Historic District Preservation Commission (HDPC)

OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE Postponed from September 11, 2016 RESCHEDULED FOR MONDAY September 18, 2016 5:00 p.m. 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: Joe Keenan, Chair; Leigh Rowe, Vice Chair; Susan Dickson, Heather Wilson and Scott Hirshorn STAFF PRESENT: Eric Pohlman, Sr. Planner, Joe Juan, Plan Reviewer Mr. Keenan called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m., and reviewed the meeting procedures with the public. I. Approval of Minutes - August 14, 2017 Ms. Wilson moved for approval of the August minutes; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. II. Public Comment & General Correspondence 1. 201 Bank Street Request for Continuation of COA – Mr. Pohlman stated that the property owner is requesting a continuance of their COA under the provision in the Town’s ordinance that they may request and the Commission must grant. Mr. Keenan stated that this item will be addressed when considering the consent motions. Commission members agreed. 2. Guideline Discussion regarding Garages & Accessory Buildings #6  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 2 of 35 Ms. Wilson made a motion to move the Guideline Discussion regarding Garages & Accessory Buildings to the end; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. III. BUSINESS STAFF REPORT Ms. Wilson made a motion for consent items #1, 402 Patjens Lane; #4, 739 Pitt Street; #6, 139 Toomer Lane; #7, 324 Pitt Street and #12, 6 William Street; seconded by Ms. Rowe. Mr. Hirshorn requested that 201 Bank Street, Request for Continuation of COA also be included in the consent motion. Ms. Wilson amended her motion to include 201 Bank Street; Ms. Rowe amended her second. All present voted in favor. 1. 402 Patjens Lane – (Survey 6212) TMS 532-01-00-244 – Final Review for Fence and Gate [Consent Motion Approval] 2. 959 Pitt Street— (Survey 5890) TMS 532-13-00-032 – Final Review for Alterations to Site Work and Installation of Driveway and Parking Pad Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Cindy Cline, Wertimer and Cline Landscape Architects, stated that her clients are the Moore’s and the initial site plans were submitted by the architects and they allocated placeholders for many of the paved surfaces on the site. She said there was a general area indicated for the driveway and stair landings. She stated that they have developed with the client more definitive areas, such as entry into the garage, guest parking and circulation around the site. She stated that the materials are traditional materials seen throughout the Old Village, and they are proposing a tabby concrete driveway with old Carolina brick detail, bluestone stepping stones and the combination of bluestone with either lawn or ground cover between the pavers. She stated that it is a straight forward site plan. Ms. Dickson asked how the Commission will know it is just under 40% once all the hardscape is installed, because it does not appear that it is. She stated that 40% is four fifths.  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 3 of 35 Ms. Cline stated that the oyster shell pathways and the guest parking area will all be a pervious oyster shell paving. She stated that the stepping stones that are shown are not set on a solid base and are pervious. She stated that they are definitely up against their lot coverage limit. She stated that where they were able, they designed for the paved surfaces to be pervious. Ms. Wilson asked if the pavers in the back, the opposite side of Pitt Street that are set in ground cover have a function or intended use. Ms. Cline said that the owners did not want the lawn maintenance, but did want some useable space in the back. Ms. Wilson stated that there is some general neighborhood concern, which is what Ms. Dickson is alluding to, in terms of impervious surfaces, which is still not greenspace. She stated that the Commission is struggling with how to best direct and respond to this. She asked if there is anything compelling about this space when they have so much other outdoor space. Ms. Cline said that they did want to have the opportunity to be able to use some of their lot at the ground level. She stated that the property owner is a gardener. Richard Ouzts, 957 Pitt Street, said that he has lived in his home for approximately 43 years and his biggest concern with this particular situation is that he has never had flooding until the last heavy rains. He said that he is getting flooding from 959 Pitt Street, which has already ruined an air conditioning unit and duct work. He said that another issue is 955 Pitt Street, which created a tremendous amount of flooding on that side. He stated that he has lost all his hydrangeas, roses and now his trees are dying due to flooding on both sides of his residence. He said that he has been there for 43 years and feels he should see something that is going to cure these problems. He stated that he has a formal complaint with the Town of Mount Pleasant building inspector, which lists all his concerns. He said that the Town did come out and he also spoke to Mr. Mitchell at the Town. He said that no one appears to be able to help him or tell him anything. He said that he has a mosquito issue now and it is a shame that he has to deal with this situation. He said that he is not  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 4 of 35 against the houses being built on both sides of his home. He said that he is not 20 or 12 feet up in the air, but is grandfathered in and they pay a premium for insurance to live in that area. He said that he is concerned about the flooding. He said that he turned in a claim to FEMA to replace the air conditioning unit and duct work, as well as contents in his workshop and feels they may help him. John Linton, 966 Pitt Street, stated that their residence is across the street and their existing driveway is directly across from 959 Pitt Street. He said that his concern is the same as Mr. Ouzts, which is the drainage. He added that 40% is not a right to 40% lot coverage and it is the Commission’s guideline for the maximum. He said there was an approval for 28% and now this one is for 39.95%. He said that the house that was there previously was substantially less than 28% lot coverage. He said that he came before the board in January, 2017 and it took until May to receive approval. He said that the Town is holding their building permit until they complete an engineered drainage study that has a comparative analysis of existing and proposed conditions, with calculations for the runoff. He said that it must show no adverse impacts on any neighbor. He said no other property owner in the history of the Old Village has ever been required to do this, which was admitted by the Town staff. He said that his plans have a 10% lot coverage and it is completely beyond him why his plans are being held up. He said that 959 Pitt Street’s elevations on the driveway are at 7.9 feet in places and the road is at 7.5 feet. He believes that part of 959 Pitt Street’s plan is to run this onto their property, and they are not able to do anything without a certified engineer’s stamp. He said that at the beginning of his process, the Town told him that he had to submit the engineers’ insurance certificate to the Town. He stated that the plan and landscape architecture work looks great at 959 Pitt Street and should be approved with the condition that a certified engineer does a plan with calculations showing how it ties to the stormwater infrastructure and that it show that there will be no adverse impact on any of the surrounding neighbors. He said that this could be one condition and the other could be that it be deferred until 959 Pitt Street’s plan is completed or a drawing done by an engineer showing that it will not have adverse impacts. He said, lastly, to add a condition that a new building permit must be obtained. He said that what they currently  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 5 of 35 have is a building permit that was based on placeholders for the impervious surface and believes it is fundamentally unfair to let the applicant operate under this permit and come back to the Commission, doubling what the impervious coverage is on the outside of the home, and not have to do the same type of study that one neighbor is being required to do. He said that he would like to make these requests to the Commission. Mr. Keenan said that the drainage issue is unfortunately one of the most important issues that comes before the Commission and it is completely out of the purview of the Commission. He said that the Commission is unable to enforce drainage issues. He said that he was unaware of the request for stamped engineering drawings of the drainage. He said that it has been done in the Old Village before and it has not solved the issue. He said there are major drainage issues in the Old Village and a stamped set of drawings is not going to correct these issues. He stated that the Commission may provide advice and hope that the applicants will be good stewards towards this. He asked Ms. Cline if she is able to speak to the issue on drainage or if the property owner has reviewed it. Ms. Cline stated that given recent events, they are witnessing unprecedented flooding events in downtown