Historic District Preservation Commission (HDPC)

OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE April 10, 2017 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; Heather Wilson and Scott Hirshorn ABSENT: 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 March 13, 2017 Ms. Wilson stated that on page 5, it should read “coated wire”, instead of coded wire. Ms. Rowe moved for approval as amended; seconded by Ms. Wilson. All present voted in favor. II. Public Comment & General Correspondence [None] III. Board Discussion: Vote for Revised Guidelines with Images Mr. Pohlman provided the guidelines, as revised, with direction from the Commission to insert the images and illustrations, which has been gathered from other similar historic areas, under the “resources” tab under references. Mr. Keenan stated that the images were taken from other historic boards and the overall goal is to help the applicant, architect and to assist with the decision making process, as well as clarity. Mr. Pohlman stated that this will then be posted for public. Mr. Hirshorn made a motion to approve the revised guidelines; seconded by Ms. Wilson. All present voted in favor. IV. BUSINESS STAFF REPORT Mr. Hirshorn made a motion to approve Item #4, 902 Pitt Street; seconded by Mr. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 1. 443 Church Street – (HISTORIC 6207) TMS 532-01-00-074 – Final Approval for Alteration to Approved Hardscape and Addition to Existing Accessory Structure Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission.  Old Village Historic District Commission April 10, 2017 Page 2 of 10 Katie Duncan, Duncan Design Studio, stated that she is working with the Holzer Family and was brought into project after pool was previously approved. She stated that the pool will stay the same size, but they would like to switch the spa and the stairs to the other side. She stated that the accessory structure, formerly a pickling house, will serve as the pool house, and the homeowners would like to have a simple shed roof on the side of the structure. Mr. Keenan asked if they will be enlarging the structure. Ms. Duncan stated that the structure will not be altered, only a simple shed roof to the side property line to park a golf cart, which will not be enclosed. Mr. Keenan stated that the homeowners are requesting to swap the stairs and the spa and asked if the other request is for a tin roof on the side of the pickling house. Ms. Duncan stated that when the spa and stairs are moved, they will also move the pool deck to the opposite side. Ms. Rowe asked about the outdoor kitchen previously requested. Ms. Duncan stated that there is no outdoor kitchen, and stated that the fencing was approved with the pool. Mr. Keenan asked if there was an additional fence other than the fence that is currently there. Ms. Duncan stated that there is a four foot fence that will be encircling the property which was approved with the pool and will match what is existing and meet the pool codes. Ms. Rowe asked if the only thing that will be seen from the street is the shed roof. Ms. Duncan responded in the affirmative. She stated that the homeowners will also be putting in landscaping. Mr. Keenan asked about the size of the pool. Ms. Duncan stated that it is approximately 15x30. Mr. Hirshorn asked if it is nine feet from the edge of the shed roof to the property line. Ms. Duncan stated that it is five feet. Mr. Pohlman stated that accessory structures may be placed up to six feet from the property line, so this will encroach one foot and the Commission would have to approve this. Mr. Keenan stated that it is a one foot variance. Ms. Rowe stated that she is okay with it, because it is open. Mr. Hirshorn stated that his only issue is when it rains, it will flow from the roof to the neighbor’s property.  Old Village Historic District Commission April 10, 2017 Page 3 of 10 Ms. Duncan stated that everything under the structure is pervious surface and landscaping, as well as the driveway. This should all help with any runoff. Ms. Wilson stated that there is five feet of pervious ground cover and does not believe it will be an issue. Ms. Wilson stated that there is also a gutter and downspout so this will also help. Ms. Wilson moved to approve 443 Church Street as it does not have a negative impact on the Old Village; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 2. 315 Hibben Street – TMS 532-01-00-101 – Final Approval for After- the-Fact alterations to hardscape and pergola location. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Chris and Jane Potts, property owners. Mr. Potts stated that he and his wife Jane are the property owners. He mentioned that his wife is a designer and that he was not involved in this project, but is now attempting to rescue the project. He stated that they made a mistake and should have come back to the board for approval to move the pergola 3 feet and 2 inches. He stated that this did not happen. He said that he has never been in front of the board before. He said they have lived there for four years and love it and want to do everything possible to enhance the value of their property and those around them. He stated that the house is small and when he moved in the front was dirt with an old fence and a huge driveway. He stated that they are not able to extend the size of the home. He stated that his wife wanted to enhance the backyard and hired a draftsman and came before the Commission on August 9th. He stated that the pergola was approved as to the size, color and style. He said the initial plans had pier foundations; however, the Town’s building inspector advised them that they needed a four foot foundation with rebar. He stated that there are two large trees that abut the pergola and his wife and the builders of the pergola were concerned that the pier foundations that big would kill or disturb the trees. He stated that from what he understands, in an effort to save the trees, the pergola structure was moved forward 3 feet and 2 inches. He stated that the problem is that no one came before the Commission for approval and did not know that they were supposed to. He stated that the error was not intentional or malicious. He stated that since that