Design Review Board

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD NOVEMBER 28, 2018 MINUTES Green arrows in minutes are hyperlinks to the recording Attachment 1—Staff Report Present: Beth Santilli, Chair, Napporn Kichanan, Brian Boan, Brian Wurst, Mickey Seabrook. Absent: Michael Bertin, William O'Neal. Staff: Jeff Ulma, David Pagliarini, Michael Robertson, Eddie Bernard, Lynnette Lynes Ms. Santilli called the meeting to order at 5:02 pm and reviewed the procedures with the public. A. Approval of Agenda Mr. Seabrook moved for approval of the agenda. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. B. Approval of Minutes Mr. Kichanan moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. C. General Public Comment Mr. Jimmy Bagwell, 47 Vincent Drive, expressed concern with Earls Court and noted that he has spoken at several meetings. He suggested that the shared parking on Patjens Lane should not be allowed. He suggested that the property should not have been included in the Coleman Boulevard Overlay District. He expressed concern that the shared parking is not sufficient. He suggested that the request should be denied. Mr. Lewis Horton, 138 Live Oak Drive, expressed concern with the Earls Court project and that the nearby church parking would be utilized. He stated that the church has different events throughout the week and expressed concern that the church parking would be utilized for the Earls Court project. He agreed with Mr. Bagwell regarding this project. He suggested that the project would be an eyesore for the neighborhood. He expressed concern that the parking would not be available in perpetuity and suggested that there could not be sufficient parking once the lease expires. Ms. JoAnn Kirkland, 404 Patjens Lane, expressed concern that the proposed shared parking on Patjens Lane would displace the resident parking. She stated that many of the homes on Patjens Lane do not have driveways. She suggested that it is not  Design Review Board November 28, 2018 Page 2 of 11 equitable that she has no parking because of the Earls Court project. She asked that the project be deferred to restudy the parking. Mr. Chuck Olmstead, 520 Royall Ave, stated that he is opposed to the Earls Court project. He expressed concern with the project and that there is currently a parking issue in the area. He suggested that shared parking should not be allowed for the project. He suggested that the road is currently congested and suggested that this project would exacerbate the issue. He suggested that this is a “poor idea” and stated that he is opposed to the request. Ms. Ashley McGraw, 401 Patjens Lane, expressed opposition to the Earls Court project. She referred to §155.004 regarding minor streets abutting private property and suggested that Patjens Lane would qualify as a minor street. She referred to §156.303 regarding R-2 zoning and commercial parking and read a portion for the Board. She suggested that these regulations are designed to discourage unwarranted and blighting encroachments by prohibiting the commercial and industrial uses of the land, disallow any other use that would substantially interfere with the development or continuation of single family dwelling usage, and to discourage any use that would generate traffic on minor streets other than that required to serve the residents on those streets. She stated that the plans show spaces on Patjens Lane are dedicated to the hotel. She referred to §156.318(M)(3)()B regarding parking. Ms. Christy Holland, 196 Hibben St, expressed concern with the Earls Court project and the increased traffic this project would create. She expressed concern with child and pedestrian safety and suggested that this project would jeopardize the wellbeing. Ms. Jane Mills-Potts, 315 Hibben, expressed concern with the Earls Court project and that it would increase the traffic and parking in the area. She expressed concern that the project would affect the character of the neighborhood. D. General Correspondence All correspondence received has been linked to the agenda under the appropriate item. E. Consent Motions Mr. Wurst moved for approval of the following items as they are in compliance with staff comments: ➢ Towne Centre Building K Revision, 1232 Belk Drive, 558-00-00-096, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture ➢ 1799 Hwy 17 Retail, Former Eckerd at Towne Centre, TMS# 558-00-00- 392, Final Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture  Design Review Board November 28, 2018 Page 3 of 11 Mr. Seabrook seconded the motion. All in favor. F. Business 1. Towne Centre Building K Revision, 1232 Belk Drive, 558-00-00-096, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture 2. 1799 Hwy 17 Retail, Former Eckerd at Towne Centre, TMS# 558-00-00- 392, Final Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture These items were approved by consent motion. 