Historic District Preservation Commission (HDPC)

OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE October 9, 2017 at 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: Joe Keenan, Chair; Leigh Rowe, Vice Chair; Heather Wilson and Scott Hirshorn ABSENT: Susan Dickson STAFF PRESENT: Eric Pohlman, Senior Planner Mr. Keenan called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m., and reviewed the meeting procedures with the public. I. Approval of Minutes Mr. Pohlman stated that due to the storm last month and rescheduling of meetings, the minutes were not complete and would be up for consideration at the November meeting, along with tonight’s minutes. II. Public Comment & General Correspondence Guideline Revision regarding Garages & Accessory Buildings #6 Mr. Pohlman stated that this is a continuation from a previous meeting where the Commission was revising the current wording. He stated that the revised wording would read: Pergolas, trellises and arbors should be placed in rear yards and not visible from public rights of way; the structure should be proportional and harmonious to the primary structure on the lot”. He stated that this was suggested from a previous discussion and once the Commission provides approval on this statement, he will post this online for public comment for thirty (30) days, up until the November meeting. He said in addition, the definitions provided to Commission members would also be  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 2 of 22 posted. Mr. Pohlman stated that he would just need concurrence from Commission members. Commission members agreed and requested that Mr. Pohlman post as stated. III. BUSINESS STAFF REPORT Ms. Wilson moved for consent motion on #1, 215 Pitt Street; #2, 116 Bennett Street; #4, 110 Morrison Street; #5, 6 William Street; #7, 641 Royall Avenue; #9, 309 Bennett Street; and #13, 959 Pitt Street; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 1. 215 Pitt Street – (HISTORIC 5925) TMS 532-01-00-033 – Final Review for Reroofing [Consent Motion] 2. 116 Bennett Street – (HISTORIC 6147) TMS 517-15-00-064 – Final Review for Driveway and Parking pad. [Consent Motion] 3. 127 Chicco Lane – TMS 532-05-00-036 – Conceptual Comment for New Construction Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Ms. Wilson made a motion to move #3, 127 Chicco Lane to the end; seconded by Mr. Hirshorn. All present voted in favor. 4. 110 Morrison Street – (HISTORIC 6163) TMS 532-01-00-055– Final Review for Replacement of Front Porch [Consent Motion] 5. 6 William Street – (Survey 6030) TMS 532-13-00-039 – Final Review for Installation of On-Street Parking pad. [Consent Motion] 6. 141 Toomer Lane – (Survey 4244) TMS 517-15-00-064 – Final Review for Alterations to Approved Plans Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission.  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 3 of 22 Scott McCormack, said he does not believe any of the changes are major and when they originally went through this process, they were attempting to get the size, scale and massing approved. He said there were details that they did not necessarily show and now that they have gone through the process with the builder, they would like to clarify those. He asked if some of the items could be approved in concept, and then final approval be made at the staff level, rather than come back before the Commission each time they make a change to the roof or soffit. He said they would like to make a general proposal. Mr. Keenan stated for clarification that whatever is being presented to the Commission today is what will be approved. He stated that this Commission will not approve this plan based on the fact that the property owner may want to change their mind moving forward. Mr. McCormack asked if they will need to come back before the Commission each time they decide they want a metal roof versus a shingle roof. Mr. Keenan responded in the affirmative. Mr. McCormack asked if they will need to come back month after month as they go through this process. Mr. Keenan stated that if they are changing the application, yes. Mr. McCormack asked if the decisions could be made at the staff level since everything is within the guidelines for the Old Village Historic District. Mr. Pohlman stated that because it is an approved application and has not received CO (Certificate of Occupancy), it would have to come back to the Commission, because it is an alteration to a set approved plan that staff is unable to overrule. He stated that until it is a finalized structure, has received a CO, and meets all the qualifications as a new construction, the application would have to come before the Commission. Mr. Keenan stated that the roof can be considered today for approval; however, if the applicant prefers to change roof materials, they must come back before the Commission. He stated that if the Commission approves anything today, then this is what must be built. He said if there  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 4 of 22 are any changes, Mr. McCormack must come back before the Commission. Mr. McCormack asked if some of the changes are able to be approved today. Mr. Keenan responded in the affirmative. Mr. McCormack stated that there are elevation changes that they would like to make at one of the windows. He presented photographs of a home on Royall Avenue and Pitt Street to show the detail that they would like to include. Mr. Keenan asked if the only change to the front elevation was the window. Mr. McCormack stated that he would also like to change the railing. He said some of their elevations showed railing and some did not and they are attempting to make it more consistent across all the elevations. Ms. Wilson asked if the overhang