Historic District Preservation Commission (HDPC)

OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE March 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; and Heather Wilson ABSENT: Scott Hirshorn and Susan Dickson STAFF PRESENT: Eric Pohlman and Joe Juan Mr. Keenan called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m., and reviewed the meeting procedures with the public. I. Approval of Minutes February 13, 2017 Ms. Wilson moved for approval of the February 13, 2017 minutes; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. II. Public Comment & General Correspondence [None] III. Board Discussion: Discussion on imagery for guidelines. Revised Guidelines with Images Mr. Keenan provided an update from the board members and general public at the Planning and Development Committee meeting last week. He stated that the update was provided by the past Chair, Brett Bennett. Voting in favor of the OVHDC recommendations on parking requirements and accessory structure height limitations was unanimous. The recommendation to adopt the Secretary of the Interior guidelines for designated historic structures was approved by 3-1 with Mr. Elton Carrier being opposed. He stated that he prefer the present model including its fixed 1936 date not be changed. The Commission’s recommendation that a Preservation or Planning Consultant be engaged to support the enhancement and reformatting of the OVHDC’s design guidelines was deferred pending staff research on fee estimates. Lastly, the Committee voted to recommend to Town Council that an ordinance specifying qualifications for candidates for the OVHDC be amended so that one seat be open to non-residents who possess expertise or experience in architecture, preservation and/or related categories. This vote was passed 3-0. Mr. Joe Bustos was excused at the time.  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 2 of 20 This would be a big change as well from years past, as since inception, all five commission members had to have lived in the Old Village Historic District. Mr. Pohlman stated that there are the illustrations. Mr. Keenan stated that these illustrations will be submitted under the Old Village Historic District Commission guidelines Section 5, under Resources. He stated that those requiring updated guidelines, the images shown were pulled from other boards throughout the state and country and provides a general sense of mass, scale and height and what the OVHDC looks for throughout the village as a guideline to help with applications. Mr. Pohlman stated that he will be posting these as a link to the agenda so they may be reviewed for thirty days. The Commission will then discuss and vote on this at the next meeting. Mr. Keenan stated that the Commission members discussed 217 Queen Street, which is item #2 on the agenda. He asked if there was anyone here to speak on behalf of this item. Ms. Rowe made a motion to consent to 217 Queen Street as presented; seconded by Mr. Keenan. All present voted in favor. Ms. Wilson recused herself. Motion carries. IV. BUSINESS STAFF REPORT 1. 966 Pitt Street -- (Survey 5976) TMS 532-13-00-036 – Final Approval for New Construction Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. John and Julia Linton, homeowners and Jody Crosby, designer, were present. He stated that they were here last month for conceptual comment and took all the board’s comments and met with Mr. Pohlman and attempted to address each one. He stated that they believe the finished product is better than the original. He stated that the height, mass, materials are consistent with the neighborhood and a compliment to the street. He reviewed comments from the previous meeting by Commission members. He stated they changed the slope of the left side to make it steeper and reduce the contrast between the gable roof on the right side. Had they made it steeper, there would have been a wall of shingles, so they added a break in the roof and three windows across and there are also windows on the side elevation that match. Those are the changes they made to address the roof differences. He stated that another item is that the porch now has a roof which is consistent with the rest of the home. He provided the Commission members with some examples of homes in and just outside of the Old Village indicating their inspiration for their home. He stated that another comment made was that the house was not engaged with the street, so they have expanded the front porch. The right side where the dining room is located came out and the porch was recessed, but now they have brought it out to the street further to provide room for additional seating and redesigned the entryway and the foyer to accommodate the door facing the street for an  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 3 of 20 inviting feel. They also added a separate pervious walkway from the street to the front stairs of the house, instead of the previous walkway, which was part of the driveway. He said that the windows in the upper portion of the house also provides more of a view from the street. He stated that another comment made was that the porch must have a full roof over the second story; the pergola was not acceptable. He stated that they removed the pergola from the plans and added a full roof. He stated that they attempted to select a roof that would complement the gable roof and the other roof and did not want to do a single roofline that looks like a Charleston single house. They believe the roof selected is consistent and harmonious with the rest of the home. He stated that adding the roof itself addresses the comment that the porch was floating or not as engaged with the rest of the home. He stated that one suggestion was to make the porch longer, which is what they have done. They decreased the depth from 16 feet to 12 feet, because this is a functional porch for them. They increased the length from 14 feet to 19 feet, because of the roofline and the windows. He stated that they will have a narrow view of the water. He stated that another comment made by the Commission was that the windows on the side where there were potential views did not have a grid. He stated that the comment was to be consistent and have grid on all windows which they have done. He stated that staff comment was to highlight or more clearly identify the house on the physical site plan which was also accomplished. He said that a change they personally made was to the garage doors which are louvered, similar to the rest of the house, so it does not look like a garage. They also open outwards. Ms. Wilson stated that the agenda indicates final approval; however, the plans only show conceptual. Mr. Linton stated that the plans were marked incorrectly. It is for final approval. Ms. Pohlman stated that the application was filed as final. Ms. Rowe stated that she applauds all the changes. Mr. Keenan asked if the louvered system on the bottom is a wooden horizontal. Mr. Linton stated that they are two inch louvers with a one inch gap, because there is a 40% air flow requirement. Mr. Keenan asked about the railing system on the right side porches. Mr. Linton stated that it is a grid wire system / wire mesh. Ms. Rowe asked why he is not doing the same grid system on the front porch. Mr. Linton stated that the purpose of this was to make it where there is less obstruction. He stated that it is set back off of the street so you will not see them very well. He stated that the wire grid system was too informal for the front porch. He stated that the wire mesh will disappear into the view. Mr. Keenan stated that he assumes the wire mesh is code, but it does fit the house. He would prefer that the homeowner choose one style of railing for the whole house. He stated that the windows on the front left on the top gable are too small and leaves a lot of solid space on the gable.  