[00:00:01]
[1. Opening of Meeting with Roll Call]
APPOINTED HOUR AND A LITTLE BIT PAST, I CALL IT THE ORDER OF THE DEEPER HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL OF COMMISSIONERS? AND IF YOU NEED TO SWEAR SOMEONE IN, IF YOU WOULD DO THAT.
RUTH COX TRIPPIER HERE, JAMES BISBEE IS EXCUSED.
JOHN BLACKWELDER IS EXCUSED, PEGGY BROADWAY, ABSENT ELLEN SHERIDAN IS EXCUSED AND THAT STONE AND TO SULLIVAN.
HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE OUR RECENTLY APPOINTED A MEMBER IN THE AUDIENCE.
AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND SWEAR HIM IN, AND THEN, UH, WE CAN COUNT HIM AS A MEMBER PRESENT AND THAT WOULD THEN GIVE US THE QUORUM.
SO THIRD, DO YOU WANT TO COME UP AND HAVE YOU BOTH HERE, UH, AND I'LL READ IT OFF AND THEN YOU CAN, UH, I LEARNED THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY AND IMPARTIALLY CHART THE VISION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWBURGH AND ALL THINGS, ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND THE BEST, I SINCERELY AFFIRM THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT WILL BE PAINFUL AND VERY TRUE ALLEGIANCE TO THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA AND TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS AND AUTHORITIES, WHICH ARE IN BAR OR MAYBE ESTABLISHED WHERE THE GOVERNMENT SUPPORT MAINTAIN INDEPENDENT, CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION IN THAT STATE, THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.
SO SIR, WANTED TO COME UP HERE AND TAKE A SEAT.
MADAM CHAIR, WE NOW HAVE A FORM.
SO AGAIN, WE NOW HAVE A QUORUM.
[2. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation (Klotz)]
ON THE BUSINESS WAS PRESENTATION OF A SUBJECT OF A APPRECIATION TO ONE OF OUR MEMBERS.AND WE IN THE INTERVENING TIME OF GETTING OURSELVES A QUORUM, WE HAVE DONE THAT TO JAY CLOTS AND THANKED HIM FOR HIS SERVICE AND SEVERAL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ALSO GOING TO HIM FOR THAT.
[3. Election of Officers]
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE ELECTION OF ALL FORCES.SO I'M GOING TO CALL, UM, FOR US TO NOMINATE A PERSON FOR THE CHAIR.
SO DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO WOULDN'T LIKE TO MAKE A NOMINATION OF FOR THE CHAIR PUT FOR THE MOMENT NATION, MADAM CHAIR, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO CONTINUE TO SERVE IF NOMINATED? I WOULD INDEED.
I KNOW MATE, WITH NOT, NOT COPS, THEN PLEASE SECOND.
SO LET'S SEE, WE'VE GONE ALL THAT.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION.
CAN WE HAVE A NOMINATION FOR THE VICE CHAIR? WOULD HE FIND LIKE TO MAKE A NOMINATION FOR THAT TRIP? YOUR HAS BEEN NOMINATED FOR THE VICE CHAIR.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? THERE'S NO DISCUSSION.
ARE YOU WILLING TO ACCEPT THE NOMINATION? I DO.
SO WE HAVE A CHAIR AND A VICE CHAIR ELECTED.
WERE YOU THE ONE THAT MADE THAT MOTION? YES.
[4. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting(s)]
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.WE HAVE THREE SETS OF MINUTES.
LET ME GO OVER THOSE SEPTEMBER, THE FIRST 2021, APRIL 18TH, 2021 AND MARCH THE 17TH, 2021, THOSE OR THE MINUTES
[00:05:01]
I CALL FOR A MOTION TO DISPENSE THE READING OF THE MINUTES.THEY WON'T HAVE A S DON'T HAVE EMOTION FOR THAT MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, ALL OF THOSE SUPPOSE SAY NAY HEARING NOD.
THESE MINUTES WILL PASS AND I WILL SIGN THESE FOR YOU DENIED BEFORE WE LEAVE HERE.
REMEMBER? UM, THAT WAS JUST TOO, UM, YEAH, I GOT THAT.
WE, UH, ACCEPT THE CONTENT OF THE MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2021, AUGUST 18TH, 2021 AND MARCH 17TH, 2020.
ALL OF THOSE SECOND, SECOND, SECOND.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED HEARING NONE.
[5A. Hearings: Introduction, Swearing-In, Summary of Process]
SO LET US THINK ABOUT, UH, THE HEARING TONIGHT, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.HERE'S A PUBLIC COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE CITY OF NEWBURGH BOARD OF ALDERMAN.
IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PRESERVING AND SAFEGUARDING NEWBORNS LOCALLY DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICTS DOWNTOWN TO RIVERSIDE BASED ON US DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, STATE STATUTES, CITY ORDINANCES, ORDINANCES, AND NEW BRUNS, HISTORIC GOVERNMENT.
TWO ARE THE MAJOR TAFT OF THE HPC INCLUDE APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND PREVENTING DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES DUE TO NEGLECT THE HBC.
HO HALL'S A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING ON AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
THE COMMISSION HERE'S SWORN TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT BY PARTIES WHO RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE HEARING AND BY OTHERS WHO CAN JUSTIFY THAT THEY HAVE RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE APPLICATION.
THE COMMISSION CANNOT CONSIDER COMMENTS BASED ON PERSONAL LIKES OR DISLIKES, HEARSAY OR PERSONAL OPINION THAT CANNOT BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO SPECIFIC HISTORIC GUIDELINES.
LIKEWISE, COMMISSIONER SHALL REFRAIN FROM STATING PERSONAL OPINIONS, PERSONAL LIKES OR DISLIKES OR HEARSAY DURING THE HEARING.
THE COMMISSION'S DECISION ON AN APPLICATION IS BASED SOLELY ON TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT A HEARING THAT DIRECTLY RELATES TO THE STORE GUIDELINES.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE TO SWEAR IN TONIGHT WE HAVE TWO PROJECTS.
