Design Review Board

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OCTOBER 31, 2018 MINUTES Attachment 1—Staff Report Present: Beth Santilli, Chair, Napporn Kichanan, Brian Boan, Brian Wurst, William O'Neal, Mickey Seabrook. Absent: Michael Bertin. Staff: Jeff Ulma, Julia Copeland, Jim Henchey, Michael Robertson, Eddie Bernard, Lynnette Lynes Ms. Santilli called the meeting to order at 2:05 pm and reviewed the procedures with the public. 1. Approval of Agenda Mr. Wurst moved for approval of the agenda. Mr. Seabrook 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 with Mr. Seabrook abstaining. 3. General Public Comment There being no comments, Ms. Santilli continued with the agenda. 4. General Correspondence A. Request for one year extension of Cooper Hall Assisted Living Renovations (November 30, 2016 meeting) in accordance with §156.049 Vested Rights Mr. Seabrook moved for approval of the request for extension. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. 5. Consent Motions Mr. Wurst moved for consent motion for the following items:  Design Review Board October 31, 2018 Page 2 of 11 ➢ Wando Crossing Façade Upgrades, 1500 Highway 17, 559-14-042, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture ➢ Vision Center at Seaside Farms Revisions, 1296 Long Grove Dr., TMS# 56100- 00-194, Final Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Mr. Kichanan seconded the motion. All in favor. 6. Business A. Wando Crossing Façade Upgrades, 1500 Highway 17, 559-14-042, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture This item was approved through a consent motion. B. Mediterranean Shipping Mixed-Use, 700 Watermark Blvd., TMS# 560- 0000-036, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture This item was withdrawn by staff. C. Vision Center at Seaside Farms Revisions, 1296 Long Grove Dr., TMS# 56100-00-194, Final Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture This item was approved through a consent motion. D. 1799 Hwy 17 Retail, Former Eckerd at Towne Centre, TMS# 558-00-00392, Final Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Mr. David Goliath reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked how many tenants are anticipated. Mr. Goliath answered that there would be three. Mr. Kichanan asked if the three areas proposed to be colored gray would be the separate entrances. Mr. Goliath answered in the affirmative with one additional entrance door that would be white. Mr. Wurst asked if the different colored panels would be recessed with a break in the plane. Mr. Goliath answered in the affirmative and stated that both the top and bottom panels would be recessed. Mr. O’Neal asked what type of canopy proposed for the existing canopy. Mr. Goliath answered that the existing canopy would remain.  Design Review Board October 31, 2018 Page 3 of 11 Mr. Bernard and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan asked if the staff option is more in keeping with other buildings. Mr. Robertson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kichanan suggested that the changes proposed would be an improvement. He stated that he agrees with staff’s option regarding building color to differentiate the color between tenants rather than entrances. Mr. Boan agreed with Mr. Kichanan and thanked the applicant for renovating the building. He stated that he agreed with staff on making the building consistent with the overall Towne Centre scheme. Mr. Wurst suggested that the right elevation should have more of a break between the tenant spaces. He expressed concern with the thinness of the brick for the openings and suggested steel reinforcements might be needed. Mr. Goliath answered that they have used pinched beams in the past with success. He stated that he agrees with staff concerning the color scheme. Mr. O’Neal agreed with staff comments and board comments. Mr. Wurst moved for preliminary approval based on staff and Board comments and given the disparities on the site plan. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. E. Lennar at Midtown, 1151 Midtown Ave., TMS# 559-00-00-017, Final Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Mr. Todd Richardson and Mr. Luke Jarrett reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked where the mail kiosks would be located. Mr. Richardson showed the location on the site plan for the Board and stated that they would be located near building F and between buildings M and N. He stated that there are pull-offs located near the kiosks as well. Mr. Kichanan asked if the presentation would adequately address the staff concerns and comments. Mr. Bernard answered that they show trees in easements that would need to be  Design Review Board October 31, 2018 Page 4 of 11 addressed. Mr. Kichanan asked if the character of the site would be significantly changed. Mr. Bernard answered that this could be a possibility. Mr. Richardson stated that they have been working with SCE&G on this issue and has received permission on the location of the trees. He