Historic District Preservation Commission (HDPC)

OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE May 8, 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, Scott Hirshorn and Susan Dickson STAFF PRESENT: Eric Pohlman Mr. Keenan called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m., and reviewed the meeting procedures with the public. I. Approval of Minutes - April 10, 2017 Ms. Dickson moved for approval as distributed; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. II. Public Comment & General Correspondence Ms. Wilson moved for consent on items #6, 307 Venning, (Survey 6188) TMS 532-01-00-263 – Final Approval for Alterations to Approved Hardscaping; and #8, 708 Pitt Street, (Survey 5951) TMS 532-09-00-075 Final Approval for Enclosing Carport; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. III. BUSINESS STAFF REPORT 1. 415 Church Street – (HISTORIC 6202) TMS 532-01-00-069 – Final Approval for Alteration to Hardscape and Addition of Arbor. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. (Ms. Dickson stepped out at 5:05 p.m.) James Scott, stated that they have been before the Commission previously and this is the finalization of the hardscape and landscape around the property. He stated that the pool buildings have already been approved and they are proposing to add a little formal garden area, a brick patio with a walkway to get from the driveway, and a brick entrance. He stated that they do not have much coverage to block the pool from the front. He stated that they have planted a significant amount of shrubbery and are proposing a wall in between the row of camellias and hollies, which will match the existing wall out front which is historic. He stated that the proposed wall will be taller. He proposed brick columns and a gate for privacy and security, as well as a pergola that will match the existing pergola. He stated  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 2 of 22 that the driveway will have brick runners and will pull the concrete apron out and replace with a brick apron that will match the brick walk. Ms. Wilson asked if the design of the proposed brick wall is the same as the historic wall out front. Mr. Scott stated that it is. The historic wall is only a few feet high with wrought iron on top and stated that with the proposed wall, rather than having the wrought iron on top, they would like to make it twice the height, but keep the same pattern as the historic wall. He stated that once the shrubbery matures, it will cover the proposed wall. He stated that there are four rows of vegetation and stated that the proposed wall would be tucked between the hollies and camellias. Mr. Keenan asked how tall the proposed fence would be. Mr. Scott stated that they are proposing four feet. Ms. Wilson asked if the existing raised planter is historic. Mr. Scott stated that it was added. He stated that the planter was put in years ago when they renovated the house and stated that they were proposing to do a creeping fig over it so that it will not be seen. Ms. Rowe asked about the wood pergola. Mr. Scott stated that it will be a wood pergola to match the existing pergola that connects the two pool buildings. Ms. Rowe stated that she is concerned about this. Mr. Scott stated that he would be agreeable not to include the second pergola. He stated that the designer put this in. Mr. Hirshorn stated that Mr. Scott has been in front of the Commission previously and stated that he is surprised that more neighbors have not expressed their opinions. He stated that Church Street has undergone a great deal of development and straying away from what was once traditional. He stated that the streetscape is undergoing significant transformation. He stated that recently the guidelines were modified, as well as those that were already in place. He cited “fences and walls” from the guidelines and stated that from his perspective, the proposed wall may not be historically appropriate. He said the formal walls are not typically seen on historic structures and for this reason he has a reservation on the proposed wall as per Fences and Walls, guideline 2. He cited guidelines on “sidewalks, driveways”, #3. He stated that he loves the formal garden and walkways and design; however, struggles with the historic appropriateness, particularly when you look at the older houses. It is much more of a pasture setting and you do not see many formal gardens. He stated that there are some, but he would like to discuss further.  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 3 of 22 (Ms. Dickson returned at 5:17 p.m.) He stated that in reference to the pergola and arbor, he cited the most recent guidelines. He stated that since this is visible, it would not be permitted. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the driveway is an improvement from the cement slab that currently exists, but would like for the Commission to discuss the previous three items in the context of the guidelines that are fairly specific and if there are any counter opinions on what is historic and what is not, he would like to open this to discussion. Ms. Wilson stated that she agrees with Mr. Hirshorn and does have an issue with a brick fence and is peculiar that it shadows what is on the street. She stated that it is heavy-handed and does not seem to go with the house and does not understand the connection to the raised brick planter and cannot assume that creeping fig is going to hide an awkward situation. She stated that a lot has been done and has a formal piece at the back of the pool which she does not have an issue with, but is not in favor of the brick fence. She stated that regarding the arbor between the structures, technically, it is visible from the street and does marry two structures together so she is less opposed to this than the wall. Mr. Keenan stated that he agrees with Mr. Hirshorn, Ms. Rowe and Ms. Wilson, that the brick wall is too much for the historic context of the home. Mr. Scott asked if a wooden wall would work, painted a Charleston green. He said that the idea is not to let people see into the yard. He stated that in a few years, the landscaping will mature enough to hide it. He stated that he is trying to create privacy. He stated that he would feel more comfortable with the wooden fence, but the brick is too much. He stated that the guidelines regarding the pergolas are clear that they are not to be seen from the street or rights or way. He stated that he is fine with the driveway. Mr. Scott asked about brick columns in order to anchor a gate. He is willing to mimic the brick columns on the front wall to anchor a gate and then have wooden fencing off to each side of the columns. Commission members stated that they would have to see the plans first for fencing. Mr. Scott stated that he would like to have a security gate. Mr. Keenan stated that there