Historic District Preservation Commission (HDPC)

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION APRIL 8, 2019 MINUTES Green arrows in minutes are hyperlinks to the recording Attachment 1 STAFF REPORT Present: Ann Dovre, John Hackenberg, Leigh Rowe, Louisa Montgomery Staff: Austin Rutherford, Joe Juan, Lynnette Lynes, Jane Yager-Baumrind Mr. Rutherford called the meeting to order at 5:00pm and stated that a temporary chairman would need to be determined for this meeting. The Commission elected Leigh Rowe as temporary chairman. I. Approval of Agenda Ms. Montgomery moved for approval of the agenda. Ms. Dovre second the motion. All in favor. II. Approval of Minutes –March 11, 2019 Ms. Dovre moved for approval of the minutes. Ms. Montgomery second the motion. All in favor. III. Correspondence Mr. Rutherford reviewed the correspondence received with the Commission. IV. General Public Comment Mr. Jimmy Bagwell, 41 Vincent Drive stated that he would like the Commission to reject the staff recommendation regarding the installation of street signs. Ms. Carol Tinkey, 208 Venning Street, stated that based on her research on the federal requirements for street signs, she does not believe that the street signs are required to be installed in the historic district. Mr. Mike Tinkey, 208 Venning Street, stated he contacted the City of Charleston and they indicated that they are keeping their existing historic signs. He stated that  Old Village Historic District Commission April 8, 2019 Page 2 of 8 he has the contact information if the Commission desires more information. He stated that he also contacted Carmel, California, and distributed a picture of the signs they are installing in their historic district for the Commission to review. There being no further comment Ms. Rowe continued with the agenda. V. Consent Motions Ms. Montgomery moved for consent approval of the following item: ➢ 305 Pitt Street – Historic 5921/Survey 5921.01 – (TMS 532-05-00-005) Applicant is seeking Final Review for window replacements to a historic home. Seconded by Ann Dovre. All in favor. VI. Business a. 402 Patjens Lane – Survey 6212 – (TMS 532-01-00-244) Applicant is seeking Final Review for further additions to previously approved additions. Mr. Rutherford reviewed the application with the Commission. Ms. Linda Balzac reviewed the application with Commission. Ms. Montgomery asked about the window Ms. Balzac showed the proposed window in closet addition. Mr. Hackenberg asked about the entrance and exit behind the home, the number of cars allowed in driveway, and the location of front door of home. Ms. Balzac answered that the front door is in back right corner. She stated that the driveway has space for the two required parking spaces. Ms. Rowe stated she is concerned with look of the window in the front and that it is not in harmony with home. Mr. Jim Byrd, 402 Patjens Lane, stated that 401 Patjens Lane has the same type of addition as the proposed addition, so these additions already exist.  Old Village Historic District Commission April 8, 2019 Page 3 of 8 Ms. Montgomery moved to approve previously approved setbacks and agree to window in the proposed closet with the idea it is to match the previously approved windows. Second by Mr. Hackenberg; all in favor. b. 127 Chicco Lane – (TMS 532-05-00-036) Applicant is seeking Final Review to build a dock. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Mr. Jeff McCall reviewed the request with the Commission. There being no comments, Ms. Rowe closed public comment. Ms. Louisa Montgomery moved for approval. Ms. Dovre seconded. All in favor. c. 102 Live Oak Drive – Survey 6242 – (TMS 517-15-00-057) Applicant seeking Preliminary Comment for a not in-kind window replacement. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Mr. Rutherford noted that the applicant was not present. The Commission agreed that they were comfortable with the request. d. 201 Haddrell Street – (TMS 517-15-00-103) Applicant is seeking Final Review for after-the-fact alterations to new single-family construction. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Mr. Phil Clarke, Clarke Design Group reviewed the request with the Commission. Ms. Montgomery asked if the “x’s” on the porch railing were removed. Mr. Clarke answered that the two sections previously approved showing one large “x” was changed to two “x’s” to match the other panels.  Old Village Historic District Commission April 8, 2019 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Hackenberg asked if there would be any unfinished wood on additional supports. Mr. Clarke answered, in the negative. Ms. Dovre stated she is comfortable with the design. Ms. Rowe stated that she has no issues with the outdoor fans or retaining walls. There being no further comments, Ms. Rowe closed public comment. Ms. Montgomery moved to approve with the plans with deviations from guidelines regarding the louvers, fans and wooden retaining wall. Ms. Dovre second. All in favor. e. 203 Center Street – Historic 6058/Survey 6058.01 – (TMS 532-13-00-019) Applicant is seeking Preliminary Comment for the demolition of an existing accessory shed and the addition of an elevated pool and pool house. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission. The Commission convened for a short break at 6:05 pm and reconvened at 6:10pm. Mr. Sabastian von Marshall, Beau Clowney Designs, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Hackenberg asked about the terrace wall heights. Mr. Von Marshall responded the first wall is 15 inches above grade, the second is 4.5 feet above grade with the wall being stucco. Ms. Rowe asked how far the wall is from the middle of the street. Mr. Clowney responded that the front building setback is approximately 30 feet. Mr. Hackenberg asked if there would be more planting on several levels and if the plantings would screen the wall itself. Mr. Von Marshalled answered in the affirmative. Mr. Hackenberg asked if the shed is worth saving. Mr. Von Marshall responded in the negative, explaining the rebuild would be an  Old Village Historic District Commission April 8, 2019 Page 5 of 8 improvement over the current shed. He stated that the existing shed houses a gas tank as well and that the tank would be buried. Ms. Montgomery asked if it the gas tank can be buried. Mr. Juan answered in the affirmative. Ms. Montgomery asked if there would be a driveway to the new shed. Mr. Von Marshall answered in the affirmative and stated that this is one reason for the request for relief from the side setback. Ms. Rowe asked why the pool needs to be elevated. She suggested that the pool should be lowered and expressed concern with the massing of the structure. Mr. Beau Clowney answered that the