Historic District Preservation Commission (HDPC)

OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE December 11, 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; Scott Hirshorn, Heather Wilson and Susan Dickson STAFF PRESENT: Austin Rutherford, 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 - November 13, 2017 Ms. Wilson moved for approval of the November 13, 2017 meeting; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. II. Public Comment & General Correspondence [None III. BUSINESS Ms. Wilson moved for consent motion of the following items: #2, 133 Mary Street; #3, 975 Pitt Street; #5, 304 Morrison Street, #6, 315 Bennett Street; #8, 141 Toomer Lane and #12, 728 Pitt Street. Mark Elam, 317 Bennett Street, stated that in reference to 315 Bennett Street, the Shuford’s request, he is at the bottom of the hill and every yard dumps into his yard and he is one of the few houses in the Old Village that has a basement. He said it floods every time there is rain and did not know how that would affect the drainage in the area. Ms. Wilson amended her motion for consent items: #2, 133 Mary Street; #3, 975 Pitt Street, #5, 304 Morrison Street, #8, 141 Toomer Lane; and #12, 728 Pitt Street; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 2 of 23 STAFF REPORT 1. 121 Chicco Lane – (Survey 5911) TMS 532-05-00-211– Final Review for Installation of Drive in Right of Way. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Ruth Brennan, property owner, said what she has provided to the Commission members are the details of the request. She said the road that comes through from Chicco Land is a 30 foot right-of-way road. She said no one owns that driveway. She said that she is willing to do the tabby concrete with brick bordering and cut the asphalt so it is a straight line across. Ms. Dickson asked if Ms. Brennan wants to go out to the public space with the tabby concrete. Ms. Brennan stated that it is her right-of-way to that location. She said when she asked SCDOT (South Carolina Department of Transportation), they advised her that she owns that as much as the individuals on the other side. Ms. Wilson said it is not any different than when residents do their parking spaces in front of their homes. Ms. Wilson made a motion to approve the proposal for 121 Chicco Lane; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. Scott McCormack, 141 Toomer Lane said that he does not want to reverse the Commission’s earlier consent motion; however, one of the items on their application was to change the windows that were originally submitted. He said they were referenced as wood clad and he would like to use a vinyl window and said they were intending to present this to the Commission this evening. He said that he brought a sample of the window. He said that from what he read in the list of materials, vinyl windows were acceptable. He said in parenthesis, it indicated “high quality”. Mr. Keenan said that he is not familiar with the manufacturer Shoreline. He stated that Commission members will address this item when it appears on the agenda. 2. 133 Mary Street – (Survey 6258) TMS 517-15-00-072 – Final Review for After-the-Fact Installation of Parking pad. [Consent Motion]  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 3 of 23 3. 975 Pitt Street – (Survey 5889) TMS 632-13-00-033 – Final Review for Installation of Fence. [Consent Motion] 4. 436 Church Street – (HISTORIC 6191) TMS 532-01-00-092 – Final Review for Reroofing of Addition to Historic Structure. (revised 12/4/2017) Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Kate Campbell, architect, stated that this was before the Commission in July. She stated that they researched the Sanborn maps, and this house used to be a two story house and on the back was one story. She said at some point, they added the piece in the front and back and a large gable on the side elevation. She said what they are proposing is to demolish a portion of the kitchen and maintain the area along the side, renovate the kitchen and add a living room on the back side that is one story. She stated that they would also have a wrap-around porch on the back side opening onto the garden. She said the property is large and the homeowner would like to add to it and follow the traditional development patterns of a single house that you would see downtown or in the Old Village, where they are adding and stepping back along the length of the property. She said the homeowners are working with Sheila Wortimer on the landscape design and added some parking. She said that they are not in a flood zone so they would like to utilize the space underneath as an open area with a fireplace on the ground floor. She said that there will be a small enclosed artist studio as a portion of the porch. She said that one other thing they would like to do is change out the wood rails that are not historic and go back with a rectangular shoebox style picket with a round rail on both porches and bring it back to what is more historically appropriate. She said that the property does slope down as it goes to the rear of the property and the stair will be internal on the porch. She said they are maintaining the existing kitchen wall and not going any further into the setback and are slightly less. She said at the closest point, they are just under three feet to the property line, so this will also be a request of the Commission to allow them to continue this, because setting it in ten feet would not make sense in terms of the development on that property line.