COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD April 24, 2002



Members Present: Elliotte Quinn, Chairman; Bubber Hutto, Vice Chair; Everette Jones, Fred Peccini, Jill Brooks, Charles Apter, Warren Pruitt

Member Absent: None

Staff Present: Michael Robertson - Planning Department Eddie Bernard - Planning Department

Mr. Quinn opened the meeting at 5:02 pm. He introduced the board members and staff and explained procedure and time limits.

Old Business

1. S&ME Office Building, Wando Park Boulevard--Preliminary Approval for site, landscape, and architecture

Presenters: Rush Dixon - Stubbs, Muldrow, Herrin Myers Mast - SWA Chris Frasier - owner

Site Comments: Mr. Mast described the 2 acre site as part of the Wando Park Planned Development and adjacent to the McKay Building. He pointed out the drainage easement and overhead power line at the rear of the site. They have tried to save several large trees on the site--gums, live oaks, and pines. At the last meeting they discussed moving the building forward; but, Wando Park covenants require a 50’ building setback. They prepared a site plan showing the building forward ten feet so they could get the pond… The original plan has the pond encroaching into the tree setbacks. They are able to keep the building where it was, maintain the 50’ setback along Wando Park Boulevard, chop off part of the back area, thus reshaping the pond to stay out of the trees. It also allowed them to save another 20” oak back there. The dumpster has been added and the HVAC units have been located. The whole area at the rear will be paved instead of partially graveled. S&ME has many large trucks, which would make maintaining gravel difficult. There is a concrete pad at the back of the building for the warehouse area, which is used for equipment maintenance and soil storage. There will also be a flag pole. The fence at the rear will be chain link--probably black, vinyl coated. The visible fence would have a dark green mesh as well as the area around the dumpster. Mr. Apter said the upper left section of the rear parking area has a couple of trees lost. He suggested the applicant cheat a little bit by coming down in parking space numbers; they could save the trees and still have basically the same number of parking spaces. Mr. Mast said that is a definite possibility. S&ME is looking at that as a service area, and the owner is comfortable with the parking provided. Mr. Apter said he would be more comfortable if the two trees in the corner could be saved. Mr. Pruitt asked if the chain link fence will definitely be black. Mr. Mast said they could definitely make it black. Mr. Hutto asked if the HVAC units will be screened. Mr. Mast said they will be screened with hedges which can be enlarged. Mr. Quinn asked staff if the HVAC units have to have a wall of some sort. Mr. Robertson said they do, but there is more flexibility in a Light Industrial area.

Architectural Comments: Mr. Dixon said the building’s design and materials were somewhat influenced by the nature of what the company does. Since it is a Light Industrial site, earthy colors and materials will be used. Split-face block will go at the base with rough textured cast-in-place concrete lintels. The concrete cylinders impression plays on the concrete testing aspect of the business. The front entry has a wood structural element. EPAY is a very rot resistant material used for the framing system. He had a detail of the EPAY and steel beam and bolt worked out. The corrugated siding will be painted a different shade of green and will go on the second story vertically. Another change is in the window mullions. The applicant decided to keep the double hung 2 over 2 windows with the mullion pattern that worked with the industrial windows below. Materials include cementitious siding and trim painted white with white soffits. There is a detail of how the siding intersects with windows and corners. The roof will be standing seam metal in a rusty red; black storefront windows (aluminum clad wood). Mr. Peccini said there was a comment made about the detailing of the corrugated siding and how the edges are treated. How is that going to work? Mr. Dixon said typical jamb details need something to tie into, so they had to create a key condition. The window frame is an exaggerated frame, but the corner conditions will be very similar to that. It would mirror itself. The corner would be just like the jamb. A double layer of the cementitious material will cover the opening (1 ½”). Mr. Jones asked about the lighting standards. Mr. Dixon said a shoebox fixture was submitted, but it is not allowed by the town. The photometrics will have to be redone and resolved with staff. Mr. Apter asked how the style of the building would be described. Mr. Dixon said he has used “light industrial” and “agricultural” to describe it. He would say neo-industrial as the best way. Mr. Apter said there are some very attractive buildings in that area, like Rice Planter’s, and this one does not really fit. He does not think it is an attractive building.