SO IF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WOULD GO DOWN AND BE SWORN IN SO THIS WAS THE PROCESS OF THE COA APPLICATION.
THE HBC ADMINISTRATOR PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE PRESENTS THE APPLICATION PROPONENTS AND OPOWER WHO RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE HEARING CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE.
REBUTTAL IS ALLOWED BY THE APPLICANT AND BY PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS WHO RECEIVE NOTICE OTHERS WHO CAN JUSTIFY THAT THEY HAVE RELEVANT INFORMATION AND WILL BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED, CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE.
THE HPC ADMINISTRATOR PRESENTS THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE FINAL COMMENTS ON THEIR APPLICATION.
COMMISSIONERS, DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE AND MAY ASK FOR CLARIFICATION FROM THE APPLICANTS ARE THE PRESENTERS, THE CHAIRMAN CALLS FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE APPLICATION, WHICH STATED FINDINGS OF, BUT THE MOTION IS DISCUSSED BY THE COMMISSION.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLS FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION BY THE COMMISSION.
IT COULD BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ARE, CAN BE DENIED.
[5B. 227 E. Front Street]
WITH THE FIRST APPLICANT THAT WE HAVE TO NIGHT, AND THAT IS 2 27 EAST FRONT STREET, MADAM CHAIR, YOU'VE ASKED FOR CON ANY CONFLICT.[00:10:03]
SO COMMISSIONER, UH, BRIAN, WHO MAY NOT KNOW, UM, IF YOU, UM, ARE SOMEHOW RELATED TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, YOU WOULD THEN ASK TO RECUSE YOURSELF.SO WE'RE READY TO START THE APPLICATION.
SO COULD YOU TELL US ABOUT THIS APPLICATION? YES.
ON THE SCREENS, YOU CAN SEE, UH, THIS IS THE FIRST PAGE OF THE APPLICATION OR TO TWO SEVENTIES FRONT STREET, UM, OR THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER IS, UH, UHF FOR THE UHF OFFICE OF HUBIE TOLSON.
AND THE APPLICANT IS GO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REPRESENTED OR SARAH OFF LUBBOCK AIA.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE APPLICATION IS FILLED OUT APPROPRIATELY ONTO THE SECOND PAGE AND THEN SIGNED AND DATED UP THE BOTTOM.
AND THIS IS THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION FOR THAT PROPERTY, SUCH THAT GO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN MAY REPRESENT THE OWNERS AND THAT IS SIGNED AND NOTARIZED.
SO NOW WE'LL HAVE TO ZOOM OUT, SEE THE FULL ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS HERE.
SO ON THIS FIRST PAGE, YOU SEE THE STREET, UH, ELEVATION OF THIS PROPERTY AND THEN, UH, SEVERAL OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS I CAN ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT BETTER AND WANTING TO SEE MORE.
SO ONE ON THE UPPER LEFT HERE SHOWS THE DRIVEWAY ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE AND THE MAIN ENTRANCE, WHICH HAS STAIRS TO THE SIDEWALK.
AND THEN ALSO OUR RAMP OFF THE BACK OF THE, UH, THE SMALL PORCH HERE.
UH, THEN WE ALREADY SAW THE STREET FRONT STREET ELEVATION AND UPPER RIGHT SHOWS THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE, OR THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
UH, I'M SORRY, THIS, NO, THIS IS THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
THE SMALL PORCH WE WERE JUST VIEWING IS ON THE VERY FAR RIGHT OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH.
AND THE RAMP HAS COMES DOWN TO THIS DRIVEWAY HERE.
THIS ON THE LEFT IS A REAR PORCH.
THEN THIS ELEVATION NOW IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
AND IN THIS PARTICULAR ONE IN PARTICULAR, YOU CAN SEE HOW CLOSE THE BUILDING IS TO THE SIDEWALK.
ALSO NOTE THAT THIS LITTLE WHITE WALL IS, UH, EITHER ON OR VERY NEAR THE PROPERTY LINE.
THEN THE FOOT PHOTOGRAPH IN THE MIDDLE IS THE REAR, UH, PARKING AREA AND THE REAR PORCH AND THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND PHOTOGRAPH IS NOT FROM THIS BUILDING, BUT IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TYPE OF, OR THE, UM, AN EXAMPLE OF THE, UH, STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE, UH, BUILT IN THE FUTURE.
WAIT, IT WAS ACTUALLY, THIS IS THAT SAME BUILDING, SORRY.
AND THAT THIS IS THE PORCH THAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY.
AND THEY'RE LOOKING TO BASICALLY, UM, RECREATE THAT AGAIN.
SO WE HAVE A FLOOR PLAN, UH, WITH THE STREET ON THE RIGHT, THE DRIVEWAY AT THE BOTTOM AND THE PARKING AREA ON THE LEFT AND SEE THE PROPERTY LINE IS SHOWN IS ABOUT A ONE FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE BUILDING OUTSIDE WALL, OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING WALL.
AND THEN THIS IS THE SECOND FLOOR WHICH SHOWS, UH, PRIMARILY, UH, REMOVAL OF THE REAR PORCH.
AND THEN, UM, REMOVAL OF THE WINDOW IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS, UH, UH, L UH, SIDE REAR WALL THERE ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
SO NOW WE'RE BACK DOWN TO THE FIRST FOUR.
THIS IS THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
FIRST OF ALL, ON THE, ALL THE WAY ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE.
UM, NEXT TO THE STREET, YOU'LL SEE THIS REC, UH, GRAY RECTANGLE.
THAT'S THE AREA, UM, THAT IS EXPOSED FROM, UH, OR THAT'S CREATED WHEN THE BUILDING HAS TO BE MOVED BACK FOUR FEET FROM THE SIDE FROM ITS CURRENT LOCATION.
UM, AND, UH, PLANTER WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN THAT LOCATION.
UH, THE MOVING BACK THE BUILDING IS NECESSITATED IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR STAIRS TO GO FROM THAT FRONT PORCH DOWN TO THE SIDEWALK.
