Historic District Preservation Commission (HDPC)

OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE August 14, 2017 5:00pm Town Hall Committee Meeting Room 100 Ann Edwards Lane Floor 3, Room 3300 NOTE: Items in blue are hyperlinks (some file sizes are large and may take a minute to load). MINUTES PRESENT: Leigh Rowe, Vice Chair; Susan Dickson, Heather Wilson and Scott Hirshorn EXCUSED ABSENCE: Joe Keenan STAFF PRESENT: Eric Pohlman, Sr. Planner, Joe Juan, Plan Reviewer Ms. Rowe called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m., and reviewed the meeting procedures with the public. I. Approval of Minutes - July 10, 2017 Ms. Dickson moved for approval; seconded by Ms. Wilson. All present voted in favor. II. Public Comment & General Correspondence a. NEW -- Submittal Checklist for Approval (Mr. Hirshorn arrived at 5:05 p.m.) Ms. Wilson moved to approve and accept the new checklist for submission; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. III. BUSINESS STAFF REPORT 1. Request for addition of PVC Flooring for Porches to Approved Material List for Historic Structures (110 Morrison Street – (HISTORIC 6163) TMS 532-01-00-055) Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 2 of 29 Sparky Witte, 784 Post Oak Drive, stated that he has been a resident of Mount Pleasant since 1951 and used to live on Venning Street. He stated that he came before the Commission last month to seek approval to replace a porch on a historic home with a new material. He stated that it was deferred in order for the Commission to review the material. Ms. Wilson stated that she does not believe the Commission should approve this material. She stated that the ordinance as written requires that the Commission protect the historic structures with like material. She stated that Mr. Pohlman provided the information citing the Secretary of Interior’s rationale. Mr. Witte stated that he believes in the beginning of what Mr. Pohlman read, it stated that the Commission could vote on changes of different species. Mr. Pohlman stated that this is correct, as this portion of the guidelines does allow for the presentation and election of new material. Mr. Witte stated that this is the latest and greatest material available. He stated that the property owner is simply attempting to protect her porch from having to go through the expense of replacing it every five years. Ms. Rowe stated that she understands as her home has a large wrap around porch, which requires a great deal of maintenance. She stated that her feeling is that the Commission does not know enough about the material and there are too many of these synthetic materials. She stated that the Commission must go with what the Secretary of Interior’s standards are, because it is not an approved material. Ms. Wilson stated that additions and new construction is different. She stated that there are only a small number of historic houses left that do have original material and it is part of the OVHDC’s guidelines and ordinance to protect those homes. Mr. Witte stated that he grew up in this Town and is in favor of preservation; however, he also sees what goes on behind this Commission’s back. Ms. Dickson stated that although it does state that another material may be accepted, currently this material is not accepted. She stated that this  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 3 of 29 Commission does attempt to be vigilant about as many of the historic homes that are left in the Old Village as possible; however, things do happen behind the Commission’s back. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he would concur that the original historic wood material be utilized for porches. He stated that he realizes this does require maintenance; however, the long term value of historic structures in the village has increased by maintaining the historic integrity of the original materials. He stated that porches and windows are likely the two main features of these old historic homes in the Old Village. Mr. Hirshorn made a motion to deny the synthetic wood for the use on the historic porch; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present were in favor. 2. 402 Patjens Court – (Survey 6212) TMS 532-01-00-244 – Conceptual Comment for Exterior Alterations and Additions Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Mr. Pohlman stated that the address should read 402 Patjens “LANE” and not Court. Linda Balzac, stated that she is the architect on the project and stated that the homeowner is requesting for a wrap-around porch with materials to match existing, including wood flooring on the porch, with a small addition on the back of the home to enlarge the kitchen. She stated that the lot is an odd shape which is why they are requesting the six foot encroachment to the rear yard setback. She stated that one of the reasons for the impervious surface reduction is because they will be removing the existing concrete driveway and replacing with a pervious paver at a future date. She stated that the request is for a wrap-around porch, the rear one story addition to enlarge the kitchen and a new privacy fence with a gate that is not visible from public purview. She stated that they would like to simplify to make it a solid fence with detailing to match the existing neighbor’s fences and instead of stucco columns, to ask for brick. Mr. Pohlman stated that this should be submitted for the next review meeting. Ms. Balzac stated that since this is conceptual, she would like to advise the Commission what the homeowners would like to do, which is to make  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 4 of 29 the brick columns in the back corner of the house and the fence to match the neighbor’s fence in a Charleston green. She stated that they have signatures from all the surrounding neighbors approving the proposed work. Ms. Wilson asked if this is submitted as conceptual because of the fence. Ms. Balzac stated that with the new list that was approved, she believed that there would have to be significantly more detail in order to request approval. She stated that they would certainly entertain the idea to ask for final because there is a great deal of detail, because the homeowner did the drawings and did an excellent job. She stated that all the details will match existing and Village Restoration will be doing the work. She stated that if they need to return for final on the fence and gate, since it is not as submitted, they would be happy to come back for those two things if the Commission can consider final on this tonight. Mr. Pohlman stated that it is under the Commission’s purview to elevate it from conceptual to final if the Commission so desires. Ms. Wilson stated that she likes everything that has been proposed. Ms. Rowe agreed. Ms. Dickson stated that she is unsure how everything can be put on this lot. She stated that it looks tight up against the neighbors in the back of the house. Ms. Balzac stated that the encroachment would only happen at the right corner, but gets greater after that point. She said that the house is still on the property at a diagonal and is still under the 40% rule, but it is a very odd lot and the house is placed oddly. She stated that they are asking for a very small addition and a wrap-around porch which will significantly improve the house. Ms. Rowe stated that there is also a lot of room in the front of the property. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he likes everything and is happy to do final approval with the exception of the gate and fence.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 5 of 29 Mr. Hirshorn made a motion to approve 402 Patjens Court for final approval, as submitted, with the exception of the picket fence and gate; seconded by Ms. Wilson. Mr. Pohlman requested that the motion be amended to reflect the correct address of 402 Patjens Lane. Mr. Hirshorn amended his motion and Ms. Wilson amended her second. All present voted in favor. Ms. Wilson asked if Ms. Balzac was referring to the fence on Whilden. Ms. Balzac responded in the affirmative and showed an illustration of the brick columns the homeowners would like, instead of the stucco. She also showed a photograph of the proposed fence. Ms. Wilson asked if the whole property line will be fenced. Ms. Balzac indicated on the illustration where the fence would be installed. Ms. Wilson stated that she did not have an issue with the conceptual. 3. 641 Royall Avenue – (Survey 5991) TMS 532-09-00-086 – Conceptual Review for New Accessory Structure Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Rush Dixon, Rush Dixon Architects, representing the homeowners, Jon and Ansara Piebenga, stated that the discussion last month was to simplify the design. He stated that they did simplify in every way possible. He stated that one of the main discussions was the exterior spiral stair. He added that they attempted a square stair; however, they were not able to make it work. In order to solve this issue, they took the original spiral stair and brought it into the building, which hopefully solved this issue. He mentioned that they also removed the front dormer that was requested, which originally mimicked the main house and replaced it with a simple gable, which was a recommendation of the Commission. He stated that they still have the side dormer, but it is a very simplified version of the previous dormer and is a simple shed dormer in lieu of the hip dormer. He said that the back covered porch, they reduced the size of the roof and took it off of the back porch and are keeping a deck there for someone not using the upstairs and giving the opportunity to sit outside.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 6 of 29 He said there is a nice view of the backyard and pool. He stated that they would like to maintain that element. He stated that they removed the flower box and simplified the fence; therefore, compared to last month, he believes they have done everything that was requested. He stated that in reference to the positioning of the structure, he stated that where they would like to place the garage is right at the edge of the driveway, where the fence currently sits. He stated that this would allow them to use the existing concrete driveway. He stated that the position of this structure would put the building just past the breakfast area, which the homeowners use on a daily basis, so this would not obstruct the natural light in that area. He stated that they have nicely responded to the terracing of the house itself. He said they have the front porch element, the main house corner, the one story element then another ten feet back is the garage. He stated that if it is moved back further, it creates dead space of extra driveway area that is not necessary. He stated that it is a nice opportunity for landscaping to create the corridor/gateway to the backyard. He said that if they moved the assessor structure further back, he believes it would be detrimental to neighboring properties, because it would be structure and more structure and it would be nice to keep it all together and have an openness from one neighbor’s backyard to the other. Mr. Juan asked if the property is located in a flood zone. Mr. Dixon stated that they are. Mr. Juan asked what the elevation of the slab is. Mr. Dixon stated that it would be below. Mr. Juan stated that the Town’s ordinance does not allow for an enclosed structure when there are habitable rooms or spaces above the garage. He stated that it is treated as if it were an elevated structure; open foundation, piers. Ms. Wilson stated that his slab is a 12 and asked if he needed a plus one. Mr. Juan responded in the affirmative. Ms. Rowe asked if the upstairs was going to be a habitable space and thought it was a playroom.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 7 of 29 Mr. Dixon stated that it is not intended to be an ADU (accessory dwelling unit), as there is no plumbing, but a playroom for the children. Mr. Juan stated that it is still a habitable space. He stated that if it were only a garage, the structure could be enclosed and limited to parking and storage. He stated that anything beyond this is habitable space and condition and would have to meet the open foundation system. He stated that he did not see a floor plan, but asked about the spiral staircase that goes up into the upstairs. Mr. Dixon stated that it used to be outside and brought it inside to remove it as an element on the exterior. Mr. Juan asked if it is enclosed on the ground floor. Mr. Dixon stated that it is open on the ground floor and it is not until you get to the top that you open the door to heated space. Mr. Juan stated that it needs to maintain a separation between that space upstairs and the garage for fire separation. He stated that having it open and having a means of egress to grade through the garage is a code violation. Mr. Dixon asked if the use of the upper level for storage change. Mr. Juan stated that if it is storage and unheated, it would not come into play, if just for storage. Ms. Wilson asked if the height requires that it have a kitchen. She asked if it is because it is over 18 feet even with the matching roof. Mr. Pohlman stated that the way the ordinance was restructured for the Old Village is all accessory structures, whether garages or ADU’s are allowed to go up to 20 feet now. He stated that this being at 19 ft. 11 in. is below. Ms. Wilson stated that she likes the location of the structure and it does not need to be pushed back any further. She stated that she knows there is some complexity on how to vent the lower level. She stated that aside from this, she does not have an issue with the massing and or location of the structure.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 8 of 29 Ms. Rowe added that she applauds what has been done to make it more a part of the historic looking home. Ms. Dickson stated that this is a big improvement over the last design. She asked about the distance of the proposed structure to the property line. Mr. Dixon stated that it is set at the six foot line. Mr. Hirshorn stated that his only reservation is the balcony on a garage, particularly if it is not an ADU. He stated that it is not something you would normally see on a garage. Mr. Dixon stated that they do have two doors; one from the stairs to step out onto the balcony and another from the heated space. He stated that they are going to want furniture there, because it is a play room and smaller windows were not going to work. He stated that this is their way of getting things up to the playroom. Ms. Rowe asked if it was possible to turn this into a dwelling unit. Mr. Juan stated that they may; however, the ground floor walls would have to be redesigned. Mr. Dixon stated that on the ground, they would need to raise the stair and have direct access to the outside. Mr. Juan responded in the affirmative and said that the walls would also have to be changed to an open foundation system with louvers and lattice. He stated that solid walls would not be allowed on the ground floor unless the slab is elevated to one foot above the BFE (base flood elevation). Ms. Wilson stated that she believes it is going down one foot in the new flood maps, which may help. Ms. Wilson stated that before taking away the balcony, it is a possible location for the stairs, as it came directly onto the balcony, it would solve a lot of issues. Mr. Juan stated that it could, as it would be the means of egress.