STAFF Site Comments: Staff has met with the applicant. The rear fence type should be better identified. At the previous meeting black vinyl coating was discussed. No tree protection plan was submitted in this set, which will be needed prior to pulling any permits. Given their proximity to construction, the cluster of trees containing the 34” gum to the rear and the cluster around the 32” gum to the side of the building should be protected with 2x4 barricades. The HVAC units should be shielded from view with either a hedge or fence. Staff would like to see a substitute for the eleagnus in the rear buffer due to their invasive, spreading nature. With the understanding that the site is pretty flat and it may not show well on the grading plan, it should be shown in some fashion that the backfill on the curbs is to slope down quickly to existing grade at the existing trees. Staff recommends approval.

Architectural Comments: This design received preliminary approval at the February 27, 2002, meeting. The Board made the following motion: MOTION: Mr. Pruitt made a motion for Preliminary Approval of site and building. Seconded by Mr. Jones. Discussion: Mr. Hutto asked if the motion includes the comments about moving the building forward. Mr. Pruitt said his thought was that the applicant would work it out with staff. Call for the question: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED. Staff has no concerns with the building design and the Board did not require any alterations to the design. Photometric plans along with cut-sheets of the fixture are required for final DRB approval. Neither was included in this submittal. Staff recommends approval with lighting standards and photometrics to be approved before any permits will be issued. Public Comments: There was no one to speak for or against the project; therefore, this portion was closed and Mr. Quinn requested comments from the staff.

Board Comments: Mr. Pruitt said he is concerned with the transition from the corrugated material down to the block. He was looking forward to seeing a wall section of that detail, but there was not one in the package. He is still a little foggy about what the building will actually look like. It is somewhat radical in its choice of materials. The form, idea, and concept are fine, but he does not understand how it will be put together. Ms. Brooks said she likes the idea of using the elements the company works with. She asked to see the steel material. Mr. Dixon explained that the column sits on a stainless steel plate that sits on top of the concrete. Ms. Brooks asked about the color. Mr. Dixon said the EPAY is a mahogany colored material. Mr. Peccini said EPAY is the species, and it goes by several brand names--one is Ironwood. Mr. Dixon said the material ages over time and it can be sealed. Mr. Peccini said given the location and function of the building, it is very interesting. Light Industrial would be the right place to experiment. The context is not so much the buildings down the road as it is the highway. The proportions of the building are good, and the materials are unconventional but appropriate. Mr. Quinn said it is an industrial building with style--bold. He hopes it comes together well.



MOTION: Mr. Jones made a motion for Final Approval for site, landscape, and architecture. Seconded by Mr. Peccini. Discussion: Mr. Hutto said it would include reconfiguring the parking to save the trees, screening the HVAC, black around the fence, site lighting to be approved by staff. Mr. Jones said that was included, but he does not have a problem with it being in there. Mr. Jones accepted the amendment. Seconded by Mr. Peccini. Call for the question: MOTION CARRIES 6 to 1 with Mr. Pruitt opposing.

