Design Review Board

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD JUNE 27, 2018 MINUTES Present: Beth Santilli, Chair, Michael Bertin, Brian Wurst, Beth Santilli, William O'Neal, Mickey Seabrook. Absent: Napporn Kichanan, Brian Boan. Staff: Michael Robertson, Chris Luly, Lynnette Lynes Ms. Santilli called the meeting to order at 5:01 pm and reviewed the procedures with the public. 1. Approval of Agenda Mr. Seabrook moved for approval of the agenda. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Approval of Minutes Mr. Wurst moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Wurst moved for consent motion for items 4, 6,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Mr. O’Neal seconded the motion. Mr. Seabrook asked about the building setbacks for the Belle Plaza bldg. A and F. Mr. Luly answered that a 25 foot buffer is required between commercial and residential. Mr. Seabrook asked if the setback items would be addressed with final approval. Mr. O’Neal answered in the affirmative and noted that the master plan for this site was not included in the consent motion. Mr. Wurst suggested that the building design would not change unless there was a constriction on the site. Mr. Wurst noted that the setbacks would be discussed with the master plan. Ms. Santilli called for a vote on the motion. All in favor. 3. Public Comment & General Correspondence There being no comments, Ms. Santilli continued with the agenda.  Design Review Board June 27, 2018 Page 2 of 8 4. Business A. Verizon Antennas Snowden Node 3, 620 Long Point Road, 556-00-00-198, Final Approval of Architecture B. Verizon Antennas Snowden Node 4, 767 Long Point Road, 540-00-00-092, Final Approval of Architecture Mr. Michael Crodosian, reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked if the shroud would extend above the parapet. Mr. Crodosian answered in the affirmative and stated that there should be approximately seven inches of the antenna exposed to allow for movement of the antenna. Mr. O’Neal asked about the reflective wrap and if it would be immediately available as there has been an issue with the wrap being installed on the antennas at the Boulevard project due to a back order. Mr. Crodosian answered that they are amenable to either the reflective wrap or the brick wrap. Mr. O’Neal asked when the antennas at the Boulevard would be wrapped. Mr. Crodosian answered that he is not a part of that project. Mr. Wurst asked if there is a prototype of the reflective wrap. Mr. Crodosian answered that he did not bring a sample of the reflective wrap to the meeting. Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Wurst stated that he would be in favor of the reflective wrap. Mr. O’Neal and Mr. Seabrook agreed with Mr. Wurst. Mr. Wurst moved for approval of the request for Node 3 with installation of the reflective wrap. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Seabrook moved for approval of the request for Node 4 with installation of the reflective wrap. Mr. Wurst seconded the motion. All in favor. C. AAA Car Wash, 691 Long Point Road, 556-00-00-440, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture  Design Review Board June 27, 2018 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Denny Gappens, representative for the applicant, reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. O’Neal asked about turning radius. Mr. Gappens answered that this was studied and larger trucks would be able to navigate through the site. Mr. O’Neal asked how garbage pickup would be handled. Mr. Gappens reviewed this on the site plan for the Board. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Wurst suggested that the two ends would benefit from having the brick expressions return around for an end cap. He suggested that the wall be moved down to allow for a brick return. He suggested that the electric meter should be located in the alcove if possible. He suggested that on the north façade, the brick could be lowered so the window sills are all the same material. He suggested that battens should be considered for the jams to prevent future warp or “droop”. He suggested that the columns should be encased in brick with the brackets remaining. He suggested that the vacuum canopy should be restudied and suggested that similar brackets as on the main building could be incorporated with consideration of a hip roof with the addition of a column. He suggested that the large windows on the south side should have the addition of a horizontal mullion to give more of a commercial feel for the space. He also suggested that the signage could be moved up on the building. Mr. Wurst moved for approval including board and staff comments with the exception of staff’s comment to remove the brackets on the tower and for restudy of the vacuum canopy. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. D. Refuel Carwash at Oakland, 3050 Ironclad Alley, 600-00-00-064, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture This was approved by a consent motion.  Design Review Board June 27, 2018 Page 4 of 8 E. Hampton Inn, 255 Sessions Way, 517-00-00-090, Preliminary Approval of Architecture Mr. Wurst moved to defer this item to the end of the meeting. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. F. Home Depot, 2213 Highway 17, 588-00-00-145, Final Approval of Architecture This was approved by consent motion. G. Legacy Apartments at Bridgeside, 154 Patriots Point Rd, 517-00-00-246, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. O’Neal recused himself due to conflict of interest. Mr. Paul Peeples, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, and Mr. Seth Mendelson reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Wurst asked about the note on page C.4.0 of the site plan about a parking garage and asked if there would be a parking garage. Mr. Mendelson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wurst asked about the fifteen foot lane and if this would be for fire truck access. Mr. Peeples answered that the parking deck would include a fifteen foot loading zone to prevent blocking access around the building. Mr. Chuck Baker, attorney for Ferry Wharf project, stated that the planned development (PD) allows for bonus density and in 2016 the right for the bonus density was allowed for this project. He stated that they currently have pending litigation on who can utilize the bonus density. He provided supporting documentation for the Board to review. He stated that it is his client’s position that they are entitled to a portion of the bonus density. He suggested that if this project is approved, it would mean that the bonus density approved for the entire PD would be exceeded. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1).  