is a fence along the perimeter of the property. Mr. Scott stated that they would be safer having an added level of security. He stated that the gate would have a key coded lock. He stated that they have found kids playing in the yard. He stated that it  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 4 of 22 is a side yard and the pool is very visible, so having that extra layer of security with the gate for when they go out of town would make them more comfortable. Mr. Keenan asked how it would be closed off on the driveway side. Mr. Scott stated that it is not on the driveway side. He stated that the challenge is the kids coming through the front and are less likely to come down the driveway. Mr. Hirshorn asked if there is a full pool cover. Mr. Scott responded in the affirmative. Ms. Dickson asked about the height of the gate. Mr. Scott said four feet high for privacy and security. Mr. Keenan asked Mr. Scott to review with his design architect other options. Mr. Scott asked if the Commission would move forward with approval of the driveway. Ms. Wilson made a motion to approve the landscape plan with the exception of the brick wall and pergola at the street side of the pool; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. 2. 205 Queen Street—(HISTORIC 6099) TMS 532-05-00-026—Final Approval for Outdoor Fireplace. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Bob Fleming, Classic Remodeling, representing homeowners, Rob and Margaret Donaldson who are also present this evening. He stated that they took the comments from the February, 2016 meeting and were asked to slide the fireplace further back. After discussions with the clients, they were concerned that if it were moved further back, that the space would be unusable. He stated that the Donaldson’s were adamant that where it was originally proposed is where they would prefer to have it. He stated that the second suggestion was to make the fireplace narrower. He said that there were discussion with two different masons and given the fact that it is outdoors with a breeze, they recommended not narrowing it. He stated that two fireplaces were recommended and would only reduce the size by two inches. Mr. Keenan stated that this is basically the same application as previously submitted. Mr. Fleming responded in the affirmative. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the porch in question is an original historic porch. Mr. Fleming responded in the affirmative. Henry Harden, 220 Queen Street, stated that he came to Mount Pleasant in 1954 and has lived in the same area two houses down  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 5 of 22 from the Donaldson’s home and has known three generations of Donaldson’s and feel that he is a part of the neighborhood. He stated that everything that Margaret and Robbie (Donaldson), have done has been perfect from the interior to the landscaping outside. He stated that they have put a lot of thought into keeping the house attractive with this fireplace. He stated that he has seen the plans for the fireplace and stated that he believes that this would be a nice addition in his opinion. Rob Donaldson, property owner, stated that his great grandfather built this house in 1903 and has been in the family ever since. He stated that he cherishes every piece of old glass and heart pine that it is built of. He stated that he would not do anything to disrupt the historical integrity of the house. He stated that it is not a large house by today’s standards. He stated that the porch is the best room of the house and they are simply looking to add a month on the early side and a month on the late side of the year, where they can continue to enjoy the house and their family as it continues to grow, in different seasons. He stated that they do have an email from the adjoining property owner, Amy Harley, which has been forwarded to Mr. Pohlman. He stated that he trusts his builder and has one of the best interior designers in Charleston and trusts her decision making. Mr. Pohlman stated that for clarification, Mr. Donaldson is referring to the email from Amy Harley, which has been distributed to Commission members. Barb's docs\Amy Harley email.pdf Mr. Hirshorn stated that the original application was resubmitted. He stated that deferring to the guidelines on historic homes, there are not many of these historic homes left in a historically designate community and have a guideline on porches and stoops that states: (1) on historic buildings porches, stoops and steps that contribute to the building’s architectural character should not be altered, removed or enclosed. He stated that this is part of the Commission’s guidelines and would like to open the discussion as to whether the addition of an outdoor fireplace, admittedly very useful and practical, does this alter a historic porch. Ms. Wilson stated that in her opinion, it does and it is difficult because this has been the Donaldson’s family home forever and they have taken incredible care of it. She said the front faces the harbor, which is the designated historical front of the house and dramatically alters the front of one of the few remaining gems. She stated that there are so few of these homes left, which is why the Old Village Historic District Commission is here to protect those that do remain. She stated that aside from the scale of the fireplace and realizes that code is driving the size as well as other issues, it takes a pristine house and changes it in a way that she is not comfortable with.  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 6 of 22 Ms. Dickson stated that she agrees with Ms. Wilson and apologies that she does, because she loves the house. And because she loves it so much, does not want to have the awkward appendage. She said that their job on this commission is to protect what is left that has historic value. She stated that the fireplace makes sense to the homeowners, but as far as the aesthetics and integrity of the home, it violates the home. Ms. Rowe stated that the change is too drastic for this home and not in keeping with the historic preservation. Mr. Keenan stated that he feels the same way and this Commission is always tasked; however, as far as the guidelines and ordinances, it is very clear. He stated that there are very few true historic homes left, especially when there is a front façade such as this one. He stated that his issue was the scale, which has not changed. Margaret Donaldson, property owner, stated that originally, the Commission wanted them to push the fireplace into the porch, which they did not want to do. She stated that the porch is not being altered or changed it any way, but building this outside of the porch with the front facing in. She said that area was selected to balance it between two points. She said there are the steps that come out in the back and is all landscaped. She stated that her husband’s family owns Abide-Awhile Nursery and they are not going to build this structure and not soften it visually. She stated that when you look at the pictures, no one will see it from the street. She added that it can only be seen come up from their private dock or in the far corner of their lot. She said that their next door neighbors, who would have the most impact from the fireplace, are in favor of it. She stated that they want to build this fireplace as historically as possible using the handmade brick and would like to do what is appropriate. Ms. Wilson moved to decline the application for the fireplace at 205 Queen Street; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 3. 