detail/soffit was also being changed. Mr. McCormack responded in the affirmative and said it would go from open rafter tail to an enclosed rafter tail, but would keep the same open rafter tail angle, unlike a boxed in soffit. He said that the detail is shown on A6. He said the rafter tail is getting a piece of hardy trim on the two sides and this is an example of the type of soffit that they are looking to do. He stated that they are also proposing that the foundation be changed from stucco to brick. He said in reference to the railing, one drawing shows the front porch with the railing and one without, which is the same with the side elevations. He reviewed other details with the Commission and added that windows were left off in the basement. He said they discovered that the foundation had to be stepped, because it is on a grade and they do not build walls at an angle. Mr. Pohlman stated that this is the subgrade mentioned in the staff report. Mr. McCormack said another thing they had to change is at the proposed elevation; there are no louvers shown where the chimney is located. He stated that the chimney is recessed, so they needed some way to keep the dirt from falling down under the porch. He said they would like to add  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 5 of 22 stairs off the porch for access down into the backyard, and on the rear elevation, they are proposing to add an outdoor fireplace at the bottom of the chimney, which will be a see through box at the base of the chimney. Mr. Keenan asked if it is a dual sided fireplace. Mr. McCormack responded in the affirmative and said it would be more like a firebox and vented into the existing chimney. Ms. Wilson stated that the pitches on the porches will not accommodate shingle because they are too shallow; therefore, they would have to be metal. She stated that without any rendering she is unsure whether the homeowner is proposing some shingle and some metal. Mr. McCormack stated that he was proposing all shingle. Ms. Wilson stated that under a 4/12, you are not able to accomplish this. She said any roof with a pitch less than a 4/12 cannot handle a shingle and will need to be metal. She said there is a situation on the dormers and the rear porch, as well. She stated that she has an issue with a mixed medium viewed from the street and believes the streetscape should have one continuous roof material; therefore, she would like to see the change happen behind the gable. She is fine with the closed rafter detail behind the street front; however, for the cottage look, the one that was referenced on Royall Avenue had a much tighter overhang and a flat soffit, which would be a good look, and to keep it closed. However, the 16 or 18 inch overhang is not compatible with the other changes that have been made, which she does like. She stated that the bay window pop out is a nice touch; however, the wrapped soffit does not work with a hip roof, which is on the garage. She said her suggestion would be that if Mr. McCormack really does not want all the rafter tails for cost, look or maintenance, to bring in all the overhangs and go to a flat soffit and take cues from the house that was included in the packet. She said to consider the metal for the front, because otherwise, there is an issue with the porch roofs. Mr. McCormack stated that it was their intention to have one material on the roof and added that this is exactly the information he is looking for in order to prevent any additional delays in the process.  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 6 of 22 Ms. Wilson stated that on the front elevation, there was mention of brick; however, the Commission would need to see the detail. She said the issue with brick is many times, it is framed to the CMU and then the brick is applied. She said it then flashes out four inches, because the brick is not structural. She said if they are truly using brick, the Commission will need to see the detail on top of the structural section. She said with as little as what will show on the front, she would prefer to see the stucco. Mr. McCormack illustrated what he is attempting to accomplish in a photograph at 630 Pitt Street, which shows more detail. Ms. Wilson stated that what was done at the 630 Pitt Street residence is a brick water table, which is nice; however, without seeing this detail drawn, it would be a large piece of flashing instead of the brick water table that is sitting on top of the foundation wall. She stated that lastly, she prefers no railing; however, the issue with the illustration is the columns and posts have nothing tying them together. She said that she would have some concern about that, and perhaps the stair should go all the way from the right hand gable to the first column, then pick up the hand rail, otherwise there are too many verticals with nothing horizontally tying them in together. She said without a rail, the newel posts are not structurally sound. Mr. Keenan said he feels the railing looks better. Mr. McCormack stated that on the original drawing, one elevation shows the railing and one does not. Ms. Wilson stated that a railing is not necessary on the side porch. Mr. McCormack said they were attempting to have consistent drawings from one elevation to the next. Ms. Wilson asked Mr. McCormack what they wanted to do. Mr. McCormack stated that they opted for no railings. Ms. Wilson stated that in this case, the stairs need to change to go from rail into house if that is the proposal. She stated that what is being proposed now does not work. Mr. Keenan stated that the Commission would need to see a new drawing to determine if the metal roof needs to stay. He added that he prefers the  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 