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 9 of 29 Mr. Dixon stated that he would like to revisit the spiral stair being visible as an element in the back, given the fact that it would not be visible from the public right of way. Ms. Wilson stated that she believes it would be visible from along the side. She stated that this would be more difficult for her to get comfortable with. She stated that if the structure is going to a louvered screen system on the lower lever, it seems like it could be considered an exterior spiral stair that has some sort of screening. She stated that she believes there is a way to screen or install it in a clever way that gets you in an exterior entry into the second floor space. Ms. Rowe stated that she agrees that if the stairs can be screened and get it back outside, then it may resolve the issue. Ms. Wilson stated that the homeowner wants the balcony in order to hoist furniture up in through the doors. Mr. Dixon responded in the affirmative. Mr. Pohlman stated that this is conceptual; therefore, no motions are necessary. Ms. Rowe stated that she hopes that the Commission has provided some good feedback. 4. 210 Bank Street – (Survey 6112) TMS 532-05-00-008 – Conceptual Comment for Alterations to Side Addition. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Linda Balzac, architect for the homeowners, stated that this is a simple application. She stated that the homeowners would like to change the existing sunroom that has some interior plexiglass into a traditional wall to match the windows at the front of the house. She stated that she will put three windows across to make it more traditional. She said they would like to add a fence along Pitt Street where the elevation is for the work that is occurring and to keep it at 42 inches high, extend it along Pitt Street and return slightly down Bank Street. She stated that the fence is of the same detailing as the home directly across Bank Street. She stated that this is listed as conceptual; however, if the Commission has enough detailing, she would ask for consideration for final.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 10 of 29 Ms. Wilson stated that she believes it looks great and will be a nice addition. Ms. Rowe stated that she believes it will provide more privacy and will be very attractive. Ms. Dickson asked if the fence would be going all the way around. Ms. Balzac stated that there is an existing fence in the backyard that will have the posts remain and they will put new pickets in and the new piece will extend along Pitt Street and return onto Bank Street eight feet. Ms. Rowe asked why only eight feet on Bank Street. Ms. Balzac stated that the parking is very tight on that street and at that area, they pull cars off onto the curb area. Ms. Dickson asked if the fence will go all around the house. Ms. Balzac responded in the affirmative. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he would not be opposed to proposing a final. Ms. Wilson made a motion to approval 210 Bank Street for final approval; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. 5. 403 Church Street – (HISTORIC 6200) TMS 532-01-00-067 – Final Review for After-the-Fact installation of Pergola Entry Structure Mr. Pohlman stated that the applicant contacted him earlier today and advised that he would not be able to attend the meeting until 6:00 p.m. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he does not have an issue with this request since it is 5:50 p.m., and if Commission members are agreeable, he would like to go to item #6 first and then address #5 thereafter. All Commission members agreed. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Ms. Wilson asked if this item would have to be evaluated based on the current guidelines, not on the guidelines when it was constructed. Mr. Pohlman responded in the affirmative. He stated that the Town decided that the guidelines to review it are the ones that are currently in place as of now, although it was constructed prior to the adoption of the  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 11 of 29 new guidelines. He stated that because a COA was not issued, it does not have any vesting right. Justin Hudd, homeowner at 403 Church Street stated that he took previous advice to take a look around the Old Village and neighboring places, as well as Sullivan’s Island for other examples of what may be similar to what he has constructed. He stated that while on Sullivan’s Island, he stated that there are some structures that are far larger than his. He showed a current picture of his pergola with the jasmine growing over it. He stated that there are many other structures throughout the Old Village, some larger, some smaller, some narrower and some wider. He stated that as mentioned earlier, precedence can be set, because it is obvious that there are many structures such as his throughout the Old Village. He stated that since they are wide-spread, he assumes that precedence has already been set. He stated that as he mentioned previously, he should have come before the Commission for approval and did not and apologies; however, there is not too much he is able to do at this time. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he agrees with Mr. Hudd that these structures are all over the Old Village; however, unfortunately, there was a movement with the last Chairman to include in the new guidelines, the prohibition of these pergolas from the view of the right of way. He stated that the guidelines went through many different iterations, meetings and public comment and with no opposition, was then added to the guidelines. He stated that unfortunately, we have these guidelines and must stand by them. He stated that this guideline is explicitly stated as being prohibited. He stated that the only recourse he could possibly recommend is if there is a way to delay this until Mr. Hudd could petition to remove this from the guideline. He stated that he has no choice but to follow the current guidelines. Mr. Hudd stated that his confusion is that the Planning Commission has been in existence for a number of years and in the past, the Commission has recommended pergola structures and sees many pergolas in the Old Village which must have received approval. He stated that why historically until now, pergolas were fine and those previously were acceptable, however, now they are not.