739 Pitt Street—(Survey 5907) TMS 532-09-00-041 – Final Approval for Addition and New Accessory Dwelling Unit. Jason Fowler, Sea Island Builders, representing the homeowner, Debbie Stocker, who is also present. He stated that they came before the Commission in March with a conceptual design for an ADU (accessory dwelling unit), and received feedback from the Commission, which was taken into consideration. He stated that they found that the best way to diminish the view of the ADU from the streetscape which was the primary objection to the Commission when evaluating this project. He stated that they rotated the ADU 90% so that it is narrower from the front and re-sited it on the site so there are large oaks that shield any view looking down the side of the property. He presented a 3-D rendering. He stated that they previously had the roof height at 25 feet and have since decreased  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 7 of 22 that to 21 feet, 8 inches which matches the primary structure. In doing this, they reduced the plate height in the 2nd story space to 6 foot 4 inches. Around the perimeter of the room when you are upstairs in the building, the ceiling height is 6 foot 4 inches and they are going to do a vaulted ceiling up from there, but that is as low as they were able to make this and have it still function as a nice living space. Where there are dormers, it vaults up to 8 feet 9 inches and the dormers are to fit in windows. If you look at the elevation of the ADU, to get in these windows which are only 4 feet 8 inches tall, there dormers must be there or there will not be enough room on the wall face. He stated that the scale, mass and height was decreased considerably and the volume of this building was decreased approximately 25% from the original proposal. Mr. Keenan asked for the total square footage on the structure now. Mr. Fowler stated that it is 750 square feet which is allowable and the same on the heated, which is 748 feet which is just under the allowable. Mr. Dickson stated that on the illustration, it appears that it is partially timber. Mr. Fowler stated that it is board and batten. Debbie Stocker, homeowner, stated that she originally purchased the house and wanted to be able to make it handicap accessible, so she could move her mother, who is 89 years old and has Parkinson’s. She wanted something that would work for both of them and also wanted a garage. She said that it was recommended to build a detached garage. She said that she did not want to tear the house down to build something better, but wanted a cottage house. She stated that the two car garage and apartment allows her to keep the cottage house the way it is, with exception of adding a porch. She stated that she did submit packages to her surrounding neighbors and has letters of support. She stated that one of the neighbors, Jim Lee, is here in support of the project. She stated that they have attempted to keep it low profile with lots of grass. She stated that she would like to do the driveway utilizing gravel and not concrete or asphalt. She stated that she would like to make this her home. Ms. Wilson stated that she has a request on the board and batten detail on the primary residence. She stated that a 2 inch batten of the hardie is not a classic board and batten detail. She suggested reducing to 1 or1 ¼ inches. She stated that is her only objection to the main house. She stated for the ADU, she appreciates that they lowered the roof, but still concerned with the massing. She stated that there is a lot going on for such a small building with all the dormers, it does not quite go with the existing house. She stated that it appears like another structure that it tacked on and overwhelms the back. She suggested simplifying some of the dormers. She stated  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 8 of 22 they have done the fig gable on the front with the porch and the triple shed and this is a different vocabulary and they should be more harmonious together since they are part of the one piece of property which do not seem to relate. Mr. Fowler stated that they are not allowed wider than a 4 foot dormer on the ADU, as per the revised guidelines. He asked if the suggestion is to make small dormers on the main house. Ms. Wilson stated that not necessarily, because it limits the footprint and the front house looks good. She stated for the ADU, perhaps two twin dormers. She stated that there are 10 dormers on a small structure. She asked if the stairs were enclosed. Mr. Fowler responded in the affirmative and stated that it is not heated space. He stated that the windows are 4 feet 8 inches tall which is not a tall window and wants to have a space that is light and bright and airy inside. He stated that this was a big design constraint when working with this, because they also have to meet egress in one of the bedroom windows and can only go to a certain size to achieve this. Ms. Rowe stated that she agrees with Ms. Wilson, because if she drove by, she would assume someone built in the back separate from the front. It does not look like the same property. Mr. Fowler asked if this was due to the exterior façade. Ms. Rowe stated that there is the cottage look in the front which looks great, but then the ADU in the back does not match. Ms. Wilson stated that it may just be the four dormers which is really busy. She suggested two twin dormers. She stated on the side elevation, nothing aligns the right side elevation which arguably is the one you see from the street. Ms. Dickson suggested a brick façade which may tie it in. Mr. Fowler stated that the challenge is that the bottom floor (garage) has to be designed as break away walls, as per the Town ordinance, so they cannot use brick. Ms. Dickson asked about the 2nd floor space. Mr. Fowler stated that with this type of structure, it would be a challenge. Jim Lee, stated that no one seems to have looked at the rear view of the home. He stated that the dormer in the back is cedar siding which ties in more to the ADU. He stated that there are some symmetrical looks. Mr. Keenan stated that ADU’s have been a