7 of 22 railing, but if that is not what they want, then the Commission will also need to see new drawings on this. He added that if Mr. McCormack would like to do the brick, the Commission will also need to see that detail. Ms. Rowe stated that without the railings, it changes the entire look of the house and looks unfinished. Mr. Hirshorn stated that his question is regarding the new proposed stair that is external on the side-rear of the home. He said he has an issue with the design and asked if there was an alternative. Mr. McCormack said because there is a tree in the back, they looked at running it straight across the rear elevation; however, it would encroach into the tree zone more so than constructing it the way it is shown in the illustration. Ms. Wilson stated that she also has an issue with this the way it is drawn, because it looks like a 6x6 post. She said she would like to see it cut into the porch or around the back or screened in a way that does not look similar to a beach house; however, without a plan, she is unable to determine where the tree line is. Ms. Rowe suggested running it down from inside the porch underneath the house so you do not see it. Mr. McCormack stated that they did discuss doing a spiral staircase inside behind the louvers as an option; however, it cuts into the porch space considerably. Mr. Keenan said he agrees with the comments by the Commission members and if there is a solution to hiding the staircase, this would be preferable. Ms. Wilson suggested coming out, leaving the porch headed towards the front, but use the foundation as a generous step down into the yard, which would help with the stepping for the grade. She stated that structurally, the builder will step it; however, the mason can slope and stucco the top. She said with the multiple steps and a different louver at every height, it will need to get cleaned up even if the last step becomes a seat wall or something that allows the bulk of the louvers to be  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 8 of 22 consistent. She said this would clean up this elevation. She also addressed some issues on the back hip porch on A6 illustration. She said that the whole soffit is flat above the doors off the master, and is not the detail that is shown where you are tracing the underside of the rafter. She said it goes back 90 degrees to the porch. She said this is a detail that could be carried around to the front, in order to alleviate the rafter tails, but would make more sense with the hip roofs and lower pitches. Mr. Keenan stated that the application is for final approval; however, the Commission is not able to provide final approval. Mr. McCormack asked about approval for the trim around the water tables and the windows in the basement. Ms. Wilson stated that she does not have an issue with the windows; however, the wood water table would change if the brick is done. Ms. Wilson made a motion to approve two windows in the ground floor level and defer the decision on all the details relating to overhang and foundation details on the application for 141 Toomer Lane; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 7. 641 Royall Avenue – (Survey 5991) TMS 532-09-00-086 – Final Review for New Accessory Structure [Consent Motion] 8. 202 Bank Street – (Survey 6110) TMS 532-05-00-225 – Final Review for Exterior Alterations and Alterations to Accessory Structure Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Linda Balzac, architect for the homeowner, stated that one garage was approved at a previous meeting and the homeowner wishes to turn the existing accessory structure, which will remain the same size, so that the wider length is facing the street to allow for a double door. She stated that the structure is actually three feet further off of Bank Street and will allow more parking in a garage and in the driveway, as Bank Street has parking challenges. She stated that one of the requests at the last meeting was to show the proposed garage in relationship to the elevation which is a right side elevation from the harbor which is the front of the garage. She stated that everything is to match existing as per the last  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 9 of 22 submittal that was approved, adding the extra detail for the eave which matches the existing house with all details in place to match the existing structure. She added that the homeowners wish to change out the doors and windows of the main house on the harbor side. She said there are two doors and three sets of windows which are broken up, and because of the view, they wanted to make it more open and simplified, so they proposed three sets of sliders versus five windows and two sets of doors. She stated that they wanted to reduce the muntins, so she kept some at the top to have a proportional light with the same proportion as the windows for detail. Ms. Wilson asked if there was anything in that elevation that is historic or original. Ms. Balzac stated that the home is only ten years old. Ms. Wilson said now that the width of the garage is the same as the gables on the side, she asked why not close the gable and do what was done on the house. Ms. Balzac stated that this is an accessory structure and felt it was too detailed and the eyebrow should not be there. She wanted it to be a little simpler, because it is an accessory structure. Ms. Wilson stated that it is just a very wide gable in relation to the house. Ms. Balzac stated that she feels quite sure the homeowners would be amenable to this if the Commission feels strongly about it. Mr. Pohlman stated that there was an approval and what the homeowners were requesting originally was to rotate the structure 90 degrees for the square footage and keep the detailing the same. He said that the Commission decided that the roof pitch was no longer steep enough and to tighten up the roof pitch, which is why this is before the Commission this evening. Mr. Keenan stated that he likes Ms. Wilson’s suggestion, but feels it is more of a personal preference. John Gaskins, 131 Chicco Lane, stated that looking at the overall appearance, it blends in nicely, because of the left side of the house which flows in with the accessory building.  