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 4 of 23 Ms. Wilson stated that the staff notes indicated that the property owners were at 40%; however, it appears they are only at 30%. She said they are well under the lot coverage. She said she appreciates that the stairs are enclosed and believes the plans look great. She asked if the columns are also going to be improved when the pickets are replaced. Ms. Campbell added that the property owners want to do a historically sensitive porch renovation. Mr. Hirshorn asked how many additional feet of encroachment is on the new addition. Ms. Campbell stated that it is approximately 33 additional feet along the length. Ross Evans, 430 Church Street next door, said the only concern he has is on the additional 33 feet. He said that this house is right on the property line and his driveway goes right next to it and when it rains, they get water. He said with the 30 additional feet, what is the property owner going to do to drain water off of the roof and where will it go. He said they currently get water and with the additional 30 feet of house, where will the water go, other than in his yard. Mr. Rutherford stated that drainage is not in the purview of the Commission and would be handled with the Town’s Building Permit division. Mr. Keenan stated that this is an accurate statement; however, it is a good question. He said that both the applicant and architect are both present. Ms. Campbell said that they would gutter that side and try to mitigate that roof slope coming off on Mr. Evan’s side. She said that they are not legally allowed to drain on any other property, but will work with Mr. Evans and their client on this. Mr. Evans stated that this would normally not be an issue; however, they have a basement that previously did not get water and when 424 Church street was renovated, they began getting water in their basement. He said that they also said they would try to keep the water off his property, but now they get water in the basement. He said when 424 Church did their renovations and built an addition on, it is 10 feet away from his home and now drains into his yard. He said he met the homeowner of 436 Church  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 5 of 23 Street and does not want to create issues, but wants to know where the water will go. Ms. Wilson said that when you look at the roof plan, not a tremendous amount of the roof pitches towards Mr. Evans home and could be handled with gutters and French drains along the side of the property. Mr. Evans stated that there are gutters on the front portion of the home, but they drain into his yard. Ms. Campbell said that they will need to change the direction of the gutters. She said they could do a sub-surface pipe that the gutters tie into that will stay on the property. She said they can explore ways to mitigate, but attempting to control it with gutters would be the most effective. Mr. Keenan said that all this Commission is able to do is ask that the architect and landscape planner work with Mr. Evans to come up with a plan that is adequate. He said that both the architect and landscape planners are reputable. He asked Ms. Campbell to continue the communication with Mr. Evans and advise Ms. Wortimer that there is some concern as well. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he would reiterate for the record that with an additional 30 feet of encroachment, the Commission would like to make certain that those stipulations are followed through. He said that this is an extensive amount of additional encroachment and realizes that they are allowed to follow the house line, which is already encroaching on the property line. He said that this is a large amount of addition and the water will go somewhere, and although there are ways to mitigate this to some extent, the likelihood is that there will be some runoff. He said he would like to make sure that there is follow through and everything is handled satisfactorily. Ms. Rowe stated that they are doing the historic portion of the house a huge favor and taking it back to what it looked like with integrity. Mr. Keenan said that he would like to reiterate Mr. Hirshorn’s concerns and added that every month, this Commission has drainage issues that arise in these meetings and technically it is not in the Commission’s purview; however, wishes that the Commission did have some input in this regard. He said that it is up to individual property owners to be good stewards and  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 6 of 23 be considerate of their neighbors. He said that the project as a whole, looks good. Ms. Rowe made a motion to accept the application for final review for 436 Church Street as presented; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. 5. 304 Morrison Street – (HISORIC 6162) TMS 532-01-00-054 – Final Review for Alterations to Approved Plans. [Consent Motion] 6. 315 Bennett Street – (Survey 6130) TMS 532-01-00-024 – Final Review for Alterations to Hardscaping. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission. David Shuford, homeowner, stated that their solution to much of the drainage issues were catch basins throughout the front and back yards, which are included in the plans, as well as French drains going along the property line. Ms. Wilson made a motion to approve 315 Bennett Street plan as presented; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 7. 314 Hibben Street – (HISTORIC 6214) TMS 517-15-00-012 – Final Review for Reroofing of Historic Structure. