Historic District Preservation Commission (HDPC)

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2018 MINUTES Attachment 1—Staff Report Present: Scott Hirshorn, Chair, Ann Dovre, Heather Wilson, Leigh Rowe, Louisa Montgomery Staff: Austin Rutherford, David Pagliarini, Joe Juan, Jane Yager-Baumrind Mr. Hirshorn called the meeting to order at 5:03pm. I. Approval of Agenda Ms. Wilson moved to amend the agenda and discuss consent items after general public comment, and to discuss items H and I first under new business. Ms. Rowe seconded the motion. All in favor. II. Approval of Minutes November 12, 2018 Ms. Wilson moved for approval of the minutes. Ms. Montgomery seconded the motion. All in favor. III. Correspondence Mr. Rutherford reviewed the correspondence received for this agenda. IV. General Public Comment Ms. Edith Royall Smith expressed concern regarding the holiday inflatables. Mr. Hirshorn stated that this is an item on the agenda for discussion and asked if Ms. Smith would like to speak now or at the time the item is discussed. Ms. Smith answered that she would reserve her comments for when the item was discussed. V. Consent Motions Ms. Wilson moved for consent approval for the following items:  Old Village Historic District Commission December 10, 2018 Page 2 of 12 ➢ 2 Pierates Cruze – Survey 6061 – (TMS 532-09-00-007) Applicant is seeking Final Review to roof existing uncovered porches located on the front and rear of the single-family residence. ➢ 129 Live Oak Drive – (TMS 517-15-00-062) Applicant is seeking Final Review on a rear Accessory Dwelling Unit, pool, and hardscaping. CORRESPONDENCE ➢ 314 Hibben Street – Historic 6214 – (TMS 517-15-00-012) Applicant is seeking Final Review for porch renovations. ➢ 107 Carr Street – Survey 6108/6108.01 – (TMS 532-05-00-051) Applicant is seeking Final Review for new construction revisions for a new single-family home, accessory dwelling unit, garage and carport, and pool. Ms. Montgomery seconded the motion. Mr. Rutherford requested that the Commission consider hearing 107 Carr Street application due to the deviation from the guidelines. Ms. Wilson amended her motion to remove consent approval for 107 Carr Street. Ms. Montgomery seconded the amendment. All in favor. VI. Discussion on Holiday Inflatables Mr. Rutherford stated that Ms. Montgomery asked for this to be discussed. He reviewed staff concerns regarding this issue with the Commission. Ms. Dovre and Ms. Wilson stated they have no issue with the inflatables. Ms. Montgomery asked if other historic districts such as Williamsburg, VA and Savannah, GA have restricted holiday inflatables. Mr. Rutherford answered in the negative and stated that he did not come across any municipalities in South Carolina that have placed restrictions on inflatables. Ms. Rowe and Mr. Hirshorn stated they have no issue with holiday inflatables. Ms. Judith Royall-Smith stated that seeing these holiday decorations brings joy to the children and suggested that this should not be an issue. Ms. Montgomery expressed concern that inflatables would include those for commercial purposes.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 10, 2018 Page 3 of 12 Mr. Craig Lung, 223 Pitt Street, stated that his grandchildren enjoy seeing the displays and stated that they would be disappointed if they were not allowed. Ms. Fran Bennett, 202 Pitt Street, stated that her neighbor has outside inflatables and she is not opposed to them. Mr. Rutherford stated the some inflatables, such as those used for commercial advertisement, are regulated in the ordinance. There being no further comments, Mr. Hirshorn closed public comment. No action taken. VII. Continued Discussion on Possible Parking Permit System – AMENDED Mr. Rutherford reviewed the information received from the City of Charleston on parking permits with the Commission. Mr. Hirshorn suggested that a study be conducted. He noted that parking is outside the Commission’s purview and suggested that this should be recommended to Town Council. Ms. Wilson asked if the right-of-way parking would be included in the study as well. Mr. Rutherford answered that the existing conditions would be taken into consideration. Mr. Hirshorn asked that the Commission continue to be updated on this issue. There being no public comment, Mr. Hirshorn continued with the agenda. VIII. Business - STAFF REPORT A. 116 Beach Street – (TMS 517-15-00-140) Applicant is seeking After-the- Fact Final Review for a dock. CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1).  