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 10 of 22 Mr. Hirshorn stated that his only issue is the proposed sliders on the harbor view, as opposed to the existing doors and windows. He stated that he feels this is a very modern look and an important elevation. He stated that he understands the homeowner wanting a panoramic view; however, feels it is inconsistent with the rest of the house when putting a modern detail on a very traditional looking home. Ms. Rowe stated that she agrees with Mr. Hirshorn’s comments. Ms. Balzac stated that these are Anderson French wood sliders, A series. Ms. Wilson asked if they were clad or wood. Ms. Balzac stated that they are clad with a ten inch toe kick. She provided Commission members with photographs. Ms. Wilson stated that this would be continuous and consistent and she does not have an issue with these sliders. Mr. Keenan added that since Ms. Balzac has provided illustrations of the sliders, he is fine with it and believes the doors will look fine. Ms. Wilson stated that in reference to the accessory building, she feels it should be a closed gable. Ms. Balzac stated that she would be fine with Ms. Wilson’s suggestion. Ms. Wilson said that if it had more of an accessory structure relationship to the house, it would be different, but it is in line with the streetscape so it has a significant relationship with the house. Mr. Keenan stated that it improves the look and asked if the applicant would be agreeable to this. Ms. Balzac stated that the applicant would be agreeable. Ms. Rowe made a motion to approve 202 Bank Street, Final Review for Exterior Alterations and Alterations to Accessory Structure, and changing the gable; seconded by Mr. Hirshorn. All present voted in favor. 9. 309 Bennett Street – (Survey 4238) TMS 532-01-00-023 – Final Review for After-the-Fact Installation of Swing [Consent Motion]  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 11 of 22 10. 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, architect for the homeowner, stated that at the last meeting, he presented this project and there were a few things he was asked to review. He stated that one was to increase the distance of the connection piece, which highlights a design feature that would be more attractive. He stated in doing so, it reduced the width of the addition and pulled it in a foot off of the property line. He said that he was also asked to rethink the design of the structure over the vehicles so that it integrated better with the design of the house. He said another change, which was more of a budgetary change was, instead of restructuring the entire roof from the existing house, non-historical roof, they kept this so they are able to work with what they have, because it was too expensive. He stated that the homeowners decided to leave it as is. He said another proposed change was to simplify the entry at the connection, because there were side stairs. He said that they reversed the side stairs and created a patio to step up, which simplifies the path and cleaned up the entrance. He said they added windows to the addition, making it look less like a garage and more of an addition. Ms. Rowe said she has a difficult time with the carport which looks stuck on to a historic cottage. She stated that the glass in the connection looks great, as well as removing the steps. She added that the carport does not work for her. Mr. Hirshorn asked if the roof in the hyphen is flat. Mr. Stevenson stated that there is a slight slope which they have to gutter in the rear; however, it is not completely flat. Mr. Hirshorn asked if the roof on the addition runs in front of the hyphen. Mr. Stevenson said that it connects and the intention was to minimize the impact of the connection. Ms. Wilson stated that the patio does not have a roof; it is just over the glass connection.  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 12 of 22 Mr. Stevenson said that the roof extends approximately three feet in front of it. Ms. Wilson stated that it is subordinate to the main roof and she appreciates the changes. She stated that she lives across from a carport and said that it is not contained and is tacked on as an addition to a historic house, which is unfortunate. She said that it detracts from the roof that has been done on the addition, which goes back to the cottage original house, which is very attractive. She said then there is the carport with a hip roof that detracts from all the other beautiful work that is being proposed. She said this is a difficult situation, because she realizes the homeowners want the carport, but does not see a solution for it. She stated that she is in support of everything else, except the carport. Mr. Keenan said he appreciates the glass connection and what was done everywhere else; however, he does have a concern with the carport. Mr. Stevenson asked if it were designed as a garage and was enclosed. Ms. Wilson stated that she would prefer to see a garage move forward on the lot and put a greenspace between the garage and the house and alleviate some of the driveway. Mr. Keenan stated that typically the Commission is not in favor of additional structures; however, in this case, there could be some compromise. Mr. Stevenson stated that this provides him with good direction. 