time, his wife has submitted new plans to the Commission. He stated that he paid $55,000 for the improvements to the property. He immediately called the installer and was told that it would be approximately $8,000 to move it back. Mr. Potts read some of the comments made at previous Commission meetings. He stated that there were comments regarding the fans and heaters which they will remove and only use seasonally, whether the Commission has purview or not. He stated that his wife took down her sign. He stated that his wife spoke to all of their surrounding neighbors and none  Old Village Historic District Commission April 10, 2017 Page 4 of 10 were opposed to it. He stated that everything was done under the old guidelines. He stated that he and his wife take a lot of pride in the neighborhood. Mr. Keenan stated that he appreciates the attention to detail. He stated that his concerns were the heaters, fans and the sign. He stated that there were some complaints from residents on the signs, heaters and fans, which is likely how the process began and subsequently found that the pergola had been moved several feet. He stated that a good compromise may be to clean up the look of it, which has been stated already by removing the heaters and sign. He stated that he is not going to require them to move it back three feet Ms. Rowe stated that she is in agreement with Mr. Keenan, as the complaints she received were due to the sign, heaters and fans. She said that the fence and pergola look great, but she asks that the extra items be cleaned up. Ms. Potts stated that she has planted some flowers which will also help. She stated that she would also like to plant something that grows onto the pergola; however, it takes a number of years to mature. Mr. Hirshorn asked if the 2017 guidelines are controlling this issue or would it be the 2016. Mr. Pohlman stated that since they are coming back, it would be the 2017 guidelines. Mr. Hirshorn stated that they were approved under the 2016 guidelines and there are some technicalities where the homeowner had to come back before the Commission. He stated that the Commission should clarify under the 2017 guidelines, not just for pergolas, but other elements, that they must be out of the view of the right of way. Mr. Hirshorn added that this is important, because there are a number of other items in the process where this is an issue. He stated that it is also important for the record to state that the reason why this guideline was revised as such is because while we do agree that we all want to increase and enhance the value of the village, the Commission also has an obligation. He stated that there is a balancing act of what value-enhancement is and what historical preservation is. He added that he makes every attempt to strictly stick to the guidelines. He stated that the Commission has started changing course due to recent developments, accessory structures and design elements to keep them out of the historic frame of view. He stated that this is an exception, primarily because this was approved under the 2016 guidelines. Mr. Keenan stated that he appreciates Mr. Hirshorn’s comments, which are important for the minutes as well. Ms. Wilson stated that this is not a precedent that the Commission is setting and it is not just pergolas, but any accessory structure. She  Old Village Historic District Commission April 10, 2017 Page 5 of 10 stated that this pergola came close to competing with that primary elevation, which is what the Commission is battling against. Jim Berg, 402 Patjens Lane, stated that he lives around the corner from the Potts and walks by their property every day. He added that it would be a shame if they had to tear down the pergola. Mr. Keenan stated that what he believes he is hearing from the Commission is for the property owners to clean up the area of all the lights, fans and heaters and everything stays the same with the pergola. Ms. Rowe made a motion to approve the submission for 315 Hibben Street, after the fact, noting Mr. Hirshorn’s language; seconded by Ms. Wilson. All present voted in favor 3. 241 Bennett Street – (HISTORIC 6134) TMS 532-01-00-015 – Final Approval for Replacement of Windows Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Linda Balzac, architect for homeowner, who is also present, George Brewer. She stated that the homeowner has lived in the home for a very long time and had some work done to the home approximately thirty years ago. She stated that the construction workers installed windows from elsewhere and stated that the windows do not open. She stated that many of the windows on the side of the home are original with the wavy glass. She stated that they would like to be able to open the windows to access the breeze as it is hot. She stated that they would like to remove the unsightly metal storm windows and install new simulated divided lights in to match the existing muntin pattern. She stated that they would like it to be clad and the guidelines state that this can be accomplished. Mr. Keenan asked if they were six over six. Ms. Balzac stated that they are eight over eight. Ms. Rowe stated that she applauds removing the storm windows as this will be an improvement. Ms. Wilson stated that it is not in the ordinance, but would prefer if it stipulated that wood would go back into the older homes. Mr. Hirshorn stated that this was brought up before, that even if the original historic windows were replaced and if they retroactively had to be replaced again, that they had to be brought back to the historic design. He stated that these were on other proposals. Mr. Pohlman stated that the approved materials for windows are listed as wood for both historic and non-historic homes; aluminum clad, vinyl or fiberglass could be used on new construction. Ms. Wilson stated that it is wood for historic. Ms. Balzac stated that Anderson has a good looking wood window as well and they have not specifically decided. She stated that it was  Old Village Historic District Commission April 10, 2017 Page 6 of 10 more ease of maintenance, as this family has been living in the home for a very long time. George Brewer, 421 Bennett Street, stated that it is historic in the sense that the original part, when it