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 4 of 20 Ms. Rowe agrees that the railing on the porches need to be consistent. She stated that there seems to be a disconnect. Ms. Wilson stated that she appreciates that a lot of work has been accomplished. She stated that the front and the front right have started to come together. She stated that she likes how they broke up the really wide gable with the porch roof and broke the roof line. Would be great if this could be done on the backside as well and re-center that gable so that you have that relationship of symmetrical gables throughout. There are a few funny conditions. You have aligned your porches with the heated massing of the house and what that does is push your porch roof a foot past the house, so there are dangling rafter conditions. You will be looking at the backside of your roof trim when you are on the porch. If you broke that massing as well and also pushed it in from the primary gable of the house, it would receive that roof and clean up that detail. She said that there is not enough detail in the package to vote on final approval. She said there is no wall section, no elevation details, and they need a large detail of how they are going to case the windows, what the siding is like. On the proposed board and batten, this is especially critical to detail on how this is done. She said they would really like to see the scale of the batten relative to the width of the boards. How are your overhangs? Are you doing open rafter or closing the rafters? She stated that the Commission needs to see all that detail before they are able to evaluate. So far the homeowners and designer have made an excellent effort on the front and right and they could perhaps wrap it around to bring the left side up and knit it together the same way; this would be really helpful. As far as the hard wire for a handrail detail, it is not an approved detail for the Old Village. If the homeowner is worried about transparency, one thing you see people do is a one by four board and then a single cable rail and then another one by four board so you get a bigger spacing in there, but still using approved details. It does not say what the front railing is, but it looks really thin. It shows two by four horizontal flat railing. She stated that there needs to be more information on how you are detailing those railings, the roof, and other areas. She stated that the porch roof is extending past the house. She stated that the whole roof system is slipping into the screened porch. If you are on your screened porch, you are going to see the backside of a foot of roof that is dangling and it will need to be rafted or supported. If the overhang is sixteen inches then you will need to have brackets. Are we going to see the rafters or not, is there a drip edge, corner boards, window casings. The Commission needs to know what that material is and how it is going to work. She stated that it really improved the home a lot when you did the porch as a separate roof line. If you made the gable on the left symmetrical and broke up that roofline on the back, so you could lift that pitch a little on that side and address balancing the two sides of the elevation. Ms. Rowe stated that she agrees that there are not enough specifics.  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 5 of 20 Ms. Wilson stated that she realizes this is frustrating for the homeowner; however, a lot of good progress has been made. Ms. Crosby provided illustrations on the proposed railing system. She said that million dollar homes have this detail. Ms. Wilson asked if she could include this in the final next month, because this is the detail they need to see as it is difficult to understand without detail. Mr. Linton stated that he believes the house on the corner of Pitt Street and Schweers Lane has the same railing on some of their porches. Ms. Wilson stated that a lot of times it is coded; therefore, if this is being proposed, then the more information that is provided the better. Ms. Crosby stated that she was the designer on this home. The questions she has are the kill details for the eaves. She believes that bringing those in is going to be a detriment, especially on a front to symmetry of the house. On the rear, it is going to cause an undue offset in the foundation and in the walls, bedroom walls, etc. Is there another direction the Commission would suggest? Can they hip the front porch roof and do something different there. She would not want to do it on the back, because it would not look right. Ms. Wilson stated that a hip is better for that condition. Ms. Crosby stated that this would help, because they could go past it and bring an eyebrow return in there and execute it a little better. She stated that this is not a very wide house so if they offset the porch in sixteen inches, they will lose wall space. Ms. Wilson stated that you could do this with ten inches on the front with the shed. Ms. Crosby stated that they are really tight on the spacing and bringing that in is going to cause issues with lining up the two story windows and everything below it. Ms. Wilson stated that Ms. Crosby has a good group of houses she has been looking at. She would caution her not to use non-historic homes or houses that were done at the time when things were not being reviewed. She said that a lot of the houses in the Old Village have details that can be referenced, as long as the Commission has more information. Mr. Linton stated that the houses do not have signs on them to distinguish whether they were built when there was little or no review. Ms. Wilson stated that the homes to look at for ideas do not have to be in the Old Village, as there are beautiful historic homes on Sullivan’s Island and just outside the Historic District. Mr. Linton thought he had to look within the district. Ms. Wilson replied, not for detailing or materials. For example, the hardwire railing. If this is not seen very often on historic homes and the homeowner would like to illustrate how it is going to be detailed, if there were pictures of this type of railing on a historic home on Sullivan’s Island that was a great porch  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 6 of 20 with that detail, it would be helpful to the Commission. More information, details, drawings, notes, dimensions. Ms. Wilson moved to defer the final application for 966 Pitt Street until additional information is provided; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 2. 