[00:00:02]
CALL[1. Opening of Meeting with Roll Call]
THIS OCTOBER MEETING OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO ORDER.COULD WE HAVE A ROLL CALL? UH, YES, CERTAINLY.
[3. Consent Agenda]
UH, THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS.WE DO NOT HAVE, UH, THE ENTIRETY OF THE CONSENT AGENDA IS UNAVAILABLE, SO I NEED A MOTION TO REMOVE THAT ITEM FROM THE AGENDA.
AND SECONDED TO REMOVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[4.A. Hearings: Introduction, Swearing-In, Summary of Process]
SOME OPENING REMARKS.HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION IS A PUBLIC COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE CITY OF NEW BERN'S BOARD OF ALDERMAN, AND IT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR PRESERVING AND SAFEGUARDING NEW BERN'S LOCALLY DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICTS DOWNTOWN AND RIVERSIDE BASED ON US DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR GUIDELINES, STATE STATUTES, CITY ORDINANCES, AND NUMEROUS HISTORIC GUIDELINES.
TWO OF THE MAJOR TASKS OF H P C INCLUDE APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR A CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS AND PREVENTING DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
DUE TO NEGLECT, H P C HOLDS THE QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING ON AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
THE COMMISSION HEARS SWORN TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, BY PARTIES WHO RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE HEARING AND BY OTHERS WHO CAN JUSTIFY THAT THEY HAVE RELEVANT COMMENTS.
THE COMMISSION CANNOT CONSIDER COMMENTS BASED ON PERSONAL LIKES OR DISLIKES, HEARSAY OR PERSONAL OPINION, NOT BACKED UP WITH FACTS RELATED TO SPECIFIC HISTORIC GUIDELINES.
LIKEWISE, COMMISSIONERS SHALL REFRAIN FROM STATING PERSONAL OPINION, 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 HISTORIC GUIDELINES.
IF ANYONE IS GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT, THEY NEED TO BE SWORN IN.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM.
WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE WHOLE, THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? YES.
OH, BEFORE YOU ALL LEAVE, PLEASE UH, SIGN, UH, PRINT YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS ON THE WHILE THAT IS GOING ON, I'M GOING TO REVIEW THE PROCESS THAT WE'LL USE FOR APPLICATIONS.
THE H P C ADMINISTRATOR WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICATION.
THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE OR, OR THE REPRESENTATIVE CAN ALSO PRESENT THE APPLICATION PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS OF AN APPLICATION WHO RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE HEARING ARE ALLOWED TO 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 STANDING MAY BE ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE.
THE H P C ADMINISTRATOR PRESENTS THE STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE FINAL COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION.
THE COMMISSIONERS WILL DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE AND, AND MAY ASK FOR CLARIFICATION FROM THE APPLICANT OR PRESENTERS.
THE CHAIRMAN WILL CALL FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE APPLICATION WITH STATED FINDINGS OF FACT.
THE MOTION IS DISCUSSED BY THE COMMISSION, AND I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION BY THE COMMISSION.
[4.B. 407 Metcalf St. – to include removal of existing fencing and gate, and installation of new wood fencing and gate]
AND WITH THAT, WE'RE READY FOR THE FIRST APPLICATION.I BELIEVE YOU WANTED TO STATE, UM, THE VARIOUS OPTIONS FOR WHAT CAN HAPPEN WITH THE VOTE.
UH, I THOUGHT I DID, BUT WE CAN EITHER DENY IT OR APPROVE IT OR APPROVE AN APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS.
THOSE ARE THE THREE CHOICES THAT WE HAVE.
SO WITH THAT THEN, AND LEMME JUST ASK, ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS WITH THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION FOR 4 0 7 METCALF STREET? 4 0 7 METCALF? SEEING NONE.
UH, SO THIS IS THE APPLICATION FORM HERE.
[00:05:01]
THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE EMIL AND KIMBERLY WGO, AND THEY HAVE PROVIDED THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ON THE FRONT OF THE APPLICATION ON THE BACK, UH, INDICATING THAT THEY ARE THE OWNERS AND THEY HAVE SIGNED IT AND DATED.SO, UH, THIS FIRST IMAGE HERE IS AN AERIAL SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING ITSELF, AND THE PROPERTY LINES.