New Business

1. Six Mile Center, 2191 Highway 17N (corner of Six Mile Road)-- Conceptual Review

Presenters: Bobby Bryant - Real estate broker Doug Cowden -

Site Comments: Mr. Bryant said the property consists of two parcels and is under contract. He called Kenny Seamon to learn the process he went through in subdividing the corner lot. The corner lot used to be a part of the building where Nationwide is located. The owner subdivided it, sold the building, and created a .51 acre corner lot. The parcel behind it is 1.3 acres. He did not want to come in and just build an office building; he might as well make it worthwhile as an investment venture. Mr. Cowden told him the town would probably allow a 2000 square footprint for that corner lot. Mr. Cowden said they tried to integrate the front parcel with the second parcel from a flow standpoint of bringing people off and onto the property. The larger building is to be retail office. Allocated parking is 70 spaces plus three handicapped. He is keenly aware of the town’s needs in trying to promote the rear parking. Each case has its own answers. Some larger projects that came into the town recently have a big anchor tenant while using a large parking lot on the inside surrounded with buildings. Buildings on Egypt Road have a façade at the rear to make them look more presentable from the road. He has a problem with seeing what are obviously back doors and garbage cans, mops, brooms, chairs, etc. He does not want to see that at Six Mile. Also, a school is across the street from the Six Mile property. He sees this project as serving the needs of people attending the school. Providing the building with four finished sides would make it more appealing. Also, some of the retail needs to be seen. It is difficult to flip a building around and put up a wall of rear entrances and then put a parking lot next to a trailer park. Flow and safety make it more advisable for front loaded parking. Also, they would like to put a sidewalk across the front with a bridge across the retention area to create an entrance to the property. Columns, brick, and fencing would give a pedestrian feel. The lot will be heavily landscaped, allowing for screening of the parking area. They are aware of the 150’ rule for entrances and exits. They are looking to enter into the private road, which is actually an easement across the property indicated, to the trailer park. That would take some of the pressure off the intersection at 17. Retail businesses start after schools starts; school ends before retail businesses close. The traffic would not be an issue. They would like to see the entrance onto the private road and then on to Six Mile as a means of ingress/egress for people coming from Rifle Range. That would keep them away from the intersection at 17 and provide more access for the people in the trailer park behind the site. The rear will have a service entrance; thus keeping trucks and delivery vans off the main parking area. The center will be a traditional urban type with a covered walkway. All the alleyways are 24 feet. They have already adjusted for the 50’ county overlay.

Architectural Comments: Mr. Cowden said the predominant building in the area is Laing School--a brick building with flat roof. The proposed brick building with stucco and Lowcountry materials and a standing seam metal roof would pick up the elements from across the street. This would create architectural harmony on that corner. The office building picks up some elements of the center, so there is harmony in that respect as well. The windows will be framed in anodized aluminum bronze and be tinted. The brick will be the old Guignard brick with white watertable to enhance it. Mr. Apter asked if the landscaping is in excess of the requirements. Mr. Cowden said the plan shows the buffer yards, and they feel landscaping should go beyond that. They would like to see a nice tree-lined street as you turn down Six Mile Road. The rear of the building is basically unseen because of its proximity to the buffer. Mr. Pruitt said he can see both sides of the argument for where the building should be located. His children have gone to Laing School, so he knows what the traffic circulation is like out there. It bothers him to talk about screening out the trailer park; we need to think about what is best for them too. Perhaps it would be best for the building to be closer to the street, and then the retention pond could become a real element. He understands the concern with back doors and service entrances, but there are ways to handle it well (i.e. Brookgreen Center). As far as the site, maybe the building could be broken in two and turned 90 degrees to create a courtyard. That may play off the school entrance more and create a courtyard and long vistas back to the trailer park. He is not real fond of the architecture--it is way too urban for that location. It should be more rural in character with Hardi-plank siding, hipped roof, gabled ends, etc. Mr. Peccini said a gable roof on this size building would be massive. The building is a first down short of a football field.

STAFF Site Comments: The proposal shows an encroachment into the ten foot C buffer opposite the mobile homes. The area in the front of the large building shows more than 12 parking spaces in a row without a planted island. It is unclear whether or not this submittal is leaving the existing building (C-2) in place or not. If it is to stay, the site layout should be shown, as it creates difficult circulation on the site. This also makes it appear that a drive aisle wider than 24’ is shown. This proposal does not show the 50’ county overlay buffer along 17, and also shows encroachment into the 10’ C buffer opposite the mobile homes. The area in front of the large building shows more than 12 parking spaces in a row without a planted island. I assume a shared access agreement is in place for the private road. The 150’ curb cut separation is violated twice along the private road. No building use or sizes have been shown for a determination of parking numbers. Like the proposed building at the corner of 17 and Six Mile, the larger building should also be brought up to the road, which also remedies the curb cut separation issue. Staff would not support this proposal.

