Historic District Preservation Commission (HDPC)

OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE July 10, 2017 5:00 PM Municipal Complex 100 Ann Edwards Lane Public Meeting Room 1, Building A ****************** NOTE: Items in blue are hyperlinks (some file sizes are large and may take a minute to load). MINUTES PRESENT: Joe Keenan, Chair; Leigh Rowe, Vice Chair; Scott Hirshorn and Susan Dickson EXCUSED ABSENCE: Heather Wilson STAFF PRESENT: Eric Pohlman Mr. Keenan called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m., and reviewed the meeting procedures with the public. I. Approval of Minutes June 12, 2017 Ms. Dickson moved to accept the minutes; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. II. Public Comment & General Correspondence a. NEW -- Submittal Checklist for Review and Comment. Mr. Keenan stated that Town staff has created a submittal checklist. Mr. Pohlman stated that there will be a new checklist to be completed with all applications that are submitted to the Town and the Commission. He stated that this will increase consistency with the submittals although most of the information is already required. He stated that this will increase the efficiency for review. Mr. Keenan stated that no new information is being requested of the applicants, but more for organizational purposes. He stated that the overall goal is to assist the applicant and the board with the ease of reviewing the documents.  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 2 of 23 Linda Balzac, architect, stated that in reference to the demolition portion in the current ordinance, suggested that the three options be listed on the checklist outlining the reasons for the demolition request. Mr. Keenan agreed that this is a good point and asked Mr. Pohlman to include this in the checklist. Mr. Keenan also added that this will be accessible on the Town’s website to the public. Mr. Pohlman stated that he will bring the checklist back at the August meeting for Commission members to review and approve. Kate Campbell, architect, asked about scale on final review. Mr. Pohlman stated that it would be ¼ inch scale for the PDF submittal and 11x17 for the printed copies. He stated that the scales are more for digital copies and the paper copies are more for the Commission. Mr. Keenan stated that the guidelines were revised at the beginning of the year and this would be a revision to the checklist. III. BUSINESS STAFF REPORT Ms. Dickson stated that prior to making a consent motion, with regards to 139 Toomer Lane, she is concerned with the percentage of the lot consumption. She stated that consent motions have been granted previously and the project turned out to be enormous, taking the entire lot. She stated that she is a little reluctant; however, if everyone else has already reviewed this project and agrees to the consent motion, she would be agreeable. She stated that the ratio appears to be within the guidelines. Ms. Rowe stated that on this particular application, they are requesting two dormers and windows. Ms. Dickson stated that she would be fine with this. Ms. Rowe made a consent motion to approve 135 Toomer Lane, final review for alterations to the approved plans, and 139 Toomer Lane, conceptual review for addition to structure; seconded by Mr. Hirshorn. All present voted in favor.  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 3 of 23 Mr. Martschink, applicant for 135 Toomer Lane stated that the size of the lights may need to be adjusted an inch or two and asked if that would be acceptable. Mr. Keenan stated that it would be acceptable. 1. 110 Morrison Street – (HISTORIC 6163) TMS 532-01-00-055 – Final Review for Alteration to Porch Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. William Sparkman Witte “Sparky”, stated that he is a lifetime resident of Mount Pleasant and grew up at 208 Venning Street, therefore, he is very familiar with the Old Village. He stated that he loves the Old Village and does not want anything to harm it. He said that the porch the homeowner has is wood and has been replaced time and time again, even with treated lumber. He presented the Commission with samples of a newer product and stated that he understands the Commission has approved synthetic materials in the past. He stated that they would like to present this product, because when assembled, there are no gaps. He stated that it would be a gray color and the project would take approximately one week to complete. Mr. Keenan asked if this would be installed on the first floor porch. Mr. Witte responded in the affirmative. Ms. Rowe asked if this is an approved material. Mr. Witte stated that the OVHDC has approved other synthetic materials. Ms. Rowe asked if it has been approved by the National Register in 48 states. Mr. Witte responded in the affirmative. Ms. Dickson asked if the house is historic. Mr. Witte replied in the affirmative. Beatrice Weston, homeowner stated that she has lived in her home for 67 years and is not changing the appearance at all.  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 4 of 23 Mr. Hirshorn stated that if the 48 states have approved this product for National Register and Historic Places replacement, asked if Mr. Witte had any additional information or paperwork, because this is a broad statement. He stated that this Commission has a strict policy on materials for historic porches, casings and windows and this product is not listed. Mr. Witte stated that it has not yet been approved by this Commission, because no one has applied for it yet. He stated that there are other synthetic products that are on the approved list and believes this should be added. Mr. Dickson stated that Mr. Witte would be asking for a variation rather than change of guidelines. