Design Review Board

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AUGUST 29, 2018 MINUTES Green arrows in Minutes are hyperlinks to the recording. STAFF REPORT Present: Beth Santilli, Chair, Michael Bertin, Brian Boan, Brian Wurst, William O'Neal, Mickey Seabrook, Napporn Kichanan (entered at 5:03 pm) Staff: Michael Robertson, Chris Luly, Lynnette Lynes Ms. Santilli CTO at 5:02 pm. And reviewed the procedures with the public. Mr. Kichanan entered at this time (5:03 pm). 1. Approval of Agenda Mr. Seabrook moved for approval of the agenda. Mr. Wurst seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Approval of Minutes Mr. Wurst moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. Mr. Kichanan moved for consent approval for the following items— ➢ Chickfila at Oakland, 3102 Ironclad Alley, 600-00-00-047, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture ➢ Belle Point Plaza-A, 84 Belle Point Plaza, 556-00-00-294, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture ➢ Belle Point Plaza-B, 84 Belle Point Plaza, 556-00-00-294, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture ➢ Belle Point Plaza-C, 84 Belle Point Plaza, 556-00-00-294, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture ➢ Belle Point Plaza-D, 84 Belle Point Plaza, 556-00-00-294, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture ➢ Belle Point Plaza-E, 84 Belle Point Plaza, 556-00-00-294, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture  Design Review Board August 29, 2018 Page 2 of 10 ➢ Belle Point Plaza-F, 84 Belle Point Plaza, 556-00-00-294, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Brian Wurst seconded the motion. All in favor. 3. Public Comment & General Correspondence There being no public comments, Ms. Santilli continued with the agenda. 4. Business A. Chickfila at Oakland, 3102 Ironclad Alley, 600-00-00-047, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture This item was approved through a consent motion. B. Tru Hotel Revisions, 1650 Volunteer Lane, 559-00-00-056, Final Approval of Architecture Mr. Kevin Cultoure reviewed the request with the Board. He stated that the panels would be scored to mimic metal panels, if desired. Mr. Kichanan asked about maintenance and life span for the material. Mr. Coultoure answered that it could be easily recolored. Mr. Boan asked if there are several manufacturers that produce this product. Mr. Coultoure answered in the negative and stated that the product is currently only manufactured by one company. Mr. Wurst asked if the building signage changed as well. Mr. Coultoure answered in the affirmative. Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Wurst stated that there have been problems with this product and expressed concern with this. He stated that a metal product could be made in the desired colors. He suggested that the material should remain as metal and the acrylic not be approved.  Design Review Board August 29, 2018 Page 3 of 10 Mr. Boan asked if staff recommends that the color behind the material be changed. Mr. Robertson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Boan agreed with Mr. Wurst regarding his concern with the use of this material. Mr. Wurst moved for denial of the request for the material substitution as presented and recommends that an alternative material be considered that is more durable--either metal or some other cementitious material. He also moved for denial of the change in material for the building signage. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor. C. AAA Car Wash, 691 Long Point Rd, 556-00-00-440, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Denny Gappens and Tom Durante reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. O’Neal asked about the underground retention system and how it connects to the chamber system. Mr. Durante answered that it would tie into the chamber system with a retaining wall. He stated that the plan has not been finalized. Mr. O’Neal asked when the stormwater design would be finalized. Mr. Durante answered that the impervious surface would not significantly change, but the final calculations have not been completed. He stated that twice the amount of stormwater storage would be maintained on site. Mr. Kichanan asked if there is a rendering showing the shed roof structure in relation to the building. Mr. Gappens answered in the negative but stated that the slope would mirror the main building. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Robertson stated that staff would be comfortable with approval of the request with those final elements to be approved at staff level. Mr. Kichanan suggested that stopping the brick as depicted makes sense. He stated that a shed roof would be more appropriate. He expressed concern with the use of dogwoods and suggested that the number used should be reduced and use limited to more shady areas. He also suggested that a disease resistant variety be used.  