HPC approves new commercial building at Tabby Roads' 6 Q Bruin Road with conditions on materials and details

The Historic Preservation Commission on Jan. 8 approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a new commercial main structure and detached carriage house at a lot in the Tabby Roads development (identified in the packet as 6 Q Bruin Road), subject to staff conditions and specific design adjustments derived from commissioner feedback.

Staff described the proposal as a new two‑and‑a‑half‑story commercial building of approximately 4,200 square feet with a two‑story detached carriage house of approximately 1,100 square feet, sited to front Pearl Street with a side entrance onto Bruin Road and parking behind the main structure. Staff identified several items requiring additional detail or a formal commission determination: confirmation whether the attic/storage area constitutes a half story; clarification on several windows that appeared to be slider units (staff and applicant later agreed they are awning windows); transom‑and‑door proportion differences on Pearl Street; garden‑wall details and opacity calculations; existing tree removal and demonstration that the site will achieve the required tree‑canopy coverage at maturity; landscaping or hardscape encroachment approvals for any work in state‑owned right of way along Bruin Road; and two formal determinations requested by staff: whether the application of a different wall material at the ground floor (a Boral base or similar) is appropriate and whether smooth‑face Hardie panel is acceptable for soffit use (staff noted that the UDO does not permit smooth‑face Hardie for soffits).

Pierce Scott Architects representative Sarah Keppel (applicant) told the commission the team provided plans showing service yards, approximate mechanical locations, and that the attic/knee‑wall areas are intended for storage and mechanical equipment rather than regularly occupied space. Keppel said some materials were chosen in response to Tabby Roads design expectations and site grading. Commissioners and staff sought additional dimensioning on the garden walls, clarification of tree‑canopy math, and proof of any necessary approvals for plantings or hardscape in the state right‑of‑way. Several commissioners suggested small plan edits to improve how porches, columns and slab edges align in sections.

During deliberations commissioners proposed and added a set of conditions beyond staff recommendations: add a window above the carriage‑house entry (and mirror it on the opposite elevation if a balancing window is added), move the porch slab edge out slightly so column bases and trim are not crowded, and lower the carriage‑house roof pitch to better match the main building’s detailing. The commission also made formal findings to permit the proposed ground‑floor wall‑material application (Boral base) and to allow use of smooth‑face Hardie panel in soffits for this project, subject to the applicant clarifying final details and dimensions on resubmittal.

Action: A motion to approve the COA with staff recommendations plus the commission’s additional conditions and findings was seconded and passed. The approval recorded that staff should receive revised drawings that incorporate the slab/column alignment change, the added carriage‑house window(s), the roof‑pitch adjustment, expanded garden‑wall dimensions/opacity calculations, tree‑canopy calculations, and documentation of any required state right‑of‑way approvals.

Next steps: Applicant to submit revised plans showing the required clarifications; staff to assist with coordinating any state right‑of‑way approvals. The commission’s findings on the two material determinations were recorded as part of the approval.