suggested that any other tree issues could be worked out with staff. Mr. Kichanan asked if the species selected would prevent encroachment on the buildings. Mr. Richardson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kichanan asked about making the “backside” of the buildings more habitable. Mr. Richardson answered that they would have pavers to help break up the site. He stated that they are working with the utility companies on the placement of utility lines in order to preserve the landscaping in these areas. Mr. Jarrett noted that there would be second floor porches facing the rear to help break up the massing as well. Mr. Boan asked about the master plan. Mr. Richardson answered that they would be designing the park and have partnered with the design team for the remainder of the site. Mr. Boan suggested that the open space should be a focus of the master plan. Mr. Boan asked about the storm drainage. Mr. Jason Hutchinson, Thomas & Hutton reviewed the drainage for the project. He stated that there are two 42 inch pipes planned for the project. Mr. O’Neal asked if there has been coordination with the Fire Department and if the drive aisle width issue has been addressed. Mr. Richardson answered in the affirmative and stated that the drive aisles will be 24 feet in width. Mr. O’Neal asked if the final plat has been recorded. Mr. Richardson answered that the plat is under staff review. Once staff has reviewed and signed the plat, it will be recorded. Mr. O’Neal suggested that all issues be resolved prior to the plat being recorded. Mr. Bernard and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan suggested that many of the items could be addressed with staff; however, he takes staff recommendations into account and would suggest a deferral might be appropriate. He suggested that the brick colors should not be too contrasting with a more harmonious blend and a more random scheme.  Design Review Board October 31, 2018 Page 5 of 11 Mr. Boan suggested that the photometric plan is an important component and should be coordinated with staff as well. He stated that he likes the kiosk design and cautioned to be considerate of it being a residential space. Mr. Wurst suggested that the kiosks should be more of a 3D design. He asked the color of the windows with the black brick. Mr. Richardson answered that the mullions and grout would be dark as well. Mr. Wurst suggested that the red brick would be too stark and too “school red”. He suggested that the black brick might work with lighter mullions. He suggested that a lighter gray brick might be a better option. He suggested that there should be some coordination of color with the surrounding buildings. He suggested that a committee of the Board could review the brick color onsite. Mr. O’Neal agreed that a softer color palette should be considered. He suggested that many of the site comments can be addressed with staff. He agreed with staff that the plans should be corrected to avoid any possible errors. Mr. Richardson agreed and stated that this would be corrected before issuance of building permit. He agreed that there should be a mockup of materials onsite for review. Mr. Seabrook agreed that the site issues should be worked out prior to construction. He suggested that the project could move forward. Mr. Seabrook moved for final approval subject to architectural comments being addressed and remaining site details corrected prior to construction drawing development and prior to issuance of building permit with a mockup of brick onsite for review by a committee of the Board. Mr. Wurst seconded the motion. All in favor. F. Legacy Apartments, Corner of Patriot’s Pt. and Harry Hallman, Jr., Blvds., TMS# 517-00-00-246, Final Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Mr. O’Neal recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Eric Bell introduced the project for the Board. Mr. Paul Peeples, SWA, Mr. Taylor Critcher, SWA, and Karl Soby, CES Design Group, reviewed the request with the Board.  Design Review Board October 31, 2018 Page 6 of 11 Mr. John Kratz asked about the parking for the Shriners and if this would be eliminated. He expressed concern with parking on the Bridgeside side would be eliminated as well. Ms. Santilli stated that parking is outside the purview of the Board. Ms. Copeland agreed and stated that the Board would only address the site design aspects. Mr. Robertson clarified that interconnectivity to the areas are shown on the master plan. There being no further comments, Ms. Santilli closed public comment. Mr. Bernard and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan asked about the sidewalk portion and if the Board has purview to provide a waiver for the area at the front. Mr. Bernard answered that it could be on private property with an easement, but the preference would be for the sidewalk to remain on the right-of-way. Mr. Kichanan stated that he likes providing pedestrian access along Patriots Point Blvd. He stated that he agrees with staff’s comments on the massing and façade and suggested that a more coherent façade should be considered. Mr. Boan agreed with Mr. Kichanan and staff’s comments. He expressed concern with the massing of the buildings and that there should be a more cohesive plan for this entire area. Mr. Wurst suggested that the main entrance should be more of a focal point. He suggested that stucco between the brick floors should be restudied and a more high-grade material considered. He suggested that there should be more depth for the windows. He suggested that the office portion façade should be restudied. Mr. Boan moved for deferral for further study based on staff and Board comments. Mr. Wurst seconded the motion. All in favor with Mr. O’Neal abstaining.  