3. The Atlantic Beach House, 1558 Ben Sawyer Blvd., TMS# 532-00-00-002, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Mr. Chris Donato reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Martin Koch reviewed the architecture with the Board. Ms. Kelly Cain reviewed landscape with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked about the history of the project. Mr. Robertson answered that the site plan is included in the agreement and was submitted with the application. Mr. Kichanan asked if more detail would be provided on landscaping for final approval. Mr. Donato answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kichanan asked about the quarter-mile path and if there is a way to connect back to the right-of-way. Mr. Donato answered that it ends at the open space. He stated that they considered continuing the path behind the building, but it was thought it better to end at the open space. Mr. Kichanan suggested it would be beneficial to complete the path. Mr. Boan asked about the relocation of historic trees and how they would ensure that the trees would remain viable. Mr. Donato answered that the trees were approved for removal but would like to preserve the trees. Mr. Glen Maddux stated that they are working with a tree relocation company to ensure that the trees are not shocked and will regenerate roots. He stated that they have not finalized the exact placement of the relocated trees, but are considering relocation at the front of the project. Mr. Seabrook asked about stormwater. Mr. Donato answered that they have secured a company and the drainage report has been completed. Mr. Seabrook expressed concern with the low ground. Mr. Donato answered that they will not be below the ground level water table. Mr. Seabrook asked how the guide wires would be removed. Mr. Maddux answered that this has not been finalized. There being no comments, Ms. Santilli closed public comment.  Design Review Board November 28, 2018 Page 4 of 11 Mr. Bernard and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan suggested that the path be restudied to determine connection back to the sidewalk. He suggested that if the path must route through site, then the path should be clearly defined. He suggested that larger tree species should be considered to help break up and close off the views. He suggested that the parking at the entrance could be better screened. Mr. Boan agreed with Mr. Kichanan. He agreed with staff on the hierarchy of buildings and having more consistency between buildings. Mr. Wurst agreed with staff comments on the amenity center and use of masonry piers. He suggested that the porch elements could be restudied and varied to help break up the massing. He suggested that some of the louvers could be recessed or changed to help give a better rhythm and pattern to the building. He suggested that a main entrance for building 2 should be considered and better defined. He suggested that the same materials for building 2 could be used for the opposite building to bring consistency but interest. He suggested that the mix of materials was acceptable. Mr. Seabrook asked if the critical line boundary and the freshwater wetland calculations have been updated. Mr. Donato answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wurst moved for deferral of the request based on architectural comments from staff and the Board, with restudy of the landscape elements. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. 4. Ferry Wharf Master Plan Revision, Harry Hallman Blvd., TMS# 517-00-00- 245, Final Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Mr. James Wilson, representative for the applicant reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Bernard reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Seabrook asked if the zoning key was the only change. Mr. Robertson answered that the Board does not have purview over zoning, so the Board can approve the plan without the zoning key or with confirmation from the Zoning Administrator on those zoning elements. Mr. Wurst agreed with staff’s comment that it could be approved with stipulation that it complies with all zoning.  Design Review Board November 28, 2018 Page 5 of 11 Mr. Wilson clarified that the table revision would bring the master plan into compliance with the planned development (PD). Ms. Santilli asked for clarification on the Board’s purview. Mr. Robertson answered that it can be approved without the key or with the key being approved by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Seabrook moved for approval with the condition that the Zoning Administrator confirm that the zoning key is in compliance with all zoning requirements. Mr. Wurst seconded the motion. All in favor. 