Design Review Board

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 28, 2018 MINUTES Present: Beth Santilli, chair, Michael Bertin, Brian Boan, Brian Wurst, William O'Neal, Mickey Seabrook, Napporn Kichanan (entered at 5:15 pm.) Staff: Michael Robertson, Chris Luly, Lynnette Lynes Ms. Santilli called the meeting to order at 5:05 pm and reviewed the procedures with the public. 1. Approval of Minutes Mr. Seabrook moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Worst moved for consent approval of the following including all staff comments: ➢ Towne Centre – Barnes and Noble Parking Adjustments, 558-00-00-100, Final Approval of Site and Landscape Mr. Neal seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Public Comment & General Correspondence Ms. Barbara Snyder, 1361 Old Georgetown Rd, expressed concern with the approval of a hotel near her home. She stated that Old Georgetown Road is a unique street that is undergoing development and redevelopment. She expressed concern with this future development and redevelopment of the street. She stated that the hotel plans have been preliminarily approved with the location of the six- story building within ten feet of the property line. She expressed concern with this and stated that her understanding is that staff and this Board has little say on the location of a building as long as it meets the Town’s requirements. She stated that she is opposed to current proposed location of the hotel. She asked that this Board and staff to consider the larger scope of ongoing and future development of Old Georgetown Road and that a clear vision of a commercial area on Old Georgetown Road should be determined. She asked if the Board has purview to guide the placement of structures as long as mandated setbacks and buffer requirements are met. Mr. Robertson answered that the Board approved the preliminary site plan as it met the setbacks. Ms. Snyder asked about the alternate plans. Mr. Robertson answered that the alternate plans were not approved by the Board; they chose to  Design Review Board March 28, 2018 Page 2 of 6 approve the site plan preferred by the developer. He stated that the project would come before the Board for final approval and Ms. Snyder would have an opportunity to comment on the project at that time. Mr. Kichanan entered at this time (5:15 pm). 3. Business A. Refuel Car Wash-Oakland Market, 51 Ironclad Alley, 600-00-00-064, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Luke Jarrett reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked about the Cultivars that were chosen and the reason for using this species. He suggested that canopy species would be more appropriate. Mr. Jarrett answered that the Cultivars were chosen to provide lower trees and not overcrowd the area. Mr. Wurst asked about pavers. Mr. Jarrett answered that it would be architectural paving. Mr. Wurst asked if the brick would match the existing building. Mr. Jarrett answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wurst asked if there would be a pay kiosk. Mr. Jarrett answered in the affirmative and showed the location on the plan for the Board. Mr. O’Neal asked about parking, if these are required spaces, and if so, where they would be relocated. Mr. Seabrook stated that it appears there would be four spaces lost. Mr. Luly stated that this would be provided for the final approval. Mr. Seabrook asked if the equipment would be located within the building. Mr. Jarrett answered in the affirmative and stated that only the kiosk would be located outside the building. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Seabrook moved for approval subject to the wash system equipment being shown. Mr. Wurst seconded the motion. All in favor.  Design Review Board March 28, 2018 Page 3 of 6 B. Verizon Wireless Antennas-The Boulevard, 725 Coleman Blvd, 532-02-00- 035, Final Approval of Architecture Mr. Roger Hall, attorney, and Chris Eisner, architect, reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked if the height above the parapet is as originally proposed. Mr. Hall answered in the affirmative. Mr. O’Neal asked about the height requirements. Mr. Robertson answered that the towers are taller than approved by the Board. He stated that code states that height cannot extend more than 30 feet above the building. Mr. O’Neal asked if the rendering was the original one presented to the Board. Mr. Robertson answered that a drawing was presented to the Board for approval, not a picture. Ms. Santilli asked if the towers would be seen from the street. Mr. Robertson showed the renderings for the Board. Ms. Santilli asked if they are already installed. Mr. Hall answered in the affirmative. Mr. Boan asked about the reflective wrap. Mr. Hall answered that this was provided as an alternative to better screen the towers as they would reflect the scenery around it. Mr. Robertson stated that the reflective wrap was offered as an option if the white was considered too noticeable. Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Seabrook stated that he does not see a major issue with the change in height. Mr. O’Neal agreed and asked if a decision on the reflective wrap should be considered as well. Mr. Wurst suggested that the reflective wrap would be an improvement. Ms. Santilli asked if the height above the parapet would not change. Mr. Hall answered in the affirmative and stated that because the parapet is higher than indicated in the approved drawings, the overall height is more than what was  Design Review Board March 28, 2018 Page 4 of 6 approved by the Board. Ms. Santilli agreed that the reflective wrap should be accomplished. Mr. Boan agreed with the height. He asked about the longevity of the reflective wrap and how it would weather and suggested that this should be considered before a decision is made. Mr. Kichanan agreed with the height and suggested that the reflective wrap be considered. Mr. Boan asked if the height and finish should be considered. Mr. Robertson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wurst moved for approval of the request with the addition of reflective wrap on the structures for better screening. Mr. O’Neal seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 6 to 1 vote with Ms. Santilli, Mr. Wurst, Mr. Bertin, Mr. Seabrook, Mr. Kichanan, and Mr. O’Neal in favor; Mr. Boan opposed. C. Butcher and the Boar Site and Landscape Modifications, 730 Coleman Blvd, 532-02-00-0590, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Ms. Jennifer reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked if any improvement to the courtyard would be completed. Ms. Jennifer answered in the affirmative and reviewed the submitted plans with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked if the courtyard would be utilized as outdoor dining and if the white canopy would remain. Ms. Jennifer answered in the affirmative. Mr. O’Neal asked if the tree is a live oak species and if it has been graded. Ms. Jennifer answered that it is a live oak but has not been graded. Mr. O’Neal suggested that an arborist should inspect the tree. Mr. Bertin agreed with Mr. O’Neal. Mr. Seabrook agreed that an arborist should evaluate the tree and stated that the tree is showing new growth. Mr. Luly reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1).  Design Review Board March 28, 2018 Page 5 of 6 Mr. Kichanan suggested that the tree appears healthy and that it would flourish. He suggested that the location of the tree could cause heaving and therefore, he is not opposed to removing the tree. Mr. Wurst stated that the courtyard was not a part of the original building design. He agreed that the tree location might not be optimal. Mr. O’Neal agreed and suggested that having an arborist report would be beneficial. Mr. Bertin asked if the tree could be transplanted. Mr. Kichanan answered in the negative. Mr. Seabrook asked if the protected tree size for commercial projects is eight inches. Mr. Luly answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kichanan moved for deferral of the request pending submittal of an arborist report and clarification on the intended use of the space. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor. D. Hotel Indigo Architectural Modifications, 250 Johnnie Dodds, 514-00-00- 110, Final Approval of Architecture Mr. Christ Allred, architect, reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked what the life expectancy is for the EFS brick material. Mr. Allred answered that it is a poly-acrylic material, so it has a 20-year color warranty and allows more movement than the thin brick. Mr. Seabrook as how the EFS brick material would be applied. Mr. Allred answered that it would be applied over the existing EFS. Mr. Seabrook asked if this material was approved for other locations on the building. Mr. Allred answered in the affirmative. Mr. Boan asked the reason for the request. Mr. Allred answered that cost was one reason, but the main concern was moisture infiltration that would occur with the thin brick being applied over the existing EFS.  Design Review Board March 28, 2018 Page 6 of 6 Mr. Kichanan asked how the EFS would be transitioned around the corners of the building. Mr. Allred answered that a stencil would be applied. Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Boan asked staff what the opposition is to this material. Mr. Robertson answered that the ordinance recommends brick and staff has not had an opportunity to review the actual material. He stated that alternative materials have been approved, but mainly in areas that are not seen by the public. Mr. Wurst expressed concern with public interaction with the EFS brick and suggested that the porte cochere could be done in the thin brick with the EFS brick on the remaining of the building. He suggested that the limestone could be used on the base with the lighter gray used from the base to the parapet. Mr. Bertin moved for approval of the request with the porte cochere to be limestone for the knee wall and gray from the knee wall to the soffit of porte cochere with EFS brick allowed for the corner areas as presented. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. E. Towne Centre – Barnes and Noble Parking Adjustments, 558-00-00-100, Final Approval of Site and Landscape This was approved by consent motion. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:17 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes DRB03282018