was a Charleston side porch house. He stated that the porch portion was filled in, so it is less than historic. He stated that 35 years ago, the contractor thought that the windows were being replaced, but they were not. They reconfigured the windows and attempted to piece them together. He said that they do not fit and are not acceptable. He stated that this is going back to some of the original. He stated that they are not attempting to put modern windows in, but trying to make it more functional so that they can be utilized as opposed to historical windows. Ms. Wilson stated that a wood window would accomplish this. She stated that Anderson or Marvin could do this. She stated that it has been noted that the homeowner would like muntins to match historic and the glazing pattern, especially because it is on the front of the home. She stated that if it was the porch on the side or in the back, but it is a classic, great looking historic house. Mr. Keenan stated that he agrees with Ms. Wilson, because they need to adhere to the guidelines especially because the home is historic. He stated that the guidelines are clear on wood versus clad or vinyl. Ms. Balzac stated that it does not specifically say that they are replacing windows that were replaced; it implies in the guidelines that if you are replacing historic windows on a historic house, it would be wood and you would put the wood back. She stated that there are a number of windows on the house that are not original and there are a few different windows on the house that are not original. She stated that since they are not historic windows that they can get as close as possible to them and using better materials that look like the original, which they have not been in 35 years. Mr. Keenan asked if a wood window from Marvin or Anderson is an issue for the homeowner. Mr. Brewer stated that they have not looked at windows or material or prices or anything else. He stated that it is difficult for him to say what is acceptable and what is not. Mr. Keenan stated that Marvin is making some really nice wood options and with the paint they are virtually maintenance free and will look really nice on a historic home. He stated that this would be his preference as well as the preference of Commission members. He stated that he hears the argument and does not want to dictate what type of windows you can or cannot put on your home, but would rather see a high end wooden window. Ms. Balzac stated that if they state that they will go with wood windows and after looking at options, if the homeowner decides that  Old Village Historic District Commission April 10, 2017 Page 7 of 10 it is not an option as far as the durability and cost, they will come and address it at that time. She asked if it would be acceptable under the wood if they said yes to that and could come back if they change their minds. Ms. Wilson stated that she would be agreeable to this. She stated that it would be accepted if they are wood windows and if not, the Commission would like to see the options. Ms. Rowe stated that there are only five windows to replace. Mr. Keenan stated that given the research that Ms. Balzac completed, the homeowner may be happier with the wood, especially on the front façade. Ms. Wilson made a motion to accept, as stipulated by the applicant, that they are accepted as wood with no need to come back before the Commission and if they would like to present an alternative, they can come back before the Commission; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 4. 902 Pitt Street – TMS 532-13-00-059 – Final Approval for Parking pad Improvements in Right of Way [Addressed earlier in the agenda] V. Staff Approvals 118 Live Oak Street—Re-roofing of non-historic structure - 609 Pitt Street—Re-roofing of non-historic structure VI. Request for Guideline Consultant Discussion Mr. Pohlman stated that this item was placed on the agenda by the Planning Director, Christiane Farrell. It was to update the Commission members on some of the ordinance changes requested through the guideline revisions in November and also require additional guidance from Commission members in reference to re-doing the guidelines again. Mr. Pohlman stated that there are three ordinances that will be going to the Planning Commission that will be posted on late Wednesday or early Thursday which will be the alteration of accessory structure heights to a maximum of 20 feet and 1 ½ stories tall, as well as requiring these structures to reside in the rear of the property. He stated that there are also the two separate parking amendments requested by the Commission that will be put into one ordinance. The first one being the requiring of two, instead of one off-street parking space, as well as an additional space for every 1,000 gross square feet over 2,500 square feet. Since that is gross, it would include a pool house or accessory dwelling unit. As well as revising wording of the allowance of one on-street parking space per every lot, with approvals of SCDOT as well as OVHD. In a recent review of the guidelines, there was some ambiguity as to whether or not the OVHDC should have been reviewing and approving these. He stated that the Commission has been doing so historically and will be should the ordinance pass.  Old Village Historic District Commission April 10, 2017 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Keenan asked if the Planning Commission will vote on these ordinances. Mr. Pohlman responded in the affirmative. He stated that they will provide a recommendation to Town Council who will have two readings prior to adopting the ordinances. Mr. Keenan asked if the Commission needed to do anything further. Mr. Pohlman stated that if the Commission members would like to attend the Planning Commission or Town Council meetings, they could be available if there are any questions. He stated that it is not a requirement. He added that the third ordinance going forward is opening up one seat on the Commission to a resident that does not reside in the Old Village Historic District. He stated that this would be one seat maximum only. Mr. Keenan stated that he believes that this is a good option. Ms. Wilson stated that going back to ADU’s, she asked if Commission