Historic District Preservation Commission (HDPC)

OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE January 9, 2017 5:00 p.m. Municipal Complex 100 Ann Edwards Lane Public Meeting Room 1, Building A NOTE: Items in blue are hyperlinks (some file sizes are large and may take a minute to load). MINUTES PRESENT: Brett Bennett, Chair; Joe Keenan, Vice Chair; Leigh Rowe, Scott Hirshorn and Susan Dickson STAFF PRESENT: Eric Pohlman and Joe Juan Mr. Bennett called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m., and reviewed the procedures with the public. I. Approval of Minutes a. December 8, 2016 Special Meeting Ms. Dickson moved for approval as read; seconded by Mr. Keenan. All present voted in favor. b. December 12, 2016 Mr. Bennett stated that the minutes were not complete at this time and will be addressed at the February meeting. II. Public Comment & General Correspondence (none) III. Board Discussion: Request for Report from Planning Committee & Guidelines Revision Discussion Update on their presentation to the Planning Committee. Mr. Bennett stated that he and Mr. Keenan made a presentation to the Planning Committee. They has asked the OVHDC to provide them with more background and detail with respect to architectural design guideline updates and recommendations that have been made to Town Council for a variety of ordinance changes He stated that their comments and recommendations were well received. They had a lot of dialogue and questions from members of Town Council. Their recommendations included several items; (1) to increase the Town’s focus on compliance and enforcement with the design guidelines, including whatever resources may be necessary to better manage them; (2) also described a number of guidelines that were pending at the time and essentially warned them that over the next several months, there is likely to be a succession of guideline updates as we gather public input and refine the guideline document as it exists. They also proposed to Town Council that a preservation consultant be hired to assist in the reformatting  Old Village Historic District Commission January 9, 2017 Page 2 of 10 and improving the design guideline document as it presently exists to provide more detail, illustrations and drawing so that applicants can be better prepared as to expectations of the commission. Regarding amendments to ordinances, three were highlighted. (1) that the Town boost the parking space requirements for each home; (2) that the accessory structure height allowances and siding requirements be changed to become more conservative than they presently exist; and (3) that the Town adopt the National Park Service and South Carolina Department of Archives and History definition or model for designating historic properties. That definition entails a 50 year rolling definition to designate historic properties among other criteria. Presently the Town ordinance is a fixed date effective January, 1936 and by definition that means that properties that would be eligible for historic designation are not being properly designated. The Commission made the recommendation that this be changed, and presently it is up to the Planning Committee and Town Council to make the decision of whether to pursue or not. Ms. Rowe moved to accept the guideline revisions as presented; seconded by Mr. Keenan. All present voted in favor. Mr. Bennett stated that these changes would be adopted and effective this date. IV. BUSINESS STAFF REPORT 1. 103 Venning Street - TMS 532-01-00-021—Conceptual Comment for Accessory Structure Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Losse Knight, architect representing the applicant, stated that they are proposing to remove the existing shed structure and replace with garage structure. He stated that the lot is an irregular shape and are trying to propose a new footprint for the carport relative to some of the setback requirement for grand trees and turning radiuses for getting in and out of the property. They wanted to demonstrate that although they are asking for this structure to be within 3 feet of the setback, it is fairly consistent when you view the accessory structures that are already in the general area. He showed the existing structure they are proposing to take down. They would like to propose a simple open air, structure with columns in the front with a small storage area in the back, which will also function as an entryway into the home. He stated that the area along the side property line is where they are asking for a 3 foot setback and the typical accessory setback is 6 feet. The building is turned so as you move away from the corner they are 5 feet off the setback on both sides and along the rear, they are 4.7 feet. Mr. Keenan asked what the building’s current setbacks are. Mr. Knight said that it is 6 feet on both sides. They are attempting to have a dual carport and entry.  