217 Queen Street – TMS 532-05-00-028 – Final Approval for Material Alteration to Stair [Consent motion made earlier in agenda] 3. 126 Hibben Street – (Survey 6221) TMS 517-15-00-070 – Final Approval for Alterations to Exterior Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Ross Ritchie, Beau Clowney Architects, representing the new homeowners, stated that the main focus of the alterations is reorganizing the interior spaces, the upstairs and downstairs, kitchen area, which led to changes to the windows and doors, and it would also be in keeping with the style with the existing house and Hibben Street in general. In addition, the exterior doors on the first floor; they are removing one more door. Also, taking advantage of the outdoor living space with a nice terrace in the back to the kitchen and the screened porch. They would like to extend the screened porch over to the edge of the volume and create a small outdoor cooking area, and install a fireplace and chimney. There will be an awning over the door. On the first floor, they are moving out a wall three feet and adding a bay window to the kitchen. There is a notch in the existing screened porch and they will be squaring it all out and creating volumes inside as well. The second floor is basically reorganizing the plan and making it work for the homeowners. They moved some windows around and increased the size of some of the windows as well, keeping in with the ratio. He said they are also moving a window out further and will be doing a fixed shutter over the top of the window. On the back façade, they will install French doors, move over a window and add shutters. Where the screened porch is low to the ground, there still needs to be some type of railing to hold the screening and will put in a small x-rail. He stated that on one side, they are arranging the kitchen windows and in the banquette area, they will be using some of the existing windows and adding an awning. He stated that they will be matching all the details and painting the house. Linda Balzac, stated that she is very familiar with this house, as she was the original architect, and they are making excellent improvements. Mr. Keenan stated that he likes the changes and nothing impacts the street as you cannot see the back. Ms. Rowe stated that she is also very familiar with this house and it looks great. Ms. Wilson moved to approve the proposed changes at 126 Hibben Street; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor.  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 7 of 20 4. 102 Mary Street – TMS 517-50-00-070 – Final Approval for Alterations to Hardscape Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Cindy Cline, homeowner stated that what they are submitting for is final review and the site plan is largely the same; however, they realized that in order to protect the trees and manage the grade, a retaining wall had to be installed. At its highest point, it is four feet tall and slopes down the steps and maintains a four foot height. The second retaining wall is flush with grade and it is primarily acting as a tree well and to protect any fill from impacting the roots of the tree. They also originally had in their plan, where they were going to remove an existing wall, but are now going to keep and repair. The retaining walls will be block and stucco to match the house. Ms. Rowe made a motion to approve final approval for alterations to hardscape at 102 Mary Street; seconded by Mr. Keenan. All present voted in favor. 5. 413 Pitt Street – (Survey 5916) TMS 532-05-00-014 – Final Approval for Enclosing Existing Carport – Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Linda Balzac, architect representing the homeowner, stated that the carport was originally designed by Beau Clowney in 2010 and it was to cover the car. He stated that the current homeowners would like to have a space to enclose for bicycles, kayaks, etc. They would be infilling the structure as it is, but recessing slightly back from the columns there and matching the materials to the house. She faced the window towards the street and have the double doors opening to the side. As you are going down Pitt Street, you will see the double doors, but they will be nice carriage doors. Mr. Keenan stated that he likes it open and enclosing it in front of the house, he is not in favor of. He understands what they are attempting to do, but would rather see a garage structure towards the back of the house. Ms. Balzac stated that there is no room for anything else on the property and the back is actually the front on New Street. She stated that there are two frontages on the front and back yard and it is maxed out. Mr. Keenan stated that he does not understand why it was approved initially. Ms. Wilson moved to approve the enclosure of the carport pad at 413 Pitt Street; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 6. 104 Friend Street – (Survey 4227) TMS 532-05-00-067 – Final Approval for Demolition and Conceptual Comment for New Construction Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Phil Clarke, Clarke Design Group, stated that they are under the 5500 square feet with a lot of porch space, front and back. There is a pool deck  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 8 of 20 structure, covered pool, but all open space as well. He stated that this is not a historic home and the only building that is historic close by is the church. There is an existing non historic one story structure. Keeping this one story was important as the surrounding homes were also one story. It is a very large lot that backs up to the church parking lot. He stated that the existing house leaked for so many years that there is mold growing. There is a newer roof to attempt to stop the leaking; however, it is still saturated and stays wet. He stated that a few years ago, there was a drainage issue. He stated that there is a pipe that goes under the church parking lot and goes out to the street on the other side of the church parking lot. He stated that the proposed site is a little overwhelming at first. He stated that the lot does drop down and they will be removing the driveway out from under the 39 inch live oak. It starts going downhill so that you are able to get in under the house. They will be raising the slab approximately one and a half feet so that it does not stay wet. They will have a raised pool deck a few steps down from the porch and will work all the drainage towards the drain pipe. He stated that the house is a one and a half story home. It is brick, but will be a white textured