UM, AND, UH, THAT, UH, EXTENDED LENGTH IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE OTHER PART OF THE PROPOSAL IS TO ELEVATE
[00:15:01]
THE BUILDING ABOUT THREE FEET.THEN IN THAT PROCESS, UH, THE, LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE RAMP THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE BACKSIDE OF THIS PORCH IS TO BE REMOVED IN THIS CASE, REPLACED WITH ANOTHER RAMP THAT IS BEING BUILT ON THIS, UH, END OF THE BUILDING, AND THEN WRAPPING AROUND THE CORNER AND EXTENDING ONTO THE REAR, THE NEW REAR PORCH.
AND THEN THAT REPORTS ALSO HAS, UH, TWO NEW SETS OF STAIRS.
ONE GOING DOWN TO THE GROUND HERE ON THE, ON THE BOTTOM AND ONE GOING UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR THERE, OH, I MIGHT, SORRY.
I MIGHT ADD A SMALL DETAIL HERE, WHICH MAY COME UP.
AND THAT IS THAT THIS DRAWING ALSO SHOWS THE EXISTING CURB CURB.
I BELIEVE IT'S A BRICK CURB ALONG THE NORTHERN EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY.
AND SO YOU CAN SEE, UH, THESE ELEMENTS ALL JUST BARELY FIT IN THERE.
ALSO THE, UH, THE ACTUAL RAMP CONSTRUCTION IS HELD AWAY FROM THE, UH, EXISTING BUILDING BY ABOUT SIX INCHES, UH, ON THE RAMPING PARTS, THE PLATFORM IT APPEARS, UH, IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING.
AND SO THIS IS NOW THE SECOND FLOOR, UM, UH, WHERE MAINLY THIS JUST SHOWS THE, UH, THE STAIRS CONTINUING UP FROM BELOW ON THE BACK PORCH, UP TO AN UPPER PORCH AND NOW A NEW DOOR WHERE THAT WINDOW WAS REMOVED.
SO THESE ARE, UH, TWO ELEVATIONS.
UM, SO THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS THE FRONT ELEVATION, AND THESE ARE THE EXISTING ELEVATIONS SHOWING THE EXISTING FLOOR HEIGHT ABOUT TWO FOOT NINE INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND, UH, WHICH HAS THEN ALSO NINE FEET OR SO NINE FOOT, NINE FOOT, TWO INCHES ABOVE SEA LEVEL.
UH, AND LET'S SEE, UM, PRETTY MUCH, UH, UM, ON THE, UH, SOUTHERN ELEVATION HERE, YOU SEE THE, UH, CONSTRUCTION THAT I WAS ALREADY REFERRING TO ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, YOU SEE THAT THE STAIRS DO COME DOWN DIRECTLY TO THE SIDEWALK, AND THESE ARE THEN THE OTHER TWO ELEVATIONS, THIS ONE ON THE LEFT BEING THE EXISTING REAR ELEVATION AND ON THE, THE EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION.
SO ON THE NORTH ELEVATION, THE STREET IS ON THE LEFT AND THE REAR PORCH IS ON THE BED ON THE RIGHT.
SO NOW THESE ARE THE NEW ELEVATIONS.
SO THE FRONT OOPS FRONT, THE NEW FRONT ELEVATION IS ON THE LEFT.
AND SO YOU CAN SEE WHY THE STAIRS, UH, GET LONGER, UH, UH, DUE TO THE INCREASED ELEVATION HERE.
NOW, THE FLOOR FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION IS ABOUT 12 FOOT, TWO INCHES.
UH, AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE MAYBE DEPENDING ON THE, YOUR SCREENS.
UM, UH, THIS SHOWS THAT THE, UH, THE, THERE IS A, UH, SMALL GARDEN WALL, UH, IN FRONT OF THE PLANTING AREA THAT I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING.
UH, AND IT, UH, IS AT THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE CURRENT FOUNDATION HEIGHT.
SO THIS BECOMES A MEMORY OF THE, UM, CURRENT CONDITION ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE HERE, YOU SEE THEN THE SOUTH ELEVATION, AND NOW THE LONGER STEPS ON THE RIGHT, THE, UH, ENTIRE BUILDING OF COURSE IS RE ELEVATED.
AND THEN, UH, SO SOME NEW FOUNDATION WORK IS DONE UNDERNEATH THE PORCH.
THE EXISTING PORCH RAILING, UH, ACTUALLY, UH, WAS NOT, UH, I THINK CODE COMPLIANT AND THE NEW RAILING ON THE STAIRS, UH, WILL NOW MATCH ALL OF THEM WILL MATCH.
UH, AND THEN ON THE LEFT, WE SEE A LONG, UH, RAMP PLATFORM IN THE MIDDLE AND THEN RAMP DOUBLE BACKING, UH, TO THE CORNER AND AROUND THE CORNER WITH THE NEW PORCH, UH, AS SEEN FROM THE SOUTH, WITH, UH, THE STAIRS ON THE LEFT, GOING UP TO FIRST OF ALL, THE FIRST FLOOR PLATFORM, AND THEN ACROSS THE PLATFORM, AND THEN CONTINUING UP AND DOUBLE BACK AGAIN,
[00:20:01]
UP TO THE UPPER PLATFORM.SO TO NOTE HERE IS THAT THE, THE RAILING IS PROPOSED TO BE THE PAINTED METAL RAILING WITH, UM, UH, OH, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU GOT RID OF THE CABLE IDEA.
SO THIS SHOWS A VERTICAL SPINDLES, BUT YOU'RE MEANING, OH, THEY'RE ALL VERTICAL, VERTICAL METAL BAR IS NOW.
UH, AND THEN THE UNDERNEATH THE RAMP, UH, THE STRUCTURE IS SCREENED BY A ONE BY SIX PAINTED WOOD SLATS.
AND THAT CONTINUES NOT ONLY HERE UNDER THE LOWER PART, BUT UP ON THE UPPER PART OF THE RAMP AND AROUND THE RAMP.
