Design Review Committee continues final review of proposed mixed-use building at Pearl and Glenwood

Jackson — The Design Review Committee on Aug. 13 moved to continue final design review for a proposed mixed-use building identified in the record as P 25-146 at the corner of Earl Avenue and South Greenwood Street, citing concerns that the building’s upper volumes read as a four‑story structure even though the design stays below the 42-foot height limit allowed by local code.

The project, presented by Andrew Bone, planning staff, and Brian Young of Access Architects, is described in the staff presentation as a three‑story, mixed‑use structure of roughly 35,957 square feet with a mix of short‑term and long‑term housing. Bone summarized the staff view of unit mix and size: “21 total units: 12 short‑term units, 4 long‑term units, 1 deep restricted unit and 4 restricted housing units,” and noted that a full Land Development Regulations compliance review will occur when a full development plan is submitted.

Young, the project architect, told the committee the current design includes a below‑grade parking level with 24 stalls, additional at‑grade parking including van‑accessible stalls, and several parallel stalls shared between Pearl and Glenwood. Young said the design team was still finalizing material selections but described the base as “a quartzite ashlar product” and noted use of a wood‑look metal panel product he called “longboard.” He also explained the project’s approach to upper‑level mezzanines and tall living spaces, saying, “By the interpretation of the IBC, a mezzanine is not a floor or a story,” and that the design keeps the overall building under the 42‑foot maximum.

Committee members focused much of the discussion on how the upper levels read from the street. One committee member, Justin (Design Review Committee member), said, “To me, it’s not a mezzanine,” and several other members said the building appears to the public as a four‑story structure and therefore conflicts with the downtown design guidance that emphasizes lower perceived massing (some committee members noted the downtown overlay’s intent for buildings to read more like two stories along the street). Members suggested options including larger stepbacks, trellis treatments, spandrel glass to conceal some floor lines, and more varied materials to break up the vertical rhythm.

Other items discussed during review included: the corner retail layout (the applicant described two bookending retail spaces and noted a corner retail space of about 1,000 square feet), terrace and balcony placements that respond to a 60/40 third‑floor stepback rule, and streetscape elements such as a continuous covered walkway on Pearl and street trees. Committee members asked staff and the applicant to consider larger‑caliper street trees (the town’s street‑tree spacing standard cited in the discussion is 30 feet on center) and to provide final material samples for staff review.

Action and next steps: A motion was made to continue the final design review to allow the applicant to revise the project’s form and appearance so it reads less like a four‑story building. The motion text on the record referenced project P 25‑146 and asked that the continuation be for the stated reason of reducing the project’s perceived height and altering massing details; the record did not specify the names of the motion mover and seconder or a recorded vote tally. The committee instructed the applicant to return with revised massing, clearer stepbacks or trellis solutions, and final material specifications; staff said final material specifications could be provided to staff for review if the design is close to acceptable.

The applicant and staff also discussed several technical items that will be clarified in follow‑up: the final unit count (the staff presentation listed 21 units while the applicant at one point referenced 18 units), final gross floor area (staff: ~35,957 sq ft; architect: ~35,651 sq ft), parking layout and clearances where the design passes over electrical transformer spaces, and bedroom glazing/ventilation requirements under the International Building Code versus local transparency requirements.

The applicant is expected to return at a future Design Review Committee meeting with revised drawings and final material samples. The committee did not set a specific return date during the recorded discussion.