Old Village Historic District Commission December 10, 2018 Page 4 of 12 Mr. Phil Clarke, Clarke Design Group, reviewed the request with the Commission. He stated the dock was built with all approvals and constructed smaller than originally shown on the approved plans. He stated that he has signatures from several surrounding neighbors in favor of the request. Mr. Harvey Lemon, 319 Bayview Drive, stated he is not in favor of the dock, particularly the inclusion of a roof structure. He stated that he is in support of Mr. Peter Dodd’s letter. He suggested that having an after-the-fact approval does not allow for comment from the neighbors. He stated that 104 Beach Street had a covered dock, but was removed after requests from Bayview residents. He suggested that covered docks should not be allowed as it impedes the view of the harbor. Mr. Jenkins Bailey, 311 Bayview Drive, stated he is also not in favor of a roof structure on the dock. He suggested that the covered dock is not good for the harbor or the view from the neighborhood. There being no further comments, Mr. Hirshorn closed public comment. Ms. Dovre agreed that every dock should be equally considered. Ms. Wilson asked when the restriction was put into place. Mr. Rutherford answered that he is not sure the exact date. Mr. Hirshorn agreed that some of the dock structures pre-date the implementation of the restriction. Ms. Wilson asked if this issue relates to the historic district. Mr. Rutherford answered that anyone concerned with a dock in the historic district could raise that concern; it does not have to be a concerned raised only from someone that lives in the historic district or in the vicinity of the dock in question. Ms. Rowe asked if a covered dock is restricted. Mr. Rutherford answered in the affirmative and stated that it is included in the guidelines.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 10, 2018 Page 5 of 12 Mr. Hirshorn asked if OCRM has a similar restriction on covered docks. Mr. Rutherford answered in the negative and stated that the OCRM approval would not supersede the Commission’s purview. Ms. Montgomery stated that the guidelines should be upheld. Mr. Hirshorn asked what action the Commission can take. Mr. Rutherford answered that the Commission can approve the structure and dock, or the Commission can deny the covered structure and require it to be removed. Mr. Hirshorn asked the applicant if they were aware of the restriction. Mr. Clarke answered that the owners were not aware of the restriction. He stated that the dock was included with the tree removal request, but it was not included on the plans that the Commission reviewed and approved. He stated that the owners had the understanding that the staff approval included approval for the construction of the dock. Ms. Wilson asked if there is a photograph of both 116 and 112 Beach Street docks. Mr. Rutherford answered in the negative. Mr. Hirshorn suggested that a deferral might be appropriate to allow the owner to speak to this issue. Ms. Wilson stated that this is a permitted structure that has the support of the immediate neighbor. She suggested that this should be taken into consideration. Ms. Montgomery suggested that the guidelines should be upheld regardless of if the structure was constructed with the proper permits, but not approved by the Commission. Ms. Caroline Johnson, 112 Beach Street, stated that she wanted to make it clear that the dock and structure were constructed with all of the appropriate approvals aside from the Commission. She stated that they were under the impression that they had all of the necessary approvals. She stated that it was not their intention to deceive the Commission. Mr. Rutherford stated that the dock was not included in the submittal to the Commission. He stated that the dock approval would not have required  Old Village Historic District Commission December 10, 2018 Page 6 of 12 approval during the tree removal process, so even though included in those plans, the dock would not have been reviewed. He stated that staff would not have been aware of the desire for a dock at the time the application was submitted to the Commission. Ms. Wilson stated that she was not previously aware that docks required approval from the Commission. She suggested that this was an oversight. Ms. Lowe suggested that allowing this dock to remain could set a precedent for future requests. Ms. Wilson moved for approval of the dock with the deviation from the guidelines with the condition that this is a one-time approval and would not set a precedent. Motion failed due to the lack of a second. Ms. Montgomery moved for denial of the roof structure and that it be removed, with approval of the dock. Ms. Lowe seconded the motion. Motion failed on a 3 to 2 vote with Ms. Montgomery and Ms. Lowe in favor; Mr. Hirshorn, Ms. Dovre, and Ms. Wilson opposed. Ms. Wilson moved for approval of the dock and roof structure. As a point of order, Mr. Rutherford suggested that this motion was already stated. Mr. Pagliarini suggested that the proper action would be to have a motion to reconsider the item. Ms. Dovre moved to reconsider this item. Ms. Wilson seconded the motion. All in favor. Ms. Wilson moved for approval of the dock and roof structure for 112 and 116 Beach Street with the condition that it does not set a precedent for the historic district. Ms. Dovre seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 3 to 2 vote with Mr. Hirshorn, Ms. Wilson, and Ms. Dovre; Ms. Montgomery and Ms. Rowe opposed.