Design Review Board June 27, 2018 Page 5 of 8 Mr. Bertin asked if there are any implications with approving this project. Mr. Robertson answered that the submittal meets the requirements and would be allowed to proceed. He stated that any litigation decisions would be reviewed by Town Council. Mr. Wurst suggested that the project lacks variety and does not have a hierarchy. He suggested that the project should be restudied. He suggested that the ground floor appears “compressed”. He suggested that there should be headers on the brick portions, cornices should be larger, there should be stucco utilized, the materials used within the building sections should be restudied as there is not a cohesive design. He stated that this is a similar submittal to what was previously submitted with no comments being addressed. Mr. Wurst moved for deferral based on board and staff comments. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor with Mr. O’Neal abstaining. Mr. Wurst moved to appoint a subcommittee to work with the applicant and staff on this project. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor with Mr. O’Neal abstaining. H. Aloft Hotel, 1365 Old Georgetown, 559-13-00-025, 026, 027, 028, 029, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Wofford Stribling and Chris Allred reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked the status of MS4 approval. Mr. Stribling answered that this has been submitted and they are working with staff for approval. Mr. Seabrook expressed concern with the size of the drainage pond. Mr. O’Neal expressed concern with drainage capacity of the pond as well. He expressed concern with some of the trees and that they could be impacted because of the amount of fill. Mr. Stribling stated that an arborist would be consulting on the project and they would be looking at the grading contours with the arborist to ensure the trees are protected and preserved. Mr. O’Neal asked if it is anticipated that there would be a wall and if so, he suggested that the drainage patterns could be changed from an inverted crown to a “super”  Design Review Board June 27, 2018 Page 6 of 8 away from the dry pond. Mr. Stribling agreed and stated that they would work with staff and the arborist on the drainage and grading. Mr. Wurst asked about materials for the bay on the west elevation. Mr. Allred answered that it would be EFS. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board. Mr. Wurst expressed concern with the stair towers and suggested that the brackets should be farther away from the stair tower. He commended the applicant on the work on the north elevation to break up the massing and the pool deck area. He suggested that the canopy is too close to the stair tower. He asked if the same window pattern near the projected bay be used for the stair tower to provide more cohesiveness with the rest of the building. Mr. O’Neal asked about his previous comment on the dry retention basin being wet as opposed to dry and if a fence is now proposed around the basin. Mr. Stribling answered in the negative and stated that if the Board recommended the pond be reduced in size, then it would need to be deeper and would then require a fence. Mr. O’Neal asked about the handicap space on sheet C.201 and how it would be accessed. Mr. Stribling answered that this would be “cleaned up”. Mr. Seabrook asked if an absent board member’s comments could be entered into the record. Mr. Robertson answered in the negative and stated that a board member cannot comment on a project where they were not in attendance. Mr. Seabrook stated that he is in agreement with the statements made. Mr. Robertson stated that Mr. Seabrook could provide his comments for the record. Mr. Seabroo stated that the landing in front of the porte cochere is a definite improvement. He stated that a sidewalk on both sides of the large island would provide better circulation and suggested that if there are space constraints then losing a parking space on the southwest corner of the island could allow the sidewalk connection from the landing in front of the porte cochere to the west parking bay and prevent the need to cross the front drive/drop off at an intersection, but rather cross at the porte cochere. He stated that he did not see the detail for the retaining wall of the stormwater feature, but it should not be a utilitarian gray concrete block, but a different more sophisticated material.  Design Review Board June 27, 2018 Page 7 of 8 Mr. Seabrook moved for deferral to address site, landscape and architecture comments of staff and Board. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 4 to 1 vote with Ms. Santilli, Mr. Bertin, Mr. Seabrook and Mr. O’Neal in favor; Mr. Wurst opposed. I. Belle Point Plaza-Master Plan, 84 Belle Point Dr., 556-00-00-294, Conceptual Review of Master Plan Mr. O’Neal recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Hobie Orton, Mr. Trey Little, and Ms. Leah Tomsack, reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked if the Wright family has been contacted regarding the property line issue. Mr. Orton answered in the affirmative and stated that they are working on a sewer easement with Ms. Frasier and Mr. Wright. Mr. Seabrook asked if the Coffee House can be reached by gravity sewer. Mr. Orton answered in the affirmative and stated that additional fill would be needed. He stated that if necessary, they can connect across the street near the Chick Fil-A. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Wurst suggested that additional dumpster areas might be needed and these areas should be enclosed. He suggested that the sidewalk along Belle Point Drive could be moved closer to the building. He suggested that the sidewalks for the entire site should be closer to the buildings without a green area between. He suggested that the end units in building D might be hard to lease and suggested that a plaza should be considered for more aesthetic appeal. He agreed with the comment on lusciousness of the landscape. He suggested that this is a good plan. Mr. Wurst asked if this request if for preliminary approval or conceptual review. Mr. Luly answered that it is for conceptual review, so a motion is not necessary.  Design Review Board June 27, 2018 Page 8 of 8 J. Belle Point Plaza-Building A, 84 Belle Point Dr., 556-00-00-294, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture K. Belle Point Plaza-Building B, 84 Belle Point Dr., 556-00-00-294, Preliminary L. Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture M. Belle Point Plaza-Building C, 84 Belle Point Dr., 556-00-00-294, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture N. Belle Point Plaza-Building D, 84 Belle Point Dr., 556-00-00-294, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture O. Belle Point Plaza-Building E, 84 Belle Point Dr., 556-00-00-294, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture P. Belle Point Plaza-Building F, 84 Belle Point Dr., 556-00-00-294, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture F These items were approved through a consent motion. Q. Hampton Inn, 255 Sessions Way, 517-00-00-090, Preliminary Approval of Architecture Mr. Wurst moved for deferral. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:43 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes DRB06272018