Historic District Preservation Commission (HDPC)

OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE February 13, 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: Joe Keenan, Chair; Leigh Rowe, Vice Chair; Scott Hirshorn Susan Dickson and Heather Wilson STAFF PRESENT: Eric Pohlman and Joe Juan Mr. Keenan called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m., and reviewed the procedures with the public. I. Approval of Minutes a. December 12, 2016 Ms. Dickson moved for approval of the December 12, 2016 and January 9, 2017 minutes, as submitted; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. b. January 9, 2017 [Approved above] II. Public Comment & General Correspondence (none) III. Board Discussion: Discussion on imagery for guidelines. (see PDF for examples) Mr. Keenan stated that he and former Chair, Brett Bennett have been very involved in the resubmittal of the guidelines and currently working through the process. He stated that there is currently a thirteen page imagery display which will be incorporated. He stated that it is attached via hyperlink to the minutes, as well as displayed on the Town of Mount Pleasant’s website. He stated that not every house in the Old Village Historic District should look the same. The intent is to aid the architect and the applicant to make their submittal less cumbersome. The guidelines are clear, lot cover ratio is clear. The images are hopefully there for a reason to make submittal easier. He stated that the Commission will also be adding actual photos from homes in the neighborhood. This has not yet been accomplished; however, it will be worked on this year. He asked Commission members their thoughts on what was submitted and if there are changes. Mr. Hirshorn stated that this is a good start to add the renderings and once there is follow up with actual photographs from within the Old Village, then it shifts the burden to the applicant, particularly in the case of new construction or new additions. What is in the range of acceptable and  Old Village Historic District Commission February 13, 2017 Page 2 of 16 unacceptable? This makes the job of the applicant much clearer and alleviates some of the ambiguity. The Commission will also be more comfortable not having to make that decision for the applicant. The more this is eliminated from the process the fairer it becomes and less time and resources it will take for approval. Ms. Dickson stated that this is not the final revision in any case. Mr. Keenan stated that it was not the intent. Ms. Dickson stated that she is in favor of what has been done; however, there is more to accomplish. Ms. Rowe stated that it is a good base and understand the biggest challenge of the Commission is subjectivity versus the objectivity. This would provide applicants and architects with a clearer picture, but is a great start. Mr. Keenan stated that most of the credit belongs to former Chair, Brett Bennett, as he has spent a great deal of time on this and is passionate about it. Ms. Wilson stated that she agrees this is very helpful, especially with the massing of building, which is something the Commission struggles with, as you have larger houses settling in among smaller ones. She stated on the next to the last page regarding setbacks, where the Commission is calling appropriate houses that align along a street and inappropriate where they do not. With exception of the 45% angle house in the middle, she stated that this streetscape is more appropriate for the village. She stated that what we are up against is that there are many homes that look the same and have the same relationship to the street. This is exactly what we do not want. Mr. Keenan stated that the Commission deals with setbacks all the time and what comes to mind is the house on Middle Street. What is appropriate on this plan is not as fitting to the Old Village, because of the diversity and where the houses sit, especially on the larger lots. Ms. Wilson stated that the Commission has so much control over setbacks that this is one of the areas where the Commission has an impact. Mr. Keenan stated that the mass and height examples can be very helpful for an applicant. He stated that the Commission will continue to fine tune the document and have more discussion at the March meeting. Mr. Pohlman asked if the Commission would like for him to put the mass and height items in the guidelines for review. He will leave out the site plan items and the Commission will select which ones to remove. Mr. Keenan stated that the Commission may submit the entire 13 pages and edit the setback portion. He would like to go ahead and submit and the roofing is something that may be adjusted. If there is an application that comes before the board and there is an issue with the setback where the house is on the lot, it will be discussed by the Commission. Mr. Hirshorn stated that what he would like to see is an example of an addition to a historical structure and the appropriate height and scale on the addition. What the Commission has seen a lot of in the past few years is  Old Village Historic District Commission February 13, 2017 Page 3 of 16 additions that are off scale and height to the original cottage. He stated that this is of particular importance. Mr. Pohlman asked if the Commission only wants images or the text that also surrounds this. Mr. Keenan stated that the text is good and the insert will be under Old Village Guidelines, under section 8. Mr. Hirshorn moved to insert the renderings into the guidelines for review and future approval; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. IV. BUSINESS STAFF REPORT 1. 