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 12 of 29 Mr. Hirshorn stated that it was the opinion of one of the Commission members and he suggested a revision to the guidelines to prohibit pergolas and there were several meetings and discussions with public input and it was added. Mr. Hudd stated that there are obviously many letters of support and only one or two emails opposing. Ms. Rowe stated that some of the photographs that Mr. Hudd has submitted did not receive approval from this Commission either. She stated that they began showing up all over the Old Village and some were nice and others were not. She stated that the Commission decided that they were no longer going to accept pergolas, and unfortunately, Mr. Hudd came after the guidelines changed. Ms. Wilson asked the Commission members if they are going to go back to those that built without approval. She stated that she knows of a house that she worked on that has a pergola that was not in her design; however, they put it in anyway without approval. Ms. Dickson stated that if a homeowner does in fact, put up a pergola in the time during which it was not approved, then that homeowner is in violation. She asked what recourse does the Commission have, and why do we have these guidelines if no one is going to follow them. Ms. Wilson stated that Mr. Hudd constructed it while pergolas were still allowed, just like his neighbor. Ms. Rowe stated that it was allowed, but property owners were not coming to the Commission for approval. Mr. Hirshorn said that the issue is whether the Commission should bring the neighbor in retroactively, for building a pergola without approval, and they should. Mr. Hudd stated that he has a list of pergolas that were erected that were not approved. Ms. Dickson asked why the Commission bothers to set guidelines that are being ignored. Ms. Wilson stated that she agrees, but feels that in Mr. Hudd’s case, it is slightly different. She stated that there may be an exception, because he  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 13 of 29 constructed it when it was still allowed. She said that if this is the case, then the Commission must deliver ten or more letters to other residents tomorrow to take down their pergolas. She said if not, then she does not feel it is fair for one individual. Mr. Hudd stated that he went through the guidelines prior to constructing and there was no mention of pergolas, arbors, trellises. He said that now it indicates that in the historical context, these did not exist in the Old Village. Ms. Dickson stated that they did. Mr. Hudd stated that this is his issue as well. He stated that he forwarded an email to Mr. Keenan and Mr. Pohlman, because he found that the first recorded instance was listed in a historic gardening book from 1719 and has photographs of trellises all over the area and arbors. He stated that arbors, pergolas and trellises are bundled together in terms of structures. Mr. Hirshorn stated that perhaps the guideline should be refined. Mr. Pohlman stated that the guidelines may be refined at any time; however, it must have a thirty day waiting period for public comment after first being proposed for an alteration. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it appears that the guideline needs more structure. He stated that there are certain pergolas that should not be allowed and some that are historically appropriate. He suggested consideration of refining the guideline, and defer enforcing the removal of Mr. Hudd’s pergola until the Commission is able to refine the guidelines. He stated that it is obvious that these structures do exist and have some historical context. He would recommend accomplishing this in an organized, expedited fashion if this is the course of action. Mr. Hudd stated that it appears fair and his only other suggestion is that in all the guidelines, there is only one place where it says that “this was not present in a historical context” just happens to be a pergola. He suggested removing the word “historical”. Ms. Dickson stated that the language needs to be changed, because it is obviously not correct.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 14 of 29 Mr. Pohlman stated that the Commission would be required to draft the wording of the guidelines and use input from elsewhere, but it must be stated on record by the Commission and voted on by the Commission after a thirty day review period before the public. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it would be appropriate to accomplish this in an architecturally accurate way. He stated that there are some pergolas that are not appropriate and some that are and many in between. He asked if it were possible to have this drafted in a much more professional way for the next meeting. Ms. Wilson stated that it is. Ms. Rowe asked Ms. Wilson if she has seen language regarding pergolas in historic neighborhoods. Ms. Wilson stated that there has been discussion that there is more new construction than historic, so it does not necessarily need to be steeped in the historic accurate pergola, because the Commission would likely not allow another property owner to do this to a historic house. She said that it is simply gaining back control of when and if a pergola is appropriate. Ms. Rowe stated that we are then back to where we began, because Mr. Hudd’s home is historic. Ms. Wilson stated that it would still be within the Commission’s purview to allow it, but would be recommending against it in the guidelines. She stated that the Commission is able to make exceptions to their own guidelines without setting precedent. She stated that it has been done. Mr. Pohlman stated that this is correct, as the Commission may approve something that goes contrary to their own guidelines as long as the reason is stated, which is the same if a denial is done. Ms. Wilson asked if the Commission is allowed to discuss via email prior to the next meeting or must the discussions take place in a public forum. Mr. Pohlman stated that it should be done in a public forum. Mr. Hirshorn stated that language referring to height and scale. He stated that there are pergolas that are more in context of what the Commission is attempting to avoid.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 15 of 29 Mr. Pohlman stated that if the Commission is considering altering this guideline, that they state a definition into the guidelines as to the definition of a trellis, arbor, pergola or a decorative entryway. He stated that there needs to be specific wording. Ms. Wilson stated that the Commission could use the word “pergola” and then have a footnote that states that “this refers to any and all gate/entry/archway to include any type of entryway structure. Mr. Pohlman stated that he would recommend the Commission having the language, because there is a definition section within the guidelines that is meant to be referenced by any architectural term to ensure that what is stated is firm. Ms. Rowe asked if Mr. Hudd’s structure could be referred to as a trellis and approve it, and then refine the language. Mr. Hirshorn stated that alternatively to redrafting a new guideline, what could be done is to keep the new guideline that states no pergolas and allow exceptions by the Commission when warranted. Ms. Dickson stated that the language that states “this was not present in a historical context” needs to be removed, because it is incorrect. Ms. Rowe stated that Mr. Hudd’s structure could be defined as a trellis, which would be one with plants growing up. Mr. Hirshorn stated that what he thought the spirit of the guideline was more in the context of the pergola which is similar to the large structure you sit underneath with the heaters and fans. He stated that he was not envisioning that it was going to be referring to an entry gate type structures. Ms. Rowe stated that this is where she believes the Commission got off track. Mr. Pohlman stated that the Commission may approve, with the variation from the guidelines stating that this is acceptable due to (state the reasoning). He stated that the Commission may then revisit the guideline without this being deferred. Ms. Wilson stated that she is fine with defining this as a trellis.