5. Inn at Ferry Wharf, Grafton Street, TMS# 517-00-00-018, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Ms. Abigail Richardson, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Mike Gramacy reviewed the architecture with the Board. Ms. Richardson stated that they are amenable to all staff comments. Mr. Kichanan asked about the trees and if they would be live oaks. Mr. Troy Miller answered that the species would be restudied and another species used for the main street area to reduce the tree wells. Mr. Boan asked about site lighting. Mr. Miller answered that they are coordinating with SCE&G. Mr. Wurst asked if a drop-off was considered. Mr. Miller answered that the drop-off would be behind the building near the parking. Mr. Wurst asked if a breezeway could be located near the crook of the “L” of the building. Mr. Miller answered that additional accesses have been considered. Mr. Bernard and Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Wurst suggested that there should be more window variations. He suggested that the parapet should be restudied and consider raising band so that it is level with parapet to give the impression that it is an even floor. He suggested that the retail entrances should be restudied and varied. He suggested that the stair should be rotated toward the parking to allow more restaurant space on the ground floor. He suggested that the columns on the south building should be sturdier. He suggested that a covering at the drop off be considered. Mr. Boan agreed with staff and Board comments. He cautioned about the lighting for the site and that careful consideration should be taken.  Design Review Board November 28, 2018 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Kichanan stated that he was not opposed to the use of palms. He suggested that the better species variety should be considered for the site. Mr. Wurst moved for deferral of the request based on staff and Board comments. Mr. Boan seconded the motion. All in favor. 6. Earls Court CM1, 412 Hibben Street, 532-01-00-141, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture. Correspondence Mr. Seabrook recused himself due to being absent for preliminary approval. Mr. Vince Graham introduced his project team for the Board: Chad Besenfelder, Jamie Russell, Matt Cline, Hamlin O’Kelley, and Kenny Craft. They reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Robertson asked if any additional street lights would be added. Mr. Craft answered in the negative. Mr. Wurst asked if color samples were provided. Mr. Craft answered in the affirmative and reviewed these with the Board. He stated that all colors were from the historic color palette. Mr. Wurst asked about the windows. Mr. Craft answered that they would be the same color as the trim with aluminum clad. Mr. Wurst asked about the exterior doors. Mr. Craft answered that they would be painted wood doors. Mr. Boan asked if the residential space would be leased. Mr. Graham answered that they would be condominium units. Mr. Kichanan asked if all surface would be pervious concrete cobble pavers. Mr. Craft answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kichanan asked how it would transition between materials and if they would be edged. Ms. Russell answered that the pavers would abut the adjacent driveway with no edge detail. Mr. Besenfelder stated that this is the same material used throughout other areas of Earls Court. Ms. Carole Tinkey, asked where the onstreet parking is located. Mr. O’Kelley noted that the parking plan has been approved by staff and meets all the requirements. Mr. Besenfelder stated that parking is located behind the building. Mr. Mike Tinkey, 208 Venning St, asked if the parking would not be discussed. He stated that parking is a significant issue for this area. Mr. Wurst stated that the parking is not under the purview of the Board. Mr. Robertson answered that the parking was approved with the master plan in  Design Review Board November 28, 2018 Page 7 of 11 2011. He stated that this Board does not have purview on the parking. Mr. Tinkey asked which Board would have purview. Mr. Robertson answered that it would have been the Planning Commission when the master plan was approved in 2011. Mr. Tinkey asked if there is an appeal process. Mr. Robertson suggested that the timeframe for an appeal might have expired and suggested that Mr. Tinkey consult legal advice regarding the issue of appeal. Ms. McGraw asked if section §156.318(M)(3)(B) regarding counting of parking spaces would apply for this Board. Mr. Robertson answered in the negative and stated that the design review process includes several Boards and procedures. He stated that this Board does not have purview over the parking. He stated that the Planning Commission approved the onstreet parking in 2011. Mr. Olmstead asked the developer to consider taking the public comments into consideration and look at redesigning certain aspects of the project. Ms. Mills-Potts asked that all of the buildings be considered in concert and not individually. Ms. Holland asked that the integrity of the project should be considered. Ms. Tinkey stated that the Old Village area is a “quirky” neighborhood that was originally designed prior to vehicles and has grown organically. She expressed concern that the project does not fit the character of the neighborhood. She suggested that the parking is not sufficient for this project. She asked the Board not to exacerbate the problem on this street as in others by approving this project. Mr. Horton suggested that the project does not meet the design requirements and asked that the project be deferred. He suggested that the parking is not sufficient. He suggested that the project be considered as a whole and not as individual buildings. Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan stated that he understands the concerns of the public, but the Board does not have purview over many of those concerns; they are zoning issues. He stated that this project would be reviewed in the same manner as other projects based on the purview of this Board. Mr. Boan suggested that the form and function of the project would be under the purview of the Board. He suggested that the parking is not located near the residence, which does not appear to meet the function for the project.  Design Review Board November 28, 2018 Page 8 of 11 Mr. Wurst stated that he is satisfied with the revised plan. Ms. Santilli asked if parking should be included. Mr. Pagliarini answered in the negative and stated that the bylaws outline the procedures and purview for the Board. Mr. Boan asked the reason for the individual submittals. Mr. Robertson answered that this is typically done for larger projects. Mr. Wurst moved for final approval based on the submittal being complete with colors submitted to staff for approval. Mr. Kichanan seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 3 to 1 vote with Ms. Santilli, Mr. Wurst and Mr. Kichanan in favor; Mr. Boan opposed; and Mr. Seabrook abstaining. 7. Earls Court CM2, 410 Hibben Street, 532-01-00-139, Final Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture. Correspondence Mr. Seabrook recused himself due to being absent for preliminary approval. Mr. Craft reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Kichanan asked if the tree wells would be surrounded by cobble pavers. Mr. Craft answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wurst asked about the materials for the roof. Mr. Craft answered that it would be a 5-V crimp. Mr. Besenfelder stated that the copper would match with the lanterns. Mr. Michael Silva, 408 Rose Wilder, asked if where the propane tank would be located for the gas lanterns. Mr. Craft answered that they are electric lanterns. Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Boan asked about the residential parking location in relation to the commercial space and asked if the exit from the bedroom was necessary. Mr. Craft answered that it provided access from the sidewalk. Mr. Wurst moved for final approval with the stipulation that colors submitted to staff for approval. Mr. Kichanan seconded the motion. All in favor with Mr. Seabrook abstaining. 8. Earls Court CM3, 404 & 408 Hibben Street, 532-01-00-265 & 532-01-00- 138, Preliminary Approval of Site, Landscape and Architecture. Correspondence  Design Review Board November 28, 2018 Page 9 of 11 Mr. Graham introduced the project for the Board. He stated that they are aware of the traffic issues associated with the roadways and intersections and would like to continue to work with the citizens, staff, and the Presbyterian Church to further calm the traffic so it is more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Craft reviewed the request with the Board. Ms. Russell reviewed the landscaping with the Board. Mr. Wurst asked about the base on the west elevation on Whilden Street and if it is wood. Mr. Craft answered that it would be painted cementitious. Mr. Wurst asked about the stairs relation to the windows. Mr. Craft answered that the landings are staggered. Mr. Wurst suggested a smaller window could be considered to allow for better placement of the stair landings. Mr. Wurst asked if lap siding is proposed above the arch. Mr. Craft answered that it would be trim. Mr. Boan asked if two separate buildings were considered. Mr. Craft answered in the affirmative, but it would limit egress to the stairs. Mr. Wurst asked about the lighting proposed for the parking courtyard. Mr. Craft answered that they would be treated similarly to the outside lighting. Mr. Kichanan asked about the parterre garden and if there would be a border hedge. Ms. Russell answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kichanan suggested that a larger hedge be considered. Ms. Tinkey asked if there would be public access to the roof. Mr. Craft answered that there is access to the roof from the stairs and the elevator, but there is no covering proposed. Ms. Tinkey asked about the pool. Mr. Craft answered that it was originally proposed on the second floor, but has been removed. Mr. Jim Berg, 402 Patjens Lane, suggested that the project be deferred as the plans are not accurate. He suggested that some of the parking is within the yard of 401 Patjens Lane. He suggested that the project should be deferred until accurate plans are submitted. Mr. Horton asked if there is a written approval of the parking. Mr. Robertson stated that the agreements are included with the agenda and comply with the parking approved in 2011. He showed how to access the information on the agenda for the public. Ms. McGraw stated that she contacted ULI regarding calculating onstreet shared parking and they indicated that all uses should be taken into account.  