124 Mary Street – (HISTORIC 6253) TMS 517-15-00-138 – Final Approval for Hardscape Alteration of Existing patio/driveway Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. JR Cramer, 5256 East Alton St, North Charleston, landscape architect for the applicant. He stated that there are two lots with the main house, guest house and pool on one lot, and a garage and driveway on the other lot. He stated that the main reason they were hired is to re-do the swimming pool and hardscape and correct some drainage issues. He stated that they were not proposing to go over any existing impervious coverage, but to add in more permeable coverage as needed. He stated that there are a great deal of trees on site so they would like to use care with the tree roots. The swimming pool will be built within the existing pool and they will add in to the existing hardscape on top, which will be travertine. The existing spa area will remain with the existing bluestone and all of the other hardscape surfaces will be the travertine. They will be incorporating permeable hardscape in where possible and also increase drainage features. He indicated on the plans a high area where the water comes down and goes underneath the house. He stated that the actual house has a basement, which is unusual. He stated that what they are trying to create is a terraced vegetable garden and the existing driveway, which is gravel, they will add in a French drain on the edge of the driveway so it collects down, and another feature, the dry creek bed is going to be another French drain element. There is another rain garden that is going to step back into the entertaining area. He stated that what they are asking for is approval for the improvements of the hardscape, but with that, they are trying to add in more permeable coverage. He stated that when they surveyed the property, they had given up property on the right hand side, so they are proposing to shift their fence onto the property line. They were proposing a 6 foot privacy fence; however, the existing picket fence was previously approved by the Commission and they would like for it to go back in. He stated that it would aesthetically tie in better with the house. Ms. Rowe asked if the concrete is already in front of the garage and if they are leaving that as it is. Mr. Cramer responded in the affirmative to both questions.  Old Village Historic District Commission February 13, 2017 Page 4 of 16 Ms. Rowe stated that this is a lot of concrete. Mr. Cramer stated that the existing driveway is gravel and they are proposing to enhance that. Ms. Dickson asked Mr. Cramer to explain a French drain. Mr. Cramer stated that it is an underground trench filled with gravel or rock, or a perforated pipe that redirects water away. He stated that all the water coming off the existing concrete is going to be going into a tiered rain guards system. Mr. Juan asked if Mr. Cramer has had discussions with Kevin Mitchell, Engineer with the Town, regarding the drainage designs. Mr. Cramer stated that it should not be necessary, as they cannot tie into anything, so everything they are doing is much improved. Ms. Dickson stated that it looks very nice. Where does the water go after it has been through the rain garden? Mr. Cramer stated that it infiltrates into the ground. Ms. Dickson asked if it will impact the neighbors. Mr. Cramer stated that what they are doing will be beneficial to all the neighbors. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the house is in a divot and most of the water comes straight in. He stated that he is concerned about the home behind the second lot, which is the garage. Mr. Cramer stated that the water goes from the existing concrete to the first tier rain guard, then to the 2nd tier rain guard on the lower level which ties into underneath the patio area. Mr. Keenan thanked the homeowners for their attention to the drainage, although the OVHDC does not have purview over drainage. He stated that he likes the design and what the architects have developed. Ms. Rowe made a motion to accept the plans for 124 Mary Street, as submitted; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. 2. 205 Queen Street – (HISTORIC 6099) TMS 532-05-00-026—Final Approval for Exterior Fireplace on rear porch Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Bob Fleming, Classic Remodeling, representing the homeowners, stated that there are wrap around porches and are proposing to install an exterior fireplace on the porch. He stated that they would be matching all the existing brick that is there as outlined in the guidelines. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he does not have an issue with the plan. Ms. Dickson stated that it appears large and out of scale. Mr. Fleming stated in order to get the minimum sizes on the firebox and follow the code, this is how big it must be built in order to achieve a 42” firebox. He stated that they are not doing a false fireplace, but doing  Old Village Historic District Commission February 13, 2017 Page 5 of 16 actual masonry. He stated that they tried to taper to get the upper component smaller. Ms. Rowe stated that her concern was seeing it when you come down Queen Street. Mr. Fleming stated that you would have to go to the end of Queen Street in order to see it. Ms. Wilson stated that it is too deep and an unusual relationship and could slip so that it aligns with the heated portion of the house, as opposed to it being partially outside so that you would see it less from Queen Street. Mr. Fleming stated that they did have it in further, but the client’s stated that the side porch is narrower than the front porch and wanted to get as much room as possible and asked that it be moved out. Ms. Wilson stated that it is awkward, because it is a very classic and historic house and it should have a more traditional relationship to the porch. She asked if they looked at doing more of a Rumsford box, because they are not pushing it on to the porch the depth is 40” off of the porch. Mr. Fleming stated that he was concerned with an outdoor fireplace of having more depth in the box so that they do not have an issue with the wind. Ms. Wilson asked about pushing it 12” or more onto the porch so that it is not protruding. Mr. Fleming stated that this was discussed with the clients, but they did not favor this suggestion, because they felt that it was protruding in the porch, from the inside usage area. Ms. Wilson stated that it appears attached in an awkward way and would like to see it pushed back and onto the porch. She suggested moving the stairs to provide more seating towards the back corner of the porch. Ms. Rowe stated that she agrees. Ms. Wilson stated that it needs to be less deep or pushed into the porch by 12”, because it looks attached from the outside, and it needs to be more of a traditional relationship where it is engaged in the porch. She stated that she also believes that it should be pushed past the front façade of the house and does not think it is appropriate on a historic house for it to slip past the front elevation. Mr. Keenan stated that he agrees and must be careful because this is a historic home and there is nothing in the guidelines that discusses brick fireplaces on an exterior porch. Mr. Fleming stated that part of the discussion was they were trying to even it out between the two areas. Mr. Juan asked about the depth of the porch, and if it was 10 feet from the 2nd floor exterior wall.  Old Village Historic District Commission February 13, 2017 Page 6 of 16 Mr. Fleming stated that they have adequate clearance. He stated that this was not the reason for pushing the box out, because even if they push the box in, they still have the clearance. Ms. Rowe stated that it needs to be moved back so it is not visible from Queen Street. She stated that this is a mar on a historic home. Mr. Keenan asked Mr. Fleming if it is possible to accomplish this. Mr. Fleming stated that he would discuss with his clients. Ms. Dickson stated that it needs to be pushed in towards the house and said that 42” may be too big. Mr. Fleming stated that 36”, 42” and 48” are the three most common sizes, but the depth will not change and is based on the guidelines. He stated that the desire of the client was to build a masonry fireplace that would have been appropriate for the age of the home. Ms. Balzac asked how deep historic porches are. Mr. Fleming stated on this house, it is 8 feet on the side and 9 feet on the front. Mr. Keenan stated that he would have to agree with Ms. Wilson and Ms. Rowe. His concern is the size and placement. He suggested shifting it so that it is out of view from Queen Street and would like to see less depth on the chimney. Mr. Hirshorn asked if it would be possible to shift it onto the porch more, keep the depth and size and bring it in. Mr. Fleming stated that he would look at the isocurve, because he knows what his client’s response will be, which will be not to push into the porch, because it is a narrow depth in that area. He suggested going back to see how much they can bring it down with an isocurve which may be enough to satisfy everyone’s concerns. Mr. Hirshorn made a motion to defer the application at 205 Queen Street for the exterior fireplace until the next meeting; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 3. 966 Pitt Street—(Survey 5976) TMS 532-13-00-036—Conceptual Approval for Demolition of existing house and New Construction Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. John Linton, homeowner, stated that he and his wife are the homeowners. This house was his wife’s great aunt and uncle’s originally and is on a slab. He stated that they had two to four inches of water during Hurricane Matthew and had to rip out all the walls. He stated that it is in the VE flood zone so they are not able to repair it, because the value of it is diminimous. He stated that they are in a situation where they have to demolish and rebuilt, which is one of the basis for the demolition request. He provided photographs of their house in 2015 during the 1,000 year rain, and stated that the home is no longer appropriate for the area, which is an old concrete block house with no historical significance and  Old Village Historic District Commission February 13, 2017 Page 7 of 16 not compatible with the surrounding homes. He provided plans for a two story home that is board and batten siding, and the size is modest compared to other homes in the area. He stated that they positioned the proposed home more towards the front of the street, similar to the other homes in the area and believe this will provide the view in accordance with the new guidelines for positioning of houses. He stated that this will actually be very similar. He