homeowner would like the pool to be closer in elevation to the main house without having to traverse multiple steps. Ms. Rowe asked the length of the shed. Mr. Clowney answered that it is approximately 35 feet. Ms. Rowe suggested that the proposed shed is too big and not harmonious with the home. She suggested that the shed should be shingled as well. Mr. Clowney stated they can use a different material on shed and noted that the shed would not be seen from the street. Ms. Dovre agreed that the shed should be scaled back. Ms. Rowe asked how high the pool house would be. Mr. Clowney answered that it would be approximately fourteen feet. Mr. Keeling Warburton, 310 Middle Street, stated that he likes the design, but the pool should not be located so close to the street and adjacent driveway. He suggested that the request is not compatible with the historic neighborhood. He suggested that the pool should be in the backyard. He expressed concern with drainage. He suggested that the shed should be renovated and preserved. He expressed concern with the massing and the use of stucco for the wall. There being no further comments, Ms. Rowe closed public comment. Mr. Rutherford added that the pool house is attached and considered an accessory structure and the guidelines for additions and accessory structures both apply. Mr. Rutherford recommended that the proposed pool house roof match the main house roof material.  Old Village Historic District Commission April 8, 2019 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Clowney addressed Ms. Rowe’s question about Middle Street being the front of home and added this is an unusual lot because it is a corner lot. Mr. Rutherford added, that Middle Street is technically the front of the lot per zoning. Ms. Rowe stated the pool house is too big and it does not fit in neighborhood. Ms. Montgomery suggested that the new shed for the golf cart should be moved to another area of lot. Mr. Clowney stated that this could be considered. The Commission agreed that the design should be scaled down and comments from the Commission should be addressed prior to final submittal. The Commission suggested that the applicant meet with staff regarding comments and changes prior to coming back to the Commission for approval. f. 101 Pitt Street – Historic 5934 – (TMS 532-01-00-079) Applicant is seeking Final Review for alterations to the side covered porch, additional doors for ADA-accessible restrooms, and a new rooftop A/C condenser area. Mr. Rutherford reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Mr. Luke Jarrett with Synchronicity reviewed the request with the Commission. Ms. Rowe asked if the amount of noise from the HVAC units is known. Mr. Gerald answered in the negative. Mr. Tinkey stated that the HVAC unit would be adjacent to their home and suggested that a noise study be completed to measure the amount of noise from the proposed location. There being no further comments, Ms. Rowe closed public comment. Mr. Rutherford stated that noise is not in the purview of the Commission and that this would be addressed through the plan review and building permit process.  Old Village Historic District Commission April 8, 2019 Page 7 of 8 Ms. Montgomery moved to approve the plans as presented. Second Ms. Rowe. All in Favor. VII. Staff Approvals – None VIII. Recommendation to the Transportation Committee of Town Council for the Design of New Street Name Signs within the Old Village Historic District - CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Morrison stated that he is available to answer any questions regarding the Town’s street sign replacement program. Ms. Rowe expressed concern with conflicting information the Commission has received regarding whether the historic district is exempted from the program. She stated that comments from the public have indicated that the historic district is exempt, while staff has indicated that this is not the case. Mr. Morrison reviewed the sign replacement program with the Commission and stated that this was approved by Town Council in 2016. He stated that the program included replacement of all street signs within the Town to comply with the federal requirements. He noted that the existing obelisks would not be removed. Mr. Louis Horton, 138 Live Oak Drive, distributed a picture of the corner of Live Oak Drive and Magwood Lane showing the number of signs located at that intersection and suggested that this was sign clutter. He suggested that the signs are not needed and should not be installed. Mr. Brett Bennett, 131 Hibben Street, stated that he is opposed to the street signs being installed throughout the historic district. He suggested that the federal requirements offer an exemption for historic districts. He stated that he has contacted surrounding municipalities such as the Town of Sullivan’s Island and they have indicated that they have no intention of replacing signs in their historic districts. He suggested that the historic district should be exempted from the program and the street signs should not be installed. Mr. Joe Keenan, 902 Pitt Street, expressed concern with the conflicting information on the exemption. He suggested that the Commission should maintain the integrity of the historic district. He suggested that instead of spending funds for  Old Village Historic District Commission April 8, 2019 Page 8 of 8 replacement signs, the money should be spent on resurfacing streets in the historic district such as Pitt Street. He asked the Commission to deny the request. Mr. Myles Martschink, 135 Toomer Lane, stated he submitted a letter outlining his reasons why the Commission should deny the request. He suggested that the Commission should receive legal advice on whether the signs are required to be installed in the historic district. Mr. Rutherford stated the installation of the signs is not in the purview of the Commission. He stated that the reason for this issue being brought before the Commission was to determine if a special street sign design was desired by the Commission. He stated that the replacement sign program has been approved by Town Council and staff is moving forward with implementation of that program. He suggested that if desired, the Commission can send back a recommendation to the Transportation Committee regarding this issue. Ms. Montgomery moved that the OVHDC will not consider any such changes or designs until ordered to do so from the Town Council through the Transportation Committee. Ms. Dovre second. All in favor. IX. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair The Commission deferred voting on a new chair and vice-chair to the next meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm. Submitted by Jane Yager-Baumrind