Charleston, on Kiawah, James Island, as well as the Old Village. She said that recent events are not the norm. She said that the street is actually higher than the garage slab on the proposed driveway area. She said this was dictated by the architect in the very beginning. She said they are having to hold this existing grade in the front yard and are proposing to create a channel drain which takes the water coming down into their lot from the street and putting it into some type of drywell on the side of the driveway. Mr. Keenan asked if this would run down both the north and south sides of the property. He said that Mr. Ouzts’ property is to the north. Ms. Cline stated that they are holding grade almost all the way across the corners of the house and meet existing grade well in advance of any of the property lines. She said where they saw the biggest issue in dealing with the water coming into the garage was at the point where the brick pattern ends and the apron coming from the street meets. She said in a storm, what they are hoping is that any runoff that may come from the  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 6 of 35 street they could catch at an intermediate point before it goes towards the garage slab. She said they are tied to existing elevations and are trying to mitigate the existing circumstances without adversely affecting any other properties. Ms. Wilson stated that while the Commission does not have purview over drainage, the Commission does have purview over what is approved in terms of the house and hardscape. She said what Ms. Cline is describing is essentially a condition that the Commission created by approving a house with a slab at a certain elevation. She said that the Commission cannot tell the property owner to put in drainage, but the Commission can deny slabs, hardscape and all the conditions that create a drainage problem that the Commission has no ability to help remediate. She said when this plan was presented, she was not on the Commission, but stated that she did not believe that a motor court in front of a house was in keeping with the Old Village. She said it was approved and now this Commission’s hands are bound. She said that this Commission has no option but to approve a motor court, otherwise they are not able to park their vehicles. She said that she that she does not wish to approve more hardscape that is creating more conditions. She believes that there is too much stonework and hardscape at the grade, and the house is already enormous by Old Village standards and has a very large and very generous motor court out front. She stated that it is a beautiful house, but believes it is asking for too much. She said that even when it is pervious, there is still too much hardscape with pervious material in between. She mentioned that there is still a lot of water shedding off the site that was not previously shedding. Mr. Keenan stated that he agrees that it is a beautiful plan and said that Ms. Cline’s answer regarding drainage was that they do not have a plan for drainage. He said that with all the recent storms and rains, the Commission needs to look at drainage, because it is a major issue. He said that there is too much hardscaping, which creates an issue for next door and across the street. He said that rather than all the intricate pervious pavers, he would prefer to see a French drain plan. He stated that he agrees with Ms. Wilson.  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 7 of 35 Ms. Cline stated that if they were able to keep the intent of the general design plan. She stated that the motor court is as it is, because they are not able to get into the garage any other way. She said that she does not want to presume anything until she discusses this with her clients, however, the areas where they are showing stepping stones, could become greener, maintaining those same spaces as outdoor rooms in order for the homeowner to engage with the landscape, but not so much stone. Ms. Wilson stated that she would go one step further if it helps with construction and making progress, to go ahead and approve the drive court, because they need to keep moving forward. She asked that Ms. Cline study the ancillary paths and stone rooms at the back, she would be agreeable with this conditional approval. Ms. Wilson moved to conditionally approve the front portion of the plan at 959 Pitt Street for the driveway, drive court and guest parking and defer the stone paths and rear of the landscape; second by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. 3. 131 Live Oak Drive—(Survey 6246) TMS 517-15-00-139 – Final Review for Installation of Driveway and Parking Pad Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Jennifer Dickerson, stated that she purchased the property a few months ago; however, did not build it. She stated that the current material that is around the garage is a loose gravel and dirt and the rocks sling out into Toomer Lane and into the garage. She said what they would like to have is a more attractive aesthetic and a material that is just as permeable as the dirt and gravel that is currently there so that runoff issues are not created. She said there is an additional issue she is hoping the Commission will also hear this evening and both of her neighbors who would be affected by this are present this evening. She said on the side of the garage that borders Mr. Martschink’s property (south), they discovered that the fence which was supposed to run on the property line is actually encroaching onto Mr. Martschink’s property. She stated that they would like to move the fence so that it is in line with the drawings  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 8 of 35 submitted and put a gate in the front so that the golf cart can go behind the gate. Ms. Wilson stated that she would need to see a drawing of the gate and fence. She said behind the existing cast iron plants, a double gate is shown, but this is not there. Ms. Dickerson stated that in the picture the golf cart is blocking it. Mr. Keenan asked if it would match the fence on the other side of the garage. Ms. Dickerson stated that it would. Ms. Wilson stated that the pervious artificial turf and swimming pool is there and not part of this request. Ms. Dickerson stated that everything behind the fence remains the same. Ms. Wilson stated that it is difficult to determine what is existing and what is being proposed. Ms. Dickerson stated that what is being proposed is the fence and gate to hide the golf cart and the bricks and walk in front of the garage would be removed and the pavers would cover all of this. Ms. Dickson asked if the pavers were pervious. Ms. Dickerson stated that they are pervious so water permeates. She said that nothing will runoff. She stated that they do not have a drainage issue in that area. Ms. Wilson stated that they cause the drainage problem for others below. She said that she does not see any calculations and has no idea what the current lot coverage is. She said that it is still stone and although some water flows, there is still water that sheds off. She said she needs calculations. She said there is no survey and was not here when the house was approved. She said she sees a lot of lot coverage and where the property line is, there is not much lawn and would need to see calculations in order to approve more drive and pavers. Ms. Dickerson stated that they are already at the maximum of 39.5% impervious coverage, but what is there now is rocks and they are only replacing the rocks with pavers, which sit on rocks.  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 9 of 35 Ms. Wilson stated that it is adding twice the amount. She said she would personally like to defer and request more calculations. She said that it is unclear what is new and what is being proposed. She also suggested reviewing a sample of the material. Ms. Rowe said that it would look better replacing with the proposed pavers versus what is currently there; however, they may be at the maximum and not able to add anything additional. Ms. Wilson stated that historically, the Commission asks property owners to maintain at least three feet of green between their neighbors so they are not running driveway or rock right up against the property line, but that would be for the neighbors to comment on. She stated that it is not typically a condition the Commission allows. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the house is already shoe-horned into the lot and they are at the maximum impervious percentage. He said that if additional is added, he would be leaning against approval. Ms. Dickerson stated that if they do not add stone and must keep it green, they will not be able to put the golf cart there, which means that instead of being tucked away, it will be visible as there is nowhere to park it. Miles Martschink, stated that he owns the property on the left side and has met with Jennifer and Jack Dickerson and what was discussed was extending the fence from the rear corner of the garage to the front property line to park the golf cart. He said that he supports the pervious pavers, because they are on an incline and the gravel comes out onto Toomer Lane and is not attractive. He added that this is assuming they are not exceeding the lot coverage ratio. He stated that the fence needs to be moved two feet over and extending it all the way to the front of the garage with the same stucco column that is existing and a gate at the edge of the garage. He said that he is fine with it. Ms. Wilson departed at 5:42 p.m.) Mr. Keenan stated that he understands what the homeowner is attempting to accomplish; however, the application is incomplete and it is difficult for the Commission to make assumptions. He said that Mr. Martschink’s drawing is helpful, but needs to be submitted with the  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 10 of 35 application. He stated that he is okay with the pervious pavers, but wants to understand the lot coverage ratio and would like to see a better illustration on what the Commission is considering. Ms. Rowe stated that she agrees, but would like to see the calculations as well. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he is more akin to the last application where the house is already encompassing the maximum of the lot coverage and then going back to add more, whether pervious or impervious surfaces. He said he would be more inclined not to add additional. He added that he is fine with changing the current rocks to pervious pavers, but less agreeable to adding more hard surfaces to what could be a green buffer. Ms. Dickson asked where the second vehicle is parked. Ms. Dickerson stated that the other vehicle parks in the area marked 12 foot wide where her husband backs in his truck. She said that it is difficult to read the drawings as presented. She stated that the rains and storms have not been the norm, but the Commission needs to be careful. She said that it would be nice to see more specifically what is being requested so that the Commission may make a more informed decision. Mr. Hirshorn made a motion to defer the application at 131 Live Oak Drive; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. Mr. Keenan requested more defined drawings, materials and lot coverage ratio. 4. 739 Pitt Street—(Survey 5907) TMS 532-09-00-041 – Final Review for Alterations to Approved Plans and Approved Accessory Dwelling Unit [Consent Motion Approval] 5. 641 Royall Avenue – (Survey 5991) TMS 532-09-00-086 – Final Review for New Accessory Structure Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Rush Dixon, architect for the property owners, stated that the drawings they are proposing have very minor changes from the last presentation. He stated that Mr. Juan indicated at the last meeting that if the upper level is to be occupied, the lower level would need to be treated differently by accounting for floodwaters. He said when discussing with  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 11 of 35 Mr. Rogerson, this is a Mount Pleasant requirement, above and beyond what FEMA requires. He said the owner was interested in keeping the aesthetic the same and plan to use the upper level as storage and the garage as the garage. He said that there is still the component of the garden shed on the back. He said that the homeowner has larger items that they would like to be able to store in the upper level, which is why they kept a flat area on top of the storage shed in order to lift and get items in through the double doors on the backside. He said with moveable or removable balusters, they would be able to do so. He said other than this, he believes the positioning of the accessory structure was agreed to, all the materials were replicating the novelty siding that is already on the existing building, the copper flashing at the base, and incorporated brick at the bottom. Mr. Keenan said that this is a significant improvement. He said Ms. Wilson was concerned about the balcony in the rear. He asked if the balcony was necessary for the applicant. Mr. Dixon stated that the owners would still like to have access to the two doors. He said there is a pull down stair inside of the garage portion to get smaller items out; however, they would still like access through the double doors to hoist more sizeable items up. He said the homeowners are aware they are not able to occupy the upstairs portion of the accessory structure. He said they would like some sort of flat element at the double doors for easier access. Ms. Rowe stated that she applauds what has been accomplished to make this work. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the balcony was the reservation he had at the last meeting and said he still has reservations, because it is not consistent with other garages and accessory buildings. He said a balcony element is not consistent. Ms. Dickson stated that she understands having the balcony to hoist the larger item up for storage. Mr. Keenan stated that this Commission is somewhat under a microscope on ADU’s and accessory structures. He said that the Commission just updated the guidelines. He said that this sets the precedent that the  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 12 of 35 Commission is not looking for. He said that the design of the structure is fine and he would prefer to see the balcony eliminated. He stated that the Commission is seeing an increase in requests for ADU’s and are becoming more outlandish. He stated that by allowing one balcony, it would open the door for more requests such as this. He said he understands that it is not in the view of the street; however, the neighbor directly behind will view it. Ms. Dickson asked if the accessory structure has plumbing. Mr. Dixon stated that there is no plumbing. He stated that it was never intended to be any type of living area. Mr. Pohlman reminded Commission members that this is not an ADU (accessory dwelling unit), but an accessory garage. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he can either defer or conditionally approve with the removable of the balcony. Mr. Dixon asked if the back garden shed portion of the structure was in danger of being denied. He stated that it is a simple shed roof going up to double doors that had a baluster in front of it and asked if that would be more palatable for Commission members. He said that the homeowners would like to have the garden shed for garden tools. He stated that starting at the bottom of the doors, have a modest slope roof down towards the back. Ms. Rowe asked if Mr. Dixon would like to leave the double doors and eliminate the balcony. She said it would look like two hanging doors. Mr. Dixon said that it could be treated like a Juliet balcony with some type of railing in front of it. He said that the railing could be removed so that the doors could still be used. He said they would have to stand on the metal room, but would still have reasonable access, which is what the homeowners were requesting. Mr. Juan stated that in reference to a hand or guard rail in front of the double doors, if it were not a walking surface and a roof, it is more of an access and not habitable space. Mr. Keenan stated that he would be amenable to this, but would have to see more details.  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 13 of 35 Ms. Rowe stated that she thinks that the current design looks better, but still sets the precedent of having a balcony. She stated that she does not understand why the homeowner needs two doors. Mr. Dixon stated that he will suggest a wider 36 to 42 inch door to his client. Mr. Hirshorn stated that if the homeowner is going to eliminate a nice balcony, he would be hesitant to approve a compromised balcony. He stated that he would prefer to approve the balcony as it is presented or eliminate the balcony and replace the double doors with windows and a roof. Mr. Dixon stated that if they are able to keep the back portion, put a simple roof on it and replace the double doors with windows, if this is an acceptable direction, he will try to work with this. Mr. Hirshorn made a motion to defer the application at 641 Royall Avenue until further design is presented on the back side of the structure; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. 6. 139 Toomer Lane -- (Survey 6264) TMS 517-15-00-065 – Final Review for Addition and Exterior Alterations [Consent Motion Approval] 7. 324 Pitt Street -- (Survey 5944) TMS 532-05-00-0050 – Final Review for Exterior Alterations [Consent Motion Approval] 8. 