Design Review Board October 31, 2018 Page 7 of 11 G. Earls Court CM3, 404 Hibben Street, 532-01-00-265 & 532-01-00-138, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture. Correspondence Mr. Vince Graham introduced the project for the Board and reviewed how the name for the inn was determined. Mr. Matt Cline and Kenny Craft reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked about the ground floor and what uses would be fronting the street. Mr. Craft answered that there would be a lounge and entry hall area. Mr. Wurst asked if there would be public access for the roof. Mr. Craft answered that the ordinance allows for it, but there is no current plan to for public space on the roof. Mr. Seabrook asked for clarification on the note on page A-210, North elevation. Mr. Craft answered that this would be the elevator shaft, so there might be some differential on this portion of the building. Mr. Wurst asked about the pool and the structure. Mr. Craft answered that it would be a wading pool that would be recessed into the bottom floor. Mr. Wurst asked if this might affect the parking below. Mr. Craft answered that it is not anticipated to affect the amount of parking below. Ms. JoAnn Ellison,429 Whilden St, stated that she is in favor of healthy vibrant change, but expressed concern with the change in the quality of life due to this project. She expressed concern with parking in the area. Mr. Jimmy Bagwell, 47 Vincent Drive, expressed concern with the parking plan and shared parking for this project. He suggested that the vested rights for this project has expired. He suggested that the parking calculations are not accurate and therefore not compliant with the requirements. Ms. Barbara Smith, 410 Royall Ave, expressed concern with the mass of the building, the parking in the area, and the increased traffic that the project will bring for the neighborhood. She suggested that the project is not in keeping with the neighborhood and should not be located on a cul-de-sac. She suggested that it is a very congested area and the proposed parking cannot be accommodated. She suggested that the project be denied.  Design Review Board October 31, 2018 Page 8 of 11 Mr. James Scott, 415 Church St, asked the audience to raise their hand if in opposition of the request. He suggested that there are a number of residents opposed to this request. He expressed concern with parking and that the neighborhood already has parking issues. He expressed concern with the proposed building and suggested that it is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and is out of scale with the neighborhood. He asked that the request be deferred or denied. Ms. Ann Edwards, 100 Venning St, expressed concern with the existing congestion in the neighborhood and suggested that this project would exacerbate this issue. Ms. Ellen Bird, 402 Patjens Lane, expressed concern with the massing of the building and that it is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. She suggested that this is a very boxy building. Ms. Christie Holland, 196 Hibben St, stated that she is opposed to the project. She expressed concern with existing traffic and parking and suggested that this project would exacerbate these issues that already exist. She expressed concern with child and citizen safety and suggested that this project would increase traffic in the area and cause a hazard for pedestrians and children. She suggested that this project would not benefit the town or the neighborhood. Ms. Ashley McGraw, 401 Patjens Lane, expressed concern with parking in the neighborhood. She stated that there are several errors and inequities in the proposed plan. She expressed concern with using shared parking for this project. She expressed concern that this plan has been able to come before the Board while her encroachment permit application was put on hold to utilize the area in front of her gate. She suggested that all parking agreements should be in place before the project is approved. She suggested that the existing shared parking has been “double counted” for both the residents and commercial uses. She suggested that the project be deferred in order for all of the inequities to be adequately reviewed. Ms. Jane Potts, 315 Hibben St, stated that she is opposed to the