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Mr. Keenan stated that the applicant is not present at this time. Ms. Wilson stated that it is not clear whether they are replacing it with the same pattern. She said it is the material composition on this. She said the cut-sheet the Commission members have is the material composition, but it is not clear whether it is the same shape. She said it is a very unusual diamond pattern. She asked if they are replacing it in kind to match what is there now. Ms. Wilson made a motion to defer this item to the end of the meeting; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. 8. 141 Toomer Lane –TMS 517-15-00-064 – Final Review for Alterations to Approved Plans.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 7 of 23 Ms. Wilson said this item was approved; however, the Commission needed to review the type of window being installed. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Mr. Keenan stated there was a consent motion earlier to approve this item as submitted; however, Mr. McCormack advised the Commission that the windows they were proposing to install are vinyl. Scott McCormack, stated that their original drawings that were approved and submitted did not have a window detail associated. He said they are proposing a vinyl window and said the approved materials does not specify. Mr. Keenan asked if the windows were originally wood. Mr. McCormack stated that wood clad was put on the application, but it was not indicated on the drawings. He said when he spoke with staff, he was advised that they had to use a wood window. Ms. Wilson stated that Anderson is a vinyl clad wood window. Mr. McCormack stated that this window is vinyl on both sides. Ms. Wilson asked if it would be an SDL. Rob Burke, stated that this is the pattern one vertical zero horizontal. Ms. Wilson stated that the window has large plastic flanges and things that would not be seen on a vinyl clad window. Mr. Keenan stated that he is not sure if all vinyl windows are allowed in the Old Village. Mr. McCormack said that on the approved building materials list, it indicates that they are. Mr. Keenan asked why all vinyl. Mr. McCormack stated that it is a superior window as far as durability. He said on the inside they would be covered with plantation shutters. Ms. Wilson asked if they have installed these windows in historic neighborhoods. Jeremy Rathft, stated that they have in many of the barrier islands and all throughout Florida.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 8 of 23 Ms. Wilson stated that her concern is the way it is angled and does not see how it is trimmed or cased on the exterior. She asked how they would case the windows. Mr. Burke stated that it would be cased just as you would a wood clad window, right up to the flange. Ms. Wilson stated that they would have to angle cut the casing material or it will have a huge revealer on the outside. Mr. Keenan stated that it is difficult for him to base his decision off the window being shown, because there are a number of big windows on this home and a feature of the house. He said their concern as a Commission is that they do not see many all vinyl requests. He stated that the guidelines only indicate “high quality” vinyl. Mr. Hirshorn asked about the actual guideline on windows, not the materials, but the guideline itself. Mr. Keenan asked if Commission members are comfortable with how the windows will be cased. Ms. Wilson said that she does not see how it can be accomplished. She said if the Commission approves the windows, then there will be another revisit on how the exterior trim will be done, because you would have to angle cut the side of all the casing around. Mr. McCormack said that his builder has been able to come up with ways to tie things together. He said they are putting artisan siding on the side of the house and are not trying to come up with a cheap way. He said that there have been issues with aluminum in coastal environments. Ms. Wilson stated that her concern is the hanging flange and how it is actually going to be installed and trimmed. Mr. McCormack stated that if it is vinyl wood, the wood is on the inside. Ms. Wilson stated that the window is inset, so you have the flange that is going on the cased opening, but then it is set back in the opening so there is a different shadow line and it looks like a window that is more historic, although it is clad and vinyl. She stated that the vinyl window that is being proposed is surface mounted, picture frame and it is an entirely different installation that is going to look different. She said that Anderson is vinyl  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 9 of 23 clad wood and even their 400 has a historic application/installation setup, which is their vinyl window. She said the Commission has approved this. Mr. McCormack said that this is what would have been helpful to the homeowner when looking at the materials list. Ms. Wilson said that she agrees that it is vague. Mr. McCormack said that the issue from the beginning is that it just said wood clad and stemmed from staff saying that a wood window needed to be installed. Ms. Wilson stated that if you look at all the new construction, they are Anderson or Marvin windows; one is aluminum and one is vinyl. She stated that it is not the vinyl material, but the installation tectonics that will be an issue. She said that the labor for the siding and casing will be challenging for this. Mr. McCormack said that if they can find a vinyl window that allows the casing detail to continue as drawn, will this be acceptable. Ms. Wilson said it would be to her. She said that if they would like vinyl inside, it is up to them, but it is the way it is being shown and detailed. She said there is a sill and casing, and going to the expense of hardy, so a thick wood casing would be used to receive the hardy. She said that they have gone through all the effort and expense to obtain all the great details and the window will sit significantly far forward. Mr. McCormack asked if they can receive approval to change to a vinyl and have the actual model approved at the staff level. Ms. Wilson said that it is a reasonable request to her, but she is only one Commission member. She said if Mr. McCormack sent a cut-sheet with the model and information on the window being installed. Mr. Keenan stated that he appreciates Mr. McCormack bringing up the window issue, because he could have avoided issues with this window from a construction standpoint with casement. Mr. McCormack said that he is out of time, as this will stop the build where they are if he has to wait another month.