11. 201 Haddrell Street – TMS 517-15-00-103 – Final Review for Alterations to Approved Plans Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Phil Clarke, Clarke Design, representing the homeowners stated that they have been working through getting the permit and the driveway under the 2420 Live Oak that is on the neighbor’s property. He stated that they are still having issues getting this approval. He said they have decided to remove the garage door and the split parking and stay completely out of the tree protection zone having just one garage door with parking off to the sides. He said that this is the only change.  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 13 of 22 Ms. Rowe asked if the new garage door could match the left side with louvers. She stated that the house looks great and this would make it consistent. Ms. Wilson agreed and said she is in favor of anything that removes all of the hardscape and that it is an improvement. Mr. Keenan stated that he agrees with Ms. Wilson and is also in favor of removing the hardscape. Ms. Wilson made a motion to approve the proposal for 201 Haddrell Street with a new garage door that matches the louvers of the house; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 12. 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, Clark Design, stated that he will not go over everything again; however, the item that needed discussion was the rear deck pool area. He said he appreciated Mr. Hirshorn’s comments and studied dropping it back down and bringing it back up and what was accomplished differently from last month was the faux waterfall infinity edge and that element has been removed, so the pool is completely within the deck. He stated that he did not want to drop the pool down again, because they want to use the entire rear back yard for water absorption with the lot, directing everything towards the rear storm drain. He said from an elevation standpoint, when you are in the parking lot of the church behind the home, you will no longer see the pool, which is the main difference from last month. Ms. Rowe stated that Mr. Clarke did a great job hiding the pool and it does look like a deck porch. Ms. Wilson stated that she stood on the other side of the church looking back towards Friend Street where the finished floor of the house sits. She said that the perspective of it from the public right of way is not raised and without the infinity edge, Mr. Clarke has done everything he was asked and made the best of a very difficult lot. She stated that she is  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 14 of 22 comfortable with this proposal, as Mr. Clarke has worked very well with the Commission and she appreciates his cooperation. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he is sympathetic to the position Mr. Clarke is in and said it looks much better without the infinity edge. He said that his biggest concern is the precedent of allowing raised pools in an interior lot in the historic village. He understands that based on the topography that this is a difficult circumstance; however, his issue is that it will set a precedent. He stated that for the record, he stands firmly against the addition of raised pools on interior lots in the Old Village as a standard. He added that this is an exceptional lot that is unique. Ms. Wilson stated that she also objects to them categorically, as well; however, this is one where the Commission has their rules and then realizes when they do not make sense. She said relative to the public right of way grade, being across from the church and in front of this house, it is not raised and this is a remarkably odd lot. She does not feel this sets a precedence since Commission members would be approving this as an exception. Ashley Woody, 110 Friend Street, said that she agrees that the back of the house looks better without the infinity pool; however, the pool was never her issue. Her issue is adding all the fill and why they feel it is necessary to add fill to the front yard which is already at street level. She read a letter to Commission members dated March 5, 2007, addressed to Christiane Farrell, who, at the time, was the Deputy Planning Director. She said she has been dealing with the flooding in her backyard for ten years. Ms. Wilson stated that she hears Ms. Woody’s concerns and added that the Commission’s hands are tied because they cannot implement any rules on drainage. She stated that Mr. Clarke has done a really admirable job with coming back to the Commission with reduction in coverage with a new site plan. She said that his grades/drainage are now lower than Ms. Woody’s lot, and he must bring it up in the front in order to drain to the street and not go laterally to the two side adjacent lots. She said that the Commission is extremely sympathetic and is using whatever tools available, which is the house and the hardscape and Mr. Clarke has done absolutely everything that has been requested. She stated that the  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 15 of 22 Commission may ask for surveys along the way to ensure it is implemented as drawn; however, what is being presented is creating a swale between the two lots and will improve the situation from where it is now. Ms. Woody said that this is what Mr. Ilderton said he would do, as well as others and it did not improve things, but got worse. She asked what her recourse is now and where does she go from here. Ms. Wilson stated that all Ms. Woody is able to do is hold the Commission accountable to what is being approved. She said the situation that is facing Royall Avenue is a very extreme situation that no one on this present Commission had