stated that the driveway would be a pervious material. Mr. Hirshorn stated that for the demolition he would be inclined to grant it based on the criteria 1, 2 and 3. He stated that he is still contemplating the design of the new structure. Ms. Dickson stated that she is agreeable to grant demolition as well. Ms. Rowe is also agreeable with demolition. Mr. Keenan stated that he does not have an issue with the demolition based on the three criteria. He stated that he is not following the architectural design, but does like the size of the home. He does not have issue with the board and batten. Ms. Wilson stated that there is a disconnect with the massing pieces. There is a really strong tall gable form and because the other pieces are low, it is reading almost as a tower. She stated that it could be worked to be a little more harmonious. She stated that there is a small entry porch and in the Old Village entry porches are a real front presence and really important. She stated that we really have to fight for those porches and they sometime get undervalued, but especially on Pitt Street, it will be appreciated. She would like for the homeowner to look at the front porch size and its relationship to the building. She stated that it is coming in on the side and sees the access to where the vehicles are going to be, but this house needs to relate to the street a little more. The side gable, the pitches, and the massing is again a disconnect with the strong, very vertical gable facing Pitt Street. The second floor pergola seems unusual for the area. She stated that catching the distant water view and understands that, but struggling with it formally as opposed to having more of a roof or something with a pitch. Visually, from the street, it amounts to a flat roof porch, which is awkward and maybe it is shifted back a little more off the street if it is really important to the homeowner. In general, there is a lot of different massing pieces that are not working together and the house needs more of a front from Pitt Street. Ms. Rowe stated that it comes across looking more like a beach house. She stated that the second floor long rectangular window and the pergola does not seem harmonious. Ms. Dickson stated that she loves porches and is all for it, especially if you have a water view; however, this porch looks stuck on. She does not know how to modify it. She thanked the homeowner for not building another mansion and she loves the idea of a beach house; however, something is not organic about it.  Old Village Historic District Commission February 13, 2017 Page 8 of 16 Mr. Hirshorn stated that as a conceptual discussion, he does not mind the asymmetry, but believes it may be too asymmetrical with the very vertical and narrow gable and then the very wide low gable is possibly too much. One thing to consider on the porch, he has seen on similar type structures, where you can have a simple double piazza running along one side and capture some of the views that way, as opposed to the two story box type porch shown, which is awkward. Mr. Linton asked if he is suggesting to have it run the length of the house. Mr. Hirshorn responded in the affirmative. He stated that a very classic double piazza could work better if capturing the views from the second floor is the intent. That could be one idea. He stated that he does not mind the asymmetry if some of the angles were softened. Ms. Wilson stated that she definitely was not going for symmetry and agrees that she does like the asymmetry and quirkiness of it, but needs some balance where those two relate to each other better. Mr. Linton stated that their goal was to design the most efficient house possible and part of that is being a young growing family with budget constraints. He felt that each comment made added several thousand to the budget. Ms. Wilson disagreed and stated that it was really a massing discussion. She stated that Mr. Hirshorn was not increasing the size of the porch, but adjusting the proportions of it so that it felt more anchored to the house and less than something extended from the house. It was not an add, just a scale. She stated that the Commission is here to comment on scale and massing. She stated that it does not have to run the full length nor does it have to be traditional, but needs to engage the form a little better. Mr. Hirshorn stated that there are a number of examples of those two story piazzas on simpler structures both downtown Charleston and in the Old Village and is more tied into the house. He does not believe any additional money will be spent, just a different design. Mr. Linton asked if the Commission is suggesting putting a roof on it as well or is the pergola acceptable. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the pergola would be more of an extension of a porch under one of the gables as a traditional piazza would be. You would lose the openness. Mr. Linton asked about extending the gable roof. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he would. Ms. Wilson asked if he means having more of a shed roof; a porch roof that ties in. She stated that she does not want to rule out the pergola, if that is a goal for the homeowner. It is about the form engaging with the house, whether it is slats or a roof is more personal than the massing that is seen from the street. She stated that waterproofing the porch is going to be difficult if the pergola is the homeowner’s decision.  