Historic District Preservation Commission (HDPC)

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 2018 MINUTES Green arrows in minutes are hyperlinks to the recording Due to technical difficulties, the beginning portion of the meeting was not recorded. Attachment 1—Staff Report Present: Scott Hirshorn, Chair, Ann Dovre, Heather Wilson, Leigh Rowe, Louisa Montgomery Staff: Austin Rutherford, James Aton, Joe Juan, Lynnette Lynes, Jane Yager-Baumrind Mr. Hirshorn called the meeting to order at 5pm I. Approval of Agenda Ms. Wilson moved to amend the agenda and discuss the following item prior to public comment: ➢ 724 Pitt Street – Survey 5955 – (TMS 532-09-00-260) Applicant is seeking Conceptual Comment for a demolition of the existing single-family residence and a new replacement home Ms. Montgomery seconded the motion. All in favor. Ms. Wilson moved for approval of the agenda as amended. Ms. Rowe seconded the motion. All in favor. II. Approval of Minutes—October 10, 2018 Ms. Rowe moved for approval of the minutes. Ms. Dovre seconded the motion. All in favor. III. Public Comment & General Correspondence 1. Correspondence from 204 Venning Street No discussion.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 12, 2018 Page 2 of 12 2. Request for a one-year extension of 967 Royall Avenue COA in accordance with §156.049 Vested Rights Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). There being no comment, Mr. Hirshorn closed public comment. Ms. Wilson moved for approval of the request. Ms. Montgomery seconded the motion. All in favor. IV. General Public Comment There being no comments, Mr. Hirshorn continued with the agenda. V. 724 Pitt Street – Survey 5955 – (TMS 532-09-00-260) Applicant is seeking Conceptual Comment for a demolition of the existing single-family residence and a new replacement home. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). He stated that the survey erroneously noted that structure as built in 1935 and therefore historic. He stated that upon staff review, it was determined that the home was built in the 1950s. Mr. Joe Schuster, representative for homeowner, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Nicholas Popovich, representative of owner at 728 Pitt Street asked about the setback change that has been requested. He suggested that this request will adversely affect the rear property line. Mr. Rutherford stated the front setback is not adjacent to 728 Pitt Street but adjacent to properties on either side. It is a side setback for 728 Pitt Street. Mr. Schuster stated the current setback is twenty feet and the footprint will not be moved.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 12, 2018 Page 3 of 12 Ms. Wilson stated that the structure could be moved closer to the rear setback to provide more space between structures if desired. Ms. Wilson moved for approval of the request for demolition based on the findings that it cannot be economically rehabilitated on site to provide a reasonable residential environment. Ms. Montgomery seconded the motion. All in favor. VI. Parking Permit/Time Limit Discussion Mr. Rutherford introduced Mr. James Aton, Transportation Department Operations Division Chief. Mr. Aton stated the Transportation Department has been tasked with reviewing this issue to determine the feasibility of parking passes, how they would be administered, associated fees, etc. He stated that most of the roads in the Old Village Historic District (OVHD) are state roads and any proposal would have to be reviewed and approved by South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). He stated that staff would also contact surrounding municipalities, such as the City of Charleston to see how they administer parking passes. Mr. Hirshorn added this issue would be handled by Town staff and not the Commission. Ms. Wilson asked if portions of the OVHD could require parking passes, while other areas would not. Mr. Rutherford answered that there is concern that if the entire OVHD were not included that there could be a “leapfrog” to other areas. Ms. Wilson asked if existing parking pads located in the right-of-way in front of homes would have to be removed. Mr. Aton answered that this was a possibility and suggested that if they remained, they would be available for the public as they are located in the right of way. Mr. Jim Berg, 402 Patjens Lane, suggested that parking passes could be easily implemented. He suggested that there should be a time limit assessed as well. He suggested an actual pass might not be needed but enforcement could be complaint-based. Mr. Miles Martschink, 134 Toomer Lane, suggested that the issue is bigger than vehicle parking, it’s boat