Old Village Historic District Commission January 9, 2017 Page 3 of 10 Ms. Dickson asked if they took the storage element away, would they have their 6 feet. Mr. Knight stated that likely on that area, but one of the purposes of this is to pick up some storage. He stated that there are allowances in the guidelines to have a 12 x 12 structure in other areas on the site; however, when you look at turning radius and setbacks for tree protection, there was no other place to put the structure. The roofline is set at 18 feet and trying to keep with the architectural character of the existing roof. Ms. Dickson asked if there was room under the eaves for storage. Mr. Knight stated that there is, but very little. The original intent was to think about a full height space, but realized that they were exceeding 18 foot threshold. Their goal is to review height, scale and mass, but also would like to receive feedback on the footprint of the structure. Ms. Dickson asked if Mr. Knight has talked to the neighbors about backing right up to their property line. Mr. Knight stated that they have not. Mr. Keenan stated that they are basically asking for a 3 foot encroachment variance from this commission. Ms. Dickson asked if they needed it on both sides. Mr. Knight stated that on the rear side, they are encroaching roughly 18 inches, so it is 4’7” off the rear setback. One side will be 3 feet and the rear side would be 18 inches. Mr. Keenan stated that everything on those lots are very tight and this lot is very complicated. Mr. Bennett stated that what Mr. Knight has drawn is consistent with what was discussed over the last several weeks in terms of design and the more modest height of accessory structures. He applauds what Mr. Knight has done; however, has reservations that given the way the lot is situation and the fact that the applicant already has some encroachment to the rear anyway, is a 3 foot variance meaningful. Ms. Rowe asked how large the storage area is. Mr. Knight said 6’10 in one direction and 14 feet in the other. Mr. Knight stated that the initial study was a 2 car garage and realize that this would not work. They tried to study other buildings around and decided to go to an open carport and have a little bit of storage in the back. They could potentially consider pulling it forward to move it away from the rear accessory setback. However, it would detract from the hierarchy of the main house and make the carport front and center. Ms. Rowe asked if they thought about doing something similar to the house on Bennett Street with the storage on the side and the open front and back. This would accomplish storage.  Old Village Historic District Commission January 9, 2017 Page 4 of 10 Mr. Knight stated that they did like that one; however, it was setup for a width of approximately 22 to 24 feet in order to make this work. This lot is a really irregular site. Mr. Keenan stated this his thoughts are consistent with Mr. Bennett’s and appreciates the 18 foot height and likes the open air aspect and understands this is a function of storage and being able to cover their vehicle. Is 3 feet that big of an issue? He does not believe so. Ms. Dickson stated that she would like to know what the neighbors think, because it may be an issue for them. Claudia Coker, homeowner, stated that the storage is important because they have bicycles, paddles for kayaks, skateboards, basketballs, and are not storing tools. She stated it is a very unique lot and this is all the way back in the corner where her neighbor to the right, his building is actually blocking his house from this structure. The neighbor behind, it is in the very corner of his lot where his kids play back there, but they have a full yard and also have an accessory building up against her property that is within the setback. She said she is asking for some leeway, because the neighbors’ buildings are within the setback and because of the uniqueness of her lot, there is no other way to do this. She does not think the neighbors would have an issue. Ms. Dickson stated that granting a variance is easier when they know that the neighbors are okay with it, because you are asking for relief from the rules as they stand. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the reservation he has is the nature of the lot and the continuum of houses in that area are shoehorned in. To add an additional structure that is in excess of the setbacks it pushes the envelope further, especially without property feedback from the neighbors. He stated that it feels that too much is being put into a space that has already surpassed its utility. Mr. Knight stated that he understands that they have not addressed the neighbors, but thought that this was a platform for it to be publically addressed where it is put on the internet, with the yellow sign out in front of the home. He stated that in the future, do they need to be knocking on the doors of neighbors. Mr. Keenan stated that this is that platform and the Commission will not make decisions based on what the neighbors are thinking, but based on the guidelines. However, supportive letters always help. Mr. Bennett stated that the Commission cannot require letters of support from an applicant; however, they are helpful. Mr. Knight asked if their preference which they thought would be the best option is to sit the structure back and ensure they are not overwhelming the house. Given that this is an open air type of colonnade and it does have a porch like feel, if they were to move it so they are at least not in the rear setback, they could completely get out of that. At that point, the front corner is out of it and they just have approximately 30% of the back corner.  