Design Review Board August 29, 2018 Page 4 of 10 Mr. Bertin asked if a traffic study was completed. Mr. Durante answered in the negative as it was not required. Mr. Boan suggested that the lighting levels was high in the parking area and asked if they are restricted on the height of the light to 18 feet. Mr. Robertson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Boan suggested that the light fixtures should be resubmitted for approval. Mr. Wurst stated that he understands not having the mullions on the windows. He agreed with the single slope canopy and features as presented. Mr. Seabrook agreed that the architectural comments have been addressed. Mr. O’Neal concurred and asked if the buffer can be placed in the SCE&G easement. Mr. Durante answered in the affirmative and stated that a letter was submitted with the application to this effect. Mr. Seabrook moved for final approval including all staff and Board comments, with outstanding details to be submitted to staff for approval. Mr. Kichanan seconded the motion. All in favor. D. Home Depot Revisions, 2213 N. Highway 17, 558-00-00-145, Final Approval of Architecture Mr. Wurst recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Josh Good reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked if the fence is chain link. Mr. Good answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kichanan asked how the vines would be attached. Mr. Good answered that they would be zip-tied and woven together to prevent a seam. Mr. Boan asked about maintenance and wear of the vines. Mr. Good answered that the product would be resistant to fading. Mr. Seabrook asked what type of plastic is used. Mr. Good answered that he is not sure. Mr. Seabrook expressed concern with an artificial plant material being  Design Review Board August 29, 2018 Page 5 of 10 used. Mr. Seabrook asked about the Laing archway. Mr. Good answered that he is not sure of the progress on this feature of the building. Mr. O’Neal stated that he is not opposed to the request and has seen this utilized in other areas. Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Boan asked if Mr. Kichanan is familiar with the proposed material. Mr. Kichanan answered in the negative and expressed hesitancy with use of this material. Mr. Robertson stated that a wall sample would be constructed and suggested that this could be done for the material as well so the Board has a visual sample. Mr. Kichanan stated that the wall section would be close to the street and suggested that care needs to be taken to ensure it has a natural look. He asked if the soil was inadequate for plantings. Mr. Good answered that there was some concern raised, but it was not definitively known whether the main issue is inadequate soil. Mr. O’Neal suggested that a mock-up would provide a better idea of how the product would look. Mr. Kichanan moved for approval contingent upon review and approval of a mock-up of one or two sections of fencing; if not approved, then natural plantings would be used. Mr. O’Neal seconded the motion. Motion passed ona 5 to 1 vote with Ms. Santilli, Mr. Boan, Mr. Bertin, Mr. Kichanan, and Mr. O’Neal in favor; Mr. Seabrook opposed; and Mr. Wurst abstaining. E. Refuel Market at Mill Creek, 2100 Hwy 41, 594-05-00-228, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Luke Jarrett reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked if there would be gutters on the side of the roof. Mr. Jarrett answered in the negative. Mr. O’Neal asked if the traffic impact assessment would need to be updated. Mr. Jarrett answered in the negative. Mr. Robertson stated that a gas station  Design Review Board August 29, 2018 Page 6 of 10 was proposed with the original plan, but would now be managed separate from Lowe’s Foods. Mr. O’Neal asked about the ADA spaces and suggested that the accessible route should be directed to the door. Mr. O’Neal asked about the grading of the area near the corner of Wood Park Drive and suggested that this should be reviewed in relation to the protected tree. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan agreed that the palmettos at the bump outs should be considered with sufficient space for growth beyond the canopy. Mr. Kichanan suggested that the sidewalk connects to the drive aisle and suggested that it should be closed off. Mr. Boan expressed concern with the lighting and that it would be too extensive and should be restudied and reduced. He suggested that indirect lighting could be considered as well as uplighting for a more uniform level. Mr. Wurst agreed that the materials should match the rest of the center with the proposed metal roof being appropriate as it sets the gas station apart from the remaining structures. Mr. Boan moved for preliminary approval with restudy of the lighting plan including all staff and board comments. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. F. Lennar at Midtown Townhomes, 1151 Midtown Avenue, 559-00-00-017, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. Todd Richardson reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked if the intent is to have the brick units repeating. Mr. Jarrett answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kichanan asked how the alleys would be landscaped. Mr. Richardson answered that the drive aisles were intentially kept more narrow. He stated that landscape islands would be considered as well, but the design has not been finalized as they are waiting to finalize the utility plan.  