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 10 of 23 Ms. Wilson asked if Mr. McCormack is willing to provide cut-sheets this week. Mr. McCormack responded in the affirmative. Mr. Keenan stated that the Commission members could review the cut- sheet for the window and if acceptable, have Mr. Pohlman approve it at staff level. Ms. Rowe stated that she is fine with that option, as long as she is able to review the cut-sheet. Mr. McCormack stated that going forward for others, it would be helpful to have a list of recommended products. Mr. Keenan said that this is a good point to be more specific with the windows. Phil Clarke, Clarke Design, stated that he has used this window on some other projects prior and found it to be a great window; however, does not believe this window should be used in the Old Village. He said it alters the original character. He said the difference between a wood clad window, whether it is clad with vinyl or aluminum is that it still has the wood frame so the shape and size and proportions of the frame of a wood window are still there with a clad window. He said that a vinyl window does not have the strength in the same areas and you end up with the wider flanges. He said it is a great window, but not appropriate for the Old Village. He said when he read “vinyl high quality”, the only one he could compare it to would be a Hensel Stone window, which are extremely expensive which is a steel and fiberglass window. Mr. Keenan thanked Mr. McCormack again for bringing this to the Commission’s attention. Mr. Keenan asked for a new motion for 141 Toomer Lane, regarding all else on the application, excluding the windows. Ms. Wilson moved to amend the approval for 141 Toomer Lane to approve all changes to all elevations and plans, but to exclude the all vinyl Shoreline window and request alternatives to be approved at the staff level. Mr. Keenan reiterated that the Commission is approving the elevations and everything else submitted at 141 Toomer Lane, with the exception of the  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 11 of 23 vinyl windows. He said the applicant is to go back and research this, resubmit to the Commission cut-sheets for staff level approval. Seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 9. 129 Live Oak Drive – TMS 517-15-00-062 – Final Review for After-the-Fact Alterations to Facades and Installation of New Fence. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Carl McCants, architect for the homeowners, stated that they went back and attempted to soften the contemporary feel of the front stairs on the house. He said one option is using 1x4 epay hand rails running horizontal and following the rake of the stairs. The other option would be to enclose the whole staircase with 1x6 treated shiplap and have it stained to match the garage door. He said they brought in landscape architect, Jody Furman to help with landscape screening of this area. He said that the combination of what he and Mr. Furman are creating will help satisfy the Commission with reducing the contemporary elements. He said that his client would prefer the first option. Ms. Wilson asked why the same size is not being used all the way across. She said it is too stepped. Jody Furman, Furman Land Design, stated that he installed five 15 gallon podocarpus, which are 4 to 5 feet tall and three 7 gallon podocarpus. He did not want everything to be uniform and wanted it to follow the contours of the stairs. Ms. Wilson stated that going back to Mr. McCants’ original design, all the stepping was eliminated with the garden or retaining walls, which were more flat. She said that if all the podocarpus were the same height, it breaks up all the stepping. Mr. McCants stated what Mr. Furman has done with it is allow the stairs and handrails be transparent and not cover it up coming all the way down. He thinks that it is an easy change if the Commission prefers the podocarpus to be the same height. Ms. Wilson stated that she does not prefer either option and would prefer that it remain as it is now. She said the corbels and brackets were removed and thought that it was agreed that the homeowners would attempt to get  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 12 of 23 them back from the builder. She said that a timeline was not set, but would like the record to reflect that at some point the big overhangs will have the brackets. Mr. McCants stated that the information he received from Mr. Pohlman was that he only needed to address the staircase and leave the plan as it was and the staircase was the only item that needed to come back before the Commission. He said he may have misunderstood, so he did not address this. Ms. Rowe stated that the motion from last month reflected what Ms. Wilson just stated. Ms. Wilson stated that the stairs are what they are and at least with the cable, it is less of an element. She said for the record going forward, this