Old Village Historic District Commission January 9, 2017 Page 5 of 10 They have a hip roof that was intentionally designed to pitch away from the neighbor’s property instead of something that projects out. Would something like this be acceptable to be able to maintain a similar footprint? Mr. Bennett stated that this is a sample he would be more comfortable with, because then you are asking for inches instead of feet. The debate the Commission is having is adding another setback variance in this restrained tight space, which is already happening with some of the neighbors, or because the other variances have already been granted either explicitly or by default with the way things were built years ago, does the Commission just accept this for this particular tract and grant another 3 feet for another accessory structure. This is the dilemma that the Commission faces. For the applicant to make that concession towards the rear, he could be more comfortable with the setback variance on the other dimension. Ms. Rowe agreed. Mr. Bennett stated that the other issue is the setback ordinances are there for a reason and some of that is to provide separation and not impose on neighbors. The other is more practical as a matter of maintenance. Are you able to get back between those spaces to property paint and repair them and provide reasonable drainage. He stated that the Commission has been faced with this on a number of occasions. 2. Confederate Cemetery- TMS 532-05-00-056— After-the-Fact Approval for Free Standing Sign for Mary-Julia Royall Park Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Miles Beach, stated that Mary-Julia Royall was President of the Confederate Memorial Association for 20 years or more. This association dwindled to 2 individuals, Mary-Julia Royall and one other. He stated that she asked the Moultrie Camp Son of Confederate Veterans if they would take title to Carr Street Cemetery. He stated that Carr Street Cemetery includes a lot more than just that piece that is enclosed with wrought iron, which now needs some repair. He stated that 5 or 6 years ago, they were happy to take title to the cemetery and their attorney drew up the property documents and they have been registered and filed with the courts. Moultrie Camp 27 of the Sons of Confederate Veterans does own this property. Mr. Bennett stated that his understanding is it goes all the way through back to Royall. Mr. Beach stated that the block that Carr Street Cemetery is in probably has a fairly large number of graves there that they know nothing about. They had a state archeologist come from the State to do a scan of the entire property, which would indicate where unmarked graves are located. From the back of the fenced in portion, coming towards Carr Street, on the right hand side, from the oak tree forward, there are 11 unmarked graves. Their intent is not to do anything with this area. He does live in the OVHD;  Old Village Historic District Commission January 9, 2017 Page 6 of 10 however, Mary-Julia Royall, to maintain the cemetery over the years, they felt that she needed some recognition for all that she has done for that cemetery. Before they put the sign up, the new house next to the property, has a driveway the ends before you get to the back of the house, and they have a stack of everything there, which is very visible. They removed all the barbed wire, vines, trash trees, etc., and opened it up and have come back in and planted camellias, azaleas, encore azaleas and several other to help hide some of the items that are at the new house. He showed an area that had become a trash area and they wanted to do away with the trash area. Another issue they had was with a resident who had a heating and cooling system that is down on the ground and uses the temperature of the ground to heat and cool the system. His overflow drain pipe goes out onto the cemetery property, which causes some issues. He stated that the sign in question is approximately 6 feet x 3 feet and is done is Charleston green and is set in concrete and they would like to recognize Mary-Julia Royall and this would be a very honorable way of doing so. Their request, although after the fact, is to allow them to leave the sign in place. Mr. Bennett stated that he applauds what the SVC BB – applaud what SCV is doing and to assume responsibility for this parcel. He stated that Mary-Julia Royall is a Town treasurer and to acknowledge her for her years of commitment is wonderful. His reservation about the sign itself is that it emphasizes a park and not clear what the park is and does not represent that it is a confederate cemetery. Mr. Beach stated that there is a sign on the fence that states Confederate Cemetery and has also put 2 signs from the Boy Scouts who are working on their Eagle Project. What they should recognize is the War of 1812 monument which is there. He stated that there are only 2 War of 1812 monuments in the in the State of South Carolina, and they have one, which is inside the fence. He believes the cemetery sign sets it aside. The entire property has underground irrigation from street to street and their intent is to make it a landscaped