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 16 of 29 Commission members agreed. Ms. Wilson made a motion to define the entry structure at 403 Church Street as a trellis and therefore allow it as an exception to the Commission’s guidelines and consider it approved; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. Ms. Rowe stated that she believes that a pergola is more of a large structure. Ms. Dickson stated that the terms overlap. Ms. Wilson suggested revisiting and do some redefining. Mr. Pohlman stated that he and Mr. Juan can provide industry standard definitions for the Commission to review at the next meeting and also consider language in order to refine this guideline. He stated that what the Commission views as acceptable in the context of the Old Village will be allowed and those unacceptable would be prohibited. Ms. Rowe suggested setting up a sub-committee to review. Mr. Pohlman recommended that either at the beginning of the agenda or after all agenda items have been addressed, to review and discuss. 6. 104 Friend Street – (Survey 4227) TMS 532-05-00-067 – Final Review for New Construction Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Phil Clarke, Clarke Design Group, stated that he would like to show what was proposed at the June meeting and what is being proposed this evening. He stated that in June, they had the pool raised up on an elevated yard with retaining walls and the size of the retaining walls and raised area was not viewed as favorable by the Commission. He said that they studied it to see what they could do. He said that the easiest way to bring it in was to bring it up to the floor level and pulled it in all the way. He said that the house directly to the right has flooding issues in the corner and next to her is the house on Royall and they do have a raised pool in their yard with a garage on the back of their lot. He said it was approximately 10 to 11 feet of grade. He said they are proposing 12 feet for their pool. He said that they also have more yard space behind the structure and will all be regraded to the county’s pipe for drainage. He  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 17 of 29 stated that they will also be providing a drainage pit which they have reviewed with the Town’s engineering staff. He stated that they removed the garage from the plans and the driveway is pervious and the driveway on the flat area at the garage doors is part of the grading plan. He stated that if you go to the prospectus it provides the best view of what they have done. He stated that where the garage was proposed, on that side of the house, there is a screened structure that goes down the left hand side of the home. He said in the back, it opens up the backyard and leaves plenty of room for the grading plan. He stated that there will be extensive planting of trees along the rear (the churching parking lot). Mr. Wilson asked about any other raised pools in the Old Village. Ashley Woody stated that there is one at 409 Royall Avenue. Mr. Clarke stated that this same residence also has a raised driveway which began cutting Ms. Woody off and attempted to put a pipe through the middle of their driveway; however, Ms. Woody’s side of the pipe and the one at 409 Royall are at the same height, so there is nowhere for the water to go. He stated that the drainage pond he will be putting in is where all the water from his homeowner’s lot and all the other lots will come, feed the storm drain. The Town engineering staff said that it can handle everything, but not as quickly as residents would like. He stated that the entire backyard of his homeowner’s residence is the retention pond and they will need to direct everything towards the drain. Ms. Balzac stated that there is one on Pitt Street, close to the Pitt Street Bridge on the right which is under construction at this time; Myles Martschink’s old lot. Ms. Wilson thanked Mr. Clarke for his efforts and said that regardless how the Commission votes, a tremendous amount of work has been done to shrink the footprint. Ashley Woody, 110 Friend Street, stated that she appreciates Mr. Clarke reducing the size, it is still disturbing to have an above ground pool. She stated that in reference to the Adam’s back yard, most of it was approved after-the-fact, but that puts water in her backyard. She stated that she looked at the drawings; however, she is providing a map highlighting all the elevations from her yard and have also written in all the elevations of  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 18 of 29 all the fill that Mr. Clarke plans to put in. She stated that all of the great drainage plans can be made which sounds good and if it all worked perfectly, the water would go into the back into the drainage pit, except that it is still higher than her backyard. She stated that the drain is higher than the corner of her backyard and what happens is that it backups and where will it back up if they are eight, ten, twelve feet up, because it will no longer backup in their yard, but instead her backyard. She stated that she is sorry to continue to complain. She stated that her first letter to the planning director was in 2007 about Mr. Ilderton filling his lots to build the three houses. She said that she is not opposed to having a nice neighbor, but does not want to have worthless property because of this. Ms. Wilson asked about the grade of Ms. Woody’s backyard. Ms. Woody stated that the illustration she provided is a survey of Mr. Clarke’s lot and her lot back when they had a disaster with the Adams’ property. Discussions regarding elevations of Ms. Woody’s property, the property proposing construction by Mr. Clarke, as well as surrounding properties ensued, as well as the impacts to her property. Mr. Clarke stated that they will be catching the water, whether through pipes or a swale to direct everything to the drainage pit. He said that currently, everything drains to his homeowner’s backyard, which sits at five and a half feet, which is unacceptable, because it becomes a mosquito pit. He stated that he will be adjusting and working with the Town’s engineer to get everything from their property to the drainage pit. He stated that he would love to work with Ms. Woody and help her with adding some fill dirt and will do so concurrently to get everything out. Ms. Woody stated that they have three grand oaks and are only allowed three inches per year on top of their roots without harming the trees. Mr. Clarke stated that there is room in between the trees to get all the water back and around. He stated that they are very open to doing what is necessary to take the drainage correctly. He stated that based on consulting with the Town’s engineer, landscape architects and builders, this is the current set up against the house, because they have to drain  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 19 of 29 away from the house, but as soon as it does, it goes back to the back corner. Ms. Rowe stated that drainage is not the purview of the Commission and her assumption is to consider what is being proposed