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 10, 2018 Page 7 of 12 B. 112 Beach Street – (TMS 517-15-00-104) Applicant is seeking After-the- Fact Final Review for a dock. CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Judith Lemon, 319 Bayview Drive, expressed concern and disappointment with the incompetence of the process. She stated that she is aware of other docks or structures that were constructed that had to be removed. She stated it is hurtful and disappointed on how this situation went. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he understands Ms. Lemon’s points, but suggested that the homeowners did not intentionally try to overt the process. He feels the homomers did not do anything wrong and this would be a one-time approval. Ms. Wilson moved for approval of the dock and roof structure with the condition that it does not set a precedent. Ms. Dovre seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 3 to 2 vote with Mr. Hirshorn, Ms. Wilson, and Ms. Dovre in favor; Ms. Montgomery and Ms. Rowe opposed. C. 616 Pitt Street – Historic 5947 – (TMS 532-05-00-043) Applicant is seeking Final Review to replace the garage’s eight-foot wide doors with nine-foot wide doors. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Wilson moved for deferral to the next meeting when the applicant can be present. Ms. Dovre seconded the motion. All in favor. D. 2 Pierates Cruze – Survey 6061 – (TMS 532-09-00-007) Applicant is seeking Final Review to roof existing uncovered porches located on the front and rear of the single-family residence. E. 129 Live Oak Drive – (TMS 517-15-00-062) Applicant is seeking Final Review on a rear Accessory Dwelling Unit, pool, and hardscaping. CORRESPONDENCE  Old Village Historic District Commission December 10, 2018 Page 8 of 12 F. 314 Hibben Street – Historic 6214 – (TMS 517-15-00-012) Applicant is seeking Final Review for porch renovations. These items were approved through consent motion. G. 107 Carr Street – Survey 6108/6108.01 – (TMS 532-05-00-051) Applicant is seeking Final Review for new construction revisions for a new single- family home, accessory dwelling unit, garage and carport, and pool. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Ms. Kate Campbell, Beau Clowney Architects, reviewed the request with the Commission. There being no comments, Mr. Hirshorn closed public comment. Ms. Wilson moved for approval of the request with the deviation from guidelines for requirement for imperious surface from edge of pavement and for approval of the reduced setback, with the flood vent location to be reviewed by a committee of the Commission. Ms. Rowe seconded the motion. All in favor. The Commission convened for a short break at 6:15 pm and reconvened at 6:22 pm. H. 370 Schweers Lane – Survey 6038 – (TMS 532-13-00-074) Applicant is seeking Conceptual Comment to perform a demolition and replacement of a single-family home. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Mark Warknock reviewed the request with the Commission. There being no comment, Mr. Hirshorn closed public comment.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 10, 2018 Page 9 of 12 Ms. Wilson stated that she likes the footprint and suggested that the entire streetscape be included with the submittal. Mr. Hirshorn asked about demolition. Mr. Rutherford answered that the demolition could not be approved until the final plans were submitted. Ms. Montgomery asked if there would be a dock. Mr. Warknock answered that there is an existing dock with no roof structure. Ms. Wilson asked the reason for keeping the footprint. Mr. Warknock answered that this was to keep the construction costs down. He stated that because of FEMA regulations, the home would have to be elevated. Mr. Juan reviewed the building code restrictions regarding the elevator shaft with the Commission. Mr. Kevin Schuler, homeowner, stated he was looking for guidance from the Commission before moving forward with architecture plans. Ms. Wilson asked about the porch columns on the harbor side of the home and suggested that some could be eliminated. Mr. Warknock answered that they would be amenable to removing some of the columns. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the plans should be drawn in compliance with the current flood zone. Ms. Montgomery asked about the requirements for demolition. Mr. Rutherford reviewed these for the Commission. I. 200 Queen Street – Survey 6091 – (TMS 532-05-00-025) Applicant is seeking Final Review for revisions to alterations of a single-family home. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachment 1). Mr. Ken Spicer reviewed the request with the Commission. There being no comments, Mr. Hirshorn closed public comment.