Old Village Historic District Commission February 13, 2017 Page 9 of 16 Mr. Keenan stated that he would be more in opposition with the pergola. Since he has served on the Commission, very few pergolas have been approved. He stated that he is not in favor of the pergolas. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the comment on waterproofing is significant. He stated that having a fixed roof would help tremendously, as without them they rot quickly. Ms. Wilson moved to approve as submitted, the request for demolition at 966 Pitt Street; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. 4. 241 Middle Street—(HISTORIC 6025) TMS 532-09-00-019—Final Approval for Enclosing Third Story Rear Porch Ms. Wilson stated that she would remove herself from discussions and voting due to conflict of interest. (Ms. Wilson stepped out at 5:54 p.m.) Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Amber Thomas, 734 Pitt Street, stated that she is the architect working for Heather Wilson, representing the homeowner. Mr. Hirshorn asked if there is an ordinance on enclosing existing porches on historic structures or guidelines. Mr. Pohlman stated that there is not an ordinance; however, there are guidelines. Mr. Hirshorn asked if it is prohibited. Mr. Pohlman stated that it is on a historic home. Ms. Thomas stated that the footprint will not be modified in any way. She showed a panorama of Middle Street showing that you would not see the third floor enclosure, which falls beneath the ridge. She stated that there was a deck where they had a great deal of water, so they would like to mitigate by enclosing it and capitalizing on the square footage. Mr. Pohlman cited Porches and Stoops on historic buildings, and stated that porches, stoops and steps that are original and contribute to the building’s architectural character should not be altered or moved or enclosed on a primary façade or side elevations. Ms. Balzac stated that the deck on the third floor is not original to the home. She did the work on the house approximately fourteen years ago and there was a whole porch put on the back and the deck was always problematic and was put there by the previous owner. She stated that part of the back of the historic home was also renovated. Mr. Hirshorn asked when the third floor deck was added. Ms. Balzac stated that it was done in the 1970’s and is not original. Ms. Dickson stated that it could be removed and not have anything and be closer to the historic original plan. Ms. Thomas stated that what the homeowners really wanted was to enclose that space to utilize the square footage. There is a harbor view that they could capitalize on.  Old Village Historic District Commission February 13, 2017 Page 10 of 16 Mr. Keenan asked for the dimension of the existing deck. Ms. Thomas said that it is nine feet by thirteen feet. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he is fairly convinced that it is not an original porch and for reasons of preservation of these historic houses, it would be advantageous in the application to have more of a timeline. He stated that this is an issue when the Commission addresses historic homes. He asked to be clear, if a rear porch can be altered, even if historic. Mr. Pohlman stated that it would be up to the Commission. He said the guidelines stated “primary façade or side elevations”. Mr. Hirshorn stated that a rear façade is a primary façade. Ms. Balzac stated there is a house in front of it on the harbor, so it is not visible. A primary façade is when you are on the water. She said the deck is not visible. Mr. Hirshorn stated for reasons of precedence, it is important in dealing with a historic home such as this that it is all documented. He stated that he is swayed that it is not an original porch and is not a primary façade; however, it is obviously a delicate issue. The other question is, with the new structure that is being added, will it be something that you would approve on a historic home. He stated that he likes it better than the porch. Ms. Balzac stated that it is a deck, not a porch. Ms. Rowe stated that it is an improvement. Mr. Keenan stated that enclosing the deck that is not historic, overall, looks better and likes the windows. Ms. Rowe made a motion to approve the plans submitted for 241 Middle Street for the replacement of the deck; seconded by Mr. Hirshorn. All present voted in favor, with Ms. Wilson recusing from voting. 5. 217 Queen Street—TMS 532-05-00-028—Final Approval for Hardscape Alterations, Retaining wall, rear and side step alterations. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Amber Thomas, 734 Pitt Street, stated that she is the architect working for Heather Wilson, representing the homeowner. She stated that they are presenting the landscape plan. She stated that the plan has become more sophisticated since the site plan which was submitted and approved. The way that the driveway was laid out, the stairs were coming straight off. She stated that there is a new parking spot and the stairs have been slightly modified and the rear stairs are slightly different. The retaining wall is added and is a two and a half foot high masonry going across the front. Ms. Dickson made a motion that plans for 217 Queen Street be accepted as presented seconded by Mr. Hirshorn. All present voted in favor. 6. 116 Beach Street—TMS 517-15-00-140—Final Approval for Hardscape Alterations, retaining walls, parking alteration.  