brick. The roof will be slate. He would like to have copper flashing and copper roof on the dormer and turning it down the sides. He reviewed with the Commissioners the site plan for the home, pool and driveway. He stated that they are using high quality natural materials. Ashley Woody, 110 Friend Street, which is next door to the proposed home. She stated that she has lived in her home for a very long time. She provided a survey to the Commission members that was done after the Adams’ built their house and jammed up the drainage on the block. Her question to the architect is: how much soil is going to be put in and what is going to happen. She said that the new pipe that was put in under the church parking lot does not work and has made it worse. When tropical storm Matthew came through, it was the first storm since the pipe was put in. She stated that she has never had water coming up underneath their home. She stated that the dirt under their crawl space had water perking up. She does not believe the pipe worked and is concerned. How will the new homeowners handle the drainage? She stated that on the drawing, the big live oak is not showing, which is in the middle of their backyard. Mr. Clarke stated that he will address this. Ms. Woody stated that she does not want to be left with a mushy backyard. She stated that Mr. Ilderton should never have been allowed to dump all that dirt. She stated that the new homeowners are also cutting it close with the 39.8% of impervious surfaces. Mr. Keenan stated that unfortunately, this Commission has no purview over drainage plans. Ann Muir, 100 Friend Street, stated that after Matthew, it was a flood zone and even when it rains heavily, it floods and is very wet. She stated that the idea of moving the drainage under the church parking lot was  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 9 of 20 smart, but it is not working. She is also concerned about the big oak on the proposed site. She did email the Town regarding the tree and did not get a response. She knows the Town will have property owners compensate when a tree is removed and she would like to know what will be done. Mr. Keenan stated that this Commission does not have purview over trees either, but there is an arborist with the Town and if it is considered a grand tree, you are not able to cut it down. It must be mitigated. Mrs. Muir stated that if the plan is approved without addressing the tree issue, then they will cut it down and say that the OVHDC approved the plan. Mr. Pohlman stated the tree issue would overrule the plan and they would have to come back through for a new approval. The OVHDC is only over the exterior of the building and site plan and has no purview over the trees or vegetation or drainage. He stated that anything that is changed during the permitting process, comes back to the Commission. Jim Muir, 100 Friend Street, stated that the drainage issue is a County project and there was a lot of back and forth getting it completed. He stated that there are two drain areas and it is not in the middle of the field. He said an engineer said that they should have used pumps. He said that he has a picture of the field shortly after they finished the project and sent it to the County and told them that it does not appear to be working. Mr. Clarke stated that the reason why he did not bring up drainage and the oak tree was because it falls on the Town for approval and he did not want to bring this issue to the Commission. He stated that as far as drainage, he was there the day after Matthew and was surprised, because he thought it would be worse. He stated that it was wet. He stated that they are working with a civil engineer and a landscape architect and their sole purpose is to address the drainage and make sure it is done correctly. He stated that on the lot by the hackberry, it is approximately 6 feet 8 inches and they will be bringing in 7 ½ feet of fill where it is sitting at 5 ½ feet. He stated that the Town will not issue a permit until the grading plan and other issues are addressed. He stated that they began their design working around the 39 inch oak; however, an arborist did inspect the tree and it is diseased. It sat so low and will not survive. He stated that they will work through this with the Town Arborist, Eddie Bernard. Mr. Keenan stated that he likes the brick and the description of the paint. He stated that the raised pool deck for that area looks out of place. He is not sure about the possibility of a pool on grade level, as well as the pool structure. He stated that it is a beautiful design, but not sure it works for Friend Street. He loves the slate roof and porches across the back, but is struggling with the pool and pool structure. He asked if there was a gutter system in place. Mr. Clarke stated that they will do so as needed.  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 10 of 20 Mr. Keenan stated that he does not have an issue with the demolition; however, is struggling with the back of the house. Ms. Rowe stated that she agrees with Mr. Keenan. She stated that she loves the front of the home, but the back does not fit. Ms. Wilson stated that because the drainage is sensitive and there are a lot of technical things that can be done; however, a huge structure has been proposed with a remarkable amount of runoff and water displacement. She asked if there are any raised pools in the Old Village. She said that no one is here that live in the houses that back up. This is massive with a lot of decking and a big pool with a cabana structure. She said that she likes the design, but it is too much. She stated that the front is too monolithic and large for Friend Street. She said there are a lot of different scales on that street, but said this is a lot of roof for one big structure so it makes it even more massive. She stated that she likes what was done on the right side where they start to break up the massing and the porches. She likes the slate, but wonders if there is any way to get the main roof down in scale and the overall shape of the huge hip. She believes that the pool is really exacerbating that and reads as very large structure on a petite street. She does not have an issue with demolition. Mr. Keenan stated that the applicant has heard comments on the pool being raised. He stated that there are some lots where this may work, but does not believe this is one of them. Ms. Wilson made a motion to approve the demolition of the existing structure at 104 Friend Street; seconded by Mr. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 7. 