AND ALSO WE'LL SEE, UH, THE REAR DECK.
SO NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT ON THE LEFT REAR ELEVATION, AND AS I MENTIONED, THE REAR DECK WILL HAVE THAT SAME SLAP WOULD SLAP, UM, TREATMENT.
UH, THESE ARE WOOD SLATS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE A GAP BETWEEN THEM.
UH, AND THEN THE REST OF THE DETAILS ARE ALL THE SAME AS BEFORE.
UH, ALL THE RAILING IS THE SAME WITH THE SAME, UH, METAL VERTICAL, UH, PIECES AND RAIL HANDRAILS.
LET'S SEE, UH, YOU CAN SEE HERE NOW, THE NEW DOOR AT THE TOP ON THIS RIGHT HAND, UH, ILLUSTRATION, YOU CAN NOW SEE THE, UH, THE, UH, RAISED, UH, PLANTER OUT FRONT THAT IS, UH, THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE CURRENT, UH, FOUNDATION HEIGHT.
AND THEN ON THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, NORTH SIDE OF THE REAR DECK, UH, TWO STORY DECK AND STAIRS.
OH, UH, ALSO TO NOTE THAT THE ENTIRE FOUNDATION IS A SINK IS A SINGLE FLUSH, UM, TREATMENT.
UH, THERE ARE NO APPARENT, UH, PEERS OR, UH, INFILL PIECES BETWEEN THE PEERS IN THIS CASE.
UH, I BELIEVE THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE A FLOOD VENTS IN THIS SIDE.
I MEAN, YOU'LL NEED TO COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
TH THAT ELEVATION IS DECEIVING BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO A GOAL THAT'S ABOUT TWO FEET TALL.
SO IT LOOKS TALLER THAN IT IS.
YOU CAN SEE IT FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS, FROM THE OLD FRANK HOUSE.
AND, UH, WE WILL PUT FLOOD METAL FLOOD BEDS IN THAT ROLE, BUT YOU PROBABLY WILL NEVER SEE THEM, UM, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE BEHIND THAT OTHER WALL, THAT'S THERE, BUT I SHOULD HAVE DRAWN THAT IN.
SO, UH, THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH, THEY PROVIDED AN EXAMPLE OF THE RAILING, BUT THAT'S NO LONGER THE CASE.
WELL, THAT'S WOOD WOOD HANDRAIL.
AND YOU SAID METAL ON THE DRAWING RAIL, THE METAL PICKETS.
SO LET ME GO BACK TO THE DRAWING HERE.
SO I GUESS THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.
IT DEFINITELY PAINTED METAL RAILING.
UM, THE DETAIL I PROVIDED, UH, SHOWS THE WOOD.
THE IDEA WAS THAT JOHN WOULD HAVE SUGGESTED THAT WE DO, UM, THE MOST SIMPLE RAILING POSSIBLE.
SO WE CHOSE TO USE A METAL ROD AND PAINTED, UM, TAM RAIL.
THAT WAY IT WOULD KIND OF BLEND INTO THE HOUSE AND NOT BE SO BUSY WITH PICKETS.
SO HERE'S THE DETAIL THAT WAS SUBMITTED RECENTLY.
AND LET ME GET THIS BIGGER FOR YOU.
SO HERE IT DOES SHOW IT PAINTED WOOD WOOD, ONE BY, ON THE TOP AND COMING VERTICALLY DOWN TO MEET THE, UH, METAL PICKETS, UM, WHICH IN THIS CASE, OUR CABLES IS THAT IT'S A METAL ROD, A METAL ROD.
UH, AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM OF PAINTED WOOD ONE BY AS WELL.
SO IT'S, AS SHE STATED, ALL WOOD AND EVEN THE POSTS ARE WOOD.
SO EVERYTHING IS WOOD EXCEPT FOR THE VERY THIN METAL RODS THAT ARE THE PICKETS.
AND THEY'RE SPACED AT FOUR INCHES ON CENTER.
[00:25:04]
OKAY.SO THAT IS, THAT'S IT FOR THAT.
THEN WE'D HAVE OUR ZONING AND INSPECTION REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION, UH, AND, UH, IT'S IN THE C2 DISTRICT.
UH, SO IT MEETS THE, UM, REQUIREMENTS, THE LAND USE ORDINANCE, AND THE TWO BUILDING INSPECTOR SAID IT WILL, OF COURSE REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT.
SO AT THAT POINT, THEN WE ARE READY WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN YOU ARE.
SO MA'AM, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? WELL, I WILL CALL FOR TESTIMONY FOR ANY NOTIFIED PROPONENT, BUT THERE'S ONLY ONE OTHER PERSON LEFT IN OUR AUDIENCE AND YOU'RE NOT A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT.
YOU'RE GOING TO DO A PRESENTATION.
SO WE DON'T HAVE OPPONENTS, WE DON'T HAVE PROPONENTS.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY FROM THE CITY, THE STATE OR THE GOVERNMENT.
SO, UH, LET US THEN GO AHEAD WITH THE STAFF FINDINGS.
SO THESE ARE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER SINCE WE CAN GET MY CURSOR THERE.
SO THIS IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EAST FRONT STREET, LLC, AND GO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PLLC, UM, OR THE PROJECT AT 2 27 EAST STREET, THE START PROPERTY NAME AND DATE IS THE MATTHEW A OUT IN HOUSE BUILT CIRCUIT 1846 TO 1850 AND ENLARGED CIRCUIT, 1,919 40.
IT IS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO THE NATIONAL REGISTER INVENTORY DESCRIPTION FROM 2003 IS IT'S TWO AND A HALF STORIES, TWO BAGS WIDE WITH AN ENTRANCE IN EAST ELEVATION, A GABLE PRINT ROOF, AND INTERIOR, FRONT CHIMNEY FOR THE SANDBAG, A REFERENCE FROM 1988, UH, PULLED THE FOLLOWING QUOTES, THE UNUSUAL TRANSITIONAL FEDERAL TO GREEK REVIVAL FORM AND DETAILING OF THIS HOUSE.