big controversy for many years. He stated that the guidelines have recently been revised. He stated that the purpose of an ADU is supposed to be significantly smaller than the house. On this particular property, it looks as  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 9 of 22 though there are two houses; therefore, he is concerned with the size. He added that he appreciates the effort Mr. Fowler went through; however, the shed is even noticeable from the street and it is only 8 feet tall. He stated that it is a very prominent lot on Pitt Street and is concerned with the mass and scale of it to be an ADU. He does like that the ADU has been turned; however is concerned about the overall size. Mr. Fowler stated that this would be the side that is seen from the streetscape, which is written on page 4 of the guidelines. He stated that when you look at this from the street, what you see is 5% of the building. Ms. Wilson suggested that Mr. Fowler study that elevation look, because it is arguably the least organized elevation of the plan. None of the windows line up, the gable does not relate to the gable of the main house in terms of pitch. There are three different building materials, the porch column is odd in terms of where everything else is going, and the piers. She stated that there is a lot going on in that elevation. She suggested that two larger shed dormers would simplify the elevations and provide better space inside, and to pick up on some of the pitches of the existing structure and the materials. She stated that it does not need to be brick, but possibly lap siding and simplifying. Jim Lee, stated that he does not believe that anyone has given any consideration to the view from Middle Street. He stated that this is very near Alhambra Hall and when you look at the house from Middle Street, everything ties in. If you look at it from Pitt Street, it is different. He stated that in all fairness, both views should be given equal value. Ms. Wilson stated that she agrees and said that the Middle Street view is much more simplified and does not think that the gable needs a different material if you are attempting to tone it down, but that is a simple gable structure and has a more favorable elevation from Middle Street, which is the direction Mr. Fowler should move towards. Ms. Stocker asked if Ms. Wilson is suggesting double gables and thought that they were limited to the width of the gables that they could have on the ADU. Ms. Wilson stated that this is a guideline so the Commission is able to work with the homeowner on. She stated that the house has a steeper pitch to the gable and does have shed dormers. She suggested looking more to the language of the house that currently exists and use this instead of coming up with a whole new style for the ADU. She stated that in this case, having a shed dormer on one side would be appropriate and go with the house, providing better space.  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 10 of 22 Mr. Fowler stated that he agrees and originally had something similar. Ms. Stocker stated that they had larger dormers and were told they were too big. Ms. Wilson stated the last time they appeared before the Commission, there were four dormers. She stated that she would like to see the house and ADU come together. She stated that what she believes the Commission is trying to avoid is where there are two rakes and huge shed dormers on either side. If they are done tastefully and using scale and proportions of the house that is there. She stated that what is being proposed on the main house is great. Ms. Rowe stated that her issue is the size of the ADU compared to the size of the original home. She stated that no matter what is done about the size of the dormers, there is still a big ADU compared to the original home. Mr. Fowler stated that you will not see it from the street. Ms. Rowe and Ms. Wilson stated that it will be seen from the street. Ms. Wilson stated that the way it was rotated helps and if you think about a house that is three times the size of this ADU, which they could build, and think about the massing of how that whole house would be, if the two forms relate better together, it is like one house has been broken apart. She stated that this would be so much better. She stated that it looks like another lot in the back. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he agrees with the comments that have been made. He stated that either the scale of the proposed ADU needs to be reduced, or it needs to tie in more to the house. He stated that a choice has to be made, because currently, it violates both of those guidelines. He stated that this can be accomplished. Ms. Wilson moved to approve the main house renovation at 739 Pitt Street and defer the ADU design for a future meeting; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. (Ms. Dickson stepped out at 6:09 p.m.) 4. 930 Richter Way—(Survey 6042) TMS 532-13-00-088 – Final Approval for Installation of Parking pad Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Katie Duncan, Duncan Design, representing the homeowner, June Thorpe-Galy. She stated that the cul-de-sac is a parking nightmare and the neighbors to the left have a very nice solution. She stated that they turned their front yard into an auto court. She stated that they would like to mimic their idea. She stated that originally this driveway goes all the way back where there was a garage. This was approved to be enclosed and is part of the house so there is no need to carry the driveway all the way to the back. So they will be  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 11 of 22 removing the concrete and adding two parking spaces in the front with a sand set brick, herringbone pattern, it would be a crushed stone parking area with a brick border. She stated that they would be reducing impervious surfaces significantly and would solve a lot of issues. Although the driveway is long, she can only park stacked. She stated that making the auto court in the front will allow two cars side by side, not stacked. She stated that she will also designate an entry walk landing separate from the parking areas. Mr. Keenan asked how far the crushed stone comes out. Ms. Duncan stated that it comes all the way to the road. She stated that where the driveway is now will become plants and landscape. Mr. Keenan asked about the grade and expressed concern about the water runoff. Ms. Duncan stated that all the material will be pervious and will be held in with a brick border so that there is not any runoff of the stone. She stated that using a bigger aggregate piece like the colonial beige stone will help with this. (Ms. Dickson returned at 6:15 p.m.) Ms. Wilson stated that this is a very difficult cul-de-sac and what is proposed is a very nice solution. She stated if the apron or the throat could come down to eighteen. Ms. Duncan stated that she will review this, but wanted to ensure that two cars could get in and out easily. Ms. Balzac stated that she worked on the house and could never find parking. It is an odd area. Ms. Wilson moved to approve the landscape and hardscape at 930 Richter Way; seconded by Mr. Hirshorn. All present voted in favor. 