403 Church Street – (HISTORIC 6200) TMS 532-01-00-067 – Final Approval for After-the-Fact Installation of Pergola Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Justin Hudd, homeowner, stated that they had some brickwork going to the front door, which is at the back of the house which was confusing to people. So they built a picket fence and other brickwork to try and help guide people to where the front door was and not the back of the house. The Commission did not like this and he was asked to remove it. He stated that they had a gap, so they put a gate up there and chose to put a trellis over the top. He showed a similar trellis also on Church Street. He showed photographs of other trellises throughout the historic district and areas just outside the district. He stated that the guidelines he reviewed did not mention anything to do with pergolas, trellises or arbors. He stated that the fence and the gate fits in with the rest of the Old Village and the trellis is similar to the other one on Church Street, so he did not think he needed to come to the Commission for permission. Mr. Keenan stated that there are thirteen letters from neighbors that have been submitted. Twelve of those letters are in support of and one is not in support. He stated that this is ex post facto and the work has already been done, but was not approved. He stated that there are some  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 11 of 20 pergolas in the village and are examples of pergolas within the neighborhood. Some were built before the Commission was in existence and some were built after. He stated that he has an issue with the appearance of it as it relates to a historical home. The guidelines specifically say, “OVHDC guidelines expressly prohibit pergolas and trestles from being constructed in locations visible from public rights of way.” Mr. Keenan stated that in this case, this is very visible. Mr. Hudd stated that this is the newly updated guidelines after he put in the trellis. Mr. Keenan advised Mr. Hudd that he also did the work without consulting with the OVHDC first. He stated that he does not believe it is the right look for the house. Ms. Wilson stated that she agrees and the examples provided are pushed off the street and in heavily landscaped portions of the house. Mr. Hudd stated that the one on Church is on the street. Ms. Wilson stated that this was also erected without approval from the Commission. She stated that Mr. Hudd’s is much larger. Mr. Hudd showed several other examples of trellises up on the road. He read, “When Pitt Street was to be extended onto Shem Creek, a great arbor stood in the way and the owner defiantly refused its demolition, which is why Pitt Street was never extended and doglegs into Church Street”. He stated that even going back 150 years, the structures were in the Old Village. Ms. Wilson stated that had Mr. Hudd brought the drawings to the OVHDC, she would have suggested a change in scale and several other things. Now there is something installed that is too big and not in keeping with the style of the house. All members present agreed. Ms. Rowe stated that it is just too big. Mr. Hudd stated that his neighbors like the trellis. Ms. Rowe stated that typically if you ask a neighbor for a support letter, unless it directly impacts them, they will oblige. Mr. Pohlman stated that this is under the Commission’s purview. Mr. Hudd stated that trellises are all over the village and it was not in the guidelines at the time it was installed. Mr. Keenan stated that Mr. Hudd should have come to the OVHDC first, rather than putting it up right on the streetscape. Ms. Wilson stated that she would be open to seeing drawings for a revision or landscape that supports what it is going to look like; however, at this time, she cannot approve it. Mr. Keenan stated that it is the height being right up on the sidewalk that he is not in favor of. He stated that this is a clear deviation from what the guidelines state. He understands that it was erected prior to the guideline changes, however, Mr. Hudd did not take the proper steps to get this approved. He asked Mr. Hudd to bring something back for the  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 12 of 20 Commission to review and agree on, otherwise what is there now needs to come down. Commission members agreed. Mr. Hudd stated that the neighbors like it. Mr. Keenan stated that they are more than welcome to attend the next meeting or submit an application to sit on this Commission. He stated that this Commission sets precedence which is why they are here. Mr. Hudd asked if he could take some of the existing examples throughout the Old Village. Ms. Balzac asked what the difference is between a pergola, a trellis and a garden gate. She is going to do some research on these. Mr. Hudd provided the difference between a pergola, trellis and garden gate. Mr. Keenan stated that the home that Mr. Hudd lives in is beautiful and historic and this is the primary concern, which is keeping with that historic nature. Ms. Wilson moved to defer the application for the arbor at 403 Church Street until next month’s meeting; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 8. 739 Pitt Street – (Survey 5907) TMS 532-09-00-041 – Conceptual Comment for Addition and Accessory Dwelling Unit Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Jason Fowler, Sea Island Builders, representing Debbie Stocker, property owner. He stated that they began working with the property owner last summer. They evaluated the options early on at 739 Pitt Street as to what could or could not be done with the existing non historic home. The property is subject to a 50% FEMA compliant rule, so they were limited in their design options. He stated that this is a modest renovation, primarily on the inside of the house. The biggest addition that affects the front façade of the home with a front porch, which is approximately ten feet deep and nineteen feet wide, along with a nine foot wide dormer on the front of the house. He stated that he would like to address the existing house first and move on to the ADU. He illustrated the proposed new front porch where there is a small existing porch currently. He stated there is currently a rear deck and they will be bringing the driveway down on the side of the house, demolishing a portion of the existing rear deck. The property line is the edge of the neighbor’s driveway. He stated that these two lots were owned by the same person at one time, so he was not concerned how close he was to the neighbor’s house. He showed the existing front elevation of the house and the glassed in porch which they would like to demolish, add a nine foot dormer and then a porch with a gable. He stated that for the ADU, they attempted a design that is harmonious with the district in terms of the design of the dormers. This is all per the new January 9th passed guidelines. The dormers are four foot wide. They walked Pitt Street and attempted to take in the design elements which they took into consideration for their design. In terms of a massing standpoint, it is obscured from view from the street. He asked  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 13 of 20 for the input on the design of the ADU. He stated that they are working with several large oaks on the property and will be re-siting the ADU to the other corner in order to avoid