Old Village Historic District Commission February 13, 2017 Page 11 of 16 Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Phil Clarke, Clarke Design Group, representing the homeowner. He stated that they were before the Commission in December and received final approval on these homes which are down on the harbor. He showed the proposed site plan, which has to do with the tree protection and grading. He stated that the lot is sitting at six feet now and in October during Hurricane Matthew, water did come across. He stated that previously they discussed bringing the lot up to nine feet; however, as they worked through the process with Mr. Bernard and Mr. Juan of the Town of Mount Pleasant, they needed to add some low retaining walls. Since they are coming back for approval of the retaining wall, they also have some window and door modifications which can be seen on the proposed plans. Everything that has to do with the parking and front porch are all to control grading and protecting the trees. He reviewed the drainage and grading with Commission members, as well as the retaining walls, which will be 8x8 posts and 3x8 wood slats and a cap, no more than two and a half feet tall. They did the wood retaining walls, in keeping with the seawall and the dock that is going in. The seawall has been approved. From a floorplan standpoint, on the ground floor they previously had the garage door and a set of steps coming straight out. As they worked through the driveway and because of the grade retaining they needed to do, the turn into the garage door was too tight. They have now extended the stairs onto the porch to enter onto this brick ground floor loggia. This is a southern regional use. He stated on the main floor, some revisions to the front porch which is deeper. The doors along the back were previously shown as folding doors, and they have gone back to a traditional French door. In September’s request, the window in the butler’s pantry was on the side and now is moved around to the street side and have added a small window in the back. On the upper floor, there is a matching window in the bathroom that currently was not there in the proposal in September. In September, there were only a few windows in the bathroom along the waterfront, and they have now opened it up so there is now five windows there instead of the previous two. One advantage in changing the front stairs, is that the front porch got deeper and took up a little bit of the space that was there under the dormer windows and the porch roof. He showed the retaining wall and stated that they will have significant plants inside and outside of the retaining. Mr. Hirshorn asked if the loggia was enclosed. Mr. Clarke stated that it is covered, but not fully enclosed. Mr. Keenan asked if the retaining wall was a result of the storm. Mr. Clarke stated that it certainly highlighted it. Ms. Dickson asked if changing the stairs added square footage. Mr. Clarke said that it made the porch two feet deeper in the front, so very minimal. Mr. Clarke stated that they are way under allowable.  Old Village Historic District Commission February 13, 2017 Page 12 of 16 Mr. Keenan stated that he understands the retaining wall, which is necessary. All the revisions are an enhancement. Ms. Wilson agreed and said she liked the added windows and the deeper porch, as well as the stairs. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it appears there is a network of retaining walls in between the two houses. Mr. Clarke said that there is a large grouping of trees between the two lots. There is a retaining wall on the other lot, which is part of it. They each have their own, so they are able to do their own maintenance. Ms. Wilson asked if Mr. Clarke was creating a large swale. Mr. Clarke stated that it is a swale and because of the critical line setback, he needed to open it up. Zach Bearden, Landscape Designer stated that for these two lots in particular, some existing drains are 4 ½, but they are starting so low. Particularly any design, they try to get above the curve; however, in this case, you really have to bring in a significant amount of fill to make it work. He stated that the retaining walls make it more of a hardline swale and given the natural way for the water to get out. They did not want to pond on the street side. It was very challenging, but works for this particular area. Ms. Rowe made a motion to approve the plans submitted for 116 Beach Street; seconded by Ms. Wilson. All present voted in favor. 7. 443 Church Street—(HISTORIC 6207) TMS 517-15-00-104—Final Approval for Hardscape Installation, In-Ground Pool, Accessory Structure Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Madison Snell, on behalf of Accent Pools, representing the applicant, stated that the pool itself is 15’x30’, except on one side it is 17’. She stated that the outdoor kitchen is 9.8 feet on one side and under 12 feet on the other side. She stated that the roof will slope down and all the materials will match the existing home. She stated that all the travertine will be a khaki color. The kitchen structure is not seen, as the elevation is shorter than the pool house and the existing home, so it will not be visible from the front of the home and there are also trees on both side on the back end. Mr. Keenan asked if Ms. Snell was referring to the outdoor kitchen structure. Ms. Snell responded in the affirmative. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it is difficult from the drawings submitted, to grasp the materials and design of the outdoor kitchen structure. Ms. Wilson stated that she does not have an issue with the pool; however, this is a historic home and if the applicant is going to do a cabana structure of any sort, it needs to relate to the architecture of and have a little more classic details. She stated that it needs to share more in  Old Village Historic District Commission February 13, 2017 Page 13 of 16 terms of roof, roof pitch, and column details. She stated that it needs to be more thoughtful if it is going to be modern. She stated that it feels slapped on in terms of the roof. She stated that she believes it will be seen from the street. She is fine with the pool and hardscape, and wonders if the applicant even needs the setback, because going all the way to less than three feet, the Commission would generally like to see more than for the maintenance of the structure on all sides. She asked if the client really feels that they need this relief. Ms. Snell stated that her client really likes the decking in between the pool and the outdoor kitchen; however, she could certainly discuss this with them. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it is included in the guidelines that accessory structures to historical homes, roofs need to mimic. Ms. Snell stated that they did the same type of roofing material, but understands about the structure looking more historic. Ms. Rowe stated that she has an issue seeing this from Church Street. She stated that having an outdoor kitchen that you are able to see, it does not fit with the historic cottage. She stated that the roof’s modern feel does not work, but is not sure she would like to see an outdoor kitchen at all in the historic district. Ms. Wilson stated that if they had a wall and it was not so open and was on the side of the small carriage house or small cottage. Mr. Keenan echoed his concern about having the outdoor kitchen so close to the street and suggested putting it in a different place altogether. Ms. Snell stated that on the other side there is already a building. Ms. Dickson asked what that shed was being utilized for. Ms. Snell stated that it is not being utilized for any pool equipment. She stated that the initial design was to offset the other building, but she will certainly talk to the client about lowering the deck space or put a type of wall, as suggested. Mr. Keenan stated that matching the new structure to the historic house architecturally, should be considered. He stated that he would be opposed to the variance and the setback and believes it should be further away from the street. He stated that he is fine with the pool. Ms. Wilson stated that for the outdoor kitchen, the client could leave the decking associated with the pool and engage the “pickling house” or some edge of that structure for an outdoor kitchen and tuck it in back there so it is more in the backyard and less visible from the side and then the client would not have to give up any decking. Ms. Snell stated that she would discuss the Commissions concerns and suggestions with the homeowners. Mr. Keenan stated that this would also be his preference.  Old Village Historic District Commission February 13, 2017 Page 14 of 16 Mr. Hirshorn made a motion to approve the plan for the pool and hardscape at 443 Church Street and defer the decision on the outdoor kitchen for the March meeting; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. Mr. Keenan stated that the Commission would like to see more detail in the actual outdoor structure and are consistent on having the outdoor kitchen structure completely relocated. 8. 112 Beach Street—TMS 517-15-00-104—Final Approval for Hardscape Alterations, retaining walls Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Phil Clarke, Clarke Designs, stated that there are no changes to the house. There is the addition of retaining walls and a change to the driveway. Previously they had a secondary driveway which wrapped around; however, working through the grading, drainage and tree protection, it was altered. It is a plantation mix secondary driveway. The location of the retaining walls on one side ties in with the neighbors, and around the one story mass. The material is a marine grade lumber, all below grade. Mr. Keenan stated that typically, the Commission prefers stone retaining wall, but because of the location, he is agreeable with the marine grade lumber. Ms. Wilson made a motion to approve, as submitted, the plans for 112 Beach Street; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 9. 809 Pitt Street—(Survey 5901) 532-09-00-048—Final Approval for Alteration of Front Porch, Window Alterations, Raising Height, Alterations to Rear Stairs, Exterior Fireplace Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Linda Balzac, architect representing the homeowners, stated that these are the last changes to the outside of the house. From the front elevation, they raised the home one foot, because the brick was not tall enough on the front of the house. They also raised the window headlights, because they have eleven foot ceilings on the first floor, so the changes make the window portion better overall with massing. They also moved the front doorsteps forward, because the house is further back, so they wanted to have the front door more towards the street. On the left side elevation, you can see the front door and stairs move forward and there are two new windows. They previously