project. She expressed concern with traffic in the area. She expressed concern with child, bike and pedestrian safety at the intersection of Whilden/Hibben and that there  Design Review Board October 31, 2018 Page 9 of 11 have been several accidents over the past few weeks. She suggested that the building is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. She suggested that the building is too large for the lot, the parking is not adequate, and the project is not considerate with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Carole Tinkey, 508 Venning St, expressed concern with the change in the character of the neighborhood. She suggested that parking is an issue. She suggested that the massing and scale is out of context and is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. She suggested that the shared parking is not correctly calculated and the project should not be allowed to use the shared parking. Mr. Ben Latimer, 403 Patjens Lane, suggested that this project is too massive for this neighborhood. He expressed concern with the number of accidents in the neighborhood because of increased traffic. He suggested that the project is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. He suggested that some of the residents on Patjens Lane are required to park on the street. He stated that he is opposed to the project. Mr. Chuck Olmstead, 520 Royall Ave, stated that he supports his neighbors in this area and is opposed to the project because of the impact to density, parking, traffic and safety. He suggested that this project would exacerbate the issues already exist in the neighborhood. Mr. Mike Tinkey, 508 Venning, expressed concern with the existing parking issues in the neighborhood and suggested that this project would only increase the parking issues. He expressed concern with access for emergency vehicles. He expressed concern with safety and that this project is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Betsey Shuford, 435 Whilden St, stated that she is opposed to the project. She stated that there is not sufficient parking in the neighborhood. She suggested that the neighborhood should remain residential. There being no further comments, Ms. Santilli closed public comments. Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1).  Design Review Board October 31, 2018 Page 10 of 11 Mr. Kichanan suggested that this it is atypical to have such a citizen response for a particular project. He stated that he understands that there are issues of concern, but the Board has certain requirements that must be adhered to. He suggested that the direction of the project seems well designed, is in scale and breaks up the massing. He suggested that the parking in the middle of the building is a little awkward and suggested that the outside of the building should be reviewed and a more cohesive plan considered. He stated that they do not have purview over whether the parking is met for the project. Mr. Boan thanked the public for their interest in concern in this project and encouraged continued interest in future projects. He suggested that the massing seems large and suggested that a different scheme could be considered. He suggested that a more individualized detail could be considered similar to what was done for the CM1 and CM2 buildings. Mr. Wurst suggested that the height and scale is appropriate. He suggested that the link gets lost and the different portions of the building should be more pronounced. He suggested that the west elevation should consider a different base and could help with breaking up the massing. He stated that the south elevation should be broken up with the corner. He suggested that the pool should be restudied, particularly with the structure requirements, wind load and earthquake requirements. He suggested that the shared parking should be clarified so that there is a clear understanding with the public on how they should be used. Mr. O’Neal thanked the public for their participation. He reiterated that parking is not under the purview of DRB. He suggested that a parking agreement should be provided for final approval. He suggested that the building is in keeping with the neighborhood and is complimentary. He suggested that signage should be shown with the final submittal. Mr. Seabrook suggested that the building is reminiscent of the apartment building on Hibben St. He suggested that parking agreements should be in place and the SCDOT permit should be in place before final approval is given. Mr. Wurst moved for deferral of the request for preliminary approval based on the staff site and architectural comments, that the parking agreements are in place so that there is a global understanding of the parking restrictions with  Design Review Board October 31, 2018 Page 11 of 11 approval from SCDOT for onstreet parking, and including addressing all Board comments. Mr. O’Neal seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:16 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes DRB10312018