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he does not know enough about this material and it is rare for the Commission to receive applications for synthetic porches, particularly on historic homes. Mr. Keenan stated that the flooring on the porch is not historic. Ms. Weston stated that it has been replaced a number of times. Mr. Witte stated that this is the latest and greatest synthetic material. Mr. Keenan stated that the Commission is conflicted, because it is not on the Commission’s approved materials list. He understands what Mr. Witte is attempting to accomplish; however, he does not know anything about the product. Ms. Weston stated that her daughter works for a building supply company and has researched this material. She has assured her that this would last many years. She stated that she has replaced the treated wood porch many, many times and it is a nuisance to have to continue to do so. She stated that this new material will look exactly like wood. Sam Lisi, stated that he is a builder in the Old Village and believes this is something that the Commission should begin to look at. He stated that he is pro-historic and keeping the authenticity of a home; however, this has been an ongoing nightmare for many residents. He added that manufacturers over the years, have created a wonderful replacement plank boarding that looks just like wood, and this homeowner is fighting  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 5 of 23 a maintenance nightmare. He believes the Commission is going to need to overcome some of these issues, similar to Hardie plank versus wood. He stated that the porch has minimal exposure. He stated that this is a really good product. Mr. Keenan stated that the artisan Hardie plank is difficult to distinguish from the real wood plank. Mr. Lisi stated that this will help salvage the homeowner’s pocketbook by not having to replace the porch over and over again, and will not disrupt the character of the home. Mr. Hirshorn asked if there were other materials that are on the approved list that have some of the similar features. Mr. Lisi stated that there are some similar; however, the one that Mr. Witte displayed is one of the better materials, because it has the full thickness with a character grain and does not look synthetic. He stated that epay would be the alternate wood product, but the manufacturer recommends that you not paint it, because the oil in the epay is dense and does not hold paint. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the solution is to get this material approved, but does not know how to move forward with this process. He stated that the Commission could look into the approval in the other 48 states and add it to the approved materials list. He stated that currently, there is guideline #5, which must be adhered to. Ms. Dickson asked to refer to Ms. Wilson’s notes. Mr. Hirshorn stated that Ms. Wilson believes that on historical features, approved materials should be utilized. Ms. Dickson asked Mr. Pohlman what the procedure is for getting this new material approved. Mr. Keenan read the guidelines on page 14 relating to porches and stoops. He stated that he would like to work with the homeowner; however, to approve this tonight would be a deviation from the guidelines. Mr. Pohlman read the section in the guidelines under Overall Design, and stated that it indicates that new materials must be approved by the  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 6 of 23 Commission before the application is submitted for COA, with the two applications being separate. He stated that if the Commission approves this material for porches on historic homes, then at the next meeting the COA would be able to be approved. He stated that the material must be approved first and added to the list. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it would take a minimum of two more months. Mr. Pohlman stated that the material could be approved this month and next month, the application could come back for review. Linda Balzac, stated that she would specifically name this PVC, because there are many lower quality PVC materials on the market that are not good. Mr. Keenan stated that anything that would be a lesser quality than this would absolutely not be considered. Ms. Dickson stated the Commission needs to use care in the wording. Mr. Keenan stated that the consensus is that this is for a historic property and the Commission must tread very lightly with this. He stated that the guidelines must be adhered to which is not typically with a historic property. He stated that he would be willing to hold a Special Commission meeting in order to put this material on the table for approval. Ms. Dickson moved to defer 110 Morrison Street until the board has a chance to research the material further; seconded by Mr. Hirshorn. All present voted in favor. 2. 135 Toomer Lane— TMS 517-15-00-064 – Final Review for Alterations to Approved Plans DONE 3. 139 Toomer Lane – (Survey 6264) TMS 517-15-00-065 – Conceptual Review for Addition to Structure DONE 4. 