THE SECOND ONE IS, UH, A, AN EXPANDED VIEW OF THAT AERIAL WITH THE PROPOSED FENCING, UH, REPLACEMENT SHOWN HERE IN YELLOW AND, UH, SOME STREET VIEW IMAGES SHOWING THE, UH, THE PROPERTY FROM THE, UH, STREET VIEW OR FROM THE EYE LEVEL VIEW.
AND WE'RE BASICALLY TALKING IN THIS PICTURE ON THE TOP, THE, UH, CHAIN LINK FENCE IS GOING TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED.
AND IN THIS VIEW, UH, THE SMALL WOODEN FENCE HERE WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED THEN, AND THE PHOTOS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
UH, WE SEE THE REST OF THE PROPERTY.
I'M GONNA MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT SMALLER TO GET ALL THE FOUR OF 'EM ON HERE.
SO IN THE BACK LEFT CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, THE, UH, FENCING, THE WOODEN FENCING HERE WILL BE REMOVED AS WELL AS THE BAMBOO FENCING ON THE RIGHT, AND WHICH CARRIES OVER ONTO THE PICTURE IN THE UPPER RIGHT.
AND THEN THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE CHAIN LINK FENCING FROM THE INSIDE.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE GATE IN THE BACKGROUND BEHIND THE SHED BACK HERE, UH, BEHIND THE SHED.
AND THEN, UH, THE BOTTOM RIGHT SHOWS A VIEW OF THE PROPERTY FROM, UH, THE ADJACENT, UH, PROPERTY, UH, WHICH IS A LARGE GRASSY AREA.
AND THE FENCING, THE CHIN LINK FENCING IS BEHIND THOSE LARGE BUSHES.
ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT'S PROVIDED A LITTLE SKETCH OF THE OVERALL, UH, REPLACEMENT, SHOWING THAT THE FENCE WILL BE REPLACED OUT PAST, UH, THE FENCE, UH, I'M SORRY, THE GATE, WHICH IS SHOWN HERE ABOVE THE NUMBER NINE AND IS SHOWN AS FOUR FOOT.
UH, AND THEN IT EXTENDS ALL THE WAY TO THE CORNER AROUND THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, UH, RETURNS BACK TOWARDS THE HOUSE, UH, BUT AT THE CORNER, UH, TURNS BACK IN AND JOINS THE HOUSE AT THE CORNER.
AND THIS IS, UH, A SAMPLE OF WHAT THE TYPE OF FENCING THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO, UM, INSTALL, INCLUDING THE FENCE.
I MEAN, THE GATE, I DUNNO WHY I SAY THAT ALL THE TIME.
AND AGAIN, THAT SAME SKETCH THIS TIME, THEY'VE NOW A ADDED AS PER REQUESTED.
UM, AT THE DESIGN REVIEW MEETING, UH, SOME ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS, UH, THIS ONE SHOWS, UH, THE FENCE, THE GATE FROM THE OUTSIDE, AND THEY'VE ADDED A LINE SHOWING WHERE THEY'RE EXPECTING THAT THE, UH, TOP OF THE FENCE WILL BE.
SO THAT RED LINE SHOWS A FOUR FOOT HIGH, UH, GATE AND ADJACENT FENCING.
UH, AND THEN THE NEXT SECTION, THE 58 FOOT SECTION TO RE REMOVE THE CHAIN LINK FENCING.
UH, AND THE NEW FENCING, UH, AS PER THE SAMPLE, UH, IMAGE WILL BE, UH, INSTALLED HERE AT ABOUT, WITH THE HEIGHT AT ABOUT WHERE THE RED LINE IS, AND THEN ALSO FROM THE OUTSIDE OF THE EXISTING, UH, FENCING.
UH, SO FROM THE CHURCH'S PROPERTY SIDE, LOOKING BACK AT THE FENCE, THE BACK LEFT CORNER, UH, LOOKS LIKE THIS AT THE MOMENT, AND THEY'RE EXPECTING THAT THE NEW FENCING WOULD BE, UH, SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN IT CURRENTLY IS.
AND SO FROM THE INSIDE IT WOULD LOOK, UH, LIKE THIS WITH THE RED, UH, RED LINE HERE.