UH, THEN ELTON'S ORIGINAL, SMALL FRONT PORTION OF THIS HOUSE WAS MOST LIKELY BUILT FOR RENTAL AND SPECULATIVE USE.
UH, THE ORIGINAL FRONT DOOR WAS PROBABLY LOCATED WHERE THERE IS NOW A SINGLE NINE OVER SIX SASH SHOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND PHOTOGRAPH.
IT WOULD HAVE OPENED DIRECTLY ONTO THE SIDEWALK, THE SURVIVING INTERIOR AND CHIMNEY AT THE FRONT SERVES THE FIREPLACES IN THE TWO FRONT ROOMS. THE SANBORN INSURANCE MAPS SHOW THE HOUSE TO HAVE ORIGINALLY HAD A ONE-STORY REAR ADDITION, WHICH WAS RAISED TO STORIES AND GIVEN ITS PRESENT CONFIGURATION BETWEEN 1898 AND 1904.
SO THE PROJECT TODAY FOR 2 27 EAST FRONT STREET IS TO INCLUDE ELEVATING THE BUILDING THREE FEET, MOVING IT BACK FOUR FEET ON THE LOT, REVISING THE FRONT STAIRS IN THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ABCS, REMOVING THE EXISTING RAMP IN THE SECONDARY SEAT, REMOVING THE EXISTING REAR PORCH AND STAIRS, ADDING A SECOND STORY DOOR AND ADDING A NEW RAMP AND TWO STORIES, TWO STORIES STAIRS IN THE TERTIARY.
SO THE STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES ARE APPROPRIATE TO THIS APPLICATION FOR UTILITIES, 2.3 0.1 2.3 0.2 FOR LANDSCAPING, 2.4 0.3 FOR FENCES AND GARDEN WALLS.
2.5 0.1 2.5 0.2 FOR DESIGN PRINCIPLES, 3.1 0.1 FOR MODIFICATIONS, 3.2 0.1 3.2 0.2 FOR FOUNDATIONS, 4.1 0.1 THROUGH 4.1 0.6 FOR WALLS, TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION 4.2 0.1 4.2 0.2 4.2 0.4 FOR WINDOWS DOORS AND OPENINGS.
4.3 0.1 AND 4.3 0.2 FOR ENTRANCES, 4.4 0.1 4.4 0.2 AND 4.4 0.4 FOR ACCESSIBILITY AND LIFE SAFETY, 4.7 0.1 THROUGH 4.7 0.3 FOR MASONRY 5.1 0.1 THROUGH 5.1 0.6.
FOR WHAT? 5.2 0.1 AND 5.2 0.2 FOR METALS 5.3 0.1 5.3 0.2 THROUGH 5.3 0.4 FOR PAINT 5.4 0.1 THROUGH 5.4 0.4 AND 5.4 0.6 AND 5.4 0.9
[00:30:01]
OR CONTEMPORARY MATERIALS.5.5 0.1 THROUGH THREE STATEMENTS OF REASON BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION IN STEPS, JUDGMENT ARE ONE.
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE TIGHT WEAVE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
TWO, THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND TERTIARY ABCS.
THE STRUCTURE IS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE FOR THE ELEVATION.
ELEVATING THE STRUCTURE HELPS PROTECT IT FROM FUTURE DAMAGE AND POTENTIAL DESTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION BY MOVING THE STRUCTURE IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE LONGER STAIRWAY TO THE SIDEWALK.
SIX, THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS DO NOT CONCEAL DAMAGE OR REMOVE SIGNIFICANT DESIGN COMPONENTS OR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.
70 A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AND TWO BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY AND EIGHT.
THE PROJECT IS NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH THE GUIDELINES.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION APPROVE THIS APPLICATION TO INCLUDE ELEVATING THE BUILDING THREE FEET, MOVING IT BACK FOUR FEET ON THE LOT AND REVISING THE FRONT STAIRS AND THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ABCS REMOVING THE EXISTING RAMP IN THE SECONDARY.
ABC REMOVING THE EXISTING REPORTS AND STAIRS, ADDING A SECOND STORY DOOR AND ADDING A NEW RAMP AND TWO STORIES STAIRS IN THE TERTIARY.
MA'AM WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY.
SO MEMBERS, WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU HAVE? WHAT COMMENTS DO YOU HAVE THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE AT THIS POINT IN TIME? UM, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION.
UH, SARAH AND DESIGN REVIEW, THE QUESTION OF THE BUILDING, THE OUTBUILDING, JUST TO THE BACK CORNER.
HOW DID THAT WORK OUT? UH, IT'S A ZONING ISSUE AND I, I TALKED TO THE HEAD BUILDING INSPECTOR AND THERE ARE NO ZONING CONFLICTS.
I MEAN, THAT, THAT BUILDING AND, YOU KNOW, I WENT DOWN THERE AND WALKED AROUND AND THE KEY MORNING TO CALL THE FRANK COURTYARD, BUT THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR IN THE YARD AND, AND LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY LINE, THAT'S LAID OUT ON THERE.
THEY THEY'VE GOT LIKE A TWO FOOT HIGH, FOUR FOOT WIDE KIND OF EMBANKMENT BETWEEN THAT PROPERTY AND THIS PROPERTY AND THE SMALL OUTBUILDING.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S THREE FEET FROM ITS PROPERTY LINES ON THE NEXT LOT.
AND IT WILL OVERLAP SLIGHTLY WHEN WE MOVED THE BUILDING BACK.
BUT AGAIN, THERE'S SOME ZONING ISSUES FOR, UM, THE PROJECT.
SARAH QUESTION, REGARDING THE COLOR OF THE RAILINGS, THEY WERE WHITE IN THEIR ORIGINAL, AND IT LOOKED IN YOUR EXAMPLE, THEN THEY'RE STAINED.
THEY WILL BE PAINTED AND PAINTED WHITE.
UH, I'M NOT 100% SURE THAT IT WILL BE WHITE, BUT, UM, IT WILL BE A PAINTED WOOD.
