City staff and the Historic Preservation Board reviewed an informational design submission for a proposed single‑family residence at 1004 Pass‑a‑Grille Way (case 25093). The architect for the project, Nate Meyer, answered questions about building massing, roof access and landscaping and said he would revise plans to address staff comments.

Planner Brandon Berry introduced the item and said the applicant is requesting construction of a new single‑family residence built to house‑form standards of the Pass‑a‑Grille overlay and that the project is submitted pursuant to land development code section 20.24. Berry identified several staff comments: applicants should confirm that roof stair access is limited to nonhabitable projections and within the maximum; the alley driveway connection appeared wider than the 20‑foot code limit; ground‑level transparency exceeded the 20% maximum under section 20.21; additional landscaping and frontage screening is required where a porch or stoop is not provided; and blank walls at the ground level need architectural treatment.

The architect, Nate Meyer, described design intent and responded to most points. He said the stair bulkhead is the only element projecting above the flat roof and that he would confirm the projection stays within allowable nonhabitable overrun. On driveway width, Meyer said he would rework the surface to a ribbon driveway and check the measurement to bring it into compliance. On ground‑level transparency and blank wall treatments, Meyer said owners prefer some screened storage and that he would study alternative cladding and landscape screening to reduce visible storage and clarify vertical visual support between ground and upper floors.

The board discussed the property’s location inside the Pass‑a‑Grille historic district and reviewed the preservation ordinance language that instructs the board to encourage new structures that are “in harmony with and preserve the integrity of the historic district.” Several members said they view the current design as mid‑century‑modern in aesthetic and encouraged the owner to consider adjustments to better fit the historic scale and materials of surrounding houses. The architect said the owners described their preference as “mid‑century modern” and that some of the material choices respond to storm resilience and owner preference.

Because this was an informational review (no action was required or taken), the board limited its comments to recommended revisions. Staff and the architect agreed the applicant would consider the design reviewer’s recommended changes and meet with staff/design reviewer if needed. The applicant said he would provide revised drawings and was willing to return for an informational session to show final details.