking rows. Mr. Fort asked about the staff comment for additional plantings and if this means additional plantings between the building and Houston Northcutt Blvd. Mr. Luly answered that the screening is recommended to help screen the parking at the front of the building. Mr. Seabrook suggested that the walkway should be between the drive thru rather than landscaping. Mr. Kichanan agreed and suggested that the two end islands could be “beefed up” to provide more screening. Mr. Fort moved for approval of the request including all staff comments. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor. F. Brighton Swim Academy, 3507 Salterbeck Street, 598-00-00-100, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture G. Moultrie Middle School Addition, 645 Coleman Boulevard, 532-02-00-030, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture H. Gateway Offices, Magrath Darby Boulevard, 517-00-00-093, Final Approval of Architecture These items were approved by consent motion. I. Taco Bell, Tract A-1-C-2, Oakland Plantation, 600-00-00-074, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Paul Peoples, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, and Mr. George Walsh reviewed the request with the Board. They stated that they are amenable to all staff comments with the exception of the roof. He stated that they would need to research a pitched roof and how this could be accommodated. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board. Mr. Fort agreed with staff comments regarding design standards. Mr. Kichanan agrees with staff’s comment regarding massing of the building and some additional ornamentation should be considered. Mr. Kichanan moved for approval including all staff comments. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor. J. Indigo Square Phase 3, Highway 17N at James Nelson Road, 558-00-00-153, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Nathan Schutte asked that they be moved to the end of the agenda. Mr. Fort moved to amend the agenda to have this item discussed last. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. K. Shem Drive Mixed Use, 26 Shem Drive, 532-02-00-069, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Giles Branch and Mr. Losse Knight reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked if staff is amenable with the location of the building in relation to the trees. Mr. Branch answered in the affirmative and stated that the trees have been evaluated by an arborist and would coordinate with staff as well. Mr. Kichanan asked about the sidewalk. Mr. Branch answered that the intent was to extend the existing sidewalk, but based on staff comments, this would be revised so that it is compliant with the regulations. Mr. Kichanan asked if the jog would remain. Mr. Branch answered that it would have to remain in order to have the traffic in front of the stop bar and a five foot separation between the pavement and the sidewalk because there is no curb. Mr. Kichanan asked about materials between the ground floor and the remaining floors. Mr. Knight answered that there would be stucco on the ground floor with board and batten and horizontal siding for the remaining floors. Mr. Fort asked if the existing sidewalk would be demolished. Mr. Branch answered in the affirmative. Mr. Fort asked about the HVAC enclosures and what other options could be considered. Mr. Knight answered that it would either be relocated to the other units or a split unit installed. Mr. Fort asked about the commercial building. Mr. Knight answered that they would be sufficiently screened, but could possibly be moved if desired. Mr. Fort asked about the pedestrian access. He stated that he agrees with staff comments and suggested that this should be reconsidered. Mr. Knight that they are amenable to making some adjustments to better address staff comments. Mr. Seabrook expressed concern about the end parking on the north, particularly the garage parking for the end unit and that it would conflict with the proposed access. Mr. Branch answered that the connection would help with the turn radius for the garage parking of the end unit. Mr. Robertson stated that the ordinance encourages interconnectivity to be stubbed out. Mr. Seabrook suggested that there is not sufficient turn radius for the car to back out of the garage and suggested that this should be reviewed. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked if the structure “shall not be elevated”. Mr. Robertson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Seabrook suggested that the parking should be restudied. Mr. Kichanan suggested that the large concrete pad in front of the commercial building should have a “nicer material” if the intent is to have an urban patio. He agreed with staff on restudying the ground floor to emphasize the entrance and have a more residential feel, particularly with the side façade near the parking to articulate it more. Mr. Fort moved for approval including all board and staff comments. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor. L. Park West Professional Office, 1090 Park West Boulevard, 598-00-00-405, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture M. Hylo Signage, 880 Allbritton Blvd., 535-09-00-044, Final Approval of Architecture These items were approved by consent motion. N. Indigo Square Phase 3, Highway 17N at James Nelson Road, 558-00-00-153, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Fort recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Schutte reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked if the material is recycled shipping containers. Mr. Schutte answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kichanan asked if a portion of the building would have to use new shipping containers. Mr. Schutte answered in the negative. Mr. Kichanan asked how many containers would be used for a unit. Mr. Schutte answered that two shipping containers would make up one residential units. Mr. Kichanan asked about the container materials and how they would be painted and maintained. Mr. Schutte answered that they are working with the company to have an industrial enamel applied. Mr. Kichanan asked if the roof area would be accessible. Mr. Schutte answered in the negative and stated that only a portion of the roof would be accessed with the remaining portion would be screening the canopy. Mr. Bertin asked if twist lots would be used for the corner castings or would they be removed. Mr. Schutte answered in the negative and stated that there is an open connection corner. He stated that the connections would be welded to meet seismic requirements. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board. Mr. Kichanan suggested that the concept is thoughtful. He stated that the material is not allowed by ordinance and suggested that this should be discussed. He suggested that it is a good design and agrees with staff regarding the building color. He suggested that more development on the rooftop is needed and feels a little “bare”. He also suggested that some planters should be utilized to screen the unaccessible portion of the roof and soften the “harsh environment”. He agreed with staff that some different material should be considered. Mr. Seabrook suggested that a different exterior should be considered so that a precedent is not set in having exposed sheet metal. He asked what other materials could be considered. Mr. Schutte answered that if the containers need to be covered with a different material, then it would not make sense to use the containers. He suggested that a different finish could be considered for the containers. Mr. Kichanan expressed concern with this project meeting the ordinance requirements and if approved, would set a precedent. He suggested that there is the possibility of a project to poor design using corrugated metal. Ms. Santilli agreed with the concern of setting a precedent and in meeting the ordinance requirements. Mr. Seabrook suggested that if approved, the specific justification should be included that would differentiate this project and use of metal from any future requests. Ms. Santilli agreed and stated that there should be some architectural justification that differentiates this project.  Mr. Bertin asked if it could be justified as a historical aspect as mentioned in staff comments. Mr. Robertson answered that it would be difficult to differentiate this from another request. Mr. Seabrook asked if the lower portion of the building would be normal construction with residential units above. Mr. Schutte answered in the affirmative and suggested that the justification could be that this would be a three-story mixed use building. Mr. Robertson stated that the ordinance clearly states “no portion”. Mr. Seabrook asked if the Board has purview to approve the request if it can be sufficiently justified. Mr. Robertson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Robertson stated that the architectural elements need to be considered that would elevate it above being shipping containers that are put together. Mr. Seabrook suggested that using as a residential use would be a key factor. He asked if there would be ten units using 20 shipping containers. Mr. Schutte answered in the affirmative. Mr. Seabrook moved for deferral with the understanding that the applicant come back to discuss specific architectural components and that the use of containers only for residential use portion of the project. Mr. Kichanan seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:56 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes DRB11292017