park with different trees and flowers. Mr. Keenan thought the sign placement was odd. Mr. Beach stated that they put it there to keep people from dumping their trash there. Out of respect for those graves, they wanted to stop the dumping of trash and it has worked. Ms. Rowe asked if the sign was level. Mr. Beach stated that it was and that the property has a slight slope to it that makes it look like it is not level. Ms. Rowe stated that it is a lovely monument to a lovely person. Ms. Dickson asked Mr. Beach if he has had discussions with the Preservation Society about putting up a property sign that tells the public what is there, such as the 1812 monument and the confederate cemetery. Mr. Beach stated that the 1812 monument is there already on the street side. He stated that they raise all the funds to maintain this cemetery, so  Old Village Historic District Commission January 9, 2017 Page 7 of 10 funding is sometimes an issue. He stated that they do want one of the signs indicating that it is a Confederate Cemetery. Mr. Keenan made a motion to approve the ex post facto application for the Confederate Cemetery as submitted; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 3. 102 Middle Street (HISTORIC 6018)- TMS 532-09-00-036—Final Approval for Addition Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Phil Clark, Clark Design Group, and stated that they were here previously. This is a historic structure, built in 1887 – 1891 in Charleston and brought by barge. He stated that they have the storefront glass on 2nd floor porch that was never really a porch and would like to bring it back to be more in line with the original historical character with the eyebrow around and windows above. He stated that the existing site plan has a lot of paving and they would like to clean some of it up and take it away in order to keep the lot coverage down. Everything they are doing is staying inside the setbacks. They are going to take up the unnecessary walkways and do a pervious paver from the front walk from the gate to the front porch. He stated that Mr. Hirshorn made some comments previously about the size of side porch and they went back and studied it. They have tightened up the fireplace and pulled in the porch slightly and is not quite as heavy. Mr. Bennett stated that what he is struggling with is the sighting of the fireplace and the historic context for this kind of addition which is essentially a porch, but it is the location of the fireplace. He asked if it would be possible to locate the fireplace adjacent to the main structure’s wall, which he feels would be more consistent with history. Mr. Clark stated that with the floorplan layout, the fireplace works out on the porch, because they wanted the porch to connect to the inside. They would hate to lose the window. Having the fireplace outside on the porch makes it part of the house. He stated that one of the main concerns Mr. Hirshorn had with the porch was the location next to the neighbor. He showed the distance from the edge of the proposed new side porch to the property line. Ms. Balzac stated that to put the fireplace up against the house with take away from the original historic structure. She stated that where the fireplace is proposed has the least amount of impact. Mr. Keenan stated that he has a slightly different opinion, because of the impact of losing an original window and what it would do to the siding and roofline of the house to move the fireplace. He stated that he likes what is shown, as well as the hardscape plan and appreciates scaling it back. He stated that the chimney, especially the width is a much better proportion. Mr. Juan asked what the distance is of the chimney to the side corner. Mr. Clark stated that is more than 10 feet, which is the code. Ms. Rowe stated that it looks great.  Old Village Historic District Commission January 9, 2017 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Keenan made a motion to approve the application at 102 Middle Street as submitted; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. 4. 603 Royall Avenue (Survey 5995)- TMS 532-09-00-081—Final Approval for Accessory Structure Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Linda Balzac, architect for the homeowner, stated that she was before the Commission previously regarding this home to put the fence across the driveway, because they have small children who want to play in that area. She stated that it is very narrow between the house and garage and does not fit a vehicle. They are just going to use it for rainy days for the children and want them to have access, because the garage door is difficult to open for a small child they wanted to put vinyl sliders behind barn doors, so they are removing the garage doors and moving the window up higher. She stated that they would like to put back shutters on the front of the home, first floor on the front porch, that replace the existing ones that were removed by the last homeowners. They shutters would be board and batten on the front porch to add color and would black or Charleston green. Ms. Dickson asked Ms. Balzac if she was proposing shutters on the top window above the barn doors. Ms. Balzac stated that there is no room to have them. Ms. Rowe stated that this all sounds like an improvement. Mr. Keenan asked if they were actual barn doors. Ms. Balzac stated that they are sliding doors. There are vinyls on the inside and when it is shut, will look like a garage door. Ms. Rowe moved to accept the plans as presented at 603 Royall Avenue; seconded by Mr. Hirshorn. All present voted in favor. 