and then the Town will go in to see if what has been approved will work on that lot. Mr. Pohlman stated that when it concerns stormwater, the Town reviews to ensure that what is being proposed would work. Ms. Woody stated that when the Commission approved Mr. Ilderton’s property, he cut the roots off of one side of her tree and put in the causeway and it was not approved. It was approved after the fact. She said that Mr. Ilderton wanted to put in fill. She said she wrote a number of letters to the Planning Department and they allowed him to do it anyway, because the Ilderton’s had a very nice engineering plan. She said that it did not work. She added that this is not the first time she has had to deal with this and is at a complete loss about what to do. She stated that she has not received any assistance from the Planning Department, or from the Old Village Historic District Commission or anyone else. Mr. Pohlman stated that Ms. Woody needs to contact the staff engineer, Mr. Kevin Mitchell. Ms. Woody stated that Mr. Mitchell will not even take her calls any longer and that she had a Town Council member tell her to lay off of the Planning Department. Ms. Wilson reiterated that the OVHDC does not have purview over the drainage plan; however, the OVHDC does have purview over the house. She said that her last concern is that Mr. Clarke has a lot of grade to navigate on the right hand property side and if the Commission approves this house, then the reason for not doing the drainage plan properly will be that there is a house there. She stated that the Commission does not have purview over stormwater, but stormwater does not have purview over the house, so at some point, someone has to slow it down enough based on common sense. She stated that until there is a plan that makes sense to her that she believes will work for Ms. Woody and for this lot, she cannot approve the house.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 20 of 29 Mr. Clarke stated that on the homes they did on Beach Street, they designed it the best they could in the beginning and then worked through the additional drainage plans, which is where they put in retaining walls. He stated that as designed, their full intention is to build it at these numbers and keep the water off of Ms. Woody’s property. He stated that if this changes, they will come back to the Commission. He stated that they are at a standstill where nothing can be finalized until this house footprint is finalized. He stated that if it is approved and finalized, then they will finalize their engineering and drainage plan. He stated that if anything on these numbers changes, they will come back and show the Commission the changes and discuss it from a design standpoint. Ms. Wilson stated that she hears what Mr. Clarke is saying, but if Ms. Woody’s survey is correct, there is a 10.5 elevation next to a 7.0 elevation which is a tremendous difference. She stated that this is insurmountable and renders this site plan proposal not passable. She stated that she feels good about the house; however, they need to come back with something better on the right hand property, because she is not comfortable giving her approval. She stated that 42 inches is not a tweak, it is an issue. She stated that there is already a problem where people need a little defense. Ms. Rowe stated that she loves the house and what Mr. Clarke has done to minimize. She stated that she does not know how to advise Mr. Clarke and does not know if he needs to bring an engineer in to speak to the Commission, because it is not the Commission purview. Mr. Pohlman stated that if during the process Mr. Clarke needed a retaining wall along that side property in order to channel water or hold that fill in, he would have to come back to the Commission. He stated that the only thing the Commission is able to take into consideration is whether or not anything over two feet of fill is appropriate on the lot. He stated that from what he is able to see, it is slightly less than two feet of an increase. She said that it would be going from the 8.5 feet to 10.3 feet. He stated that the drainage, although it is an issue, needs to be handled away from the Commission and cannot be a consideration left with the Commission. He stated that the Commission only needs to consider the form, function and context of this building.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 21 of 29 Ms. Wilson stated that she understands this, but does not think that the adjacency or distance from the property line on the right hand side, is within the Commission’s purview and is what is causing the issue. She said if the Commission took away the numbers and took away that little retaining wall that is in the upper right hand corner and followed her grade, why can’t this be done. She realizes that this would require creating a high spot, getting it out of the pocket. Mr. Clarke stated that he can do this. He said that the water does not drain well as it sits now. He said that what is existing there now is a driveway and it is always wet and it needs to be fixed, he stated that grade needs to be brought up there. He stated that he feels for Ms. Woody; however, until she does grading on her own lot, her lot will never be fixed. He said that he will do whatever he can to drain water appropriately. He stated that his driveway catches all the water off of Ms. Woody’s lot and it shouldn’t. He stated that he can change the numbers, but there are always going to be low spots, because Ms. Woody’s water still comes onto their lot. He stated that the water from Ms. Woody’s property needs to be draining to the back corner and taken to the storm drain. Ms. Woody stated that it did before Mr. Ilderton built the causeway. Mr. Clarke stated that all the construction on Royall Avenue caused a great deal of these issues; however, it cannot allow this lot to be unbuildable because of this. Ms. Wilson stated that she is not saying this, and asked how Mr. Clarke was going to handle the 42 inch difference. She stated that Ms. Woody does not have to grade her lot, because she already lives there. She asked how the grade on that side would be handled. Mr. Clarke stated that there will be pipes going down both sides. He said on the left hand side of the driveway is a catch basin that will be piped back to the back and there will be pipe along the right hand side. He said that the existing driveway will be removed and when the new dirt is brought in, there will be pipes installed to catch the water from the front section and carry it out. He said that they will create a swale and keep their water on their property, but would keep her water on her property  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 22 of 29 as well. He said that the hope would be that the water that is kept on her property would flow downhill to the back corner. Ms. Woody stated that all her water should go to the drainage easement in the back. Mr. Clarke stated that there is a drainage easement in the back for everyone’s water to flow to; however, in the front portion of the lot, there is no drainage easement. He stated that all the water should go to the back drainage. Ms. Wilson stated that it will help considerably if it is deep enough and a place to park the water. Ms. Woody stated that when they park the water there, the issue is that the top of the pipe where it drains into is just over five feet; therefore, anything that is not five feet sits. She stated that the drain is not the lowest area. Ms. Dickson asked who created this. Ms. Woody responded that it was the Town of Mount Pleasant’s engineer. Ms. Dickson stated that she agrees with Ms. Wilson’s comments and this item should be deferred to see if a resolution may be reached. She stated that it is not right for someone to build a structure that impacts a structure that is already there. Mr. Pohlman again reminded Commission members that storm drain issues are not the purview of the Commission. She said that the Commission does have the possibility of deferring the structure. Ms. Rowe stated that Mr. Clarke would need to bring a hardscape plan to the Commission. Ms. Wilson asked about approving the house, but not any of the hardscape. She stated that the Commission has approved houses without hardscape/landscape plans many times and then Mr. Clarke would have to come back before the Commission for any retaining walls, which involve all the grading. Ms. Rowe said this was done on Beach Street.