Design Review Board

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECEMBER 8, 2021 MINUTES STAFF REPORT Present: Rick Lambert, Chair, Tara Spencer, Chris McCarthy, Ian Duncan, William O'Neal, Steve Magoon Staff: Peter Stone, Jake Carter, Mac Deford, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Lambert called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. A. Approval of Agenda Ms. Spencer moved for approval of the agenda. Mr. Duncan seconded the motion. All in favor. B. Approval of Minutes Mr. McCarthy moved for approval of the minutes. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion. All in favor. C. General Public Comment There being no comments, Mr. Lambert continued with the agenda. D. General Correspondence All correspondence was linked to the agenda and distributed to the Board. E. Consent Motions Mr. Duncan moved for consent approval for the following item: ➢ The Inn at Ferry Wharf, Grafton St., 517-00-00-018, 517-00-00-249, and 517- 00-00-252, Final Review of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Ms. Spencer seconded the motion. All in favor, with Mr. O’Neal abstaining.  Design Review Board December 8, 2021 Page 2 of 5 F. Business 1. 515 Coleman, 515 Coleman Blvd., 532-01-00-151, Final Review of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Mr. Stone reviewed staff comments with the Board. Mr. Chris Donato, civil engineer and Mr. Losse Knight, architect, reviewed the request with the Board. Mr. Jerry Colby, 1486 Hindman, expressed concern with child safety and pedestrian safety. He suggested that the subcommittee meetings should be open to the public. He suggested that safety should be first and the public safety should be of upmost concern. He suggested that the design is being put above the safety of children. He suggested that this project would exacerbate the issue of child safety for this area. Ms. Ashley Woody, 110 Friend Street, suggested that the building is not in an appropriate location. She suggested that the requirements of the commercial district should be upheld including the character and feel of neighborhoods and Town. She suggested that the building design is “too industrial” and is “prototype architecture”. She suggested that the structure should be compatible with surrounding structures. Mr. Clay Duffie, 530 Beach Street, suggested that the Board has some subjective purview over projects in issues such as character and public safety. He suggested that there should be harmonious construction along Coleman Blvd. He asked that the project be denied or deferred. Ms. Elizabeth Foxworth, 1423 Inland Creek Way, suggested that in addition to public safety, the building impedes scenic views as well as impeding views of surrounding buildings. She suggested that the building is incompatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Nick Payne, 120 Rose Lane, suggested that the design and architecture is aesthetically pleasing and would create value for the neighborhood. He expressed concern with child safety and that this project would increase traffic in the area that would exacerbate the traffic in the area. He suggested that if  Design Review Board December 8, 2021 Page 3 of 5 approved as designed, it would endanger the safety of children in the area. He suggested that the design should be restudied. Ms. Cathy Richards, 757 McCants Drive, expressed concern with child safety. She stated that she likes the village feel of the area and suggested that this project would increase the traffic. She expressed concern with the influx of school traffic would be exacerbated if this building were approved. Mr. Justin Lucey, 634 Rue de Muckle, suggested that 156.310(e) should be applied and suggested that this building is not in good taste or design. He suggested that the building is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He suggested that 156.310(J) notes that the building should be in scale with surrounding buildings and suggested that this is not the case. He suggested that the project fails on many levels and suggested that the project should not be approved. He suggested that the proposed parking is not sufficient. Ms. Jerry Eddings, 130 Rose Lane, because of wanting to live in a neighborhood that has character. She agreed with previous comments regarding child safety. She suggested that the neighborhood is currently an area where residents can live out their years. She suggested that this project would jeopardize the character of the neighborhood and increase the traffic. She suggested that the scale of the building is not in keeping with the neighborhood. Ms. Haley Holsberg, 1323 Lake Mallard, stated that approximately 15 people spoke at the previous meeting. She stated that there were approximately 65 letters of correspondence in opposition of the project. She suggested that the concerns of the public are not being considered. She suggested it seems that the residents do not have a voice in the matter. She suggested that the building is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. She asked that the project be denied. Ms. Elana Shorner, 113 Rose Lane, referred to 156.310 on the landscaping requirements and suggested that these requirements are not being accomplished. She suggested that the buffers are not shown for the project as well. She expressed concern with safety and that one way to make the project safer is to have the required buffer and landscaping.  Design Review Board December 8, 2021 Page 4 of 5 Ms. Mary Green, 142 Rose Lane, stated that she chose property on Rose Lane because of the character of the neighborhood. She expressed concern with increased traffic. She also expressed concern with safety at the intersection and that the entrance is located at the stop bar. She suggested that safety is within the purview of the Board as in 156.310(f). She suggested that the safety of children and residents should be a consideration. There being no further comments, Mr. Lambert moved to Board questions. Mr. Lambert closed public comment. Mr. Duncan moved for denial based on §156.310(f)(4)(a) there is an inadequate minimum visual buffer. Mr. Magoon seconded the motion. Mr. Duncan withdrew his motion. Mr. Magoon withdrew his second. Mr. Magoon moved for denial based on the site and placement of the building and does not meet §156.310(E)(1)(j). Mr. Duncan seconded the motion. All in favor. 2. Beacon Community Bank, 2347 N Highway 17, 580-14-00-003,004,005 &007, Final Review of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Mr. Stone and Mr. Carter reviewed staff comments with the Board. Mr. Vince Santilli and Mr. Clark Batchelder reviewed the request with the Board. There being no comments, Mr. Lambert continued to Board questions. Mr. Lambert closed public comment. Ms. Spencer moved for deferral staff comments regarding architecture and site and Board comments to adjust the proportion of the brick base. Mr. Duncan seconded the motion. All I favor.  Design Review Board December 8, 2021 Page 5 of 5 3. The Inn at Ferry Wharf, Grafton St., 517-00-00-018, 517-00-00-249, and 517-00-00-252, Final Review of Site, Landscape, and Architecture This item was approved by a consent motion. 4. Exotic Pet and Animal Care, 812 and 814 Johnnie Dodds Blvd., 535-05-00- 155, Preliminary Review of Site, Landscape, and Architecture Mr. Stone and Mr. Carter reviewed staff comments with the Board. Mr. Ron Denton, architect, reviewed the project with the Board. Mr. Jose Biascoechea, owner, stated that they are working to adhere to all of the guidelines while combining the two very different structures in a newer modern way. Mr. Lambert closed public comment. Ms. Spencer moved for approval including staff comments and Board comments addressed with approval of a flat roof concept. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion. All in favor. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:33 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes DRB12082021