parking, parking pads in the right-of-way, etc. He  Old Village Historic District Commission November 12, 2018 Page 4 of 12 suggested that the character and aesthetics of the OVHD is being adversely affected by these issues. He suggested that a citizen committee could be appointed to complete a study on the issue. Ms. Ruth Brennan, 617 Pitt Street, mentioned another issue is vehicles parking in the right-of-way and damaging utilities. She stated that this could mean costly repairs that are the responsibility of the homeowner. Mr. Hirshorn suggested that there could be an informal committee to study the needs of the neighborhoods. Mr. Rutherford stated that Town Council would make the decision on whether to appoint a special committee. Ms. Wilson noted that Mr. Aton indicated that Transportation staff would be reviewing this issue. Ms. Montgomery asked if there would be an opportunity for public input. Mr. Aton answered in the affirmative. VII. Old Village Ordinance Discussion Mr. Rutherford reviewed possible ordinance revisions for consideration. There being No public comment, Mr. Hirshorn closed public comment. The Commission agreed to the following changes to the ordinances: • Establish 50-percent square foot rule for a “half-story” definition. • Suggested that another five (5) feet in height could be added for proposed ADU’s in flood zones. VIII. Old Village Guidelines Discussion Mr. Rutherford reviewed possible revisions to the guidelines for consideration. There being no public comment, Mr. Hirshorn closed public comment. The Commission agreed to the following changes to the ordinances:  Old Village Historic District Commission November 12, 2018 Page 5 of 12 • On-street parking spaces should be of pervious materials. • Change Fences #5 to allow fences 48” in height along the rights-of-way for corner lots, but only to the rear the home. • Change Site Features #1 to clarify that two (2) feet of site fill should be the limit for lots of record. • Eliminate Sidewalks, Driveways & Streets #10 regarding a required 20-feet of impervious surfaces for driveways from the edge of the pavement into the property. IX. Approval of 2019 OVHDC Meeting Calendar Mr. Hirshorn moved for approval of the 2019 meeting schedule. Ms. Montgomery seconded the motion. All in favor. X. Other Issues Mr. Rutherford stated that in conjunction with the Planning Department going paperless, the Commission would no longer be receiving paper copies of applications starting in January 2019. This will bring the Commission in line with the other Boards and Commissions. Mr. Rutherford stated that other Boards and Commissions have recommended approvals with final review by a subcommittee of the Board or Commission for minor corrections and suggested that this could be done for this Commission as well if desired. The Commission agreed to implement subcommittees when appropriate. XI. Consent Motions Ms. Wilson moved for consent approval of the following items: ➢ 625 Royall Avenue – Survey 5993/5993.01 – (TMS 532-09-00-084) Applicant is seeking Final Review for slight exterior alterations to previously approved plans. ➢ 809 Pitt Street – Survey 5901 – (TMS 532-09-00-048) Applicant is seeking Final Review for exterior revisions to a currently under construction single- family home and accessory dwelling unit and a new fence.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 12, 2018 Page 6 of 12 ➢ 118 Pitt Street – Historic 5939 – (TMS 532-01-00-250) Applicant is seeking Final Review for exterior revisions related to a previous submittal and a second-floor addition. ➢ 967 Royall Avenue – Survey 5979 – (TMS 532-13-00-042) Applicant is seeking Final Review for a new dock. Ms. Montgomery seconded the motion. All in favor. Ms. Wilson moved for consent approval with deviation from the guidelines as requested for the following items: ➢ 107 Bennett Street – Historic 6144 – (TMS 517-15-00-074) Applicant is seeking Final Review for two new fencing designs at three different heights. ➢ 245 Bennett Street – Historic 6133 – (TMS 532-01-00-016) Applicant is seeking Final Review for various exterior renovations. ➢ 104 Mary Street & 143 Live Oak Drive – Survey 4241/4241.01 & 6247 – (TMS 517-15-00-077 & 517-15-00-078) Applicant is seeking Final Review on a replacement fence for trash cans. Ms. Rowe seconded the motion. All in favor. XII. Business 1. 210 Bennett Street – Historic 6149 – (TMS 532-01-00-065) Applicant is seeking Final Review for a home addition, demolishing an existing garage and replacing it with a new ADU/garage, and a pool. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Kate Campbell reviewed the request with the Commission. There being no comments, Mr. Hirshorn closed public comment. Ms. Wilson asked why the garage was pushed forward. Ms. Campbell answered the owner did not want the driveway in the backyard, so there was space for children to play. Ms. Wilson moved for approval. Ms. Rowe seconded the motion. All in favor.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 12, 2018 Page 7 of 12 2. 301 Center Street – Survey 6055 – (TMS 532-13-00-122) Applicant is seeking Conceptual Comment for a replacement driveway and an elevated pool and deck. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Kelly Kane reviewed the request with the Commission. There being no comment, Mr. Hirshorn closed public comment. Ms. Rowe expressed concern with drivable grass and suggested that the required parking should not be on the lawn. Ms. Kane answered that the garage would be used for the required parking. Ms. Wilson stated she is not opposed to the grass parking and suggested that it was a cleaver solution to a difficult lot. Ms. Montgomery asked what material will be used for spiral staircase and would it be seen from street. Ms. Kane answered that the stairs would be either metal or wood and cannot be seen from street. 3. 129 Live Oak Drive – (TMS 517-15-00-062) Applicant is seeking Conceptual Comment on a rear Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADUs), pool, and hardscaping. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Carl McCants reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Zuckerman, 129 Live Oak, stated his family loves his home and just need more space for an office and guests. Mr. Miles Martschink, 135 Toomer lane, stated he has no issue with the concept, but suggested it is too massive. He stated that he did some calculations on the recently approved ADUs and distributed this to the Commission to review. He suggested that the total size is approximately 900  Old Village Historic District Commission November 12, 2018 Page 8 of 12 square feet. He suggested that this is too massive when being added to an existing 2,600 square foot home. Mr. Hirshorn questioned the square footage calculation. Ms. Wilson stated that the applicant indicated that the structure was 639 square feet. Mr. McCants stated that the 639 square feet is the heated square footage, with a footprint of 678 square feet. Mr. Martschink suggested that lowering the roof portion over the open area and reducing the dormers would bring the massing down. He expressed concern with the proximity of the ADU to the main structure. He also expressed concern that there is not enough parking for this request. There being no further comments, Mr. Hirshorn closed public comments. Mr. Rutherford stated the application meets parking requirements. Ms. Dovre suggested that the structure is “too tight”. Ms. Rowe suggested that the ADU is “too big”. Ms. Montgomery asked how the rear yard would be accessed for construction of the pool. Ms. Wilson stated that there are other homes in the area that are much larger and commended the applicant for using the same style as the existing home. She suggested that the size is not an issue. She stated that she is in favor of the request. Ms. Montgomery expressed concern with the massing of the chimney. Mr. McCants stated that the chimney could be reduced. Mr. Hirshorn stated that there is some concern with the massing of the ADU. He stated that he is conflicted with the request as it does meet the guidelines and is consistent with the surrounding streetscape; however, he suggested that the applicant restudy the massing to determine if some adjustments can be made.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 12, 2018 Page 9 of 12 Ms. Wilson stated that an ADU was recently approved that was larger and was the same proximity to the main structure and side setback. She stated that the main structure was larger than with this application. Mr. McCants agreed and stated that there are structures on the same street that were recently approved. Mr. Hirshorn suggested that the concern is with these homes are unique. He stated that this has been a concern with this area of the historic district. He asked the applicant to review the request and consider where some adjustments could be made. Ms. Rowe suggested that it looks “top heavy”. Mr. McCants disagreed and showed the home on Live Oak that is similarly “top heavy”. He stated that historically, there were multiple structures on a lot, that were cobbled together over time. He suggested that this is better than having a larger, mansion type home. He suggested that the rooflines would help in reducing the massing of the structure. 4. 2 Pierates Cruze – Survey 6061 – (TMS 532-09-00-007) Applicant is seeking Conceptual Comment to roof existing uncovered porches located on the front and rear of the single-family residence. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Julie O’Connor reviewed the application with Commission. There being no comments, Mr. Hirshorn closed public comment. Ms. Dovre stated that she is in favor of the request. Ms. Rowe suggested that the renovation would be an improvement to the structure. She asked if the porch could run the length of the rear elevation to mimic the second story. Ms. O’Connor answered that this could be done.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 12, 2018 Page 10 of 12 Ms. Cookie Avant, homeowner, stated that both decks on the back have steps. She stated that she would prefer the design as prevented as it is more aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Wilson asked if this would be a deviation from the guidelines because of the shed roof. Mr. Rutherford answered that the guidelines is somewhat vague and suggested that it should be better clarified. 5. 127 Chicco Lane – (TMS 532-05-00-036) Applicant is seeking Final Review for hardscaping, fencing, and a swimming pool for new single-family home with a previous new construction COA. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Cheryl Cave, Wertimer and Cline, reviewed the request with the Commission. Ms. Janice Gaskins, 131 Chicco Lane, asked the about the height of the bulkhead. She stated that their bulkhead is two feet in height and suggested that this was sufficient. Mr. Keith Jones, 121 Chicco Lane, distributed a copy of previous houses surrounding this property. He expressed concern with the height of the proposed bulkhead. He also expressed concern that pool would create noise pollution as well as cause additional flooding in the area. Ms. Wilson explained that the height of the bulkhead is seven feet from sea level. She stated that the bulkhead is proposed to be the same height as the grass would be once the two feet of fill is put in. Ms. Ruth Brennan 121 Chicco Lane, expressed concern with the pool and that is not in inconspicuous location. She suggested that the neighbors have not been contacted regarding this request. She also expressed concern with the proposed wall and suggested that there should be more greenspace. She expressed concern that the live oak on the property would be compromised with the addition of the pool. She asked that the Commission deny the request for the pool.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 12, 2018 Page 11 of 12 Dr. John Gaskins, 131 Chicco Lane, suggested that the bulkhead should be two feet and should be in line with his lot to avoid any flooding issues. There being no further comments, Mr. Hirshorn closed public comment. Ms. Dovre expressed concern with the addition of the pool because of area flooding. Ms. Rowe stated that she has no issue with pool. Ms. Wilson suggested that there are other pools on neighboring properties. Mr. Jeff McCall, 127 Chicco Lane, suggested that it is disingenuous to deny the pool given that there are pools on neighboring properties. He stated that some properties have a pool and hot tub. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the nature of the historic district is that you could be overlooking your neighbor’s pool. Ms. Wilson pointed out that the Commission asked for restudy of the pool but gave previous approval for the house. She stated that the pool has been moved and are proposing extensive landscaping to screen the pool. She asked about the tabby drive. Ms. Cave answered that it is for additional space to maneuver and for additional parking. Ms. Wilson suggested that there should be more greenspace. Ms. Montgomery asked if the tabby driveway can be broken up with more greenspace. Ms. Cave stated that this could be reviewed and consider some design features. Ms. Wilson asked if a second curb cut could be added. Mr. Rutherford answered that there may be limitations on more than one entry way, but it is something the applicant can discuss with the Transportation Department. Mr. McCall stated they would be willing to have that discussion. Ms. Wilson moved for approval with final review by a committee of the Commission with members of Ms. Wilson and Ms. Rowe for the second curb cut in lieu of the tabby drive in the front. Ms. Rowe seconded the motion. Motion  Old Village Historic District Commission November 12, 2018 Page 12 of 12 passed on a 3 to 1 vote with Ms. Wilson, Ms. Rowe, and Ms. Montgomery in favor; Ms. Dovre opposed and Mr. Hirshorn abstaining. XIII. Staff Approvals No staff approvals this month. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:06 pm. Submitted by, Jane Yager-Baumrind November 12, 2018