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 23 of 29 Mr. Hirshorn stated that he has an issue with the elevated pool. He realizes that there is another example of an elevated pool; however, making this a new precedent is not consistent with what he sees as far as the guidelines for new construction and on streetscape. He understands that they exist, but does not feel they are appropriate. Ms. Rowe stated that the only reason that she is in favor of the elevated pool in this particular area is because the church is so active in that back parking lot, and would keep them from looking down at the pool, pool toys, etc. She said that the elevated pool would also make the parishioners of the church happy. Mr. Clarke stated that this lot is very unique for Mount Pleasant, because there is a seven foot drop from the front to the rear. He said from a front streetscape, the pool is not raised and is level with the house. He said that if it is installed in the ground in the rear, it will be too low and have too much chance of becoming a flood catch basin. He stated that this is why a raised pool made sense. He stated that it is a unique house and they have kept it very low from the streetscape, but is raised in the back. He said that as of right now, there is no additional hardscape than what is shown and the only hardscape is the small low brick in the front and is more of a decorative element. He said that the same could be achieved with a sloping yard. He stated that the other hardscape is the driveway down the side. He said they do not intend having a retaining wall down the right hand side and has been assured that they can achieve the grade with the pipes, the swale and drainage that way. He said if he came back in a month, he would simply be changing the right hand side and the 10.3 would read a little less, so there would not be any hardscape added. He stated that he values this Commission, so he would not add any hardscape without coming before the Commission. He stated that if it is deferred for the hardscape, he would simply modify the numbers and may have to modify them again if the engineer advises him to increase them in order to get the grade away from the house. He stated that the grade on the outside is higher than the slab underneath. He stated that there will be pipes along the house as well as along the property line. He stated that if he added a retaining wall along the property line, he believes it would harm Ms. Woody’s property even more as it would be  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 24 of 29 hard barrier that would not allow anything to move. He stated that he believes they are able to design a pipe that would sit on the property line to catch Ms. Woody’s water, as well as his property’s to feed it all back to the drainage pit. He stated that perhaps there could be a mutually acceptable pipe to run along the property line to catch it all. Ms. Dickson stated that the Commission is not able to force homeowners to work together. Ms. Rowe stated that she is agreeable with Ms. Wilson to approve the house; however, Mr. Hirshorn is not in favor of the raised pool. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he could agree on a contingent approval. Ms. Wilson asked Mr. Hirshorn if he was completely not in favor of the raised pool. She stated that on this property, the property owners are not able to put a pool at six or seven feet, because it would be overrun with stormwater all the time. She asked Mr. Hirshorn if for him, it is at seven feet or could it be a step down and the pool be at twelve feet or somewhere in between Mr. Hirshorn stated that the last design was a partially elevated pool with a retaining wall. He stated that it is great to have a pool, particularly if you are going to invest so much in a home site. He stated that based on the condition of the lot and the surrounding area, it feels as if the property owner is attempting to shoe-horn something in that is not necessarily appropriate or possible on this lot, as it is a unique lot. He stated that he is fully sympathetic to the interest in a pool; however, he would be interested to hear more discussion, particularly from Ms. Wilson on the design element of an elevated pool such as this. He stated that it is not something that the Commission sees very much. He stated that in the center of the Old Village, it would be a bad policy to start seeing an abundant number of raised pools, if this become a new precedent on how to deal with a unique lot. He stated from an architectural standpoint, he would be very interested to hear discussion on this issue. He added that he has not closed his opinion to this issue. Ms. Rowe stated that she believes that where this pool is sitting on that lot, it is better being higher, because it is not being looked down on,  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 25 of 29 particularly by the church. She stated that everything needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. She stated that it is not a historic issue. Ms. Dickson stated that if that is the case, everything sets precedence even if you are looking at them all individually. Mr. Hirshorn stated that his concern is that this will be used as a precedent going forward, as the neighbor’s pool is as well. He understands that this is a very practical solution to the problem. He stated that maybe this means that it is not possible to have a pool there. He said that if this is approved, other property owners will begin to apply for elevated pools, citing this elevated pool. Mr. Clarke stated that they had the pool at over 10 feet on the previous submittal, which was determined to be not appropriate and over the last three or four months, have had it from 10 feet to 15 feet to 17 feet and have gone up and down. He stated that the reason why they brought it up was to condense the mass. He said that he feels the homeowners will do whatever is necessary to get the pool to happen. He stated that he does not know if this is precedent setting or not, because it is a one of a kind lot. He stated that it is the best way to handle the situation and if it were anywhere else in the Village he would not be advocating for this at all, even if it were a raised house in a flood zone. However, in this particular case there is no reason to put it down low. He said the reason they put the porch down the side was to try and condense that mass and the footprint in as tight as possible. He stated that this was the case for raising the pool. Ms. Dickson stated that she believes that Mr. Clarke did a wonderful job of reducing the mass and making a better house. Ms. Wilson stated that she is torn because she does not love a raised pool and does not see them in the Village and although Mr. Clarke has pointed out two of them, it is not in keeping with the character. She stated that the flip side of this is what it does nicely is it allows that porch not to step down and have an awkward rear elevation. She said that the rear elevation is nice and tight and clean. She asked if the pool had an infinity edge.