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 10, 2018 Page 10 of 12 Ms. Dovre stated that she is in favor of the request. Ms. Wilson expressed concern with roll down shutters and asked if high impact glass windows were considered. Mr. Spicer answered in the affirmative and stated that he prefers the proposed shutters as opposed to the windows being shattered and having to replace the entire window. Ms. Wilson stated that there have been several changes to this home that has basically demolished the home. She stated that the home was originally evaluated as a renovation, but is really now new construction. She stated that the proposed shutters have a commercial look and suggested that they are not appropriate for a harbor-front home. She stated that if considered, she would like to see how the shutter housing is designed into the soffit. She stated that as currently proposed, she suggested that it would not be appropriate for a harbor-front home. Mr. Spicer showed the location of the shutter housing for the Commission. He stated that the housing would be painted the same color of the window trim. He suggested that the shutter housing would not be seen from the harbor. Ms. Wilson suggested that she would possibly be amenable to allowing the shutters if the housing was concealed in the ceiling of the porch, but she would have to see how this on a plan before making a decision. Mr. Hirshorn agreed that the proposed changes significantly alter the façade to a more industrial look and feel. He stated that a metal seamed roof would be preferable. Ms. Montgomery stated that she is not opposed to the proposed roof, but is concerned with the proposed shutters as well. She suggested that different shutters should be considered. Ms. Rowe stated that she would prefer to see a metal roof and impact windows. Ms. Hirshorn asked if impact windows could be considered. Mr. Spicer answered in the affirmative.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 10, 2018 Page 11 of 12 Ms. Dovre stated that she does not have an issue with the asphalt roof or the roll up shutters. Ms. Wilson suggested that the material changes are significant and affect the aesthetics of the house from the harbor. She stated that it is an aluminum commercial product and suggested that it is not appropriate. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the harbor-front façade is held to a higher standard and there is precedent to preserve the historical character as much as possible. He stated that there has been significant latitude with previous changes to this home. Ms. Rowe and Ms. Montgomery stated that they would prefer a metal roof. Mr. Spicer stated that he has considered a metal roof in the future, but he would like to have the proposed roof in the interim. Mr. Hirshorn stated that temporary fixes are typically not considered. He stated that he would prefer a metal roof. Ms. Montgomery asked if the Commission approved the plan with the option of either having a metal roof or shingle roof. Mr. Rutherford answered that the plan was approved with a metal roof. Ms. Wilson and Mr. Hirshorn stated that they are not in favor of the proposed changes. Ms. Rowe agreed. Ms. Wilson moved for denial of the request to change the French door and that the Anderson French Door originally approved be retained. Ms. Rowe seconded the motion. All in favor. Ms. Wilson asked if a single pane window would meet the energy code requirements. Mr. Spicer answered that it would be a double hung window with no mutton. Mr. Rutherford stated that the original window has a vertical and horizontal mutton.  Old Village Historic District Commission December 10, 2018 Page 12 of 12 Ms. Wilson moved for denial of the proposed window changes and maintain the elevation as originally approved with a single mutton in each sash. Ms. Rowe seconded the motion. All in favor. Ms. Wilson moved for denial for a surface-mounted aluminum shutter. Ms. Rowe seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 4 to 1 vote with Ms. Wilson, Ms. Rowe, Ms. Montgomery, and Mr. Hirshorn in favor; Ms. Dovre opposed. Ms. Montgomery moved for approval of the proposed shingle roof. Motion failed due to the lack of a second. Ms. Wilson moved for denial of the proposed shingle roof and that the metal roof be maintained as originally approved. Ms. Rowe seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 3 to 2 vote with Ms. Wilson, Ms. Rowe, and Mr. Hirshorn in favor; Ms. Dovre and Ms. Montgomery opposed. IX. Staff Approvals a. 308 McCormick Street – Survey 6078 - (TMS 532-09-00-246) Received approval for rear deck alterations for stairs. Mr. Rutherford reviewed the staff approval with the Commission. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:04pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes OVHDC12102018