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 last month, they had a good review. He said that they pulled the pool in, brought it up with one step down. He said that the item of discussion was the grading down the right hand side, looking from Friend Street. He said that he had steep fallouts on the grade, from the final grade against the house until it met the neighbor’s property. He indicated the proposed grade along the property line and up against the house. He said currently, the lot does slope as steep as it is shown and there is a concrete driveway. He said that they will be softening the slope so that it matches the neighbors, but will also be removing the concrete driveway and have plantings that will absorb  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 14 of 35 the water. He said the goal is for all the water to be pushed to the rear right and collected to go out the pipe. He said the pipe was designed for a 40 year rain and in the past six months, the Village has had 40 year rains a number of times. He said that the pipe has performed as the Town engineer stated. He said there is no change to the architecture of the house and they spent all their time working on the right side. He said that this was Ms. Wilson’s main concern and believes this addresses her comments. He said that after the last meeting, he also spent time meeting with the neighbor and currently, her yard drains onto their yard and all they are doing will not be draining onto hers and will be collecting the water and sending to the pipe. He said that they will work with her to help with her drainage to go towards the back as well. Ashley Woody, 110 Friend Street, stated that she sees where Mr. Clarke has made the changes on the fill; however, it is still going from 13 feet in the front, which is still two feet higher than it currently is. She stated that all of this has been going on for ten years. She said that she has been dealing with people filling in lots on her block, building houses, and all the flooding. She discussed all the processes over the years, guarantees from other builders that the drainage would work. She said that with this last storm, they now have water coming up underneath their home. She said that once the Commission approves this home, then that homeowner becomes vested in the project and nothing can be done after that point. She said that an earlier applicant was required to have an engineer’s plan for his drainage and asked how she can get the Town to do this for this project. She said that she needs help, because this is her last opportunity. She said that Mr. Clarke spoke briefly with her in the hall after the last meeting, but the new property owners have never come over to her home to speak with her or called to introduce themselves. She said that she does not believe they are being very neighborly in this process. She said that she is not sure what can be done in conjunction with what their plans are to help her, other than cut down her three grand oak trees and fill the lot in. She said that she is asking the Commission for help. Mr. Keenan stated that the Commission appreciates her comments. He stated that this Commission has absolutely no purview over drainage. He reviewed the duties of the OVHDC. He said that water has become a huge  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 15 of 35 issue and the Commission is very sympathetic and are unable to deny an application based on drainage. Ms. Woody stated that this is a process where she is able to attend and asked about the next step at the Town for those that have to approve the building permit. She asked if there is a meeting. Mr. Keenan stated that there are two individuals from the Town present this evening. Mr. Juan stated that he is going to defer the plan with the Town engineer, Mr. Kevin Mitchell, before he issues a permit. He stated that he will defer to Mr. Mitchell to work with the builder. Ms. Woody asked if she would be contacted. Mr. Juan stated that Ms. Woody would have to be in contact with Mr. Mitchell and request to be a part of the process. He said that she may also file a FOIA, as information is available. Mr. Keenan stated that Mr. Linton’s project is also being delayed until a stamped engineering drainage study is provided and added that Mr. Clarke’s project may end up in the same realm; however, he cannot speak to this. Mr. Linton stated that he does believe that the Commission has the ability to approve with conditions. He said downtown Charleston has conditional approval all the time. He said that he believes that this could be approved with the condition that there be an engineering study of the drainage that is approved by the Town. Mr. Keenan stated that he is very sympathetic with Mr. Linton’s situation of any potential efficiencies of any Town employee. Ms. Dickson suggested that Mr. Linton and Ms. Woody work together. Mr. Linton stated that he is at a loss for what to do. He said that everyone else around them has been allowed to build. He said that everyone else’s lots drain onto their property, just as it does with Ms. Woody. He said that he does not believe this is fair and added that this Commission has the ability to condition a permit on that study.  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 16 of 35 Mr. Keenan stated that he does not know anything about this study. He added that Mr. Linton’s is the first he has heard about. He stated that he would have to defer to Town staff, but does not believe the Commission is able to approve on this condition. Mr. Pohlman stated that he would need to inquire further; however, to the best of his knowledge at this time, the Commission is unable to approve on this condition. He stated that he would research further as to what the Commission is able to condition on a COA; however, believes this is outside the scope since it is outside of the guidelines. Ms. Rowe stated that this is part of the Commission’s concern, because this is out of their area of expertise. She stated that she is not knowledgeable about drainage requirements and this is not what this Commission is about. Mr. Clarke stated that he was advised to meet with Mr. Pohlman to go through the proper steps and the first step is to get the design approved or architecture, which is what is currently in front of the Commission. He said that as Mr. Juan stated, during the permitting process, they will have a professional drainage plan done which they have already started. He said that he was not going to bring this to the OVHDC, because this is not the proper venue for this process. He said that Mr. Juan will not approve any building permit until all those items have been completed. Ms. Rowe stated that it appears that Mr. Clarke has completed what he was required to do and it must go through the process. Mr. Hirshorn stated that his comments are consistent with some of the other applications this evening. He said that what Mr. Clarke has created is a nice and tasteful house, but then there is a tendency to add additional elements and coverage on lots that may not be appropriate. He said unfortunately, with many of the lots in the Old Village they are situated in such a way that when you add these large coverages and additional elements, they impact not just the aesthetic of the Old Village, but also neighboring lots. He stated that his reservation from the beginning was the additional element of the pool and realizes why it had to be elevated, and has not been harmonious to him from the beginning. He stated that this is a very specific lot with significant issues and although within the  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 17 of 35 maximum percentage of lot coverage, it is still a large footprint. He said the elevated pool element is a design feature that is not 100% appropriate for this house or as a trend in the low lying lots in the Old Village Historic District. Ms. Dickson stated that she agrees with Mr. Hirshorn’s comments, as the Commission has heard three cases this evening of drainage issues and the situation is not improving. She asked what can be done to prevent building up, which is obviously going to create runoff. She stated that the plan is very well done, but the pool is a problem. She asked about the two feet of fill dirt. Mr. Clarke stated that the two feet of fill is because the current backyard sits at 4 ½ and 5 feet and every single neighbor uses this lot as the drainage pond. He said that they are bringing the grade up in the back, which is still six feet lower than the front. He said there is a seven foot drop from the front to the back. He stated that although it appears to be a raised pool, because some of the others that face Royall Street do have pools at a raised height. He said if you went to the back of the Lutheran Church’s parking lot, you would see the raised pools and driveways, which were also what added to Ms. Woody’s problems. He stated that this lot cannot continue to just be a drainage pond. He said the County installed that storm drain at 5.08 feet and it is meant to have all the lots around it drain to it, so they must bring dirt up in the rear to get that drainage to the pipe. He said that the pool is now more integrated and gives the best example of what it can be, and will be beautiful. Mr. Keenan stated that this is a big improvement from when this began months ago. He said that his concern is the pool and his hope is that once the house is built and engineered properly that the drainage situation is going to improve, not become worse. Mr. Pohlman stated that he would like to reiterate what the Commission may conditionally approve. He said that 156.432 under powers and duties, letter F, “The design review”, which is what the Commission is currently doing, “It shall be a duty of the Commission to review applications regarding moving , demolition, new construction, exterior alteration and building additions in Historic District” and #2, “The review shall follow established criteria in accordance with approved design  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 18 of 35 guidelines.” He stated that the engineered stormwater plans would be well outside both the ordinance and guidelines of the Commission. Ms. Rowe stated that this is such a unique lot. She stated that she attends the Lutheran Church and said that they do not want to be looking at a pool that is low. She said it is a unique situation to have this raised pool. She said she believes that it will look better than a lower pool, because of where the lot is situated. Ms. Dickson said that she cannot make a motion, because she cannot think of a way to do so that seems fair. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the house itself is beautiful, but it is the back decking with the elevated pool. He said that if the pool came out, it would look odd. Mr. Clarke stated that as he understood it from the last meeting, the pool situation had been solved. He stated that it was at varying heights and the Commission did not favor any of them until last month, which is what is shown. He said that he does not want to speak for Ms. Wilson; however, this was her favorite design, because it hid it. He said that this is the best from a water management standpoint. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he feels certain he spoke up against the pool last month; however, he would rather see a terraced green slope that would absorb water. He stated that it seems that a pool is being forced into a situation where it may not be possible. He said the coverage on such a lot becomes an issue. Ms. Rowe stated that Ms. Wilson provided Mr. Clarke with the guidelines regarding the pool, which he has accomplished. She stated that Mr. Clarke has addressed the drainage, so she does not know what else Mr. Clarke is able to do. Ms. Rowe made a motion to accept the application for the plans for 104 Friend Street as submitted. Motion fails due to the lack of a second. Mr. Hirshorn suggested deferring, because the issue of an elevated pool is a significant issue, because if one is accepted, there will be ten more on low lying lots. He said it would be a significant change in the streetscape.  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 19 of 35 He stated that if Commission members are at an impasse, then perhaps Ms. Wilson’s architectural expertise would be helpful. Mr. Hirshorn made a motion to defer 104 Friend Street; seconded by Ms. Dickson. Ms. Rowe was opposed. All others present were in favor. Motion passes 3-1. Mr. Pohlman reminded Commission members of the ex parte in the bylaws that no member is allowed to make any comments that would be perceived as a judgment outside of this Commission. 9. 108 Carr Street – (Survey 6269) TMS 532-05-00-057 – Final Review for Accessory Structure and Pool Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Michael Tuliercio, Charleston Drafting Company, representing property owners, Stefan and Charlotte Zacharkiw. He said that at the conceptual review in June, the main consensus was that the pool structure was too big and the mechanical pad next to the pool was too much. He said that the lot coverage at that time exceeded 40% and they were asking for two and a half percent, which they would have had to go before BOZA prior to final approval from OVHDC. He said that they did take the footprint of the pool house and shed on the side of the house down, it made the lot coverage less, just over 1% of the 40%. He said that they then changed the front walk from brick to a permeable brick walk. He said this way they will not need to go before BOZA as they are no longer exceeding the 40%. He said that in the back of the house, there is a large section to the left of the home that is open. He said they are proposing to put the shed there. He said that the encroachment into the side setback is because the shed is attached to the building so it is considered part of the main structure. He stated that the shed footprint is not exceeding the accessory setback. He said he understands it must be approved as part of the main house. He said that the pool house was considered too large, so they lowered it 14% less. He said the roof pitch was also a concern, so they took comments from the Commission to make it match the main house. He said they also changed the eave return to more closely resemble the main house. He said that the fireplace in the rear was also considered too large, so they made it smaller to match the existing chimney on the main  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 20 of 35 house. He said that they also removed the pool equipment pad and moved it to where the air conditioning equipment is currently located next to the main house, so it would not be in view. Ms. Rowe asked why the chimney is slanted. Mr. Tuliercio said that it is to match the chimney on the main home, which is also slanted. Ms. Rowe stated that she had an issue with the shed, because it is facing the historic cemetery and looks like it is stuck onto the house. Mr. Tuliercio stated that it is a small area site, and with the blank area on the side of the house, it would be a nice area to fill in so it does not look like something is missing. Mr. Hirshorn stated that his issue is the shed. He said if it was the same material as the existing house, it may blend in a little better. Mr. Tuliercio said it is the same material as the back wing of the house Mr. Keenan stated that the shed is attached to the brick section of the house and believes Mr. Hirshorn is saying it would look better if it were brick. Tom Gressette, attorney representing John Henderson, who owns 302 Bank Street, the home behind Mr. Zacharkiw’s home. He stated that he has provided the Commission with a photograph of the backyard, which is a view from Royall Street, through the backyard to the Carr Street backyard, where the project is proposed. He said that this Commission is allowed to/required to protect the welfare, harmony, design and balance of the Old Village. He said that looking at this picture through what used to be the backyard of this lot. He provided Commission members with some history on this lot. He said that no one has ever reviewed this plan as it currently exists, meaning this house on this small lot. He said that no one has even asked if this house fits on this lot. He said that there is no presumption that this house has ever been approved or is, in fact, harmonious. He said that the project does not begin with any assumption that it has been as a parcel subjected to appropriate review. He said when the other portion was severed off, the current owners purchased it and have continued to live there and now the request is to erect a 20 foot A-  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 21 of 35 Frame bathing house/cabana and a swimming pool; thereby interfering with not only the direct view through this area to the historic cemetery. He said that the cabana is going to be six feet from the cemetery and is not harmonious with the Old Village. He said that this backyard has a six foot difference within the backyard where they are proposing to construct. He said that not only is the lot very small, but it is higher than everything around it and is going to be built up with a large structure, increasing impervious surface and the rate of runoff directly into the yard behind it. He said that it is not in the general welfare of the village to have drainage issues. He said that the impervious surface limitation of 40% is not a guarantee or a right to 40% unless it is appropriate with size, scale, streetscape and other considerations. He said that covering half of the lot that sits up on the hill is not appropriate. He said taking out an area in the front to be at 40% does nothing for the backyard and is only a numbers game. He said that the yard is just too small for a pool and a cabana house to exist and is going to block the view and streetscape site to the confederate cemetery. He said that it is also not harmonious with the surrounding properties because it will create a drainage issue. He stated that this will all be directed to the back lot that Dr. Henderson owns. He stated that this cannot be constructed on this property, because the lot is just too small for a pool and a pool house. He stated that in order for the Commission to approve this, they would have to grant certain encroachments. He added that encroachments are special and there is no need for the Commission to grant special encroachments, because the lot is too small. He asked the Commission to review the design, as he feels there is no real design elements or sound protection or drainage protection. He added that, most importantly, there is no relation to the design of the house. He said that he is not aware of any other place in the Old Village with a cabana house that is exposed in this area. He said that if the Commission does not take a step back regarding the 40% impervious surfaces, which is not a guarantee, as well as drainage issues, he said there will continue to be issues. He added that they are friends and neighbors; however, this parcel is too small for a pool, a house, a cabana, a shed, a screened porch, two driveways, and two grand oak trees. He requested that the application be denied.  