anything to do with and unfortunately do not have any purview over. She said there was 6, 8 and 10 feet of fill that went in on those lots and was a tremendous oversight that is impacting Mr. Clarke’s design as well. She said what Mr. Clarke is proposing will improve things for everyone to the best of his ability. She said beyond this, there is nothing the Commission is able to do. Ms. Woody stated that as long as that is on public record so she is able to obtain the minutes and go to someone and say that she did her best. Mr. Keenan stated that he has been dealing with drainage issues for four years and there are other areas in the Village that are going through the same issue. He said that all Ms. Woody is able to do is keep in touch with the Town. He said that Mr. Clarke is a good architect and will work with the engineers to help the drainage system, and hopefully with this house, it will be an improvement. He stated that this agenda item depicts why the Commission is here. He said that the Commission has been dealing with this proposed house for a year or more and what has been proposed as a result is 100% better than when Mr. Clark began. He said the Commission does not have control over drainage; however, what the Commission does have control over is the architectural process. He stated that he appreciates everyone’s effort and Ms. Woody’s input throughout the process and does not know what else the Commission can do. He asked Mr. Clarke to thank the homeowners for their patience and cooperation. He said for him to personally support a raised pool project by no means indicates that he is setting a precedence going forward. He stated that they are not seen; however, this being an exception with the  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 16 of 22 lot, where it is placed and the topography, this was a tough decision. He added that he is a property rights person and is not here to dictate what individuals can and cannot build on their property. He stated that they have done all that is possible for this agenda item and is inclined to approve the changes. Ms. Wilson moved to approve the final design for 104 Friend Street with no changes; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 13. 959 Pitt Street— (Survey 5890) TMS 532-13-00-032 – Final Review for Alterations to Site Work [Consent motion] 127 Chicco Lane – TMS 532-05-00-036 – Conceptual Comment for New Construction Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Julie O’Conner, designer representing the homeowner, stated that this is a vacant lot on the harbor. She said she studied what little there is of a streetscape in the area, which is a four house street. She said that all of the homes are set back from Chicco Lane and her proposal mimics this in her design. She said that all the homes are drive under homes, with parking on the Chicco Lane side due to their harbor frontage. She stated that she is proposing the same. She said that the other homes are primarily two story homes on top of drive unders and she is proposing a slightly modified story and a half on top of a drive under for her project. She stated that this lot has one of the most beautiful views and the house is designed to take advantage of those views. She said that it will read very well from a streetscape perspective due to the location of the other houses and where they sit, set back. She provided photographs from the dock owned by homeowners at the corner of Chicco Lane and McCants Drive. She said there are a number of great trees, particularly in front of their neighboring property. She said the materials proposed are all approved materials and took the architectural voice of the village with metal roofs, exposed rafters, a lot of windows in order to take advantage of the views. She said one of the things on the site plan that she liked considerably was to come in with a little less of an entrance. She said that some of the other properties have wide driveways that come off of  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 17 of 22 Chicco Lane and she thought it would be attractive to have a single driveway that cut through the middle of the lot so when you did see the house, you would see the front stairs and the front door and landscape at the street. She said once you come into the property, the driveway would curve around to the two garage doors so the vista from the street would be the front door and not the garage doors. She stated that the only guideline she is varying from slightly is the guideline to have all the parking behind the house; however, this is a harbor front property and all the neighbors also have their parking in the front on the Chicco Lane side, which is indicative of the neighborhood and harbor front property. She stated that they are proposing a small amount of fill in the back as the lot goes from an elevation 10 ½ at the street down to a five when they hit the OCRM line. She said the neighboring properties are higher than they are at 6 ½ or 7 so they want to raise up just to 6 at the back section so they are not significantly lower than their neighboring properties. She said other than this one request, they are not proposing any fill on the property and it will continue to drain as it has done, naturally. Ms. Rowe stated that there appears to be a great deal going on with the plan and when she first viewed it, she thought they were townhomes. She loves symmetry; however, there is a great deal going on, on a simple smaller lot and added that it is very busy. Ms. O’Conner said there could be some simplification with regards to the materials. She stated that the broken massing on the front was purposeful in order to break it up and provide more manageable pieces to work with and did not want it to be a big box on the street, although there are a few boxes on the street. She said she wanted it to read symmetrically and wanted to minimize the front load garage and some of the detailing was meant to do so. She said she can see potentially limiting the amount of materials and not doing the material change from clapboard to shingle could clean it up slightly. She stated that the broken massing was important from a design perspective. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he agrees with Ms. Rowe and said that the streetscape on Chicco Lane is fairly eclectic so he would categorize this design as well. He said that the areas he has issue with are the windows, especially on the front façade, which are fairly aggressive window  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 18 of 22 configurations and a number of various types of roofing. He said that it is not very consistent with the Old Village, in general, having that many different types of roofing on one structure. He said that it appears very eclectic. Ms. Wilson stated that her concern is, that while it is broken with details and applied material, it is a fifty foot wide mass with a uniform height, which you do not see here. She said there is no protruding porch, no single story roof and the porch roof that is there is tucked in and will be hidden. She said it is too massive on the front for Chicco Lane. She said the houses that are adjacent have half the width or less coming forward to Chicco Lane and have more of a Charleston single type of massing. She said that it is a wall of two story and too much. She said where the closest neighbor is located, this house has gone with the most massing. She said the left side setback is less of a problem, because the rear is pushed back on the other side of the pool and does have a porch roof, but the next side elevation is a tremendous wall and she cannot support it next to a property or house that is half the depth. She stated that this house is coming 30 feet beyond the corner of an existing house. She said on the back, there is the critical which is typically 25 or 30 foot setback. Ms. O’Conner said there is no setback because of the plat date. She said the other houses had to have the critical line setback, but this one does not. She said the reason why some of the other homes are setback further is because of the very large live oak trees and this lot does not have any trees at all. She said the plat date on all of those lots pre dates the OCRM setback. Ms. Wilson said that the Town used to require that the streetscape be drawn in plan and poché as well as elevation. Mr. Pohlman said that it is not a requirement; however, it can be requested. Ms. Wilson stated that this is something she would definitely need to see, because as she reads this and then goes out to see what the houses look like, but it looks like twice as much house going twice as deep as the neighbors. She stated that typically the Commission requires a site of the whole block showing where the massing of all the houses are. She stated  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 19 of 22 that the piece going beyond the Gaskins’ house being two stories, it looks like a seventy or eighty foot two story wall. Keith Jones, 121 Chicco Lane which is the house on the left side. He stated that he has an issue with the massive house that is being proposed and that it extends all the way to the critical line. He said that house in that lot now floods back almost thirty or forty feet into that lot past the critical line and to build this house on the critical line and block a view all the way out to Ft. Sumter and a third of their view of the harbor after they have been there 21 years. He said they live on their back porch and always knew something would be built there, but to stare into someone’s swimming pool and porch, he does not think this is right for the Old Village and does not believe it is befitting the harbor scape which all the houses are set back from the critical line on Chicco Lane. He stated that the house needs to move towards Pitt Street 25 or 30 feet. He said that it is a huge mass. He stated that his wife is Ruth Brennan who is listed on the plat. John Gaskins, 131 Chicco Lane, stated that the lot being discussed is a smaller lot than his by approximately ten feet. He stated that it is a massive structure he and does not want to dictate to anyone how to build a house, but believes it is important for the Village to not only maintain the hardscape and streetscape, but the harborscape. He stated that precedence has been established and it may be 100 years before you see a house come down on that harborscape, and a new one go up. He said that homeowners over the years have all tried to be in line with each other in order to maintain a beautiful harborscape. He said he understands the streetscape is a little more difficult to work with and the hardscape will be easier, but the harborscape is critical and the beauty of the Village with all the beautiful homes lining the marsh. He said that the tides do come way up into these properties and cannot imagine trying to build something right down to where a street used to be, which was engulfed by Mother Nature. He said that it is the legacy that we leave that is important and the Village is not just any place, it is hundreds of years old and thinks we should all do our best to keep it as original as possible. He said it means a great deal to him and his family, as well as all the neighbors. He said that we can compromise on other things. He said  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 20 of 22 personally, he does not care for the design of the house and said if someone is going to purchase that