Architectural Comments: The applicant met with staff to discuss this design and layout. None of our comments were incorporated into the design. Section 156.244 (S) requires “all buildings shall be sited so that a direct relationship with the primary street is established. The architecture, landscaping and building siting must work in concert to create a unified appearance that contributes to the existing/developing streetscape.” The ordinance further requires that “buildings shall be sited so that the majority of parking is located to the side and rear of the building (§156.244 (Q)). The site and building layout easily lend themselves to being reversed with the building located along the street and all parking to the rear. As such the plan would meet the ordinance requirements and properly anchor the streetscape creating a more inviting pedestrian corridor along Six Mile Road.

The architecture does not reflect the guidelines and standards required by the ordinance and the Board. Section 156.243 (M) and (W) require “specific consideration shall be given to [a buildings] compatibility with adjacent structures where such structures are substantially in compliance with these §§156.40 through 156.244 and 156.098.” This is the first proposed structure in this vicinity to be reviewed by the DRB. Most other buildings were built in the county without any design considerations or were built before the advent of the DRB. The structures in the immediate vicinity do not meet the DRB standards and cannot therefore be used to determine the architecture of this structure. The Six Mile community is noted in our Comprehensive Plan as a residential settlement which recognizes its unique and historic development pattern. As the Town has grown to incorporate and surround these communities, it is important that our development respect the unique aspects of this community and reflect a traditional community growth pattern. The design of this building follows a more urban flat-roofed main street type of architecture that is more indicative of Towne Centre over a mile and a half away instead of the rural, agrarian community which it serves. The design of these structures should follow a design theme more consistent with the retail buildings along Egypt Road (Belle Station Food Lion) that front the Snowden Community a similar rural, agrarian settlement. Section 156.243 (F) states that “proposed structures will contribute to the image of the Town as a unique place of visual character, integrity, and quality.” The architecture should reflect the character of that portion of the community in which it is located. The ordinance also requires a more rural type of architecture in Section 156.243 (R) which states that “flat roofs will not be discouraged where they are appropriate to the design theme of a structure.” Flat roofs would not be appropriate at this location since they are recognized as an urban commercial corridor roof form more appropriate for a King Street or in some cases Coleman Boulevard not rural communities. The building should incorporate a pitched roof over the structure. If a flat roof portion is required for mechanical units, these could be incorporated on a flat rear half that is designed to appear as a later addition such as on the Belle Station buildings. Further, §156.243 (H) notes that all elevations of a structure should be in harmony with one another in terms of scale, proportion, detail, material, color, and high design quality.” The sides and rear of the building exhibit no details or relationship to the front elevation. Section 156.243 (L) states that “long, monotonous façade design, including, but not limited to, those characterized by unrelieved repetition of shape or form, or by unbroken extension of line, shall not be permitted.” The sides and rear do not use any detail or architectural treatment to break up the massing or relieve the unadorned façade. Finally, the second floor and sign band area of the building is projected beyond the first floor on the end elevations. These sections of building should be in the same plane with a canopy or awning to protect pedestrians. The feature is awkward and does not follow traditional building practices. As a result, the “materials do not express their function clearly and honestly [and] are foreign to the character of the rest of the building (§156.243 (O).

Since the siting and design of the building do not incorporate any of the design guidelines required in the ordinance nor do they reflect the unique character or begin to establish any streetscape character to the Six Mile community, staff recommends restudy.

Mr. Cowden asked if he could comment. The end elevations are just detail in the stucco. Also, they did not go that far with the design because they are not here for that type of approval.

