Design Review Board

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECEMBER 20, 2017 MINUTES Present: Beth Santilli, Chair, Michael Bertin, Napporn Kichanan, Brian Wurst, Jeff Fort, Mickey Seabrook. Absent: Brian Boan Staff: Chris Luly, Barbara Ashe 1. Approval of Minutes Mr. Seabrook moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Fort seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Kichanan moved for approval of the following items: ➢ Sullivan’s Pointe, Key Colony Ct., 532-15-00-056, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture ➢ Indigo Square Phase 4A, Highway 17N at James Nelson Road, 558-00-00- 153, Final Approval of Site and Landscape Mr. Fort seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Luly reviewed meeting procedures with the public. 2. Public Comment & General Correspondence There being no public comment, Ms. Santilli continued with the agenda. 3. Business A. Sullivan’s Pointe, Key Colony Ct., 532-15-00-056, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture This item was approved through a consent motion. B. Paisano’s Mt. Pleasant, 101 Queensborough Boulevard, 535-00-00-351, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Tony Juliani reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Giles Branch, Earthsource Engineering, reviewed the site with the Board. Mr. Collin Colbert stated that the back parking would be mainly for employees. He stated that the  Design Review Board December 20, 2017 Page 2 of 8 height of the outdoor seating wall was to screen the back parking and the Publix building wall. Mr. Seabrook asked about page L100 and if it is correct. Mr. Juliani answered in the affirmative. Mr. Fort asked about the row of live oaks. Mr. Branch answered that this was proposed prior to Mount Pleasant Waterworks (MPW) approval. He stated that MPW currently has not approved the placement of the trees. Mr. Fort asked about the upright yews. Mr. Branch answered that yews are proposed and showed the placement on the plans for the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked if MPW will allow any screening plants. Mr. Branch answered that no plantings will be allowed in the easement. Mr. Kichanan asked if shrubs would be allowed. Mr. Branch answered that he was not sure, but could inquire. Mr. Luly reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan expressed concern about the outdoor patio area. He suggested that the wall should be modified so that it does not step down several times and that it is lower. He suggested more plantings could be used for screening of this area so that there is more of a view corridor. Mr. Wurst expressed concern with the top of the capitals and how it joins with the sloped roof. He suggested that a band board be added. Mr. Wurst agreed that the wall should a lower height and have more of a plaza area. Mr. Fort agreed regarding the previous outdoor patio comments. He suggested that higher screened wall should be pulled back and the picket fencing be extended so that there is a more “open feel”. He showed his suggestion on the plans for the applicant. He suggested that walling the courtyard in too much would be a negative aspect as opposed to having an outdoor space that would be better enjoyed by the customers. Mr. Kichanan moved for final approval with a study of the masonry and wood screened portion to truncate it to remove the angled section and to emphasize plantings for screening to supplement the loss of the higher wall; the  Design Review Board December 20, 2017 Page 3 of 8 roofline should be reconfigured with the addition of a band board capital for the columns and pilasters. Mr. Fort seconded the motion. All in favor. C. Indigo Square Phase 4A, Highway 17N at James Nelson Road, 558-00-00- 153, Final Approval of Site and Landscape This item was approved through a consent motion. D. Brighton Swim Academy, 3507 Salterbeck Street, 598-00-00-100, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Robert Gerber and Mr. Lance Augren reviewed the request with the board. Mr. Wurst asked if the solar panels are part of the submittal. Mr. Gerber answered that they would like approval with installation at some time in the future. Mr. Wurst asked if there would be gutters. Mr. Gerber answered in the negative. Mr. Wurst asked if the stone based pattern would be a stacked pattern. Mr. Gerber answered that it would be stacked as opposed to a running pattern. Mr. Wurst asked if the proposed window size could be purchased that would meet the wind rating requirements. Mr. Gerber answered that the window contractor has not expressed any concerns. Mr. Luly reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Wurst suggested that the columns in the front should have a detail where it hits the roof. He also suggested that some headers are missing from the plans. Mr. Gerber answered that this is an error and the headers should have been included. Mr. Wurst suggested that the base of the windows should match with the size of the windows. Mr. Fort asked if the sandwich panel for the roof includes an option for a tanslucent lighting. Mr. Gerber answered that there was a concern with high humidity and condensation. Mr. Fort moved for approval including all comments from the Board and staff with final approval to be addressed with staff. Mr. Wurst seconded the motion. All in favor.  Design Review Board December 20, 2017 Page 4 of 8 E. 832 Coleman, 532-03-00-090, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Luke Jerrod, Mr. Trey Sollick, and Mr. Todd Richardson reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked for clarification on if the gravel would be extended to the fence. Mr. Richardson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Fort asked for clarification regarding the depth of the building. Mr. Jerrod answered that a fixed canopy was changed and the overall footprint of the building was reduced from the existing footprint. He stated that he is not sure the exact measurement. Mr. Fort asked if there would be some encroachment into the tree protection zone. Mr. Jerrod answered in the negative and stated that this was a software layer issue. He stated that he would ensure that this was corrected for the final submittal. Mr. Wurst asked about colors and window types. Mr. Jerrod answered that the final colors have not been determined. He stated that the windows would be fixed anodized aluminum framed windows. Mr. Kichanan asked if the protection zones are the critical root diameter. Mr. Richardson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kichanan asked if there would be gravel and parking within the protection zones. Mr. Richardson answered in the affirmative and stated that this is not a change to what currently exists. Mr. Wurst asked if the two smaller dormers are necessary. Mr. Jerrod answered in the negative and stated that the smaller dormers were used for a more uniform height bar. Mr. Luly reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan suggested that parking stalls twelve and thirteen should be configured so there is sufficient space to back out of those spaces. Mr. Wurst suggested that the smaller dormers should be restudied. He disagreed with staff on raising the middle dormer.  