Historic District / Board of Architectural Review

Board of Architectural Review Minutes Tuesday April 23rd , 2020 Town Hall Annex Building– Training Room Members Present: Staff Present: Phil Dixon, Chairman Becca Zimmerman, Planner II David Price, Vice Chairman Jeff Bowers Rachel Burton Beth Huggins Tim Kennedy Members Absent: Cecile Cothran Items on the agenda: Old Business: 1. 206 Central Avenue 2. 114 Pine Grove Avenue 3. 106 Congress Street New Business: 1. 114 W. Richland Avenue 2. 210 S. Gum Street Miscellaneous: N/A Chairman Dixon opened the meeting at 6:00 pm and made a statement explaining that the meeting was being held via the Zoom webinar and went over the process that was to be followed by presenters and board members. He then asked for consideration of the minutes from the March 3rd, 2020 regularly scheduled meeting. Dr. Price moved to approve the minutes; Mr. Bowers seconded the motion. The Board unanimously approved the minutes. Old Business: 206 Central Avenue- Mr. Hill presented the final details for St. Luke’s Lutheran Church fellowship building. He detailed the two revised elevation drawings with the revised window configurations with spandrel glass to replicate other elevations. Mr. Kennedy stated that he thought the elevations looked great and thanked Mr. Hill for his response to the Board’s comments from the previous meeting. Dr. Price agreed with Mr. Kennedy’s statement. Ms. Burton concurred with Mr. Kennedy and added that this solution was much better than the previous elevations. Ms. Zimmerman stated that if there were no other comments, she would move to the next issue at hand, which was the color of the spandrel glass to be used. Mr. Hill went over the various examples of spandrel glass. Mr. Hill recommended that the project should utilize the grey spandrel glass. Ms. Burton agreed that grey spandrel glass would be the best fit. Mr. Bowers also agreed that grey would be the best color. Dr. Price echoed his sentiments. Ms. Huggins stated that she would tend to trust Mr. Hill’s professional opinion, and agreed with the other board members. Ms. Burton motioned to approve the final details as presented, Dr. Price seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 114 Pine Grove Avenue- Ms. Sands presented her proposal to build a detached garage on their property. She stated that the proposed colors of the garage would be white with a black metal roof. She continued that the siding would be Hardi plank, and the roof would be a standing seam roof. Ms. Burton asked if the applicant could confirm that the building would truly have a 12:12 pitch. Ms. Sands confirmed that the roof would have a 12:12 pitch per the drawing. Mr. Kennedy asked if the garage was a prefabricated kit or if there was a reason that the roof pitch was so high. Ms. Sands confirmed that it was a prefabricated kit. Mr. Kennedy asked if the product came with a roof of a lesser pitch. Ms. Sands stated that she did not know. Mr. Kennedy asked if there was a loft in this garage plans. Ms. Sands confirmed that there was a storage loft. Dr. Price stated that the profile of the metal roof is not what usually the Board approves. Ms. Sands asked for clarification. Dr. Price explained that the metal panel would need to be flat without any elevation in the panel with a 1-inch tall crimp. Ms. Sands confirmed that the crimp would be 1-inch. Mr. Kennedy explained that the Board does not approve metal roof panels with striations and that the panel would need to be flat and 16 inches wide. Mr. Sands confirmed that the panel was 16 inches wide, and the extra pencil crimps would not be visible from the ground and would strengthen the roof in the event of a hurricane. Mr. Kennedy stated that he did not believe the striations would add any strength to the roof in the event of a hurricane. Mr. Sands disagreed and went over the details of the roof panel sample. Mr. Kennedy stated that he was fine with the roofing panel other than the striations. Dr. Price agreed with Mr. Kennedy. Ms. Huggins asked what roofing was on the main house. Ms. Sands explained that the main house had black asphalt shingles and, in the future, when they replaced the roof on the house, they would match the metal roof on the garage. Ms. Sands asked what the rest of the Board’s opinion was on the roof panel. Ms. Burton agreed with Mr. Kennedy that she would not approve striations in the roof panel. Mr. Bowers also agreed the striations were not acceptable. The Board and the applicants continued to discuss whether or not a flat panel should be used as the applicants disagreed with the board members. Ms. Zimmerman read from the Historic District guidelines 53. Roofing Material Letter F., which explains that striations in metal roof panels should be avoided. Dr. Price asked if the siding would be horizontal or vertical. Ms. Sands explained that it would be horizontal and would match the primary residence. Dr. Price asked for clarification about the trim, corner trim and fascia boards and what their design would be. Ms. Sands confirmed that they would be Hardi plank and built as shown in the drawings. Mr. Bowers moved to approve the garage as presented with the condition that the roofing panels were to be flat and have not striations. Ms. Burton seconded the motion; the motion passed unanimously. 