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 26 of 29 Mr. Clarke stated that it does not have an infinity edge – it is the pool band which is on the edge. Ms. Wilson asked if a rail was needed. Mr. Clarke said that if a rail is needed, they will put one in. He stated that he has done the pools like this before. Ms. Wilson stated that she is still reluctant about the right side section. She said when she looks at the elevation and sketch in what Ms. Woody’s numbers are, where Mr. Clarke is showing the grade nicely going off, the reality is that at that property line, it is dropping six feet. She said if a retaining wall is not there, she does not understand how they are containing their own grading plan. She asked if there is a wall that is not shown that will be there. Mr. Clarke stated that it will not stay consistent from a house out to the side. He said that just as it drops from front to back, it will drop from side to the property line and there is a pipe on his side of the property line which will catch all their water coming from the front and from their side and take it down. He said that this pipe was going to be in a swale to keep Ms. Woody’s water on her side; however, if Ms. Woody would be willing to work with him, they would be willing to design a pipe that could be placed on the property line that could catch both and send the water away. He stated that the pipe would be set where it is needed in order to catch all the water coming down. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he would be interested to hear what Ms. Wilson’s thoughts are on the elevated pool issue from a professional prospective. Ms. Wilson stated that in reference to Ms. Rowe’s comments regarding the church, if you look just at Mr. Clarke’s rear elevation, it is really clean and the Commission must consider what it looks at. She stated that he has more rear neighbors that are not present; however, believes the rear elevation is very well done. She stated that it is still big with the porch plus the deck; however, to address Mr. Hirshorn’s concern, she does not have an issue with the raised pool in this very rare situation. Ms. Rowe stated that she does not believe there is another lot similar to this one in the Old Village that drops as this one does.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 27 of 29 Mr. Hirshorn stated that he realizes that the Commission does not have purview over the drainage issues; however, the drainage issues are a derivative of the house design. He stated that the initial issue is the house design. He stated that it is very rare that the Commission has this situation where there is a next door neighbor who has substantiated evidence of what could happen if the Commission approves this design and cause flooding to her home. He stated that for this reason, he has a tremendous amount of caution approving, aside from the elevated pool, which there appears to be some consensus. He stated that it feels like the approval of the design of the house as situated on the lot would, as a result, create issues; therefore, he has some reservation in moving forward until there is more clarity. Ms. Wilson stated that Mr. Clarke has done a very wide plan, which is nice and believes it is very attractive, but in doing so, has not provided enough real estate. She stated that it is incumbent upon Mr. Clarke to cut those sections going all the way down and putting Ms. Woody’s grade in their sections and showing the Commission that it can be done. She stated that although she feels Mr. Clarke will do what is necessary to make this work, she is not completely convinced. She stated that she is just referring to the walls. She stated that she believes that this item should be deferred, as it is worth the study. She stated that she believes that this plan, but with the other elevations where Mr. Clarke did nestle the pool in slightly, may make other Commission members more comfortable, who may otherwise have reservations about the raised pool. She stated that she believes the Commission is representing their constituency when they resist the raised pool. Mr. Hirshorn stated that for the record that the issue of the design is in question because of the uniqueness of the lot and there is substantially more mass on this unique lot than originally was there. He stated that in order for him to get comfortable with the new mass under new construction guidelines, he would be more inclined to approve this if he could see more substantiation of what the derivative effects on the lot and the adjacent lot would be of this substantial new mass on the existing lot. He would appreciate clarity.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 28 of 29 Mr. Clarke stated that he will submit for the September meeting and will have an enhanced grading plan down the side to address the concerns, taking into account that the neighbor’s existing grade. He stated that they will study pulling the pool and pool deck in slightly. He stated that it is where it is and the height it is; however, will try to lose a few feet on the deck. Ms. Wilson asked if Mr. Clarke has considered his design’s relationship to the street and if pushing it back or forward would help. She stated that once the grades are considered, she would be in support of a larger front yard. She stated that perhaps pushing it off Friend Street would provide more dirt in the front to deal with the flooding issues and have a different relationship with Ms. Woody’s property. Mr. Clarke stated that he will study this over the next two weeks. He stated that this is difficult; however, Ms. Woody has an issue that is not of her own keeping and his property owners have an issue that is existing. He said that all they can do is fix their issue and the only way it will affect Ms. Woody is that their lot will no longer be the place that her lot drains to. He stated that they would like to work with her in the installation of the drainage. He said that he will bring back a revised right hand side that shows the Commission that with Ms. Woody’s existing grade what theirs will look like. Ms. Wilson stated that she does appreciate that this is difficult; however, the Commission is not going to prevent Mr. Clarke’s clients from building a home. She thanked Mr. Clarke for his patience. Ms. Wilson moved that the application for 102 Friend Street be deferred; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. SD/HW AIF III. Staff Approvals [None] IV. Motion to Adjourn Ms. Dickson moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. Wilson. All present voted in favor. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.  Old Village Historic District Commission August 14, 2017 Page 29 of 29 Respectfully submitted, Barbara Ashe August 14, 2017