202 Bank Street – (Survey 6110.01) TMS 532-05-00-225 – Conceptual Review for Alterations to Approved Plans for Accessory Structure Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Linda Balzac, architect for homeowner and Sam Lisi, contractor. She stated that the homeowner who recently purchased the property would  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 7 of 23 like to rotate the home so that the long side is facing the road and the short side is now the deck. She stated that the property owners have two smaller vehicles and would like to be able pull them off the street and straight into the garage. She stated that this was already approved approximately two months ago. She stated that when turning the house, it moves three feet back off the street and is intrusive on the property line. She stated that she called this “conceptual” because she thought the guidelines were in effect for the checklist, but everything has already been approved and the homeowner would just like to rotate the home. She stated that she moved one retaining wall over so it is straight for the vehicles, and all materials will match existing and the brick retaining wall will be the same height as it is now. Mr. Keenan asked if the right side elevation is what was originally seen from Bank Street. Ms. Balzac stated that the house is almost a square. She stated that the paperwork towards the back portion of the application is the one that was approved and it has a 19 foot side, which is the front seen from Bank Street. Mr. Keenan asked if this was what was originally approved. Ms. Balzac responded in the affirmative. Ms. Rowe asked if the Bank Street view was still the same. Ms. Balzac stated that it would be two feet wider. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he is still a little confused about what the Commission is approving. Ms. Balzac stated that it is the same footprint; however, the house is being rotated. She stated that they previously had a 14 foot wide garage and would like to rotate the house in order to create more room and pull the cars straight into the garage and off the street. She stated that the current house is being demolished, but the footprint will remain the same; they are just rotating it slightly. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the Bank Street view is a wider view. Mr. Keenan stated that he really likes what is there, but it is being demolished and a new house is being built.  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 8 of 23 Mr. Hirshorn asked if Ms. Balzac has the elevation for the new proposed garage that is three feet wider, as well as the gable, in relation to the main house. Ms. Balzac stated that she does not. She said the house is 16 feet in one direction and then there are stairs to a second story structure. She stated that there are three or four roof pitches on the house to keep it at 18 feet. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it appears wider and lower to him. Ms. Balzac stated that it is wider and lower. She stated that it is really close to the 10 and 12 pitch that is on the house. She stated that if she went up slightly to get it to the last pitch, she would be fine with that. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it would be difficult to say unless he saw it next to the main house. Mr. Keenan stated that it is lower than what was previously approved. Ms. Balzac stated that it is the same height, but she lessened the pitch. Mr. Hirshorn confirmed that what Ms. Balzac intends to do is rotate the home so that the long side is now the front. Ms. Balzac responded in the affirmative and said that it is only three more feet. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it would be a totally altered streetscape than it currently exists. Mr. Balzac stated that it will definitely look much different than it does currently. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the Commission has been very particular about the accessory structures taking cues from the main residence. Ms. Balzac stated that it does take its cues from the main house, as she did the main house originally, and said that this is the second time working on it. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he would have liked to see a new elevation with the new proposed structure in relation to the house.  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 9 of 23 Mr. Keenan stated that it would be helpful. He stated that he prefers the pitch taller and narrower. Mr. Hirshorn stated that everything is shoe-horned in the back area of Bank Street. Ms. Balzac stated that to achieve a taller and narrower pitch, it will need to be slightly higher than 20 feet. Mr. Hirshorn understands the practicality; however, it is difficult to make a decision without seeing it. He stated that the Commission has gone back and forth on many of the applications for this very reason; to ensure the pitches match. Mr. Keenan stated that the ADU is not a pleasant discussion. Ms. Balzac stated that this is not an ADU, but simply a garage for two vehicles and a small loft in the back for their three sons’ swim items. She stated that she has kept the pitch as low as possible on the sides so that it did not go up any higher. She stated that she may need an additional three to six inches to get the pitch at the original pitch. Mr. Hirshorn stated that with the application, he would like Ms. Balzac to provide a drawing where the height and pitch are increased and the streetscape. Ms. Rowe asked how long the original building was from Bank Street. Ms. Balzac stated that it is the same width as the original building, which is 19 feet. 5. 