any damage to the oaks. It is even more obscured from view, but leaves a little less backyard for the homeowner, but are trying to do what is in the best interest of the oak trees. Ms. Wilson asked Mr. Fowler if he or the homeowners have discussed this with the neighbors to the rear, because it is tight in the back. Mr. Fowler stated that he believes that the homeowner has as she has made a concerted effort to discuss the plans with surrounding neighbors. He stated that the neighbors to the rear have a garage which will back up to the ADU. Ms. Wilson asked if it is due to the turning radius of the apron that makes the drive right up on the house and leaving that fifteen feet between the two drives. Mr. Fowler said that it is to stay clear of the oak trees. Ms. Wilson stated that she is referring to the long stretch of the drive. Mr. Fowler stated that they can shift the driveway and create more space. Mr. Juan asked if the entire lot is in a flood zone. Mr. Fowler said that it is an AE12. Mr. Juan stated that the ground floor would need to be redesigned. Being that it is an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) you must treat it as if it were an elevated building in a flood zone and with that, it must be supported with piles/piers, open foundation, not enclosed. Mr. Fowler stated that it is designed as a garage with flood vents. Mr. Juan stated that solid walls are not allowed. It must be supported with piers and 40% open louvers in between each pier support. It is an elevated home in a flood hazard zone. Linda Balzac, stated that the main house is shorter than the ADU by several feet and there has been discussion on the Commission about reducing the height of the structures because it clearly looks like a house behind another house. The height, scale and mass of the ADU is too big. She stated that if the house in the front were much larger, the ADU would not look so large. Mr. Fowler stated that the main house measures twenty-one and a half feet from grade to the top of the ridge which is not very tall and was not built to the current flood code. The ADU is built just below the twenty- five foot threshold and the height is not visible just because it is slightly higher. He does not believe it creates a lot of mass. Ms. Balzac stated that it is visible, because she used to live up the street for a long time. It is visible between the two brick houses that are there now. She stated that what is proposed for the main house is great, because you kept the house and the scale is really nice. It is a one and a half story structure and the structure behind it looks like a two and a half story structure. Mr. Fowler stated that it will not be sited where it is showing now, so when they come back, they will have a new rendering.  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 14 of 20 Mr. Balzac stated that the ADU should be subservient to the main structure. Scott Broadmell, 728 Pitt Street, stated that he lives directly across the street and was concerned about parking. He asked if an ADU can be rented separately and where would the homeowners of the main house park? Ms. Wilson stated that the property owners’ site planning review must show that both units have parking accessible without interrupting the other, which they are not showing at this time. She stated that they need to discuss with the Planning Commission, because parking is an issue, especially for ADU’s. Ms. Balzac stated that she believes that the ADU is very attractive and well designed, just too big for the main house. Mr. Keenan stated that what has been done with the front house is well done and applauds that the homeowner is keeping the house. He stated that his comments are consistent with Ms. Balzac’s that it is way too big and looks like a second house is being built on the lot. He stated that they are in the process of revising the guidelines; however, much of the focus is on ADU’s and bringing the height down. Mr. Pohlman stated that it would be twenty feet for ADU’s and up to twenty feet for accessory structures. Mr. Keenan stated that it is tight in the back and cannot imagine that any of the neighbors to the rear would be in support of this ADU, although they do not base their decisions on this. He stated that it is entirely too big for the project and the parking is also an issue. They would prefer that parking is to the rear. He stated that the ADU is too high and too big. Mr. Fowler stated that it is 680 feet heated and used the 750 square feet footprint allowed for the garage and porch. Mr. Keenan stated that the height, scale and mass is entirely too big for the lot. Ms. Wilson stated that this block does not have full two-story homes, so a full two-story on an ADU is big. She stated that the ADU could easily have clipped vaulted ceilings and bring down the top plate height for the ADU portion. It might also be worth rotating it, especially if you are moving it to that back corner because they are not showing any back out, because now you can back out of the garage and driveway, which is not going to be easy the way it is drawn. If you rotate it, you could pull in and back out to come out. She stated that the driveway needs to come off of the house, because to see the concrete butt up against the foundation of the house is too tight. Ms. Rowe stated that it looks massive. She stated that the ADU looks larger than the original house. There are too many dormers, and if the roof could be dropped down.  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 15 of 20 Mr. Pohlman stated that in reference to parking, given that it is a two car garage, this would actually meet the parking requirements. The ADU requirements only stated that these dedicated spots for the ADU cannot be in tandem with the primary parking spot. So they cannot be side by side. Ms. Wilson stated that the house parking pad must be bigger so that they are actually accommodating the ADU. Mr. Pohlman stated that only one space for each is required. Mr. Keenan stated that this is what they are changing in the guidelines now, because they are trying to get vehicles off of Pitt Street. He stated that they would love to see as much parking as possible to the rear of the home. He stated that this is part of the new revised guidelines. Ms. Wilson stated that it is not realistic. Mr. Fowler stated that he would address this. What he would like to offer for consideration, but the main house may or may not always be there and is not historic at this time. He would like for the Commission to keep this in mind from a massing standpoint. The main house is 1,300 square feet and anything built to code is going to be elevated; therefore, if a new structure was put on this lot, it will be more massive than the existing home. Mr. Keenan stated that is an unfair comment that they cannot base their decision upon. Ms. Wilson stated that even if the main house was a two story, she would argue that it is too big. Mr. Keenan stated that since he has been