JUST THE IDEA WAS THE, UM, THE BOARD BELOW TO COVER THE DECKING BELOW WOULD KIND OF LOOK LIKE FIGHTING AND THE RAIL ITSELF WOULD BLEND IN AND THE METAL PICKET WOULD BLEND IN SO THAT, UM, SINCE IT'S A TAX CREDIT PROJECT, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THAT REQUIRED RAILING AS VISUALLY, UM, MINIMAL AS POSSIBLE.
AND WILL THAT REALLY ULTIMATE DIFFERENT COLOR FOR THE RAILING AND MATCH THE SWEAT UNDERNEATH THE STAIRS? UM, HPC DOESN'T REGULATE COLOR, BUT I KNOW IT WILL BE PAINTED.
SO I'M, I'M NOT 100%, I CAN'T SAY WITH 100% CERTAINTY OF THE COLOR OF IT, BUT IT WILL BE PAINTED WOOD.
BUT THE INTENT IS FOR IT TO BLEND INTO THE IDEA IS FOR IT TO GO AWAY INSTEAD OF JUST BE A FIELD OF PICKETS, WASN'T REALLY PICKING ON A COLOR PER SE, BUT JUST IF THEY WERE MATCHING INTENDED, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL NOT MATCH.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME? OKAY.
SO WE NEED TO HAVE EMOTION, BUT INCLUDED IN THIS MOTION.
UM, WE NEED TO HAVE THE FLOOD DANCE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY APPLICATION.
I MENTIONED THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT.
IS IT IN THE, IS IT WRITTEN IN THE APPLICATION TO PUT FLOOD BENSON? IT'S NOT A BIG PICTURES THAT YOU GAVE US.
WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION VERBALLY.
USUALLY PEOPLE DON'T REMEMBER TO HAVE THAT ANYWAY.
SO MANY PAGES AND ONE THING WENT UP.
UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE FIRST ONE.
I DON'T SEE ANY THE FIRST ONE AND I DON'T SEE ANY AND THE MATERIALS.
[00:35:01]
NO.IS THAT SOMETHING THAT I COULD BRING BACK TO STAFF? YOU KNOW, WHEN HE'S BACK, WE JUST BRING IT BACK TO HIM, BUT WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT IN THE APPROVAL.
THERE'S A LOT IN THE DRAWINGS AND IT'S NOT IN THERE.
BUT YOU CAN COME BACK AND TALK TO HIM ABOUT THAT.
SO SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO, UH, MAKE A MOTION AND IT WENT, THE MOTION INCLUDE THAT, UH, ITS APPROVAL, UH, IS BASED ON ALSO ADDING THE FLOOD FENCE AROUND THE BUILDING.
ONE DRAWING ALSO NEEDS TO CHANGE FROM METAL RAILING TO WOOD RAILING.
YOU'VE GOT TO STRIKE THAT OFF AN APPLICATION.
THERE'S ONE, THERE'S ONE NOTE IN THE DRAWING, RIGHT? OKAY.
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO ADD THAT, BUT I HAD THE FUCK.
WE FIND THE APPLICATION FOR 2 27 EAST FRONT STREET, UH, TO BE NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH NEWBORNS CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTIONS FIFTEEN FOUR, ELEVEN TO 15, 4 29 AND NEW BERN'S HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES BASED ON THE, UH, FOLLOWING GUIDELINES AND FINDINGS OF FACT, UM, GUIDELINES FOR FOUNDATIONS 4.1 0.5 AND 4.1 0.6.
AND THAT ESSENTIALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE LANDSCAPING AND TERRACING TO MINIMIZE, UM, THE VISUAL IMPACT OF ELEVATING ABOVE THE FLOOD PLAIN, UH, GUIDELINES FOR ACCESSIBILITY 4.713 4.73.
AND THAT ESSENTIALLY HAS TO DO WITH ALL THE, THE RAMP AND STAIRS AND, AND THINGS THAT ARE IN THE SECONDARY AND TERTIARY AREA.
VISUAL CONCERN FOR ACCESSIBILITY, UM, GUIDELINES FOR PAINT 5.4 0.3.
UM, AND THEN LASTLY, GUIDELINES FOR MASONRY 5.1 0.2, AND A STATEMENT OF REASONS.
UH, STRUCTURE HAS BEEN ELEVATED TO A MINIMUM HEIGHT THAT MEETS BOTH CODE AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.
UM, SECONDLY, UH, ACCESSIBLE BUILDING ELEMENTS ARE LOCATED IN THE SECONDARY AREA OF VISUAL CONCERN.
UM, THIRD TRADITIONAL MATERIALS ARE USED IN TRADITIONAL WAYS.
AND FOURTH, THE CHANGES CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION ARE NOT IN CONGRUENCE WITH THE GUIDELINES OR AT THE DISTRICT AND A CONDITION THAT YOU SUBMIT YOUR FLOOD FLINT LOCATIONS TO MATT SAID, THAT'S A MATTER OF THE RECORD.
IS THERE A SECOND, ONE SECOND.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME? SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, ALL THOSE OPPOSED HEARING THE OTHER MOTION PASS THAT WAS MISSING.
AND THE SECOND, BUT, OH, I'M SORRY.
CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO ISSUE WITH ELS? WE HAVE A MOTION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, MOTION TO SECOND.
YOU BET TO SPEAK UP A LITTLE, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED HEARING NONE.
SO YOU'LL GET MAD ABOUT THAT AND GET YOUR BENCH STRIKE THOUGH.
[5C. 221 S. Front St.]
NEXT ISSUE THEN IS 2 21 SOUTH FRONT STREET AND MADAM CHAIR.I HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
SO WE WILL RECUSE YOU ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE RECUSAL.
YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON A MOTION AND A SECOND.
WE HAVE A MEDICINE THAT WE RETRACED YOUR MOTION AND A SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED HEARING NONE.
WE WILL LET YOU GO DO SO, SIR, IF YOU CAN TELL US ABOUT THIS APPLICATION.