219 Haddrell Street – (Survey 6261) TMS 517-15-00-049 – Final Review for Alterations to Approved Plans Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Linda Balzac, architect for the homeowner, who is present. She stated that when she met with the homeowner, she misunderstood when submitting the application for thirty feet to the porch, rather than across the front of the house. She stated that it was her error. She was unable to submit the application; therefore, the homeowner submitted it herself. She stated that they kept the twelve inch retaining wall and extended it to the end of the house, so it is in the same place it was  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 10 of 23 before. She stated that the parking pad moved over. She stated that this was approved at the last meeting with a brick line concrete driveway. She stated that what she is asking for is for the parking pad to be moved over slightly, and extending a twelve inch retaining wall across the whole front. She stated that this is due to the storm drain that is in the front and when it is high tide and rain on Shem Creek, the drain bubbles up and goes into the homeowner’s front yard. She stated that the homeowner added the relocation of the existing shed to the application. She said that it is four feet, six inches off the rear property line and she has a letter from the homeowner behind her and they were fine with where the shed was being located, as it was going directly behind their shed. Mr. Pohlman read the letter in to the record. She stated that the shed is not visible from public view. Mr. Keenan stated that the house looks great; however, is not understanding the wall and asked if that was previously approved. Ms. Balzac responded in the affirmative. She stated that when she spoke to the homeowners she initially put it in the wrong place. She stated that it was supposed to be at the end of the house. She stated that they are doing this specifically, because there is a storm drain in the front. She stated that they wanted a retaining wall to add a little soil and elevation in the front yard. Ms. Rowe asked if it was still twelve inches high. Ms. Balzac responded in the affirmative. Ms. Rowe stated that going across the entire front would look better than just thirty feet. Mr. Keenan asked if it is going to be a raised lawn. Ms. Balzac responded in the affirmative, with a pitch to the drain. She said the driveway is the same as before, just slightly moved over and out of the tree protection zone. Ms. Rowe made a motion to approve the application for 219 Haddrell Street for final review of alterations; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor.  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 11 of 23 6. 436 Church Street – (HISTORIC 6191) TMS 5320100092 – Conceptual Review for Addition to Historic Structure and Installation of Hardscape and Pool Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Kate Campbell, Beau Clowney Architects, stated that the house is circa 1850’s and she is doing research on the evolution. She stated that they pulled up the Sanborn maps, which show it has been added on to. She stated that the 1912 Sanborn maps show this home as a gable structure that is more of a t-shape with one story casings on the front and back, with a two-story porch. She stated that at some point the two corners were infilled and the large gable on the side elevation was put in. She said there were significant alterations to that side, but has really remained this core block of a house until the mid-1990’s when the carport structure and one story piece on the backside of the project were added. She showed illustrations to the Commission of the home. She stated that what they are proposing is to add to the rear of the structure with a link, revealing the historic corner which was obscured with the 1990’s addition, alter the kitchen area and pull it back from the main corner, alter the roof slightly, and do a one story living room addition. She stated that they are attempting to follow more preservation minded concepts. She said that landscape and paving plans were received from the owner 24 hours prior to submittal of the application, so they put it on there for reference and are still working with Sheila Wertimer’s office on what the layout will be. She stated that conceptually, she wanted to provide the framework. She stated that one of the owners is an artist and would like an art studio to paint off the living room. She added that they are not in a flood zone. She said that the side setback that they are requesting, the survey shows one corner 2.4 feet off the property line, so they will be encroaching 8.2 feet into the existing required setback. She said that they are stepping the new addition in so they are not going any further into that setback from that corner and will be about 3 feet off. Mr. Keenan stated that the middle section, where the former roof is, will be removed, that is not changing.  