great of a lot, which is considered one of the five best locations in the tri county area, to be more creative with the house. Janice Gaskins, 131 Chicco Lane, stated that she has an issue with the flooding they have and feels that this house is going so far into the marsh grass, where is the water going to go. She said that if this massive structure is allowed to be built, their homes will really flood. She said it is too much house for the lot and not in character with the other houses in the Village. Mr. Keenan stated that Ms. O’Connor described the street as a four house little street and he agrees with this description and stated that he is in agreement with the rest of the Commission members. He said there is concern about the height and mass, scale and positioning. He said that the harborscape is significant and the homes that grace them, it must be protected. He said many are hidden behind big oaks. He said that this proposed house is unlike anything along the front and thinks this needs to go through the creative process. He does not wish for it to look like every house in the Old Village; however, does not believe it is designed for this location. Ms. Wilson stated that there are not many lots on the harbor, so the Commission does not have specific guidelines for this; however, in other oceanfront towns, especially historic ones, you would have the average, within two blocks, of everyone’s house, which is what is neighborly. She said you do not come in because you have the right with the unique plat date to build out an additional forty feet. She said the setbacks and massing on the site are within the Commission’s purview and this is what she has the most issue with. She said that there are residents who have lived there for up to thirty years and this is not fair to them. She said she would like to see a more comprehensive study of what is on the harbor within two blocks of this lot. She said the historic houses on the harbor front is what faces the harbor, and this house is being designed as a two fronted house or possibly what faces the harbor is more important than this, because Chicco Lane is a unique area. She stated that this is a difficult lot, but the mass must get broken up as she does not see a  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 21 of 22 situation where she would support a fully two story house on this lot. She said that it is insensitive to the adjacent structures that do have a varied height with one and two story broken forms and the step down to face the water and have porches that address the water. She said that the biggest issue is an 81 foot two story wall which does not exist anywhere in the Village. Ms. O’Conner stated that what it sounds like is that the property rights of one or two are considered more important than the property rights of her client and believes this is a slippery slope and something that needs to be considered carefully. She said that the three houses to the left of this property are all full two story houses on drive unders and the house to the right does have one story sections, but the others do not. She said that none of the houses are historic and this is not a historic streetscape. She said there is a very contemporary house two doors over. She believes something needs to be said with regards to the architecture and style. She said that this harborscape is not pristine or a planned unit development, but one that has been developed over time. She said that the house is not an eighty foot wall and does not stand out forty feet past that house, but fifteen feet past the house. She said that this property is extremely expensive and the client has desires and that is what she has accomplished. She agrees that it can be broken up and things that can be done to simplify the massing and the elevation to make it less busy. She agrees that there are certainly always things than can be done, but takes exception to the idea that the other houses on this street do not have full two story masses, because they do. Ms. Wilson stated that they also have one story components and this proposed house does not. She asked Ms. O’Connor to show that it is fifteen feet, because when she looks at where the Gaskins’ house ends, according to the survey which is the only document she has to review in the submittal, it is clearly more than fifteen feet beyond the end of the Gaskins’ house. She said in reference to the value of the property, this is not the concern of the Commission, nor does the Commission intend to respond. She asked Ms. O’Connor to leave the value of the property outside of the discussion.  Old Village Historic District Commission October 9, 2017 Page 22 of 22 Ms. O’Connor stated that her client’s property rights are equally as important as the neighbors. Mr. Keenan stated that this does not need to be combative. He stated that there is constructive criticism that Ms. O’Connor is hearing from the Commission and the neighbors, and added that it is her job to discuss those with her client and address what is being heard. He stated that the Commission wants to work with Ms. O’Connor and her client; however, it must go through the process. He stated that what Ms. O’Connor is currently proposing is not going to work on this lot. Ms. Rowe stated that in reference to property rights, this had nothing to do with her looking at this and thinking this did not fit in the Old Village, on Chicco Lane or from the harbor. Mr. Keenan stated that there have been a number of comments. John Gaskins, stated that he respects Ms. O’Connor defending her design; however, his comments are his alone. IV. Staff Approvals [None] V. Motion to Adjourn Ms. Wilson moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Ashe October 9, 2017