on this Commission, there have been ADU’s built that turned out to be not what the drawings depicted or they were larger. He asked the designer to review the proposed guidelines which are accessible online, when considering a redraw for the ADU. Mr. Fowler asked for guidance, as they currently meet the height, footprint and heated area requirements of the guidelines. Mr. Keenan stated that it is too tall and there are too many windows. Ms. Rowe stated that they also need to redesign with the piers. Ms. Wilson stated that the design will change when the ADU is put on piers. She stated that the third story dormers are too much and makes it look like a three-story house. She stated that rotating it may help because from the street, what you would see in conjunction with the house is the gable and you do not see a massive structure. She stated that it is all bundled together, but she would be happy to approve the front porch and the plan for the existing house. Mr. Pohlman stated that it is all conceptual, including the main house. Supplemental Animation  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 16 of 20 9. 728 Pitt Street – (HISTORIC 5956) TMS 532-09-00-072 – Conceptual Comment for Alterations and Additions to Existing Structure Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Scott Broadwell, property owner of 728 Pitt Street stated that they came before the Commission prior and the last time was in November, 2016 and received excellent feedback. He stated that the design by itself may have been a big design, but not felt to be appropriate for the property. He said from the minutes, there were four main points that the Commission had provided for them to work on. One was the existing façade was a craftsman style and was felt that this should be preserved at all costs, so their new design addressed this. Secondly, it was thought to be too big, so it has been scaled down. Third, it was too tall, so there is a one and a half story addition in the back which was brought down from two stories. Last, the setback of the house. He said that the current setback is very generous at forty-two feet and was felt to be historic and important to maintain the jigsaw pattern of the streetscape. He stated that they wanted to incorporate all of this and come up with a design plan that may be more in keeping with what the Commission would like to see. He stated that he feels the new design is a very workable design from a family standpoint, it is something he is pleased with. He stated that he is not a professional, but did learn the CAD program, spent a great deal of time and came up with a design that he hopes to receive positive feedback on. He showed the existing house with the carport off to the side that faces the Wilson’s property. He stated that he proposes to enclose a portion of the porch and the carport, maintaining the tapered column in the front and the overall dominant gable, and also with this addition, the porch roof going around the side. They really wanted to maintain that structure. He indicated where there is a magnolia tree that they are attempting to preserve. He stated that the original house was a fisherman’s cottage and has gone through several evolutions and is what they believe is in the fourth evolution. They are proposing to receive approval to do the fifth. He stated that the most recent structure was on the back of the house, which is a laundry room which is not heated. As far as the overall structure, they would like to preserve all of it, with the exception of the laundry room which would come off with the new design. He stated that the front porch is poured concrete and the railing is two by four and the ceiling is plywood and the tapered are made out of plywood, obviously not historic materials. They would like to bring this all up to historically appropriate materials. He had forensic work done on the roof and the existing structure is quite deficient, all the rafters have been cut and was not tied together very well with the existing structure. He stated that in their renovation work, they would like to properly address the roof structure which is a very important part of preserving the structure long term. He stated that a great deal of the construction work was subpar and rampant with poor workmanship throughout. They would like to bring this up to code and help maintain the structure long term as the home is 100 years old now. He stated that it is fifty-one feet to the  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 17 of 20 main structure and forty-two feet to the existing porch, which would not change. He stated that there is approximately six feet, eleven inches on the side next to the Wilson’s and that setback would be maintained. He stated that they will move in a little on the Duke’s side, but well within the requirements in the guidelines. He showed where Don Bailey resides and where his son resides on the property in the back and they wanted to maintain the site line, so they did not want to cloud that side of the structure, so they will maintain a generous setback on that side so they maintain a site line to Pitt Street. He illustrated the existing and proposed site plan. He stated that the numbers are well within their allowances. He stated that there is a porch on the side of the house that is not covered and is unsure whether that is considered pervious or impervious. They would add a master off of the back, nice covered porch in the back and prefer to open it up in the interior to make it more of a modern layout. It would go from a two bedroom to a three bedroom house. In the front he did redesign it because of the four foot dormer requirement. At the very end, he shows more of a traditional shed dormer for a craftsman house that he prefers, but wanted to show both to receive feedback from the Commission. Any addition on this house is going to trigger FEMA. It is going to be elevated and would point out that the FEMA guidelines are not just to protect insurance companies and the government, but it is potentially to protect the homes from damage. Elevating the home could potentially help to preserve it long term. He stated that the structure would stand approximately twenty-six feet tall and the chimney to code would be two feet taller at twenty-eight feet. He stated that he is not showing railings, but any further rendition would show that detail. He stated that they would like to establish a direction, since their previous efforts were not in keeping with what the Commission felt was a good direction. Ms. Wilson asked where the existing porch ends. Mr. Broadmell stated that you can see where it ends underneath so there would be a little bit of an extension and they did enclose a portion so they wanted to extend it out a little bit to create more balance. He also felt that by adding the little addition off the side, they considered doing a slightly different material so that it looks like an addition and not part of the original structure, but thought extending the porch onto the side would create a more balanced look and be more functional. Mr. Juan asked what the roof material is on the low slope shed dormers and on the left side. Mr. Broadmell stated that it is presented as asphalt shingle, which is what the existing is. He said they could do a separate roof material. Mr. Juan stated that it would have to be, because asphalt shingles will not work on the low pitch and in fact is not allowed. Mr. Broadmell stated that it would possibly be a metal, separate from the original structure. Donald Bale, 724 Pitt Street, asked how high the bottom area is.  