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 12 of 23 Ms. Campbell said that the roof will come off and the wall will move back and the other wall becomes the separation between the new kitchen and the old. She says it will feel like a link and then the new building. Batton Kennon, of Beau Clowney Architects added that Ms. Campbell mentioned that the original house has since been altered throughout the years. He stated that there was a t-shaped gable and the backside was one story up until after 1938, when it was changed. Ms. Dickson asked if they would be proposing some type of new gable. Mr. Kennon responded in the negative, as it has since been changed. He stated that the hyphen will have a new roof, because the shed will slope into the new addition. Mr. Keenan stated that it is massive, but the lot is also massive. He stated that he likes the addition and what was done with the porch, extending it out. Ms. Dickson asked if the fireplace is an inside/outside fireplace. Ms. Campbell stated that it is an outside fireplace downstairs, but not on the porch. Mr. Keenan stated that he is fine with the pool and stated that Ms. Wertimer’s landscape plan is out of the Commission’s purview. Ms. Rowe stated that she loves what has been done to take it back to what it should have been. Mr. Hirshorn stated that in reference to the proposed demolition of the addition, he would need more documentation on when it was built and that it is not historic. He stated that although it is an addition, it may still be old. Mr. Kennon stated that their research shows it was done in the mid 1990’s and any request on how this should be done, they would need some direction. Mr. Hirshorn said that how it has been accomplished in the past is documentation with slides on the interior foundations and materials so you can date it through this process.  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 13 of 23 Ms. Campbell stated that the kitchen cabinets are definitely late 1980’s to early 1990’s as well as the appliances. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he would refer back to how Ms. Campbell documented the St. Andrews Church demolition of that one section from the historic structure. He stated that he would mimic this process. Mr. Keenan stated that it could also be accomplished through old surveys. Ms. Campbell stated that she could check with the Town on the permit for that time period, and she will submit this with their final request. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it looks great, but it is a substantial increase in the structure, not necessarily from the streetscape, but it is a historic structure that the applicant is proposing to add a very large new section. He added that as a precedent he is not 100% on board with such large additions to historically preserved homes. Mr. Keenan asked for the square footage of the original structure. Ms. Campbell said that the addition is approximately 480 square feet. She stated that what may be difficult to read is that there are a great deal of porches, which are open. She stated that the addition steps backs in order to be subordinate to the main structure. Mr. Keenan stated that it is deceiving on the drawings, but most of what is being added are porches. Ms. Campbell stated that it is all open underneath, as well. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he cannot recall many examples of historic houses where there has been such a large scale addition. Ms. Campbell stated that an example would be the Boatwright’s home, which was done a few years ago. She stated that this was a historic house and a two and a half story addition was added to the back side, and the lot is smaller. She said there is also the house on Morrison. Mr. Hirshorn stated that in many cases the addition mimics the historic structure, even if they are hyphenated or the gable height is lowered. He stated that in this case, an entirely new structure is being added to a historic house and he has not seen too much of this.  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 14 of 23 Ms. Campbell stated that it happens frequently downtown where there is a kitchen house that may or may not have not been connected, and there is a variation of materials, which tells a story of how something has been added on. She stated that you have the main volume of the historic piece, then a link and another building. Ms. Keenan stated that the exception for this lot is the overall size of it. He stated that the logic really applies when there is a smaller lot and a large historic home on it and then the homeowner attempts to max out the ratio. He stated that he is not aware of a lot larger than this one in the Old Village. Ms. Dickson stated that when this is complete, it will likely exceed the 50% ratio. Ms. Campbell stated that they are only at 32% impervious. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he struggles with the idea of leaving the historical structure as it is, as opposed to adding on a beautiful addition, as it does alter the historic nature of the entirety of the home and lot. He stated that from a preservation standpoint, he is unsure what the implications would be. He added that although there is room to do the addition, it is not the same house it once was. Ms. Rowe stated that it helps that the house is sitting sideways, so it is not facing the street. Mr. Hirshorn asked if the applicant could add to the application some concrete examples of where these large new additions have been added on to the back of historically preserved homes. Mr. Keenan stated that he would like to go on record to say that he really appreciates the architects’ elevations. He stated that this Commission sees all scales and believes this is a good one to use as far as what the Commission is expecting to see, especially on conceptual. He stated that it makes it much easier for the Commission. 