5. 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. Mr. Linton stated that they had conceptual approval and were deferred, so they are back for the third time. He stated that not all Commission members were present last time and reviewed details with them. He stated that the slope of the roof on the left side was changed as per the Commission’s comments, and added windows. The rear slope will remain the same and they added windows and windows on the side and expanded the front porch out and reconfigured the entryway and the front door to make the front door face the street, so it is more engaging. He stated that a walkway was also added from the street to further engage. He stated that on the two story porch, it used to have more of a pergola type look and it  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 12 of 22 was removed and put in a full roof which was suggested by the Commission. He stated that they also reconfigured the dimensions of the two story porch to make it more grounded into the house and had what was referred to as picture windows, but changed them to a grid to make all the windows consistent. He stated that they have addressed all the comments. He stated that one of the comments was to try and do the same to the back as what was done to the front with the roof, so they have added a similar break in the roof to the rear so there is a changed pitch adding a more symmetrical look. He stated that another comment was to make some of the windows bigger so larger windows were added. He stated that this area will be attic space for them. He stated that the railing details have all been changed to be the normal horizontal railing. He stated that another comment was to add board and batten detail and not to use an inferior detail, so they spent time trying to determine what would be inferior versus superior detail. They looked at St. Andrews Church and that neighborhood is board and batten. Their original idea for board and batten was to do something different from all the other homes in the neighborhood that had recently been built. He stated that the only other change they made is the location of the garage door and match the louvers under the house. Ms. Rowe stated that she applauds the homeowner for all the work they have done, because it looks wonderful. Linda Balzac stated that this has come so far from the first submittal. Mr. Keenan stated that it looks great and has come a long way and appreciate the homeowners working with the Commission. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he loves it and wish they saw a lot more of these, as it is very appealing. He stated that the porches are still not harmonious with the Old Village, as you do not see many of these in the Village. Ms. Wilson stated that if it was in a more traditional row of houses, she may have some push back on the double porch; however, considering the view they have from the top porch, it would be difficult. She does not think it is out of context with the houses as you get closer to the harbor. Ms. Rowe asked if the attic space could one day be added on to. Mr. Linton stated that they have two small children and do not plan on having more. He stated that the ceilings would only be 6 feet there. Ms. Wilson moved to approve the final new construction for 966 Pitt Street; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. 6. 307 Venning – (Survey 6188) TMS 532-01-00-263 – Final Approval for Alterations to Approved Hardscaping. {consent approval}  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 13 of 22 7. Beach Street – TMS 517-15-00-103 – Conceptual Comment on New Construction. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Phil Clarke, Clarke Design Group, said that from Haddrell there is a small entryway. He stated that the property is low and the neighbors are excited that something is being done, because it does hold water. He stated that there are two home currently that were approved last summer and fall and currently under construction. He stated that it really opens up on Beach Street. He stated that they decided to pull the driveway in off of Haddrell to open the lot up. Still wanted to get a nice elevation to the lot. He stated that the home is 2,580 sf and wanted to make it feel like an old cottage. He stated that it is 1 ½ stories and the second floor walls are 5 feet 6 inches, but has a two story porch roof which opens it up. One story porch everywhere else. He stated that the two gables are not perfectly aligned on the main mass, but are similar in size. He said that it is not a formal house and does not have a formal street front. He said on the side porch it is a hexagonal porch, because he wanted to maximize the space. The lot is more triangular and believes it will look nice, but are open to discussions. Mr. Keenan stated that it is way under the 24.5%. Ms. Rowe stated that it has a lot of character and charm and is not huge. Linda Balzac stated that it is nice to see a house with this height, scale and mass. It is very appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Keenan stated that conceptually, the design looks great and fits the street. Ms. Wilson stated that her one comment is that there is a lot of wall with no window. Mr. Clarke stated that it jogs in and out. Ms. Wilson stated that she understands that it does, but suggested a window in the bathroom. Mr. Clarke stated that he would add a window. Mr. Keenan stated on the left elevation, to the left of the hexagon porch. He stated that it is not critical. Mr. Clarke stated that he has a bathroom there which is the main bathroom from downstairs, but will see if he can work something in. Ms. Rowe suggested shuttering it. Ms. Wilson stated that in reference to the size of the mullions on the two side lights on the front, it seems a bit out of character or just too narrow. She stated that she likes that the gables are shifted.  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 14 of 22 8. 708 Pitt Street – (Survey 5951) TMS 532-09-00-075 – Final Approval for Enclosing Carport. [Consent approval] 9. 302 Bennett Street – (HISTORIC 6154) TMS 532-01-00-060 – Final Approval for Alteration to Historic Windows. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Linda Balzac, architect, with contractor Sam Lisi. She stated that the second floor of this house was an attic originally and the owners in the 1980’s turned it into a bedroom. She stated that the windows are not original to the house and in very poor condition with storm windows over it. She proposes to retain the muntin patters that are there and it will be a wood window. She stated that with egress as it is, they will be case windows instead of double hung. She stated that it is only for 2nd floor windows. Ms. Wilson asked if they would be vinyl clad. Ms. Balzac stated that they would be Marvin’s. Mr. Lisi stated that they used Marvin’s last year on the first floor. Ms. Wilson made a motion to approve the window replacement at 302 Bennett Street with Marvin all-wood windows; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present vote in favor. 10. 223 Pitt Street – (HISTORIC 5923) TMS 532-01-00-038 – Final Approval for Addition and Hardscape Alteration. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Linda Balzac, architect representing the homeowners. She stated that this is a wonderful historic house and the Lund’s have done a wonderful job with this. She stated that she was unaware that the side porch going down near the driveway was not original. She stated that there is a bump where it was attached. She stated that when they added on they also put a little bump out on the back on the side porch to enclose some space for the first floor bedroom. She stated that they are proposing to bring a piece out and the columns will remain the same so there will be some relief on the pilasters. She stated that they will add a cover and pop out the pieces that are in the back of the house. She stated on the side that is visible from Pitt Street, it was originally a small back porch and there were several additions done in the area. She stated that the family is growing and this area is the family room, so they would like to come out seven feet and simplify the roof. She stated that when reviewing the guidelines, she wanted to effect as little as possible the historic elevation. She proposed to pull a piece out. She stated that there was a shallow hip room and they could not get it to work for the width of the property so she is proposing a lower pitch closer to the house to avoid the three historic windows on that side, and then  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 15 of 22 raise the gable to take the details from the main house. She stated that she would like to make a small interim piece. She would like to pop the roof up and put a fireplace on the back side. She stated that it simplifies the elevations. She stated that it provides a little more space and the windows that are original stay where they are. She stated that all the materials will match existing. She stated that they are slightly above the impervious rule, but are taking some of the impervious space out. Ms. Dickson asked how far over the ratio. Mr. Pohlman stated that when submitted, it was at 42.69% which is 2.69% over maximum allowable. Ms. Balzac stated that existing was at 43.37% and went down to 42.69%. Ms. Wilson asked when the previous additions were done. Ms. Balzac asked which piece. She asked the homeowners to explain the history of the additions previously made. Ms. Wilson stated that she is wondering how historic it is. Craig Lund, property owner stated that he is not certain when the back porch was added, but estimated in the 1960’s or 1970’s. Ms. Wilson asked if he was referring to the small back piece. Ms. Balzac stated that it is enclosed. She stated that it was a back porch and was enclosed. Mr. Lund stated that it was done after Hurricane Hugo. Ms. Wilson stated that she is asking, because there is a lot of work being done to continue the wall and wondering if it needs to be done, and if part of that porch can just become a hyphen and the new family space could be whatever height and what works for the family. She stated that what is being proposed is going to create an off roof condition that is not necessary, because she does not believe that what was enclosed in 1986 warrants the Commission’s protection. Ms. Balzac added that perhaps a hyphen like the one completed at Live Oak, where it was set back very slightly. Ms. Wilson said that set back slightly and the proportions and dimensions of the living room can be whatever the homeowner desires, including ceiling height, because the historic windows on the second floor have been accommodated. She stated that there would be less concern. Ms. Balzac stated that they would need to be concerned about the impervious lot ratio, because they are already over the 40% and have removed what they were able to do so. Ms. Wilson stated that this is not in their purview.  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 16 of 22 Mr. Pohlman stated that the homeowners would have to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals and request a variance. Ms. Dickson asked if they still have to do it even if the 42% sits on the current approved square footage. Mr. Pohlman stated that because the square footage is being reduced, it would be allowable, as they are reducing the non- conformity. Ms. Rowe stated that this will be a big improvement for the homeowners and the streetscape. Ms. Dickson stated that there are three outbuilding on this property. Mr. Lund stated that there is a garage and the original cook cottage. Ms. Balzac stated that the proposed area is attached to the kitchen so it is a family room. She stated that the hyphen would be moving the wall back in slightly. Ms. Wilson stated that she was merely make a suggestion in order to have a larger area; however, the homeowners may want something different. Ms. Balzac stated that this would make more of a definition between historic and new property. She stated that since they are adding on past it, she originally proposed the hyphen with a lower roof in order not to affect the windows upstairs. However, there are a number of ways to define it. Ms. Wilson suggested that if the interior walls are where the homeowner would like them, she would do the roof all the way the same. Mr. Lund stated that the walls are the same, they are just going out seven feet. Ms. Balzac stated that she would have done this, except the three windows on the second floor are historic windows. She stated that the middle window could be shortened. Ms. Wilson asked Ms. Balzac if she could keep the hip roof that has the same ridge that it has now and just extend it. She asked if there was enough ceiling height. Ms. Balzac stated that it is really shallow. Sam Lisi, stated that he is not in favor of the pitch and the room itself is very small so they were hoping to achieve a vaulted ceiling. He stated that this is when they decided to shorten up the middle window. This was their solution. It stated that it is certainly not easy. Carol Lund, homeowner stated that this will be the only fireplace in the house. Ms. Wilson stated that she is not opposed to what is being proposed.  