Board Comments: Mr. Peccini said they first have to consider the height, scale, and mass of the building--whether it should be two buildings or one large one. The ordinance requires the building be forward, and the preponderance of parking should be at the rear. The board should not go against the ordinance, but something that close to the street becomes massive and the scale is all wrong. The applicant needs guidance in that respect. Mr. Pruitt suggested an arc wall articulation along the street frontage to break up the mass. Mr. Quinn said he and Mr. Hutto have been sketching; they suggest making the building into two connected boxes with some parking at the front and sides. Mr. Hutto said the pond could be made into a feature instead of a long ditch. Mr. Bryant said the owner of the trailer park has gotten two contracts on it; this center will be here long after the trailer park is gone. Mr. Jones asked if the trailer park is in the town. Mr. Robertson said he would have to check. Mr. Quinn suggested using rural elements would give the project a residential feel. It can be worked out.

2. O’Charley’s Restaurant, Towne Centre (next to Eckerds)-- Preliminary Approval for site, landscape, and architecture

Presenters: Roy Williams - E&H Architects

Site Comments: Mr. Williams said O’Charley’s is based in Nashville with 550 stores providing high quality food and beverages in a community atmosphere. The site for the restaurant is on the corner of Towne Centre near IHOP with a small adjacent lot proposed Commercial. The two curb cuts are on the Eckerds parcel and the other property line. The building will be 6800 square feet and will address the street. Parking will be at the rear and side with curbing layed out in an attempt to salvage as many trees as possible. There is a dense cluster with some blank areas; mainly gum trees with one or two live oaks. The small island indicated straddles the line between the site and the adjacent commercial property. At 68 spaces, it is the minimal amount of parking for a restaurant of this size and projected volume. The service area was indicated as along the landscaped buffer area. The dumpsters will be enclosed with brick walls. Proposed grading for the site increases the grade at the highest point not more than 24 inches. It will tie into existing grades on both sides-- adjacent proposed commercial lot, Eckerds, and the existing curb cuts.

Architectural Comments: Mr. Williams said the original concept 18 years ago was an old, historic, downtown warehouse building. There is simple massing, simple clean elements, and not a lot of thematic interpretation. The top has brick corbelling, row locks, and soldier coursing to provide architectural interest. The entry tower element has increased height, much like a corner main street building would have. There is a tile mosaic pattern to add visual interest and to identify the corner as the entry. Gooseneck fixtures are used for down lighting on the green roofs and striped awnings. The proposed elevation has neon tubing; but, he understands that is not looked upon favorably here. Other materials are dark green storefront windows, glass block, and heavy wood doors at the entry. There has been some refinement to the right elevation, which is seen from the commercial side. The restaurant has a very nice back bar of custom designed mahogany and glass shelves. They have incorporated a nice area of glass block there instead of storefront windows to give texture and light and visual interest. Mr. Apter asked how different this building is from the others. Mr. Williams said it is somewhat similar to buildings done in the past, but they no longer do some of the things proposed here--antique style gooseneck fixtures and tile mosaic patterns. The key building right now is the fifth generation of building for O’Charley’s, and it does not look anything like this. It has a stone entry and less masonry, more wood, and is smaller. It would not fit into Towne Centre at all. They have pulled all the best elements used in the past together for this project. Mr. Apter asked if it is different than the other O’Charley’s in town. Mr. Williams said he does not recall that location. He would be inclined to think it is similar to that building. That store has an element on the right elevation that this building does not have. It has another element at the front with a roof over it. This building has a different bar layout. Mr. Apter said he would help himself by not describing Highway 27 in SC. He does not know where that is. Mr. Williams said some of the people working for him went to Mississippi State. Mr. Apter agreed that the neon tubing would be a problem. Mr. Jones asked if the awning is a bright red. Mr. Williams indicated the colors on the drawing. Mr. Peccini asked how far away the real texture is compared to what is depicted. Mr. Williams said it is very accurate.