106 Congress Street- Ms. Ross presented her revised house plan for a new single-family residence and detached accessory/workshop building. She explained that the footprint and where the building would sit on the lot are virtually the same. She detailed that she removed the garage she previously presented and would instead be using a workshop/accessory building in the rear of the property. Ms. Ross explained that the house footprint would be 40’ wide. She asked the board members how they would feel about her removing the chimney shown on the plans if she could have a metal roof, white horizontal Hardi plank siding, and revising the transom window shown to a more simple transom window. Dr. Price stated that he approved of a simpler transom window. Mr. Bowers stated that he liked the house design and did not see an issue with removing the chimney. Ms. Ross explained that she would also prefer to use two over two windows. Ms. Ross questioned if a raised slab plan would work rather than a slab on grade plan. Ms. Burton agreed that a raised slab finished with stucco would be acceptable. Ms. Ross explained that her front steps would be brick. Ms. Burton asked what color the roof would be. Ms. Ross explained that it would be grey. Ms. Burton asked what color would the windows and shutters be. Ms. Ross stated that the windows would be white, and the shutters would be black or Charleston green. Ms. Burton explained that she approved of the details discussed except for the grey galvalume roof. Ms. Ross asked if there was some other material she could use other than stucco on the foundation. Ms. Burton suggested brick, but that it was more expensive and that the stucco was easy to maintain. Mr. Kennedy stated that black is a prevalent color for the metal roofs in the historic district, and most of the roofs in the historic district are painted metal roofs, the most common colors being red, black, and green. Ms. Burton echoed Mr. Kennedy’s sentiments. Mr. Kennedy asked that the raised slab is 3 feet above grade and that the front porch be constructed to appear as a more traditional, and not with a raised slab. Ms. Ross and the board members discussed removing the chimney and how she could balance out the fenestration on that elevation. Ms. Burton suggested that Ms. Ross add shutters to the windows on the side elevation. Ms. Ross explained that she would use all of the same materials for the house on the accessory structure. The board members agreed that the plan for the accessory structure was too simple and needed to have more architectural detail and character, and asked that when she comes back before the Board to present a more detailed design. Mr. Kennedy moved to grant preliminary approval with the conditions that the building be on a 3-foot raised slab (from final grade to finished floor), with a traditional front porch and a to provide a more detailed plan for the accessory structure. Dr. Price stated that a tabby finish could be added to the foundation rather than stucco, and wanted to include that the traditional porch should include the appearance of piers as a condition. Mr. Bowers asked to clarify that the front porch construction would not be concrete, but wood or brick. Ms. Burton seconded the motion; the motion passed unanimously. New Business: 210 S. Gum Street- Mr. Hart presented the open carport proposal to be attached to his existing detached garage on his property. Ms. Burton asked what the colors would be. Mr. Hart stated that it would be white with a black shingle roof to match the existing garage. Dr. Price asked if there were slats on the side of the carport. Mr. Hart confirmed there would be slats, but they would be open to promote airflow. He also explained that he was working with his contractor to remove the middle column on the rear of the carport to utilize the carport better. Ms. Burton asked for the height of the bottom roofline of the carport. Mr. Hart confirmed that it was about 8 feet. Ms. Burton moved to approved the project as submitted and added the provision that if Mr. Hart wanted to remove the rear middle column as mentioned, he could do so. Mr. Kennedy seconded the motion; the motion passed unanimously. 114 W. Richland Avenue- Mr. Beauchene presented his proposal to build a detached two-car garage on his property. He explained that the garage would match the home that was not yet constructed but had been previously approved by the Board. Mr. Beauchene and the board members discussed the location of the garage and what elevations would be visible from the street. Mr. Beauchene clarified that he would be using architectural shingles on the roof of the house and the garage. Mr. Kennedy stated that many of the previously approved projects that were similar to this were asked by the Board to use carriage style doors. Mr. Beauchene noted that he did not plan on using hardware on the doors. Mr. Kennedy asked Ms. Zimmerman if there was information in the guidelines about carriage style doors. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she could not find anything in the guidelines that specifically request carriage style garage doors. The board members discussed the elevation facing the street. Ms. Burton asked that the window and door elements on the elevation facing the street were centered and equally spaced to provide symmetry. Mr. Beauchene confirmed that he would do so. Mr. Kennedy brought up the issue of the carriage doors as they have asked previous applicants to provide these. Ms. Burton proposed that because of the colors used for the garage and how the garage will is situated on the property that the doors would not be visible. Therefore, the simple door design would be acceptable. The board members agreed that if the price difference wasn’t too great that Mr. Beauchene uses carriage style doors. Ms. Burton motioned to approve the project as submitted with the condition that the applicant considers using carriage style garage doors if funds permit and the elevation of the street be revised to be symmetrical. Ms. Huggins seconded the motion; the motion passed unanimously. Miscellaneous: N/A Adjourn: Ms. Burton motioned to adjourn. Mr. Bowers seconded he motion; the motion passed unanimously. Chairman Dixon adjourned the meeting at 7:24pm. Respectfully Submitted, Becca Zimmerman, Planner II Date: 4/28/20 Approved: Philip G. Dixon PE, CFM, Chairman Or, Dr. David Price, Vice Chairman