had some retaining walls with gardens in the back and decided to go with longer deep steps. When you get around to the rear, the chimney stuck out into the side and they pushed it over onto the porch itself. The biggest change happens on the right side. Where the homeowner’s utilitarian area where the side door is, is right across from their tank. The house is very close to the side setback and the HVAC units are what is visible from their side, so it is way back on the property and not visible from the street, because of the tall house next door, which is very close to the property line. She stated that they also  Old Village Historic District Commission February 13, 2017 Page 15 of 16 have a letter from the neighbors at 801 Pitt Street expressing their support for the changes. She stated that she combined the dormers to simplify it. It is far back and not visible from the street. She stated with the house being so close and this being a bathroom, they changed the window in the front to a shorter window. Mac Jenkinson, homeowner, stated that it was important to give it height, especially next to a three story house. The windows are now higher, giving a nice vertical look. Mr. Jenkinson reviewed the changes with Commission members. Ms. Balzac stated that she forgot to mention about the three windows that were not spaced equally, so they eliminated one. She said there is a fireplace on the other side, but it is ventless. Mr. Jenkinson stated that they are putting wood siding on the house to give it a good reveal, using ¾ inch. Ms. Rowe made a motion to accept the plans as submitted for 809 Pitt Street; seconded by Ms. Wilson. All present voted in favor. 10. 211 Haddrell Street—(Survey 6262) 517-15-00-048—Final Approval for Variance for Rear Setback, Alterations to Rear Deck, Alterations to Windows Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Linda Balzac, architect for the new owner and was architect for former owner. She stated that on the front elevation, the last owner was told to push that window up and only went a few inches. The new owner now wants to go up to the height of the other windows. The previous owner wanted two, but the new owner only wants one window there. That is the difference on the front. They are taking the posts out on the driveway and on the right side elevation, taking the two windows, because it has been made into a master bedroom, so they shifted them to the left. They removed the addition off the back and they just want a deck. She stated that it is soggy in the back and the neighbor behind them is asking for an encroachment into the setback. There is a two foot retaining wall, so the dirt is right off to the other side, so there is approximately 3 ½ feed to neighbor’s property that is clearly in their yard. The neighbors built up their lot, so it gets soggy back there, so they wanted a deck instead of walking in muck. The encroachment that they received originally with the addition was a couple of feet and they would like to encroach with the deck eight feet, which includes the stairs into the rear setback. When they do this and the way they do decks, there will be spot footings for it rather than a continuous footing. She advised the homeowners that they could not add on to it without taking all of this apart. She stated that there was a double sliding door that has been changed to a more traditional single door. Ms. Dickson asked if the deck is going to be 8 feet deep.  Old Village Historic District Commission February 13, 2017 Page 16 of 16 Ms. Balzac stated that the deck is 10 feet deep and they wanted it to go over most of the back of the house. It is 10 x 30 and they wanted to put out plants and be able to sit on the stairs. Ms. Wilson stated that decks are allowed to encroach. Mr. Juan stated that open decks may encroach into a setback 40%. Ms. Balzac stated that both satellite dishes will be taken down. Ms. Wilson stated that she loves when people keep the little houses. Ms. Wilson moved to approve the plans at 211 Haddrell Street as submitted; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. V. Staff Approvals 1. 1 Pierates Cruze—Re-roofing – red to silver VI. Motion to Adjourn Ms. Dickson asked if there is something the Commission is able to do on Hibben Street on the house at the corner of Hibben and Whilden. She stated that the Commission approved a pergola and they have covered their entire back yard with it, and they have heaters, fans, lights and it looks terrible. She asked if the sign advertising the design of the pergola could be removed as well. Ms. Rowe stated that the fans need to come down, as they were not on the original request. Mr. Keenan asked staff to review what was approved by the Commission. Ms. Rowe asked if the Commission has any jurisdiction over heaters and fans. Mr. Pohlman stated that the only fans the Commission has jurisdiction over are those on front porches which were recently put into the guidelines. Ms. Rowe stated that the pergola was approved without the fans. Mr. Keenan stated that the size appears much bigger than what was approved by the Commission. Ms. Dickson asked staff to go back and look at what was approved, because she feels that it is much bigger than was approved. Ms. Rowe stated that it is a real eyesore. Ms. Dickson made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Ms. Wilson. All present voted in favor. There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Ashe February 13, 2017