Design Review Board November 28, 2018 Page 10 of 11 She suggested that only this project is being taken into account. She expressed concern on whether a rooftop bar is being considered. Ms. Santilli asked how projects are policed once completed. Mr. Prause stated that the building use is part of the zoning review and approval. He stated that the Board approves the architecture and landscaping. He stated that the use could change in the future and would be reviewed in regard to the zoning. Mr. Silva asked about the landscape on the Whilden side and expressed concern with the site distance based on the proposed landscaping. He asked where the HVAC units would be located and if they would be properly screened. He also asked if a propane tank would be installed for this building and where the dumpster would be located as they were not indicated on the plan. Mr. Tinkey suggested that the use should be appropriate for the neighborhood. He suggested that the plans should reflect the changes before approval is given. Mr. Robertson reviewed staff comments with the Board (attachment 1). Mr. Kichanan stated that he appreciates the effort to soften the site. He suggested that there should be more relationship between the cobble drive, the parterre garden, the sidewalk and right side. He suggested that the parterre and lawn should be treated as “one room” and unifying materials as opposed to separate elements. Mr. Boan agreed with staff that the photometric plan for the parking area needs to be submitted. He asked if the roof is rated for public use. Mr. Craft answered that currently there is nothing programmed for the roof. Mr. Graham stated that the intent is for the roof to be available as a sundeck for guests. He stated that it would also provide access to utilities. Mr. Wurst agreed with staff comments and suggested that the windows could be varied for better evolution of the design, while still having a relationship to the surrounding buildings. Mr. Seabrook moved for preliminary approval based on the following findings and with following conditions: ➢ Staff has reported that CM3 meets site plan requirements ➢ Parking covenants have been received and have been approved by Corporation Council ➢ Parking requirements are sufficient in number and location ➢ Applicability of §156.310(A)(4) that states “the that town intends to enhance public safety by defining spaces to influence traffic movement”  Design Review Board November 28, 2018 Page 11 of 11 ➢ Applicant shall address all staff and Board comments to date and in coordination with town and state agencies will provide an approved traffic calming plan for Hibben and Whilden streets with its final submittal application Mr. Wurst seconded the motion. Ms. Santilli asked if the motion can be conditioned by those items that the Board has no purview over. Mr. Pagliarini answered that given the bylaws and ordinance that those conditions would not be appropriate in terms of parking and traffic calming. He suggested that if additional items are required, then it would need to be requested by staff. Mr. Seabrook asked if they would have purview based on §156.310(A)(4) of the ordinance. Mr. Pagliarini answered that it is part of the overall process but would not be applicable to this Board’s duties and responsibilities. Ms. Santilli asked if the section cited would be applicable to the Board. Mr. Pagliarini answered that the Board cannot do anything that would be in violation to the Town ordinances. He stated that legal counsel’s position is that this section does not apply, but the Board can make it’s own determination on this. Mr. Prause stated that §156.310 is included under the purpose of the district, but is not a regulatory requirement. He stated that this section gives context to implementation of the regulatory requirements. Ms. Santilli called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed. Mr. Seabrook asked the status on the cell tower antennas on the Boulevard and the changes that were approved. Mr. Robertson stated that the engineer has been contacted, but have not had a response or an update. Mr Seabrook asked if the approval could be rescinded. Mr. Robertson answered in the negative, but could be subject to code enforcement efforts. Mr. Wurst asked about the generator for Home Depot. Mr. Robertson answered that the height would remain and then step down. Mr. Seabrook suggested that a different color should be considered. Mr. Robertson stated that staff would work with the applicant on this. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:11 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes DRB11282018