STAFF Site Comments: This proposal shows 8 spaces over the allotted paved spaces per ordinance. Staff would recommend eliminating the two spaces to the front of the future retail area so that no spaces are in front of the building. In doing so, the parking may then start in place of the island, run 12 spaces, then end a space shy of the proposed layout and pick up an additional large gum tree. The parking island to the center with the 16” oak should be enlarged 1 space to better accommodate the protective zone and in the process could pick up the smaller gum to the side also. The bay of two spaces towards the detention could be eliminated and pick up an additional tree and better accommodate the two adjacent tree protective zones. In regard to sidewalks some additional walks should be added. These include one to the side heading to Eckerd’s to create a pedestrian link, on connecting the parking lot to the front corner of the building, and some means of allowing pedestrian traffic through the long middle island to the rear. It also appears that the present detention layout restricts the ability to continue the sidewalk that will run parallel with the future building and the rear parking area. Staff would also like to see an alternative to the drainage flume bisecting the island between the two buildings so that the root zones are left more in tact.

Architectural Comments: The developer met with staff to discuss several site plans for this property but architectural elevations were not discussed. Further, the applicant asked for a conceptual review but submitted enough information for preliminary approval and in order to expedite the process, staff changed the request to preliminary. The DRB guidelines do not allow prototype architecture which this building certainly is (156.243 (U). However, we believe that the basic building design is not too out of keeping with the design themes of Towne Centre and can be modified to meet the DRB guidelines. Staff has no real concerns with the design noting that while it has a flat roof (156.243 (R)), it is located in one of the three urban corridors-Towne Centre. Staff’s primary concern is with various details and design elements.

First, each building should have a base, middle, and top (156.243 (M)). A watertable or some type of base should be incorporated along the building. A stronger cornice line should be added more in keeping with the belt course below it. Once a base is added to the design, a stronger top or cornice will be needed to carry the other details. Second, the windows, which have a nice display type appearance indicative of “main street” style architecture should incorporate a storefront mullion pattern in keeping with the other buildings in the center. They should also incorporate a lintel as well as a sill. Currently, no lintels are shown. The projecting element (front elevation) needs more refinement and a differentiation from the main building core. This could be achieved through the addition of the base, refinement of the window pattern and arrangement, and also a restudy of the material at this element.

The window pattern and building design needs refinement on the right elevation (the second most visible) so that the windows establish a consistent design element on the building. In the center of this elevation, the awning covers three windows conveying the idea of a single building element while the windows and wall plane do not reflect any consistent design theme (156.243 (H)(J)).

The left elevation faces the neighboring Eckerds building with a drive aisle along its length. This blank and bland façade should incorporate design elements to break down the massing and add detail in keeping with and established design theme (156.243 (I)(L)(M)). This element should be consistent with those incorporated on the other elevations. The ladder should be relocated to the service area at the rear of the building (156.243 (S)).

The rear elevation should differentiate between the service area and the pedestrian entrance element. The metal fence does not meet the ordinance requirements and should be a brick fence to match the rest of the structure (156.243 (S) (T)). Another detail to note is the brick itself. A field brick will cause the little bit of architectural detail such as the soldier course at the cornice and the belt course in the wall plane to be completely lost. A solid brick, more in keeping with other buildings in the center should be substituted. It is a waste to add the necessary detailing to meet the ordinance requirements when the material will not allow them to be seen.

The neon banding on the building is not allowed by ordinance and must be removed (156.254 (B)(2)). Finally, the signs shown on the elevations should be contained within a sign band area designed into the building and not project over the roof (§156.157 (H)). Staff believes that the design can be easily altered to be in compliance with the DRB guidelines and also fit into the design of the center. This could have easily been achieved it the architect had met with staff to discuss the design prior to submitting for approvals. Staff recommends restudy with the above mentioned items to be incorporated and a r