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 18 of 20 Mr. Broadmell stated that they are shown at five feet and the lowest grade is 7.2 feet so it would need to be six inches taller than that. Ms. Wilson stated that seven is the lowest point at the rear and in the front you are higher, so it will not seem like it is six feet up. Mr. Broadmell stated that all of the lots there slope from east to west and there is a drainage on the other side of the Duke’s. It is seven feet on one side and nine feet four inches on the other. Ms. Rowe stated that the front elevation has too much going on with a long rectangular window, the windows on the right side that are higher than those on the porch. Ms. Wilson stated that he has the detail like it is part of the porch. Mr. Broadmell stated that it is an enclosed porch, but if you want a more uniformed look. Ms. Wilson stated that he does not have any handrails drawn, but when he does it will start to knit it together, because what he is doing is keeping the look of the porch. Mr. Keenan asked if there is any reason why the wood siding wasn’t extended across. Mr. Broadmell stated that the design has a little bit more of a look of an enclosed structure that was previously open so that it why it was designed that way – almost like a sunroom. He stated that they are enclosing part of the porch and the carport, so they wanted to create that feel, similar to a sunroom. However, if the Commission would like a more uniform front, he will make those changes. Nicholas Popovich, 209 Greenwich Street, stated that one clarification is that from detective work that Mr. Broadmell has undertaken, it shows and evolution of the original structure and that evolution is to continue without masking and turning their backs to what is the history of the house. He is actually attempting to continue the history by showing that there was a porch there, and with many historic structures, to gain living space, those porches have been enclosed and they have not been enclosed to make it look as though they were that way originally. Ms. Wilson stated that she likes the idea of closing in the carport and resolves a lot for the new homeowners. She likes the scale of what is being done on the other side and at the rear. The only thing she struggles with is when you typically enclose porches it is more of one third/two third as opposed to half and half so that one bay to the right of center, and it might benefit from being more open or perhaps it is going back to the original column locations of the porch and doing it slightly more substantial where you have the one shed piece popping out, instead of rebuilding. Keeping the original porch so the addition in fact becomes bigger and the original porch stays more proportionally as it is. But the additional all the way on the left stays. It ties in more in the same way the carport does. Keeping the porch more than half open, make it larger and  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 19 of 20 open that one bay or whether you go back to the original size and do more of an addition on the side. Mr. Broadmell said that he struggled with this and the porch, ideally, would be taken out to the edge; however, the magnolia tree is in that spot. Ms. Wilson stated that she does not have an issue with the shed dormers. Mr. Keenan stated that Mr. Broadmell has a hard assignment and appreciates the efforts. He stated that the streetscape is really important to get right on this house, because it is a historic house. He stated that he is fine with enclosing the carport, but would appreciate a more aesthetically pleasing view from this elevation. Mr. Broadmell stated that he was hoping to get some idea and there is still a lot more work to do. If the overall idea is to maintain the front and simplify it and clean it up, but are getting some traction, he will turn it over to a real professional. Mr. Popovich stated that the omission of the railing certainly effects the façade and perhaps instead of a molding detail under the windows in the enclosed area, if it were embedded railing perhaps to have more continuity and simplify the effect, that may be a route that Mr. Broadmell takes as well. Ms. Rowe stated that the upper window with the eight panes. She stated that the cottage look, but the big expanse of the rectangular window look out of sync. Definitely a window there, but not so big. Mr. Broadmell asked if the one and a half story addition is acceptable. Also the shed style dormer. Commission members agreed. Ms. Wilson stated that it will provide better headroom and she actually likes it for the front as well. Mr. Broadmell stated that he will rework the front, but the overall direction is more appropriate. Mr. Keenan stated that they are going in the right direction and the Commission would like to work with him, but it is a unique structure. Conceptually, it is going in the right direction. Mr. Broadmell stated that he would come back again for conceptual. If they lost that space on the front, would there be a possibility to make it up a little in the back. Commission members replied in the affirmative. Mr. Keenan stated that he would love to see the porch go all the way across. Ms. Wilson stated that even a bonket to push out to the right to get more space, but it might mean shifting where the kitchen is, but there is still a few feet of additional space. Mr. Pohlman stated that this would be encroaching into the setbacks. Ms. Wilson stated that the Commission would be allowed to approve this. Mr. Keenan stated that he would be willing to grant a variance on this.  Old Village Historic District Commission March 13, 2017 Page 20 of 20 Mr. Broadwell stated that he would work on doing the front porch all the way across. Ms. Wilson stated that she likes the original porch proportions and is okay with enclosing a portion. She said that she likes the porch under that gable, but does not have an issue grabbing that space in the carport and could have French doors onto the porch from what is now closed in at the carport under that roofline. But she would like to see the existing porch that is on the original drawing. IV. Staff Approvals V. Motion to Adjourn Ms. Rowe moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. Wilson. All present voted in favor. There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Ashe March 13, 2017