Design Review Board December 20, 2017 Page 5 of 8 Mr. Fort suggested that the two smaller dormers add to the composition of the façade facing Coleman Blvd. He agreed that the central dormer should not be raised and that the width of the dormer could be reconsidered so that it matches the width of the finistration below the dormer. He suggested that the Town requirements regarding awnings being allowed in the activity zone for the final submittal. Mr. Wurst suggested that the dormer could be pinched in a little and centered with the door below, but suggested that it would conflict with the fireplace. Mr. Wurst moved for approval including staff comments on landscape and Board comments regarding restudy of the dormer with the final submittal to be approved by a subcommittee of the Board. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor. F. 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. Nathan Schutte reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked how the refurbishing would be accomplished. Mr. Schutte answered that the existing finish will be removed and then modified and the openings refurbished. He stated that the containers would be short-use containers and would be welded. Mr. Seabrook asked where the containers would come from. Mr. Schutte answered that they would be locally-sourced. Mr. Seabrook how the design would meet the ordinance requirement. Mr. Schutte answered that the containers are being used as a part of the building as a whole and would be layered with wood and other materials. He stated that they would use recycled containers. He stated that the building would meet all of the Town requirements. Mr. Wurst asked what material would be used above the balcony doors. Mr. Schutte answered that they are steel frames. Mr. Wurst asked if it would come from the containers. Mr. Schutte answered in the negative. Mr. Wurst asked what other materials were considered. Mr. Schutte answered that it is cost prohibitive to replace the containers or use both containers and a similar material; if that occurs, then it is not feasible to use the containers.  Design Review Board December 20, 2017 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Kichanan asked for clarification on the containers. Mr. Schutte answered that the containers are a perimeter structure with an infill panel that work together as one unit. He stated that the infill panel provides the structural integrity. He stated that if penetrated, they have to be reinforced. Ms. Santilli asked the percentage of the building that would be shipping containers. Mr. Schutte answered that it would be approximately 2/3 of the building, not including screening portions in front of the containers. He stated that including the screening and reinforced portions, approximately 50% of the building would be container material and showed this on the plans for the Board. Ms. Santilli stated that she is more comfortable with the containers being an architectural aspect of the building as opposed to having a shipping container being used solely as the building. Mr. Seabrook suggested that if the windows, doors, and balconies were not included in the calculation, the percentage of shipping container would be less than 50%. Mr. Schutte agreed. Mr. Luly reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan stated that the Board has reviewed this project several times. He stated that he likes the concept of re-using materials, but is not sure of the net environmental benefit with using the surplus of shipping containers within the area. He stated that he appreciates the design team’s efforts in trying to address Board comments. He stated that he is supportive of this project for these unique circumstances: ➢ The project is re-using a locally abundant resource as a building material. If it was all metal as a “stylistic whim”, it would not be entertained by the Board. ➢ The design is different from pre-fab metal systems that the ordinance was written to exclude. Putting a more refined metal product on the outside would not meet the intent of the ordinance and would still be sheet metal. ➢ Cost is not the primary reason for the material selection. ➢ No special design criteria was needed to review the shape, massing, and proportion of this building. The building was not meant to emulate the shape of a shipping container; the building design stands on its own merit.  Design Review Board December 20, 2017 Page 7 of 8 ➢ This is a unique circumstance as this type of construction has not been done and there should be room for experimentation and pushing the boundaries. If this is successful, it could mean an amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Bertin stated that enjoys the opportunity to look at innovation projects and stated that he supports this project. Mr. Wurst suggested that the ordinance did not anticipate the re-use of material as is proposed with this project. He suggested that the addition of wood slats offsets the expression of the metal on some of the sides, the change of base from EFU to a wood is a benefit. He agreed that the amount of exposed shipping container is minor when comparing the different elevations. Mr. Seabrook agreed with previous comments and suggested that this is a unique opportunity. He asked if they would be rental units. Mr. Schutte answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wurst asked if there is a stone cap on page PR15. Mr. Schutte answered that this was an error. Ms. Santilli suggested that the shipping containers is an architectural accent, only a portion of the building and is an expression of the building. She stated that this is more than just a stacking of shipping containers. Mr. Wurst moved for approval including the site and landscape comments and Board comments. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. Mr. Seabrook asked for clarification on the motion and suggested that more detail is needed. Mr. Wurst amended his motion to include the unique circumstances outlined by Mr. Kichanan, regarding the use of shipping containers in the design of construction for this building. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Luly suggested that if desired, some direction to staff would be appropriate in regard to including provisions in the ordinance to allow the use of shipping containers.  Design Review Board December 20, 2017 Page 8 of 8 Mr. Seabrook moved to direct staff to look at including allowance for the use of shipping containers in the ordinance. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Seabrook expressed concern with the addition of pavement in protection zones. He stated that this was recently done on Ann Edwards Lane and the roots are now exposed well above the grade. He suggested that this should be enforced equally throughout the Town. Mr. Kichanan asked if Mr. Seabrook is expressing concern with the encroachment of tree protection zones. Mr. Seabrook answered in the affirmative and stated that there is encroachment into historic tree protection zones. Mr. Luly stated that staff is aware of this concern and is working to be more diligent in enforcing the tree ordinance throughout the Town. He stated that it is sometimes difficult to enforce these issues throughout the Town. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:48 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes DRB12202017