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 22 of 35 Stephan Zacharkiw, property owner, stated that they did not design the house, but only purchased the home. He said that if they had designed it, many things would have been different. He said that he has two small children and the picture that was provided earlier on the side of the house, is a cleaned up version of the side yard. He said that requesting the storage unit is not out of greed, but necessary as they do not have any storage. He said that this is not about maximizing the footprint. He said in reference to a special encroachment, this would be the only encroachment they would be asking. He said that he is not an attorney, but Mr. Gressette is, by profession, and is also his neighbor. He said that from the first day, he has involved all the neighbors and has gone out of his way to let the neighbors know what they were proposing for well over a year. He said that Mr. Gressette was also talking about putting in a pool and another structure. He said that it is incredibly frustrating, because a sign has been outside of his home for a number of months and discussions have been ongoing for well over a year. He said that it disappoints him that Mr. Gressette wants to appear as an attorney, not a neighbor, and take this tact. He stated that Mr. Gressette resides at the residence of Mr. John Hunter Henderson. He said in reference to Ms. Dickson’s comments earlier, people were building up and creating a new issue of draining down. He said that they are at high ground and are not trying to create a runoff that is not already naturally there. He said that he cannot help the angle of his property. He stated that the direct impact of anything flowing down is another neighbor, not Mr. Gressette behind him. He said that it is very interesting that the neighbors when directly facing their house to the right, flowing downward, they do not have an issue. He said that this is the only issue, in the final hour, and not brought up in advance. He said from what he has learned this evening, this is all about approving the design aspects. He said that he is happy to work with any engineering suggestions. He said that he would like to point out some of the comments that Mr. Gressette mentioned of how their view of the cemetery is no longer going to be intact. He said that between Mr. Gressette’s garage, the trees and their fence line, he does not believe this is a worthy impact. He said that Mr. Gressette mentioned that he, too, was planning on putting in a pool and cabana. He said that Richter Way  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 23 of 35 has an example of a standing outdoor cabana living space such as what he is proposing. Mr. Gressette stated that he has no legal ownership of Mr. John Hunter Henderson’s home and has been retained by Mr. Henderson to make this presentation. Mr. Gressette stated that in reference to the fencing on the backyard, it would be appropriate if that fencing was staggered down the hill and a rear elevation showing that, with coping underneath to help with drainage. Ms. Rowe stated that since this was initially brought to the Commission, she believed it was too much for such a small lot. She said that going down Royall Avenue, it is very visible. She stated that she is opposed to the shed on the side. (Ms. Wilson returned to the meeting at 7:09 p.m.) Mr. Hirshorn stated that he has less of a problem with a shed as long as it was more incorporated with the existing brick home, both in material and in attempting to match the roof height with some of the porch heights. He said that this would not be a significant change to the streetscape. He said that the Commission has a tendency to avoid pool constructions that are in view of the right-of-way and attempt to have them somewhat hidden from the streets. He said that they do, in fact, alter the streetscape. He said that this case, in particular, the fact that there is a cemetery adjacent to it, some sensitivity should be considered. He said that he would like to hear discussions on how to address the pool and cabana and if the new construction would have any impact on the existing streetscape. Mr. Keenan stated that he has served on this board for four years and is in favor of property rights and does not want to dictate what property owners would like to do with their property. He said that his thoughts are that the cabana is out of place and possibly too large. He said he would like to work with Mr. Zacharkiw on the shed, but feels that it should be brick coming off that side of the house. He understands there is siding off the back; however, that section is not attached to the siding portion of the home. He said that it does not even look appropriate in the drawing. He said if there is a way to create something different, he would be in  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 24 of 35 favor. He said that he is struggling with the shed being in plain view, because the view corridor is significant from both Bank Street and Royall Avenue. Ms. Dickson said that she is trying to determine if there is some other way to move the storage shed somewhere else. She asked about the height of the shed. Mr. Taliercio said that it is eight feet. Ms. Dickson asked if it could go under the windows, on another side of the house. Mr. Taliercio stated that in the front there is no room and may be possible to move the HVAC equipment that is on the backside of the house, but then it would be in the side setback. Ms. Dickson stated that she agrees with the comments from other Commission members, as space is limited; however, sympathizes with the homeowner. Mr. Taliercio stated that since it is a small lot, 40% is much different from other projects that have larger lots. He stated that they are attempting to shrink everything down as much as possible, while still trying to meet the homeowner’s needs. He said the pool house looks a little bigger although it is smaller, because they did raise the roof pitch. Ms. Dickson asked about only having the pool without the cabana. Mr. Taliercio said this is ideal for his client’s request. He said originally it was an ADU with living space above. He asked if it was possible to have the cabana and the pool, or is there no size that is small enough. He asked if the Commission could provide input on whether the pool house/cabana is acceptable at all in any type of design or if the Commission feels it is just not appropriate. Ms. Wilson stated that she has a bigger issue with the shed than the cabana. She stated that it should be taller and look more like it is part of the house. She stated that if they go with siding, she would suggest a window. She stated that there is no drawing of the front porch on the left side elevation and if it were present, you could see how it is out of relationship with the first floor of the house. She stated that there is a  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 25 of 35 way to make it look like it is part of the house. She said that they are working around a vent and they could duck that through the storage area and end up with more storage. She stated that storage such as kayaks could be lifted high. She stated that brick would be great if they could match the exact brick, and since it is not a historic house, the brick should not be too hard to locate. She said if they are not able to match the brick and kept the siding, a window with a shutter or fixed shutter, so that it does not look like a shed, but an extension of the house, would be more appropriate. She stated that in reference to the cabana, she asked if the homeowner would be more open to doing louvered or paneled shutters to dress it up, because it is on the thoroughfare and the entrance to the Village. She stated that instead of the three quarter fencing wall, something that has the louvered ventilation. She stated that they are also going to want the privacy. She said that she feels that they should be able to have a pool and the cabana, but take a few feet off. She said perhaps a 12 or 13 x 18, taking it away from the tree and relate it to the pool and not the stairs, and have a slightly smaller landscape folly element character with all those trees and cemetery. She said it seems like it would be more in place with the amount of land in the back. She stated that those are her concerns. Mr. Taliercio stated that he would discuss this with the homeowners; however, believes they will be open to making the shed taller, because they would like to have as much storage as possible. He said in reference to the slats on the cabana itself, they assumed that the privacy issue would be addressed with the perimeter privacy fence so that it would be blocked from Royall Avenue as far as seeing anyone in the cabana or at the pool. Mr. Keenan asked if the example of the fence is shown. Mr. Pohlman stated that it is. He stated that the fence would be around the rear and side yard. Ms. Wilson stated that the architect has gone through the effort to make the roof and the fascia relate to the house and the house is a traditional house, so she would argue that the louvering and/or screening should continue in that vein. However, because this is someone else’s front yard, it needs to be more respectful and keep it more in concert with the  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 26 of 35 existing house. She said that continuing with the vocabulary of the house, like it was done with the roof, is more appropriate, because it really is a front yard and is perceived that way. Mr. Taliercio stated that it is the type of detail in the Old Village, but not in the historic district. Ms. Wilson stated that she realizes that it is their backyard, but it does have a very front presence on Whilden Street and they must also be respectful of the cemetery and make sure that the facades that are facing it are harmonious so that the whole