7. 641 Royall Avenue – (Survey 5991) TMS 532-09-00-086 – Conceptual Review for New Accessory Structure Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission.  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 15 of 23 Alex Gonzalez, Rush Dixon Architects, representing the homeowner, stated that this property is located in the Old Village Historic District; however, the home is not historic. He stated that the existing dwelling was built in 2007 and there is an accessory building that functions as a pool house that was approved and built in 2013. He stated that he would be referring to the following illustrations: A001, A002, A201 and possibly A401. He stated that the proposed Accessory Structure (AS), will have a half story above; however, it is not a dwelling unit. He showed the column detail on the main residence and would like to replicate this on the rear balcony of the accessory structure. He stated that they are able to track a majority of the materials since the house was only built 10 years ago. He said many of the details will be mimicked in the structure and they have matched some of the features to what is existing on the pool structure. He stated that they will be using similar windows to what is on the pool structure, as well as the standing seam metal room. He stated that they wanted to keep the relation to the pool structure, as subordinate structures to the main residence. He discussed the elevations on A201 and said that part of his approach was to create a subordinate roofline with architectural elements to speak to what is already existing. He said they wanted to bring some of the architectural elements that are on the pool house. He stated that there is a balcony on the back side and added that they wanted to design a project that is sensible and considers what is existing there now. He said that there are several grand trees on the property, but none of them are being compromised. He said that they have stepped the accessory structure back from the front of the main residence by 25 feet so it will be tucked away behind. He said that some of the trees in the front will allow the accessory structure to be tucked back. He stated that the garage doors on the front were mimicking carriage doors that are located throughout the Old Village and painted to match the existing scheme of colors on the house. Mr. Hirshorn asked if there were any guidelines on exterior staircases of the type that are proposed in this application. Mr. Pohlman stated that there are none for the spiral staircase shown in this application  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 16 of 23 Mr. Hirshorn stated that it would then fall under the purview of new construction in general. Ms. Rowe stated that she has always loved this house, because it looked like it had been there a very long time. She stated that she feels like the garage is battling the house and that there are too many lines and pitches in the roof, because it is right up front. Mr. Gonzalez stated that the dormers are set half way back from the front and the rear as well, which may be what is skewing the composition. Ms. Dickson stated that it looks like a Chinese Pagoda the way it is drawn and that the other reference would be a degaussing station in downtown Charleston. Mr. Keenan stated that a single gable would be much more preferable. He added that there is quite a bit of real estate and asked if the accessory structure could be pushed back. Mr. Gonzalez stated that this could be explored. Mr. Keenan stated that the elevations look larger than what it truly is. He stated that where the driveway stops is not too far back and there is quite a bit of space between the pool house and what is being proposed. He believes from what he is hearing, that the roof structure needs to be simplified with one simple gable. He stated that when it comes to accessory dwelling units, the Commission is attempting to minimize the scale. Mr. Gonzalez reiterated that this is not an ADU (accessory dwelling unit), but an accessory structure. He stated that there is no finished bathroom or plumbing. He added that it is just a finished space for recreational use for the homeowner’s young children. Ms. Rowe stated that she agrees with Mr. Keenan, because the home looks historic and the accessory structure is too modern. She stated that she also has an issue with the spiral staircase, which is a precedent that the Commission would not like to address. Ms. Dickson asked if regular stairs could be put in place of the spiral staircase.  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 17 of 23 Mr. Gonzalez stated that he would explore this option and when considering moving the structure back, would need to consider the tree line. He asked for more direction on the pitches of the roof. He said that a gable was mentioned and asked if the Commission was in favor of a hip or something else. Mr. Keenan stated that he is fine with the front elevation, but is not in favor of the dormers coming off the sides, especially with it being that prominent against the street. He said that he does not believe the Commission members will be in favor of the spiral staircase. Mr. Hirshorn asked how Commission members feel about the balcony. Mr. Keenan asked if the balcony is facing the pool. Mr. Gonzalez responded in the affirmative and said where the staircase is anchored on the