Commission is not setting a precedent for cable railings on the front of homes, because it is not appropriate. Ms. Rowe asked if there is already landscaping installed. Mr. Furman stated that there are four exfolias there now and will keep one and relocate the other three. He said they will put the Japanese yew in place of the exfolias. He stated that they were worried about the exfolias taking too long to cover up the wall. He stated that he was attempting to cover up the white wall with a bigger size pot. Mr. Keenan stated that he does not know how the epay is going to look. He said that he agrees with Ms. Wilson and would rather keep it as it is now with the cable railing. Ms. Rowe agreed with keeping the railing that is there now. Ms. Wilson stated that she would like the brackets put back. Mr. McCants responded in the affirmative. Ms. Dickson said she prefers the second option, because if it were all covered with plants it would be less busy. Mr. McCants stated that keeping it with the cable railing would be less busy, because the cable railing is transparent and you do not notice it as much. Ms. Dickson said she disagrees and the eye just sees all these lines and feels it is disturbing.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 13 of 23 Ms. Wilson made a motion to deny changing the railing at 129 Live Oak and remain as they are now, and deny the elevations without the brackets. She said basically the Commission is denying everything brought this evening. She said the brackets come back and the railings stay. Mr. McCants stated that in the original plan, they had the bracket, but also had brackets on the columns, as well, that were almost like fins. He asked if Ms. Wilson was referring to all the brackets or only those on the overhangs. Ms. Wilson said that the house has larger overhangs and they should have a bracket. She said where the overhangs are two feet or greater, it should have a bracket. Seconded by Ms. Rowe. Mr. Hirshorn, Ms. Rowe, Mr. Keenan and Ms. Wilson were in favor. Ms. Dickson was opposed. Motion carries 4-1. 10. 720 Pitt Street – (HISTORIC 5954) TMS 517-15-00-028 – Conceptual Comment for Additions and Alterations. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission. He stated in the applicant’s original application there was an error and she considered the BAR to include a pool and an unenclosed deck. He said that she has the revised numbers and is below the BAR, but it was an error in their calculations. Elizabeth Drake, architect for the homeowner, stated that they are actually at 30%. She said that what the Dukes would like is remove the screen porch on the back of their home, keep the front covered porch, add a deck, a pool and a covered cabana on the back, which will not be screened in. She said they would like to enclose the cabana. She said that the Dukes have a long narrow lot and the back of their lot runs into Ben Tatum Lake. She said where there is flooding or the gates are closed, the water comes up into their yard and under their basement. She said they want to have a pool, but do not want it down at the ground level, but would also like to maintain some greenspace in the backyard. She said if they remove the screened porch off the back, terracing down slightly to a raised pool, it would get them out of the flood plain. She said putting the pool directly behind takes away the visuals, so it is not seen from the street. She said the cabana pulls off to the side where the driveway comes down, so it is more of a functional  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 14 of 23 part of the house where the entrance is to the back. She said they would also like to enlarge their laundry / mud room and increase the entry into that space. Ms. Wilson asked if Ms. Drake knew how far it is from the back property line. She said it is at least 60 feet. Mr. Hirshorn asked if the screened in porch proposed for removal is historic. Ms. Drake said that their historic home is the front piece and all else has been added on. Mr. Hirshorn asked when the screened porch was added. Ms. Wilson stated that it was in the late 1990’s. Mr. Hirshorn asked if there was any way to put a ground level pool in the back. Ms. Drake said that the survey does not have elevations, but the property does slope down and the water from the lake does creep up. She said the backyard is wet and the owners thought if they took the back porch off, it would become their deck, as they would like to preserve some greenspace. She said that having an elevated pool would be a nice option. Ms. Wilson stated that she is not sure a ground pool is possible. She said her property is approximately three feet higher than their property as she lives 2 properties down. She said her backyard is likely three feet higher and her pool floods during a heavy rain. Ms. Dickson asked about restrictions on elevated pools. Ms. Wilson added that there are no restrictions. She stated that the issue was that once they approved the elevated pool there, everyone else would want to request an above ground pool. Ms. Rowe said that here in the village, we must consider the lots such as the Dukes where an in ground pool is not possible. Ms. Dickson said that the question then becomes whether they have to have a pool or not.