composition and elevation all works together. Mr. Taliercio stated that on the fence detail, he has a note on the site plan saying that putting that fence along the rear property line is contingent upon approval from the neighbor in the back. He said that the issue with the existing fence is that it would not be appropriate for a pool enclosure, so they would need to work with the neighbor. Mr. Gressette stated that he understood that a fence on a corner lot could not be higher than a specified height. He said that he does not believe there is an issue working out the details of a staggered fence that would be suitable. He said the question would be whether the landowner is able to put the fence all the way around the back of Bank Street or have a staggered 5 ½ foot fence and then go to a 42” picket fence. Mr. Keenan stated that the Commission would have to look at the fence more in detail when they come back. He stated that he believes the homeowner received positive feedback. Mr. Zacharkiw stated that the feedback is very helpful and is very much amenable to what has been said. He said that it is currently an eyesore for the neighborhood and just wants to finish the backyard. Ms. Wilson made a motion to defer 108 Carr Street, pending further study, with the request to draw the full left side elevation as seen from the cemetery so the front porch, storage, cabana, pool ledge and fence are seen; seconded by Mr. Hirshorn. All present voted in favor. (Mr. Hirshorn departed at 7:24 p.m.)  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 27 of 35 10. 202 Bank Street – (Survey 6110) TMS 532-05-00-225 – Final Review for Exterior Alterations and Alterations to Accessory Structure Agenda Item Removed by Applicant – rev. 08.30.2017 11. 212 Live Oak Drive – (HISTORIC 6233) TMS 517-15-00-028 – Conceptual Review for New Addition and Exterior Alteration Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Neil Stevenson, Neil Stevenson Architects, stated that the existing building is a combination of an existing building with an addition on the rear. He said the front building is a one story cottage on a large piece of property, located at the bottom of the pond on the edge of the marsh. He said that he hopes drainage will not be an issue as far as pushing any water on to any other resident. He said the water during the last storm almost came up to the homes, but nowhere near entering the footprint of the home. He said that the family is a growing family and purchased this home and needed to build an addition to accommodate their family. He said that they looked at the potential of going vertical, but felt that it was awkward as far as being respectful to the historical house in the front. He said that there is an existing awkward garage that was built at the skew so they began to explore the possibility of removing the non-historical garage that was built in the 1980’s and build a one story addition that would not compete with the historical home and keep in the design nature of the neighborhood by keeping it low. He said that they would like to straighten it out as it relates to the main house more and not pull it any closer to the property line than the existing garage was, which is where there were some setback issues where there is an existing building that is already over the setbacks. He said that this would be improving the situation in that respect, and creating a connection between the main building and the addition that is lightly touching the buildings and have it set as all glass so you can see through the two additions and see the marsh beyond, which is the intention. He said at the same time, keeping the addition low enough so it is a few steps down from the main house in order to keep the height a profile of the house, but high enough so there are no flooding issues. He said that the addition is also set back from the main house so it recedes into the background. He stated that for the  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 28 of 35 driveway, they are staying with the materials that are used on the existing house to make it all work together. Ms. Dickson asked if three bedrooms were going to be added. Mr. Stevenson stated that in the main house, there are three bedrooms, and the addition would be the master bedroom. Ms. Dickson asked if the footprint on the historical home would be changed. Mr. Stevenson stated that there will be interior alterations and minor structural work in the piers and the roof; however, no changes to the footprint or windows. Ms. Wilson asked what the idea was behind keeping the scale of a garage for the master when there is no garage function. She stated that it is a wide addition so it is asking for a large relief on the side yard. She stated that it is showing a two car garage, but there is no garage function. Mr. Stevenson stated that there is a covered carport in the front, so there will be cars parked in front of it. He said that it was more for relief than anything. He said that it does not have to show as a garage door, and there are other ways to make that wall more interesting. Ms. Wilson stated that the size of the addition is too wide relative to the existing house. She said that it is slightly competitive and the master does not need to be that wide. She said that it is no longer a garage. She stated that a lot of historic neighborhoods have carriage houses and there is a vernacular that is established, but that is not here, so in general, the Commission attempts to encourage homeowners to do away with the garage aesthetic. She stated that there is an opportunity to eliminate it, because the homeowners are not asking for a garage. She would be in support of some relief, not seven feet, and the addition be explored more as residential vernacular and windows, possibly shuttered, to address the street rather than a faux garage door. She said she would be more in support of that relief if it was to get wider connection. She stated that the idea of a hyphen is really rich and to have the ability to see through to the marsh is even more appealing. She stated that if the car proportion was no longer the concern and could get narrower with the glassy connection  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 29 of 35 being more prominent, she would be more in favor of the side yard relief; however, not for two garage doors. Mr. Stevenson asked if the Commission would be acceptable with three feet off the property line. Ms. Wilsons stated that not as it is drawn, but possibly for a different reason. She said that she generally does not have an issue with side yard relief; however, she would suggest pulling off the side yard slightly. She said if it was for a more compelling reason, such as more view to the marsh, more sunlight passing between the two pieces, etc., she would be more agreeable. Ms. Rowe stated that the flat roof carport coming off of the front appears to just be stuck on. She stated that if the addition did not look like a carport garage, it would fit in much nicer. Mr. Keenan stated that he is agreeable with Ms. Wilson and Ms. Rowe’s comments regarding the carport, as he had similar concerns. He said that the additional elevations are major improvements and are nice. He stated that if the width of the addition could be tightened up, it would look really nice. Ms. Dickson stated that she does have an issue with encroachments and does not see a need for it. She stated that there is ample room for a master bedroom. Ms. Wilson stated that she agrees that the master bedroom does not need to be that large. She stated that it is not parallel to the property lines. She stated that if you look at the front of the house to the right, they have given away a lot of side yard setback, so giving back the trapezoid and inverse on the other side is something she could get comfortable with. She stated that something needs to be given back to the neighborhood if the Commission is going to provide that type of relief and asked for more detail. She stated that she would like to see that area stronger and cleaner and not the garage doors. Ms. Rowe asked if the entrance closest to the street was necessary. She said that there is too much going on in the small corridor.  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 30 of 35 Mr. Stevenson stated that this is an existing stair and could be eliminated. He said that the owners asked for it in order to put in a mud room; however, they did not have this as part of their design. He agreed that it would clean up that area. Mr. Keenan stated that conceptually, the Commission has provided good direction. 12. 