corner, it would be touching the proposed balcony and none of this would be seen from the streetscape. Mr. Hirshorn stated that as a design element, he does not recall seeing a balcony on a garage. He stated that the issues appear to be that it is a little vertical and complex. He stated that if it is simplified and tied closer to the design cues from the main structure. He stated that what the Commission is attempting to do it minimize the accessory structures and accessory dwelling units. Mr. Gonzales stated that the current house is setback 45 feet from the front and said that the accessory structure is being set back an additional 25 feet from the front of the house, so this is now setback at 70 feet. Mr. Keenan stated that if the design is acceptable, he does not have an issue where it currently is; however, what is being presented is an issue in regards to the streetscape. He stated that he is not in favor of the balcony either. He stated that the Commission receives requests for these structures every month. He asked to minimize what is currently being proposed, as this is the third structure being proposed. Mr. Gonzalez stated that the height is at 19 feet 7 inches and the bearing height is at 13 feet. He stated that it is a small structure.  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 18 of 23 Ms. Dickson stated that if it was simplified she believes it would be favorable. Ms. Rowe asked if the trellis was an entrance. Mr. Gonzalez stated that it would be a framed gateway. Ms. Rowe stated that the Commission would not be in favor of a trellis. Mr. Gonzalez asked about a framed entrance without shading or canopy. Mr. Keenan stated that the Commission would have to see the design. Ms. Dickson stated that initially, it appears that the design was geared towards looking like a house instead of a garage and the Commission is more favorable with the garage concept. Mr. Hirshorn asked about the window element in the front. Mr. Gonzalez stated that it is not being utilized for storage, but a useable space for the children to play. He stated that they would like to have some natural light. Mr. Keenan stated that he believes Mr. Gonzalez has what he needs to move forward. 8. 728 Pitt Street – (HISTORIC 5956) TMS 532-09-00-086 – Final Review for Additions and Alterations to Historic Structure. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Scott Broadwell, homeowner stated that he is here with this father, Russ Broadwell. He stated that they received a lot of positive feedback in March when they presented and at that time, the design was enclosure of the carport and an “L” shaped addition on the back. He stated that the application indicates a two story addition; however, it is a one and a half story addition. He stated that the upper level has a five foot knee wall. He illustrated the street rendering of what the street level would look like with the addition in the back with the enclosure of the carport. He stated that there is mention of demolition and what is being demolished is a small section, which is an unheated laundry room. He stated that they were able to preserve the porch and the craftsman look of the porch. He stated that looking from the front, there are two  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 19 of 23 bays that are open and one will be enclosed. He stated that they are extended slightly back from that and making it into an L shape. He stated that the porch in the back is open. He stated that they reduced the scale from the March conceptual and will maintain the historic corner on the house. He reviewed with the Commission the two side elevations. Mr. Hirshorn stated that his only initial question is if the proposed demolition of the old laundry room section is historic. Mr. Broadwell stated that it is built on cinder block with separate materials from the original structure. He stated that it was the most recent addition to the property; however, they do not have anything in the permitting office that is able to date this. He stated that it was built with non-historic components. Mr. Hirshorn asked if there is an illustration of that area on an existing elevation. Mr. Broadwell stated that the structure went through several different evolutions and looking at the types of material in the piers, and the original structure was a Fisherman’s cottage and the front gable structure was then brought out as the second element and the third element was what enclosed the front porch and created the carport and then the last evolution was the added laundry room. He stated that it is constructed of different materials, has different siding and piers, and is not heated. Mr. Hirshorn asked Mr. Broadwell what year he believes this was added. Mr. Broadwell stated that based on the materials, he would estimate the 1970’s. He stated that the flooring is 1970’s Formica and it has butylene plumbing. Mr. Keenan asked if this would be the only section demolished. Mr. Broadwell stated that when they presented in March for conceptual review, this was the same component discussed that the Commission indicated was acceptable. Mr. Keenan asked if the pool was added.  