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 15 of 23 Mr. Hirshorn stated that there were specific stipulations regarding the above ground pool. He said part of the concessions was that the specific lot was hidden from the view of any right of way and significant adjustments were made to soften it to make the deck area smaller. There was a significant reduction in deck space and amenity space. He said that they are allowed only under very specific circumstances. Ms. Drake stated that the pool and back yard area are visually isolated and not infringing on any neighbors. She said they would buffer it with the terracing. Mr. Keenan asked about the height of the actual pool deck. Ms. Drake said it is approximately six feet six inches. Mr. Keenan said that his concern is the height of the pool and does not want to get into a situation where it is visible from the street or surrounding neighbors and wondering if the pool house could be moved directly behind the pool. Ms. Drake said that it would infringe on the yard and take away from the play space. Mr. Keenan asked if the cabana is screened. Ms. Drake said the cabana would have operable louvers with wood siding to match the house. Ms. Wilson stated that the lower you go with the pool, the further away it gets pushed from the house. She said the homeowners may want to consider not dropping it down and could get rid of six feet of deck and hug it into the house. She appreciates the fact that it is getting tucked into the house. She said that the hip roof does not fit, because on one hand, it is going to be sided and dressed it like the house so that from the street, it does not read as a cabana. She said cabanas are becoming prevalent, but are not in keeping with the Old Village. She said if it were more of a gable similar to the house and then continued the effort in refining it and tying it into the house, then from the street, it is not coming out any more than it is now. She said it is an improvement.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 16 of 23 Ms. Drake said she did a gable from this direction, but it became tall, as she was trying to put a good pitch on there. She said she will explore it once again. Ms. Wilson said that the height is not an issue with her. She said what she has the most trouble with is the over width of it from the house. Ms. Drake said that the terracing was to keep the railings down. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he would like to stipulate that the Commission would like all this to work out. He said that this new construction faces the lake, so it is very visible from Royall Avenue. He said that it needs to be treated as sensitively as the last approved construction of a raised pool on Friend Street, where the Commission met in the middle and significantly reduced the elevation. Ms. Wilson said that the pool was the same level as the house on Friend Street. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it was originally a stepped infinity look in the front. Ms. Wilson stated that Ms. Drake is not proposing infinity. She said they are planters. Ms. Drake responded in the affirmative and said that the Commission is drifting away from stepping down to the pool. She said you do not want it to look too big, but want to soften it. Mr. Hirshorn said he likes the idea of tying it closer to the historic structure so that it does not come out so much particularly from the Royall Street elevation. Ms. Drake said she would like it to engage the yard slightly. Mr. Hirshorn said that he would like to figure out a way to reduce the scale and keep it less visible from the surrounding area. Ms. Drake said that they were contemplating putting in a small bathroom. Ms. Wilson asked where the finished floor would be. Ms. Drake said it would be the same level as the deck. She said the homeowners would like to have some type of outdoor bathroom amenity.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 17 of 23 Ms. Wilson said that she would not add anything else at this point and work on the cabana and pool. She added that the bathroom would have to be at the finished floor of the house and it would take away from the primary deck. Mr. Keenan asked if the wall is stucco. Ms. Drake said that it is not and said she was contemplating having it open similar to a porch. She said they were discussing doing brick. Ms. Wilson said that if Ms. Drake is able to shrink the footprint slightly and make the cabana look like a cabana on the inside, and all primary house on the outside and tie them together. She suggested toning it down slightly from the street. Mr. Keenan stated that this is conceptual and asked Ms. Drake to provide a list of materials at the next meeting. Ms. Wilson stated that from the other side of Royall Avenue, it is an improvement and the stepping down grounds the house and it does not look like a raised generic house. Mr. Keenan stated that more detail needs to be provided to the Commission. Mr. Hirshorn stated that from his perspective, the initial gambit is to stick to the stipulations that were made after long and hard discussion on the raised pool. He said from his prospective, to change from that compromise, detailed presentation will be necessary on the way it is being stepped down. Ms. Drake said that she can get the surveyor to get some spot elevations on there; however, when a pool is raised, the material is going to be difficult. She said it will be exposed to the weather and you do not want it to get run- down in a short period of time, so any input would be welcome. Ms. Wilson stated that the way it is wrapped, it will never be seen because it is under the deck. She said there will still be piers for the deck. Ms. Drake asked how to treat under the railing. Ms. Wilson said the same way you would treat any deck or porch. She said that the whole pool is being wrapped and there is not a big exposed stucco wall, which is to Ms. Drake’s advantage and can match the existing house or  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 18 of 23 make another proposal. She said there is no massive weeping pool wall to contend with, which is good. 11. 