members should be present to answer questions. Mr. Pohlman stated that Commission members are welcome to attend. He stated that the Planning Committee recommended that these be drafted into ordinance, so they went back to the Planning Commission for public comment which then goes to Town Council. He stated that there is also the 50 year rolling ordinance change. He stated that this would be going before Town Council for discussion tomorrow night and they will be discussing whether they should move forward with amending the ordinance. If Town Council agrees to this, this will go back to the Planning Commission, then back to Town Council for first and second readings. He stated that if the 50 years is approved, a new study will need to be completed or an amendment to the existing inventory. He stated that in November, it was also requested to have the guidelines completely overhauled to reflect more of what is in the Beaufort and Buford. He stated that staff reached out to several companies requesting a basic quote to write guidelines such as those, providing them with the PDF so they are able to review what it looks like. He stated that the quote that was received by the Town was between $22,000 to $30,000 which is primarily because they would have to come to Mount Pleasant, do visual inventory themselves and determine what homes are historic, as well as holding public meetings. He said that Ms. Farrell asked if the Commission intended to move forward with the guidelines. Due to Planning Committee presenting the budget soon, staff needs to know if this scope of work is accurate with what the Commission requested and if they would like to move forward. He stated that he will submit the information to Ms. Farrell and she will present the information to the Planning Committee. Mr. Keenan stated this will be coupled with the study from the Secretary of the Interior which is an additional $25,000 to $30,000.  Old Village Historic District Commission April 10, 2017 Page 9 of 10 Mr. Pohlman stated that this would be an additional $25,000 to $30,000 if this is adopted into the ordinance and if it moves forward. Ms. Wilson stated that she is unsure of the budget side; however, it appears to be a good investment. She stated that the Commission must defend themselves without any support or backup. She stated that this would provide more professionally written rules about what is historic and what needs to be protected, and is in the community’s best interest. She stated that after a certain number of historic homes get altered, the Town risks losing their status. Ms. Rowe stated that the first thing that should be accomplished is to decide about the 50 year roll, because then the Town would know how to address the issues in order to bring a consultant in to do a complete survey. Ms. Wilson stated that either way she would like to have the study done. Ms. Rowe added that $25,000 to $30,000 is exorbitant for a consultant study. Mr. Keenan stated that in reference to the ADU and parking, this is exclusive of what is being currently addressed. Mr. Pohlman responded in the affirmative. He stated that the ADU and parking ordinances is currently under process. Mr. Keenan stated that he agrees with Ms. Wilson, because in the long term, having a consultant do the study/survey would be funds well spent, because more and more changes are being made in the Historic District and it is more difficult for the Commission. He stated that more backup and support in the form of documentation from clear guidelines are needed. He stated that currently, there is too much gray area. He stated that this is his fourth year as a Commission member and there is no question that it has been this way. He stated that this is something that is not going away. Ms. Wilson stated that with new construction, the other historic Towns appear to handle it better than the Town in terms of guidelines. She stated that residents will state that they are under the 40% lot overage or within the zoning compliance, and leaves the Commission members in an unfavorable position. She stated that recently there was a home that came before the Commission that was so out of scale and enormous; however, in compliance with Town of Mount Pleasant zoning and the Commission had no say. She stated that the Commission needs more support. Ms. Rowe stated that the Commission should ask for this to be done and asked Mr. Pohlman when this request would be submitted. Mr. Pohlman stated that at the next Planning Committee, Ms. Farrell will advise Committee members that the Old Village Historic District Commission is requesting the study/survey. He stated that at that time, the Planning Committee will discuss whether or not to budget for this  Old Village Historic District Commission April 10, 2017 Page 10 of 10 item. He stated that although this request is being made, there is no guarantee it will be approved. This is also true with the 50 year rolling change, as it may also not pass. Ms. Wilson stated that the two items are not necessarily connected. Ms. Rowe stated that both should be requested. Mr. Hirshorn asked which item would have the greater priority. Ms. Wilson stated that this is where the evaluation would be important. She stated there is no true accounting of what the Town has currently. She stated that she would prefer to have the study / survey first, prior to the 50 year rolling timeline. She stated that from this, determine the 50 year rolling timeline. Mr. Pohlman stated that he would convey the Commission members’ request to the Planning Director. He stated that the guidelines will also aid the Commission in providing new members with a more solid background on how to make decisions. Ms. Wilson stated that the survey / study would also make the Commission less susceptible to an appeal. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it is also in the best interest of the property owners, building into the purchase of the property and afterwards, as they are then on notice. VII. Motion to Adjourn Mr. Keenan moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. Wilson. All present voted in favor. There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 6:07 p.m. Respectively submitted, Barbara Ashe April 10, 2017