SO HERE'S THE FIRST PAGE MORE APPLICATION FOR 2 21 SOUTH FRONT STREET, UH, BUILT CIRCA 1797 PROPERTY OWNERS, JOHN HARVEY, LLC.
AND THE APPLICANT IS DARDEN J YURI, UH, THE THIRD AIA OF MBF ARCHITECTS, PA.
UH, SO WE CAN SEE THE VARIOUS FIELDS
[00:40:01]
HAVE BEEN FILLED OUT AND ON THE BACK PAGE ALSO CHECKED OFF AND THIS HAS BEEN SIGNED AND DATED.AND THEN THIS IS THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION FORM TO ALLOW MBF ARCHITECTS TO REPRESENT THE OWNERS ALSO ASSIGNED A NOTARIZED.
IS THERE A COVER SHEET AND THEIR PAYMENT CHECK? SO ONE OF THESE BIG ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S SEE IF THAT WORKS.
SO HERE ON THIS FRONT PAGE, WE SEE TWO THINGS.
ONE IS THE AERIAL IN THE PHOTOGRAPH HERE POINTING OUT WHERE THE PROJECT IS IN THE CITY, UH, NEAR THE WATERFRONT.
AND THEN, UH, AND ALONG SOUTH FRONT STREET AND THEN AN ENLARGEMENT AS A SITE PLAN ON THE RIGHT WITH A SOUTH FRONT STREET IS THE GRAY RECTANGLE AT THE TOP.
AND THE BUILDING IS THE DARK RECTANGLE IN THE MIDDLE, UH, WITH, UH, TWO EXISTING, SMALL PORCHES, UH, ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDES, WHICH ARE THE EAST AND WEST SIDES.
UH, AND THEN, UH, UM, SOME OTHER CONSTRUCTIONS THAT REPRESENT THE FIRST FLOOR, UH, UH, I GUESS IT'S, UH, FRONT PATIO PORCH, ACTUALLY TOBACCO PATIO AND PORCH, UH, AND SOME LANDSCAPING I BELIEVE.
SO, UH, YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE PARKING FOR THIS PROJECT.
SO THEY ALSO, UH, PROVIDED AS THEY DID BEFORE, UH, THE HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPHS OVER TIME.
UH, STARTING, I BELIEVE ON THE LEFT IS THE OLDEST, UH, FROM, FROM SOUTH FRONT STREET MOSTLY, AND THEN TO THE RIGHT, AND THEN MOVED DOWN TO THE NEXT ROW.
SORRY, I CAN GO START ON THE LEFT AGAIN.
AND THIS IS EARLY 1970S ON THE LEFT.
THE MIDDLE ONE IS, UM, REPRESENTED THE IDEA FROM THE LAST APPLICATION TO RESTORE ALL FOUR CHIMNEYS AND THEN PHOTOGRAPHS AGAIN.
THIS ONE IS PROBABLY THE FIRST, ONE OF THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE WHERE IT SHOWS THE, UM, LARGE AMOUNT OF ENCLOSED, UH, PORCHES THREE, THREE LEVELS, UM, THAT WERE ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING AT ONE POINT.
AND THEN FINALLY TODAY, AS WE SEE IT IN ON THE RIGHT, SO HERE ARE THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, UH, FROM THE EXISTING CONDITION.
SO OF NOTE HERE, UM, BECAUSE THIS HAS ALL BEEN APPROVED BEFORE.
I MEAN, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED BEFORE WITH THE ONE CHANGE WE'LL TALK ABOUT, WHICH IS RELATED TO THE, UH, OPENINGS AT THESE, UH, CENTER, UM, BALCONIES HERE.
SO IN FACT, THIS IS THE APPROVED DRAWING.
UH, BECAUSE IT SHOWS ALSO ONLY TWO CHIMNEYS.
SO THIS IS THE PROPOSED NOW, UH, PROPOSAL IS THAT, UH, AS WE APPROVED BEFORE, UH, REMOVING THE EXISTING, UH, BALCONIES HERE IN THE MIDDLE AND BUILDING NEW BALCONIES ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT, UH, PRIOR THE PRIOR APPROVAL, UM, HAD A DIFFERENT WINDOW CONFIGURATION HERE AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO ACTUALLY THESE TWO WINDOWS INSTEAD OF WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUR WINDOWS AT THIS LOCATION.
UH, THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE ON THIS PROPOSAL.
EVERYTHING ELSE WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, INCLUDING THIS LITTLE DETAIL AND THIS, UH, INDICATES, UH, ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT SHOW THE EXISTING COA FOR THAT APPROVAL AND, UH, OTHER DOCUMENTS, THEIR PREVIOUS APPLICATION AND SUCH, AND IT'S SEE, OH, THAT'S IT.
DID THEY NOT WANT TO CHANGE WINDOWS ON THE NORTH SIDE AS WELL? NO, NO, NO.
IS THERE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR ANYONE FOR THIS PROJECT?
[00:45:02]
YEAH, THE ANSWER IS NO TO YOUR QUESTION.AND MY NAME IS DUSTY SIDE CARD.
I'M REPRESENTING NBF ARCHITECTS, PA I'M HERE TODAY AND, UH, EVERYTHING'S THE SAME AS DISCUSSED IN DESIGN, PREVIOUS DESIGNER VIEW.
SO NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE WE, OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES.
AND I MEAN, I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAD AS WELL.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO STAY IN THIS POINT? NOT AT THIS TIME.
WE HAVE NO COMMENT FROM ANYONE WITH STANDING.
WE HAVE NO SEE STATE OR GOVERNMENT PEOPLE.
SO IF YOU CAN TELL US THE STAFF FINDINGS, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SAY, UM, I DID NOT INCLUDE THEM IN THE PRESENTATION HERE, SO I'LL HAVE TO READ THEM OUT TO YOU.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DID NOT.
SO, UM, UM, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, WE DON'T THEN OF COURSE HAVE THE, UH, ALL THE DESCRIPTION THAT WE TYPICALLY HAVE REGARDING THE OWNERS AND THE APPLICANTS.