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 20 of 23 Mr. Broadwell stated that this was not present in March and said that it is a plunge pool for his children and is not visible from the street. Mr. Keenan stated that he knows the homeowner has been working very hard on this project and he appreciates the effort. He said that he likes the design in the front, the enclosure on the carport, but a little nervous about the height in the back and hopes conceptually, that it does not dwarfing the historic structure. Mr. Broadwell stated that the flood code requires them to come up sixteen inches, so the front of the house obscures more of the back by coming up slightly. He stated that the total height is just under 26 feet and well within regulation. He stated that it is shorter than the one that was presented in March, coming down two feet. Colin Cope, with Heather Wilson office, stated that this is next to Heather Wilson’s home and this is a very familiar situation where you have a small cottage on the front and slightly pushed back from the street and then there is a small section, they refer to as hyphens to the one and a half story. He stated that when you are in the front of Ms. Wilson’s house, you do not even know the other structure is back there and it is larger than Mr. Broadwell’s. Ms. Rowe stated that the homeowner has done a remarkable job and loves what was accomplished in the front. Mr. Hirshorn stated that where the new addition is there is not a big height differential; however, from another angle, the roof is much lower. Mr. Broadwell stated that it does not build perspective whereas the other angle does. He stated that from the street, the lower part of the windows are obscured. He said from the street, the lower half of the window should not be visible. Mr. Cope explained the different perspectives and added that the tree shown is massive. He stated that you are not able to see the new structure, because of the tree. He stated that it leans out over the house in between the carport and what is being shown in the back.  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 21 of 23 Mr. Keenan asked what the total square footage of the proposed addition. Mr. Broadwell stated that it is 2,500 total square feet. Mr. Keenan stated that he looking for the square footage of the addition. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the addition is 1,100 square feet. Mr. Keenan stated that it is a challenging lot and believes that it looks very good. Ms. Rowe stated that they have done a great job keeping the Craftsman look together. Mr. Cope said that what they are doing is filling in a carport which are not traditional and filling it in will provide a more traditional look. Ms. Dickson stated that it is a shame to take a small house and put a large addition in the back. She stated that she does; however, likes it much better than the initial design, because the character of the Fisherman’s Cottage was kept. Mr. Broadwell stated that they attempted to try and do the addition as discreetly and appropriately as possible without losing the character. Ms. Dickson asked how far the pool was from the lot line. Mr. Colin stated that it is currently just a placeholder and could be moved around. Mr. Keenan stated that the application does not include the pool. He stated that the Commission is addressing the house. Mr. Hirshorn stated that unfortunately he was not at the conceptual meeting; however, if he had been there, he would have recommended creating the square footage that is less visible from the street. He stated that this is his only reservation. He stated that when these additions are added on to historic structures, at what point is preservation being compromised and how important is this. He said that this is clearly visible from the street and alters the streetscape of a historical structure. He stated that he does not have an issue with demolishing the  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 22 of 23 utility room; however the streetscape of a historic structure is being altered. Mr. Broadwell stated that since the March conceptual, they have scaled back the size and height considerably. He stated that the structure has already gone through several evolutions and this is just part of the evolution. He stated that this helps this structure evolve in to the future and hope this is the last evolution. Mr. Keenan stated that there are not many of these Fisherman’s cottages left and all that can be done is to be good stewards and protect historical structures. Mr. Hirshorn asked if any other one story designs were considered. Mr. Broadwell stated that it would encroach on the rear neighbor, which was not acceptable to the Commission. Mr. Hirshorn asked what the grounds were for the demolition for the utility section. Mr. Broadwell stated that the concrete block would not be able to support the new addition. Mr. Cope stated that that he would certainly say A, which is poor construction and obviously has safety issues. Mr. Broadwell stated that he would select “A” for demolition. Mr. Hirshorn made a motion to approve the demolition of the utility shed section to the rear of the property based on guideline “A” under partial demolition of historic structures, public safety; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. Ms. Rowe made a motion to approve the application for 728 Pitt Street, final review for additions and alterations; seconded by Mr. Hirshorn. All present voted in favor. III. Staff Approvals Mr. Pohlman stated that there were no staff approvals.  Old Village Historic District Commission July 10, 2017 Page 23 of 23 VI. Motion to Adjourn Ms. Dickson motioned to adjourn; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Ashe July 10, 2017