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 17 of 22 Mr. Lund stated that the original fireplace was taken out by the previous homeowners. Ms. Wilson stated that what is being proposed is great, but was suggesting that if needed for interior space, but does not think that this is something that needs to be protected. She stated that she would do what works for the homeowners. She stated that she felt it was a great deal of work on something that was not historic. She asked if it was the same pitch. Ms. Balzac responded in the affirmative and stated that the one behind it is lower. She did match the wrap around porch pitch. Ms. Wilson asked about the stairs and if they go on the back. Ms. Balzac stated that they will be on the driveway side, but it will be a stoop and two stairs. She stated that there is a small overhang with nice detail. She stated that there is a door that leads to Mrs. Lund’s office space and they wanted to put small overhang which is over concrete so they are not increasing the impervious surface. Mr. Hirshorn asked about the porch bump out and if it was the original porch. Ms. Balzac indicated where the porch originally stopped and stated that it never went around the corner of the house. Ms. Wilson stated that her final comment is that it should be one roof form and does not know if that means that the middle window needs to stay and understands and supports taking the walls taller, adding a fireplace, making the room bigger, but would like to see a simplified roof form. She stated that it is such a classic house on the street and it just needs to be simple and elegant. Ms. Rowe stated that she does not mind the bump down and believes it provides some character. She stated that she would rather see the roof kept as is and not touch the windows. Ms. Balzac stated that the homeowners do not wish to touch the windows. She stated that the hyphen below will help a little, but complicates the wall. Ms. Wilson and Ms. Balzac discussed various options. Ms. Balzac stated that the window openings are original; however, the windows are not original. Ms. Wilson made a motion to approve the addition with the exception that the upper portion of the central window will be maintained and the lower portion will be shuttered or enclosed in order to accommodate a higher ridge and a uniform roof line; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. Ms. Wilson amended her motion to include the stoop overhang over the studio; Ms. Rowe amended her second. All present voted in favor.  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 18 of 22 11. 304 Morrison Street – (HISTORIC 6162) TMS 532-01-00-054 – Conceptual Comment for Addition and Alterations. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Ms. Wilson stated that she would be recusing herself. Lauren Giovingo-Wiley and Jake Wiley, stated that they are in the process of purchasing this home and would like to come before the Commission prior to finalizing the purchase to make sure that they are able to make this home fit their family. She stated that they went from two to four children very quickly with twins. Prior to purchasing the home, they would like to ensure they are able to do the renovations. She stated that the current homeowner is present to support the purchase and renovations and he was able to locate a picture that his father drew of the home prior to renovations. She stated that the dormer on the front, which is considered a non- conforming dormer that they are proposing to take down, and put back the three dormers, will take the house back to its original structure. She stated that they started with the Sanborn maps to try and figure out what the original structure was. She stated that what they are proposing to take down is the front dormer to the original three dormers, remove the tower which is a bathroom over a bathroom which was an addition. She stated that the reason they are requesting this is the way the structure was built was subpar from where it should be now. She stated that she has a letter from the engineer that provides the information. She stated that the addition that is off to the side, they are proposing to take it down and rebuild it, due to the structural nature of the building. Ms. Dickson asked if she is referring to the green garage. Ms. Wiley stated that she is not referring to the green garage, but it is in their future plans to remove it at a different time. She stated that looking at the existing house, there is an addition with a breezeway, indicating on the illustration the portion they would like to demolish and rebuilt in a different nature to accommodate the twin girls with a playroom space, as well as master suite that is connected to the house. Mr. Keenan asked if the only demolition would be behind the iron staircase. Ms. Wiley responded in the affirmative, but added that the large non-conforming dormer would also be taken out and replaced with the original three dormers. She stated that the other proposal is since they are removing the big dormer, which houses three nice rooms upstairs, they lose a lot of the space on the second floor. She stated that they would like to propose taking a shed dormer off of the back of the house that would mirror the front dormer so they will have room to have bedrooms upstairs.  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 19 of 22 Ms. Rowe clarified that it is a shed dormer. Mr. Wiley stated that it is a little bit of a different dormer. He stated that you want shed instead of gable in the front, which is more historically accurate. Ms. Wiley stated that on the Pitt Street side view of the house, there is an existing porch that wraps around to approximately the middle of the house and then it is enclosed. She stated that it is believed that it was an old kitchen. Mr. Lewis stated that it was an old kitchen and a breakfast nook. Ms. Wiley stated that it was enclosed over a porch space and was not built to hold that type of space. She stated that they are proposing to take that back down and open it up in to a side porch and wrap that side porch around to the back slightly to allow for a door. She stated that this would all be open porches and believe that this is what it was originally prior to closing it in for the kitchen and breakfast nook area. Ms. Wiley stated that looking at the back of the house, it sits on an alley. She showed where the new shed dormer would be located on the back of the house with the windows. She stated that it would be bumped down so it does not overwhelm the original historic structure where it connects to the master down below and a play space above. Ms. Dickson asked if it was right up to the lot line. Ms. Wiley responded in the affirmative. Ms. Rowe stated that according to the Sanborn map it has been that way. Mr. Keenan asked about the total heated square footage. Ms. Wiley stated that it is 3,390 with all the additions. Ms. Dickson asked why the teardown of the green garage were not presented at the same time. Mr. Pohlman stated that this is conceptual. Ms. Wiley stated that it is a matter of time Mr. Keenan stated that he appreciates the conservation aspects. He stated that it is a prominent street location on Pitt and Morrison Streets and stated that the plan looks really good. Ms. Dickson stated that she loves the idea of taking it back to the proper historic look. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it all looks and sounds great; however, on a historic structure, there is an extensive amount of altering of the historic structure and adding on and changes porches, dormers and more. He appreciates that the proposed plan is to bring it back to what it was, but he does not see any documentation. He stated that  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 20 of 22 when a massive alteration of a historic structure is proposed, it needs more of a real historic documentation. Mr. Lewis stated that he can likely answer those questions with the documentation he has. Mr. Hirshorn stated that all of the elements need to be treated with a sensitivity and documentation so that the Commission is comfortable that it is being restored back to what it was. Ms. Wiley stated that if they are not able to produce photographs of what the house originally looked like, they would like to give the house a more conforming look to the neighborhood with the front dormer, which is much different than anything else you would see in the neighborhood. Mr. Hirshorn stated that this would not be acceptable. He stated that the fact that it is more conforming would not supersede the fact that it is historic. He stated that the portion that is proposed to be demolished and replaced with a nice new addition, there is a way that builders can document that it is not historic. Jake Wiley stated that he prides himself on being somewhat of an architectural archeologist, because he loves old building, which is what brought him to Charleston. He stated that he works with Ms. Wilson. He stated that when he was studying this particular building, taking pictures and measurements, it is easy to see on a timeline basis, what new materials were added. The previous homeowner built it himself and you can see that the old foundation is fantastic with old brick piers. He stated that all the way downstairs is exposed so you can see the old barn wood next to pressure treated lumber on CMU. Mr. Hirshorn suggest that when the final presentation is made, to document and take pictures of newer additions/renovations. He asked for the potential homeowners to research what they can on the dormers so that from a preservation standpoint the Commissioners will be more comfortable. He stated that Mr. Lewis must have some old pictures. Mr. Lewis stated that he would look through his paperwork. He added that if you go back to the drawing that indicates where the potential homeowners are proposing to take down, this was built in the 1960’s because there is a bomb shelter underneath. He stated that his father built the bomb shelter for the Cuban missile crisis. He stated that his dad built the bomb shelter. Above it, there is currently a structure that is an auxiliary unit that was built for an aunt to live out her life. He stated that the way the house is laid out the way it is, is because his parent rented our portions as apartments to military. He said that all of this was put in 1963. He said that portion is the most recent of the house. He stated that everything on the main portion of the house is historic.  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 21 of 22 Mr. Hirshorn stated that it appears that the Commission is relatively comfortable and asked that the additional documentation be presented when they come before the Commission for approval of their plans, to ensure that the historic structure is not being altered. Mr. Wiley stated that he believes this can be put together. Ms. Dickson stated that it would be great to write the history of the house. Mr. Lewis stated that he has the hand written deed from 1887 when it was originally in the Morrison’s name and then it passed down into his family in 1923. He stated that it has been in his family since that time. Ms. Dickson stated that if you write the history of the house, subsequent generations would appreciate it. Ms. Rowe stated that in order for the Commission to defend its position, the more documentation that is presented the better. Mr. Keenan stated that it is obvious that the architect that they hired knows what the Commission desires and conceptually, as long as the Commission is comfortable with the historic nature and fabric of the house, the conceptual plans are great. Mr. Hirshorn stated that reopening the porch is great and has been documented. IV. Staff Approvals V. Request for Guideline Consultant Discussion Mr. Pohlman stated that Town Council at their April meeting, declined changing the date for historic designation consideration for structures within the Old Village Historic District from the current set date of 1936 to a 50 year requirement. He stated that the Planning Committee also decided not to pursue the guideline consultant at this time. He stated that Town Council will be addressing the ordinances in reference to Accessory Structure heights, parking requirements and the OVHDC membership requirements. Mr. Keenan stated that it is not a requirement, but an option. Ms. Rowe asked if there is anything regarding Accessory Dwelling Structures and a ratio to the original dwelling. Mr. Pohlman stated that there is language in the guidelines. He stated that under Section 3 of Garages and Accessory Buildings, which covers ADU’s, the scale, height, mass, and location of garages and accessory buildings should be appropriate for the primary structure it accompanies. It is inharmonious for garages and accessory buildings to be taller than the primary historic or non-historic structure that it may accompany. Mr. Keenan stated that it does not give a ratio.  Old Village Historic District Commission May 8, 2017 Page 22 of 22 Mr. Pohlman stated that it does not, but it does refer to “massing and scale” to the primary residence. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it is more advantageous to the Commission. He added that it would be a perfect place for one of the guideline illustrations of what is a good and bad example. Mr. Pohlman stated that the reason why the diagrams were placed into resources was so the illustrations would not be directly part of the guidelines that residents had to hold to since they could not be tailored to the village directly. He stated that this would be at a later date and Commission members may request the guidelines to be addressed again by Town Council. VI. 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 7:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Ashe May 8, 2017