5. 102 Mary Street (Survey 6255)- TMS – Final Approval for Additions Heather Wilson, architect for the applicant, stated that she has come before the Commission previously. She stated that on the plan they wanted to come off the screened porch into the backyard and an 8 x 8 pad that they would like to enclose to match the house. She stated that it is all heavily wooded with trees and landscaping so it is not visible. She stated that the third item is the skylight that was already put in. the house sits down about six feet and the windows are high. They skylights will provide more light. Mr. Bennett asked about the sighting of the pool house and stated that it will be close to the end of the dock. Ms. Wilson stated that it is behind a tree as well as a good bit of landscaping, so it is not noticeable. Mr. Bennett asked about the height of the pool house. Ms. Wilson stated that it is 11’ 9” but it could come down. It will house the pool equipment.  Old Village Historic District Commission January 9, 2017 Page 9 of 10 Mr. Keenan stated that this is for the stairwell, skylights and pool equipment accessory structure. Mr. Bennett stated that he is okay with the stairs to the rear and if possible, he would ask to reduce the height of the accessory structure. He has reservations about the skylights, at least the one you can see from Mary Street. He doesn’t think you can see the three smaller skylights because they are hidden behind the roofline. Ms. Dickson asked if there was a rule that the Commission has that states that you cannot have skylights that are visible from the harbor. Mr. Bennet stated that from the public rights of way. He stated that he believes this is primarily for historic structures. Mr. Pohlman read the guideline rules. Mr. Bennett stated that this was part of his reservation with respect to the skylight that is visible from Mary Street and the harbor. He stated that he would prefer that it not be there. Mr. Keenan stated that he is okay with the skylights, because he does not believe you will see any of them behind the trees. He would also like for the accessory structure height to be lowered. Mr. Bennett stated that he is only trying to be committed to the guidelines as much as possible. Ms. Wilson stated that the structure sits on a 6’’ slab, so if she lowered it anymore, it would look odd. Ms. Rowe stated that it may be more aesthetically pleasing the way it is. LR may be more aesthetically pleasing the way it is. Mr. Keenan made a motion to approve 102 Mary Street, final approval for additions as submitted; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 6. 302 Pitt Street- GM Darby Building (HISTORIC ) TMS 532-05-00-053–Final Approval for Regular Maintenance Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Allen Jackson, architect representing the Town of Mount Pleasant. He stated that the intent of this project is to replace the door and sidelight unit that faces Pitt Street. As a matter of maintenance, it is beginning to rot and The Town is in process of replacing the windows in the building and this is another maintenance effort. He stated that the entire unit; the door, two sidelights, transom will be removed and replaced exactly as it is. Mr. Bennett asked who fabricates these. Mr. Jackson stated that the general contractor subs it out to Southern Lumber for the mill work and they get it fabricated from a fabrication shop out of California. It will come as an entire unit. Southern Lumber is recommending that they take the doors out and prime, painting and prep work on all six sides of every surface, prior to installation.  Old Village Historic District Commission January 9, 2017 Page 10 of 10 Ms. Dickson asked if the materials used in the replacement are similar to those being removed. Mr. Jackson stated they are similar, just more durable. The bottom will be treated to be rot resistant. Ms. Rowe moved to accept the application for the Darby Building as presented; seconded by Mr. Keenan. All present voted in favor. V. Re-adoption of Bylaws Mr. Pohlman stated that the bylaws were posted. Mr. Keenan moved to accept and readopt; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. VI. Election of Officers Mr. Pohlman stated that the election of officers will be taken by secret ballot. Mr. Pohlman stated that according to the bylaws, by the first meeting in the year, both a Chair and Vice Chair shall be elected by secret ballot. Therefore, it must occur this meeting. Mr. Pohlman read the results: Joe Keenan, Chairman with 5 votes Leigh Rowe, Vice Chairman with 4 votes Commission members thanked Mr. Bennett for his service and guidance on the Commission. VII. Motion to Adjourn Ms. Dickson moved to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Keenan. All present voted in favor. There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 6:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Ashe January 9, 2017