625 Royall Avenue – (Survey 5993) TMS 532-09-00-084 – Conceptual Comment for Demolition and New Construction. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Phil Clarke, Clarke Design Group, said that he also has Meredith Bearden present who will be the landscape architect, as well as the owner on the property. He said that this is right next to Ben Tatum pond, and the Tatum property. He said that it is wet all the time and sits at approximately five to seven feet grade with seven being the highest point. He said the finished floor is sitting at 9’3” at an AE12 flood. He said everything sits under flood. He said the lot was re-platted in 1964 to set aside this as a lot and the house was built in 1965. He said it does sit below flood and there are four conditions for the demolition and feels that they meet the financial condition. He said it would be very costly to raise the house and it is not worth the value of the property. He said there are also no historical redeeming qualities. He said this would be the reasoning for the demolition. He said the property is behind the previous submittal’s property and are in the historic district. He said that across the street is not in the historic district, but still in the village with newer homes. He said the road drops considerably heading toward the pond, with the pond being the low spot. He said that drainage affects many of the decisions that they have made. He said all of the neighbors currently drain to a shared drainage ditch which goes to the pipe that drops into the pond. He said that while they are doing a larger home, they would like to use less of the property. He said that they will not be bringing in too much dirt and a raised home, similar to the one directly across the street. He said there will be a driveway coming in, with the main entrance on the side of the driveway and one straight ahead. He said they will be putting in a small piece that is being classified as an ADU, but is integral to the home and made it small and subservient to the main house. He provided an overall map of the area surrounding the property and said they are a similar size in footprint to some of the other homes in the surrounding area. He said to the BAR, they have to include the portion of the underneath space they are using as a garage and have that defined. He said the BAR seems higher than it would be if they did not have to  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 19 of 23 include the section underneath. He said they will be bringing the grade up slightly in the front to encourage draining both towards the street and the pond and setting the house as low as possible back behind the raised grade in the front to minimize the height of the raised home. He said that the lot begins to drop off towards the back and in the back it appears higher, because the grade in the back is higher, with everything falling into the drainage ditch. He said that they are not proposing a pool at this time. Mr. Hirshorn said that the biggest conceptual issue is which was the elevation that was juxtaposed next to the house next door, where Mr. Clarke mentioned wanting to keep the height. He said the scale and mass when you look at it from the streetscape on Royall, there is a difference. He said he would like to hear from other Commission members to see if this is within the parameters of some of the guidelines. Ms. Wilson stated that she has an issue with a raised house on this block. She said this is a tough area, because it is on Royall Avenue, which is half subject to the OVHDC and across the street is not. She said there are no raised houses on that side of Royall Avenue. She said that the ridge on this home is going to be at least five feet taller than the one on the left. She said it is significantly taller than anything else on that block. She cannot think of any raised houses for more than a block or two. Mr. Clarke stated that there is one on the other side of the pond. Ms. Wilson stated that the one in the woods is raised, but has a very low second story. She said she understands that they are able to get the FEMA boost for the ridge height; however, no one uses this and everyone is held to the 35 foot ridge height in the village. She said she needs to understand this more, because it is very tall and does not see a real advantage to it being raised, since this property is able to get some parking on the wing to the left. Mr. Rutherford stated that Town-wide, if you are in a flood zone, you are allowed an additional five feet, because those located in floor areas must raise their house. Ms. Wilson stated that the rest of the Town adheres to this; however, those on Toomer Lane had to obtain a variance.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 20 of 23 Mr. Rutherford stated that he is unsure of the current elevation of the property; however, if it is an AE12, the first floor would have to be at 13 feet. Ms. Wilson stated that this proposed home is at 17 feet. Mr. Clarke stated that he did the design on the homes on Beach Street and the one on Haddrell, and they all went to 40 feet. Ms. Wilson stated that those are different to her. Ms. Dickson stated that they are on the water. Ms. Wilson said that when you drive around the village, you do not see many houses that go bumper to bumper on their side yard setbacks, but try and stay tighter so that people have views, light, and breezes through their side yards. She said when they are blocking it side to side, the secondary element is detached and towards the back and the mass is more broken up. She said that her two