UH, BUT WE DID SEE THAT ON THE APPLICATION.
AND SO, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS OF FOLLOWING GUIDELINES ARE APPROPRIATE TO THIS APPLICATION.
UH, 3.2 0.1 AND 3.2 0.4 FOR WINDOWS, DOORS AND OPENINGS.
4.3 0.12 AND THREE FOR MASONRY 5.1 0.12, THREE AND FOUR.
AND WE DON'T HAVE METAL, UH, FOR WOOD 5.2 0.1 AND TWO.
AND FOR PAINT, 5.4 0.12 AND THREE.
SO STATEMENTS BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION, STEPS, JUDGMENT ARE THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE DENSE FABRIC PATTERN.
THE PROPOSAL IS A RENOVATION AND RESTORATION PROJECT.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN COMPONENTS MATERIALS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AND CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY.
AND THE PROJECT IS NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH THE GUIDELINES.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION APPROVE THIS APPLICATION FOR THE RESTORATION OF I'M SORRY FOR THE, UM, BOY, THAT'D BE OPEN HERE FOR THE, UM, REPLACEMENT OF FOUR EXISTING WINDOWS WITH TWO NEW WINDOWS ON THE TERTIARY, ABC.
WHERE USEFUL MORNING WHEN YOU
SO COMMISSIONERS, WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU HAVE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ASK OR COMMENTS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE AT THIS POINT? NOTHING TO MY WEB, NOTHING TO MY RIDE WITH SOMEONE THEREFORE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
SO I MOVED TO FIND THE AMENDMENT.
OH, THE SAME MINUTE, THE AMENDMENT OF FOUR WITH 2 21 EAST FRONT STREET.
I SAY THAT CORRECTLY, SOUTH SOUTH.
IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S OUT FRONT.
SORRY, SOUTH HUNTSVILLE TO BE NOT IN CONGRUENCE WITH THE NEWBORNS CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTIONS FIFTEEN.ONE, FOUR 11 THROUGH 15 DOC FOUR TWENTY NINE AND NEWBORNS HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES BASED ON THE FILING SPECIFIC GUIDELINES AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND RUN THROUGH MY NUMBERS IF I WAS JOTTING DOWN FAST.
AND FOR, UM, GUIDELINES, FOUR.THREE.ONE, TWO AND THREE.
FIVE.FIVE.ONE, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR OF FIVE.TWO.ONE AND ONE AND TWO, FIVE.FOUR.ONE, TWO AND THREE.
AND THE STATEMENT OF FACTS IS THAT THE PROJECT FINDINGS OF
[00:50:01]
FACTS ARE, UH, THAT THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE DENSE FABRIC AREA.UM, THAT THE PROJECT IS A RENOVATION AND A RESTORATION OF A HISTORIC RESOURCE THAT THE MATERIALS MEET THE, UM, MINIMUM STANDARDS, UH, OF THE GUIDELINES AND THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING, UM, IN THE ZONING OFFICIALS APPROVAL.
AND THAT THE PROJECT IS NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH THE NEWMARK HISTORIC DISTRICT ISLANDS.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND OVER HERE, SIR.
I HAVE A MOTION TO ISSUE A COA, SUBMIT SOME MOOD.
DO I HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND OVER HERE.
THE AMENDMENT AMENDMENT ACTUALLY DIDN'T NEED THE SECOND VOTE.
SO WE WILL NOW GO TO, UM, ITEM FIVE, ALL BUSINESS, AND WE HAVE NONE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MADAM MADAM CHAIR, WOULD YOU LIKE MR. YORK TO COME BACK AND JOIN YOU ON THE DAY? WE WOULD.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF DO I HAVE A MOTION? DO ALLOW MR. YOUR REGIONAL ONES, AS I MENTIONED, HERE'S YOUR MOTION HERE? HERE'S THE SECOND, SECOND OVER HERE, SIR.
IT WAS ALMOST YOU WEREN'T OKAY.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY OLD BUSINESS THAT WE NEED TO BRING UP AT THIS POINT? THERE'S NONE ON THE AGENDA.
THERE IS NO GENERAL PUBLIC LEFT.
NUMBER EIGHT IS THE ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT OF M C O H ISSUED FROM EIGHT 11 TO NOT SEVEN.
AND THE MONITORS AND WHAT THESE MONITORS ARE.
THERE WAS A REPORT ON THE COA EXTENSIONS ISSUED TO BROAD STREET OUT THAT WAY.
[8C. Other Items and Updates]
IS OTHER ITEMS AND UPDATE AND I HAVE ONE.DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE, HAVE ANYTHING? OKAY.
SO MY UPDATE IS ON THE AWARDS PROCESS.
I HAVE TALKED WITH TIM THOMPSON FOR THE PRESERVATION FOUNDATION WHO SAYS THEY ARE INTERESTED IN JOINING US TO, UH, GET A, A PROPOSAL TOGETHER.
AND I'VE TALKED WITH JIMMY HODGES OVER AT THE NEWBURN HISTORICAL SOCIETY, UH, WHO SAYS, HE THINKS THAT THEY WOULD ALSO LIKE TO, UH, PARTICIPATE IN THAT.
AND I'M TALKING TO THE DIRECTOR TOMORROW MORNING, SO THAT WE'LL ALL HAVE A FURTHER UPDATE FROM THAT PART.
AND THEN, UM, HOPEFULLY AT THE NEXT MEETING, I'LL HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE FARMER, BUT WE, UH, WE ARE MOVING ALONG WITH THE AWARD PRESENTATION.
ANY OTHER ITEMS THERE, MAN? WHAT'S UP THERE? EBV SPACES ARE MOVING FORWARD.
WE HAVE ELECTRIC VEHICLE, CORRECT? YEP, YEP.
THIS STUFF'S GOING IN AND WHAT IS THAT ALREADY? OKAY.
I GUESS THEY DETERMINED THAT THEY GOT THEIR, UH, BRING UP THERE AND COS RIGHT THERE.
SO DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR US TO ADJOURN? OKAY.
IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? YES.