6 William Street – (Survey 6030) TMS 532-13-00-039 – Conceptual Review for Living Fence [Consent Motion Approval] Guideline Discussion regarding Garages & Accessory Buildings #6 (Moved earlier in the agenda) Mr. Keenan stated that from the Guidelines, under Garages & Accessory Buildings, #6 reads: Pergolas and trellises, being absent in historical context, should be placed in rear yards and not visible from public rights of way. Mr. Keenan stated that this is what the guidelines state; however, there is no definition. Ms. Wilson stated that the issue came before the Commission when Mr. Keenan was absent. She stated that Commission members were looking for a way that would not implicate the Commission or violate the ordinance, but also not feel compelled to request that the owner(s) deconstruct what is currently there. She said that Commission members agreed on a definition or clarification between a pergola, trellis and an arbor. She said that they are all utilized interchangeably and clarified what the Commission will not allow. Mr. Keenan stated that Mr. Pohlman has provided definitions for the Commissions review. Mr. Keenan read the definitions for each structure. Ms. Wilson stated that the concern appears to be how to eliminate these structures over people’s gates onto their property and believes the Commission needs to state that none of them are allowed in the front. Mr. Keenan read further, “Pergolas and trellises, being absent in the historical context should be placed in rear yards and not visible from public rights of way”.  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 31 of 35 Ms. Dickson stated that pergolas, trellises and arbors were all present in historic context, so this sentence needs to be eliminated from the guidelines. Ms. Wilson stated that the question is if the Commission will allow this at their discretion. Mr. Keenan stated that he would be agreeable to a case by case request. He stated that he does not believe you can eliminate them permanently. Ms. Dickson stated that how this was first addressed, was due to the home on Hibben Street, which is not a pergola, but an arbor. She stated that it is a complete outdoor room. She stated that the Commission does not want any additional structures of this type. Ms. Wilson stated that if the Town does not issue permits for these structures, does this mean that they do not come under the purview of the OVHDC either. Mr. Pohlman stated that there is language in the guidelines regarding driveways, sidewalks, decks, etc. which do not go through the permitting process. He stated that the question comes up often about how something was put in without the OVHDC’s approval. He said this is why, because they do not come to the Town for a permit and are not familiar with the guidelines of the OVHDC. Mr. Keenan stated that he is agreeable with the definitions provided by Mr. Pohlman; however, the Commission should have the leeway or the right to make a decision based on the application. Ms. Rowe agreed and said that there are so many factors involved. Ms. Wilson asked who did the diagrams for the guidelines. Mr. Pohlman stated that the images were obtained from Beaufort, SC and Beaufort, NC. He stated that they are in the resources and not the guidelines. Ms. Wilson asked what would be the best way to have images put in, because this is still not clear, and images would help. She said that there should be an example of what an acceptable pergola looks like. She stated that it would still be done on a case by case basis and the location would still need to be placed in the backyard.  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 32 of 35 Mr. Pohlman asked if Commission members were contemplating the elimination of the large shade structures in view of the right of way. He said that placing specific language into item #6 with sizes and dimension. Ms. Wilson expressed that all these types of structures should be within the OVHDC’s purview and have the Commission evaluate them on a case by case basis. She stated that they should not be seen by the public right of way, in general. Mr. Pohlman stated that this language could be specific to state this, and that it must be reviewed by the OVHDC. Ms. Dickson stated that the definitions need to be included. Ms. Wilson stated that if one is mentioned, all three should be mentioned, because they are somewhat the same. Mr. Pohlman stated that if Commission members would like to reword this item now, he would insert the three definitions from Webster’s dictionary into the definition section of the guidelines. He asked how the Commission would like the new section to read; pergolas, trellises and arbors should be placed in the rear yards and not visible from the public right of way. Ms. Wilson requested to add, “And are under the purview of the Old Village Historic District Commission, regardless of the cost of the structure”. Mr. Pohlman stated that it is mentioned in the guidelines. Ms. Rowe suggested adding, “And should not be inharmonious with the surroundings”. Ms. Rowe asked where “cabana” is included. Ms. Wilson stated that a cabana has a roof, so this is a permitted item. Mr. Pohlman stated that if a resident attempted to build a cabana, it would not only be against the OVHDC guidelines, but it is against Town ordinance to build this structure without a permit. Ms. Wilson stated that a cabana may not be approved without Mr. Keenan; however, the pergola, trellis or arbor can. Mr. Pohlman stated that there are two other matters regarding the guidelines that he would like to address with the Commission. He said the first would be under “Sidewalks, Driveways and Streets, #7, which states a  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 33 of 35 minimum of one off street parking should be provided on all resident’s lots. A standard parking space should be 9x18”. He said that this is actually underneath what Town Ordinance now requires in the Old Village. He said that he would recommend striking this, because it will lead to confusion. Ms. Wilson asked what the Ordinance states. Mr. Pohlman stated that it was recently revised to state that the 9x18 is a Town standard in normal parking ordinance and in addition, in the Old Village, “#5 Parking Requirements. A minimum of two off street spaces are required per residence and additional space for homes over 2,500 sf of gross floor area are required at the rate of one space per ever 1,000 sf over 2,500 sf. Ms. Wilson stated that this will now cause more pavement. Mr. Pohlman stated that this is Town Ordinance and requested by the previous chairman, Mr. Bennett, to be put into the Town Ordinance. He asked the Commission if it would be acceptable to eliminate #7 from the guidelines. Ms. Wilson asked if an item could be added to the guidelines. She stated that Sullivan’s Island has enacted the 50% green rule, because there are so many pervious surfaces. She stated that the impervious on Sullivan’s Island is 30% and there are no variances for this. She stated that you can add as much impervious; however, the lot must stay 50% green. She stated that you are only allowed to cover landscaping material on 50% of the lot. She stated that this makes a huge difference. Mr. Pohlman reiterated that landscaping is outside the purview of the Commission. Ms. Wilson stated that hardscape is not and suggested changing the guidelines to state: “Hardscape can only additionally cover 10% above and beyond the 40% allowable impervious”. Mr. Pohlman stated that he will have to address this with Administration, because the ordinance for the Old Village states that up to 40% of the lot can be impervious. He stated that this is what the law states and wants to ensure the guidelines do not go outside of the law. He stated that he would have to discuss with Legal Counsel as well.  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 34 of 35 Ms. Wilson stated that if Legal Counsel is not in favor, to provide suggestion on how it can be stated. Ms. Dickson stated that Sullivan’s Island will also request residents to demonstrate that it covers the square footage as presented. Ms. Wilson stated that Sullivan’s Island requires a foundation survey before the framing is allowed to begin. Ms. Dickson stated that if you drive through the Village, there are houses that were approved by the OVHDC; however, what was approved and what was built are not the same. Mr. Juan stated that he would go back and review this project. Mr. Pohlman stated that he would like clarification on another item in the guidelines, because it is being addressed, which is the model. He said in the guidelines, as one of the required submittal items, require a 3D computer model if a structure is being improved over 50% or new construction. He said that he has been asked if it can be a physical model that the applicant has taken images of, as opposed to a computer model. Commission member disagreed. Ms. Wilson asked why designers/architects cannot bring in a hand built model, to scale and accurate. Mr. Keenan stated that he personally prefers the CAD. Mr. Pohlman stated that several architects have asked to present hand built models due to the cost to the client, for both conceptual and final. He stated that as it is written, “Applicants for new construction, and or renovations, and or additions of 50% or greater, require a three dimensional computer rendering of the project”. Ms. Wilson stated that she would be agreeable to eliminate this for the 50% rule, because it could be cumbersome. She stated that for new construction it should be a 3D model. She asked if someone comes before the Commission and would like to build a two scale paper model, is it something within staff’s purview to ask Commission members to have them bring it to the meeting. She said that it is not what the Commission encourages; however, there will be cases where it is appropriate.  Old Village Historic District Commission September 18, 2017 Page 35 of 35 IV. Staff Approvals (None) V. Motion to Adjourn Ms. Wilson moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Ashe September 18, 2017