Design Review Board August 29, 2018 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Wurst asked if the windows would be operable. Mr. Jarrett answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wurst asked if there would be roof ventilation. Mr. Jarrett answered in the affirmative. Mr. O’Neal asked about the drive aisles and if it would be sufficient. Mr. Richardson answered that it should be sufficient, but could be changed based on Board and staff requirements. Mr. Bernard and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan stated that he likes the direction of the project with regard to the massing and scale. Mr. Wurst agreed that the project is heading in the right direction. He suggested that some additional variation with the type of brick and variation of the siding to provide more modulation. He suggested that variation of garage doors should be considered as well. He suggested that variations of canopies should also be considered. Mr. O’Neal agreed regarding the overall design. He cautioned the applicant to determine final parking before clearing of the site. Mr. Wurst moved for approval including all Board and staff comments. Mr. O’Neal seconded the motion. All in favor. G. Carolina Eye Care, 1101 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard, 535-00-00-014, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. O’Neal recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Arnie McClure reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Wurst asked about the entrance awning and if they would need to flash. Mr. McClure answered that it is proposed to be flashed, but could pull it away to avoid flashing. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments (attachment 1).  Design Review Board August 29, 2018 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Wurst moved for approval including all staff and Board comments. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor with Mr. O’Neal abstaining. H. Belle Point Plaza-Master Plan, 84 Belle Point Plaza, 556-00-00-294, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Mr. O’Neal recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Trey Little reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Seabrook asked about the grand tree and suggested that it could be addressed in the future if the access comes to fruition. Mr. Boan asked if the calculations were submitted with the application. Mr. Little answered that they were inadvertently omitted. Mr. Kichanan asked if the plan would have to be reworked to preserve the grand oak if the future connection came to fruition. Mr. Little answered in the affirmative but suggested that minimal changes would be made. Mr. Robertson stated that interconnectivity is required, but it does not have to be the fastest measure. Mr. Luly showed where the future extension of Seacoast Parkway is proposed. Mr. Luly and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Wurst agrees with staff comments. He suggested that there should be a different break in the buildings and green space could be considered. He suggested that sidewalks and courtyards should have more variety and be integrated more into the overall development and architecture. Mr. Boan agreed with Mr. Wurst and suggested that the lighting plan be restudied. Mr. Kichanan agreed that the power lines should be put underground and there should be access provided for interconnectivity.  Design Review Board August 29, 2018 Page 9 of 10 Mr. Wurst suggested that the interconnectivity could be located around the grand tree with an island provided. Mr. Kichanan moved for deferral to address comments to bury power lines, provide interconnectivity, and all other staff and Board comments. Motion failed due to the lack of a second. Mr. Wurst moved to defer the project to a subcommittee of the Board and staff for final approval to address all comments of the Board and staff. Mr. Bertin seconded the motion. All in favor with Mr. O’Neal abstaining. Mr. Wurst, Mr. Bertin and Mr. Kichanan agreed to serve on the subcommittee. I. Belle Point Plaza-A, 84 Belle Point Plaza, 556-00-00-294, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture J. Belle Point Plaza-B, 84 Belle Point Plaza, 556-00-00-294, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture K. Belle Point Plaza-C, 84 Belle Point Plaza, 556-00-00-294, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture L. Belle Point Plaza-D, 84 Belle Point Plaza, 556-00-00-294, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture M. Belle Point Plaza-E, 84 Belle Point Plaza, 556-00-00-294, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture N. Belle Point Plaza-F, 84 Belle Point Plaza, 556-00-00-294, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture These items were approved through a consent motion. O. Earls Court 1, 412 Hibben Street, 532-01-00-141, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture P. Earls Court 2, 410 Hibben Street, 532-01-00-139, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture Q. Earls Court 3, 404 Hibben Street, 532-01-00-265 & 532-01-00-138, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture These items were withdrawn by staff.  Design Review Board August 29, 2018 Page 10 of 10 Mr. O’Neal asked if the cell towers located on the Boulevard roof have been wrapped. Mr. Robertson answered that staff has requested an update on compliance. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:29 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes DRB08292018