comments are, really tall and really wide for this lot. Mr. Clarke said that the piece on the left, they did try to push it back as far as possible, and although it shows up on the front elevation, he does not know how much it would be seen. He said it is wetlands in the back area. He said they are attempting to keep everything as far forward as possible to alleviate any flooding or drainage issues. He said that this is why they attempted to break it up in mass and have the taller piece in the middle and the one story wings on the side. Mr. Keenan said that it is a great looking house, but has a difficult time envisioning it on Royall Avenue. He said he would like to see the height come down and have more of a front porch as a focal point, as opposed to the two porches there now against the two-story section, since Royall Avenue is such a prominent street. He asked if there are any additional drive-in bays under the house. Mr. Clarke said that there is one under the kitchen and one under the ADU (accessory dwelling unit). Mr. Keenan said that he is not as concerned about side elevations. Ms. Rowe said that she agrees with what has been said about the size, mass and scale. She said it looks too massive, although the design is beautiful.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 21 of 23 Ms. Wilson said that Mr. Clarke typically has his 3D renderings which is very helpful to the Commission members. She said when you add the topography it would help as well. Mr. Dickson asked about the square footage of the home. Mr. Clarke said that it is approximately 4,000 heated square footage. He said that it is a unique lot that is the beginning of the drop to the pond. He said the reason they did the park under is if they did the crawl, they would have a large detached garage, but he did not want to take up as much square footage on the absorption of the soil and it is tough to get it too far back. He said they studied both and went for the raised. Mr. Dickson asked if the drainage ditch actually drains to the lake. Mr. Clarke responded in the affirmative. 12. 728 Pitt Street – (Survey 5956) TMS 532-09-00-072 – Final Review for Alteration of Approved Plans. [Consent Motion] Mr. Hirshorn stated that there was also a procedural omission on 436 Church Street on the partial demolition of the historic structure. He said although it was approved, there was no discussion on the demolition. Mr. Hirshorn said that we had an application for this previously on the same section of the house and it was approved, because that section was deemed non-historic. He said this is a separate item. Ms. Rowe asked if the demolition was approved previously. Mr. Hirshorn responded in the affirmative and said the homeowner never followed through and re-sold the home. He said that there was lengthy discussion on demolition. He said he feels sure it would have been approved; however it was never addressed. Ms. Wilson said that she was the architect on that project and the prospective buyers decided not to purchase so the contract fell through. Mr. Hirshorn said that they were going to take the back shed portion off and add a new addition. He asked if they would be required to return for the  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 22 of 23 demolition approval. He said that it is procedurally required for the homeowner to stipulate why they are demolishing that section. Ms. Wilson stated that when looking at their application, it does not show that they applied for demolition. Mr. Keenan said that their application stated “final review for addition to historic structure”. Mr. Hirshorn stated that they are going to keep a section of the foundation only and demolish the remaining shed structure. Ms. Wilson said that this is so they can maintain the setback. Mr. Hirshorn asked if the applicant needs to come back before the Commission and make an application for the demolition of historic structure, or is the Commission able to do this for them. Mr. Rutherford said that he will relay this information to Mr. Pohlman. Mr. Keenan said that he believes they may need to come back before the Commission to ensure it is on record and does not believe it will be an issue with Commission members. He said he would like to know why it was not listed on the application. Mr. Hirshorn said that they did request demolition previously; however, it was a conceptual application and the board did not vote on it. He said that nonetheless, a motion needs to be made and the applicant must stipulate under what grounds. Ms. Wilson said that if the homeowners are required to come back before the Board, it should be done in a way that it does not slow them down and is just a formality. 314 Hibben Street – (HISTORIC 6214) TMS 517-15-00-012 – Final Review for Reroofing of Historic Structure. (This item was moved from earlier in the agenda to the end) Ms. Wilson asked if Mr. Pohlman confirmed if they were replacing “in kind”. Mr. Rutherford said that Mr. Pohlman stated that it is the same as the wrapped porch, but different than the second story. He said that it is architectural shingle. He said the existing is asbestos shingle and the property owner would like to remove this.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 11, 2017 Page 23 of 23 Mr. Keenan said that they have an odd pattern as well. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Ms. Wilson moved to defer the application for 314 Hibben Street until more detail is provided on the replacement materials. Ms. Dickson seconded the motion. All present voted in favor. VI. Staff Approvals Ms. Wilson made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Ashe December 11, 2017