IT THEN TAKES THE CORNER AND FOLLOWS THAT SAME HEIGHT, UH, ALONG THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND NOW THIS IS LOOKING FROM THE CHURCH SIDE OR FROM THE OUTSIDE, UH, OF THE FENCE, UH, SHOWING THAT, UH, HEIGHT OF THE FENCE, SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN IT IS NOW.
AND, UH, THEY'VE INCLUDED ANOTHER, UH, PHOTO, UH, FROM THE INSIDE, LOOKING AT THAT VERY SAME STRETCH OF, UH, FENCING WITH, AGAIN, THE RED LINE.
[00:10:01]
THE CORNER, UH, THIS, THE BACK LEFT CORNER FROM THE OUTSIDE LOOKING DOWN AT THE TOP OF THE FENCE.AND YOU SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE WOODEN FENCE IS OUTSIDE THE, UM, MASONRY WALL THAT'S ON THE INSIDE.
AND THEN LA THE LAST, UH, STRETCH IS HERE ON THE, UM, RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE BACKYARD.
AND, UH, THEY'RE ESTIMATING THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE, UH, ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH ON THE LEFT, AS WELL AS THE ONE ON THE UPPER RIGHT, AND THEN ON THE LOWER RIGHT AS WELL.
AND THEN AS IT RETURNS BACK TO THE HOUSE.
SO, AND THOSE ARE ALL, UH, TO BE SIX FEET AS SHOWN WITH THIS DETAIL HERE.
AND THIS IS A SHADOW BOX, UH, PATTERN.
SO THERE'S, UH, IF YOU CAN SEE IN THE PLAN VIEW, THERE IS A, UH, PICKET, SO TO SAY ON THE FRONT, AND THEN A PICKET ON THE BACK ADJUSTED TO THE, UH, FILL THE GAP BETWEEN THE PICKETS IN THE FRONT AND THAT BEING THEN THE OPPOSITE SIDE, ESSENTIALLY THE SAME.
UM, HERE THEY'RE SHOWING, UM, THE TYPE OF WOOD THAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON USING, UH, BUT THEY WILL BE PRE STONING, UH, PRES STAINING IT IN, UH, BROWN, I BELIEVE.
AND OH, UM, AND, UH, WE'VE ALREADY REQUESTED THE, UH, UM, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO, UM, PROVIDE SOME INPUT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE IN FAVOR OR NOT IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT.
AND THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT.
SO THE ZONING AND INSPECTION REVIEW FOR THIS, UM, SHOWS THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HAS SAID THAT IT'S NOT APPLICABLE, UH, TO THE ZONE, UH, ZONING ORDINANCE, LAND USE ORDINANCE, AND THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR SAYS IT WILL NOT REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT.
SO OTHER THAN THAT, THEN WE'RE READY WITH OUR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT? NO, I THINK THAT WAS COVERED PERFECTLY.
THE ONLY, UM, ACTUALLY THE ONLY ADDITION THAT CAME UP IN THE FEW WEEKS AGO IS THE SIX FOOT HEIGHT IS BASED ON THE RIGHT CORNER, WHICH IS KIND OF THE LOWEST POINT OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY.
SO IT'S ALL THE, IT'LL BE LEVEL ALL THE WAY ACROSS BASED ON THAT RIGHT CORNER.
IT'S, IT, SO THE RIGHT CORNER WILL BE SIX FEET AND THEN IT'LL BE LEVEL, IT'S NOW SHOWING ON THE SCREEN.
ARE THERE ANY NOTIFIED PROPONENTS OF THIS, UH, APPLICATION PRESENT THAT WANNA SPEAK? HOW ABOUT OPPONENTS? SEEING NONE.
ANYBODY WHO WASN'T NOTIFIED, WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? NOPE.
UH, HOW ABOUT STAFF FINDINGS? OKAY.
SO THIS FOR, UM, EMIL AND KIMBERLY WEGO, UH, FOR THEIR PROJECT AT 4 0 7 METCALF STREET.
THE HISTORIC PROPERTY'S NAME IS THE DAVID SS WILLIS HOUSE, UH, BUILT CIRCA 1870 AND ENLARGED CIRCA 1890.
IT IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, UH, AND THEIR PROJECT IS TO INCLUDE REMOVAL OF EXISTING FENCING AND GATE AND INSTALLATION OF NEW WOOD FENCING AND GATE.
AND THE NATIONAL REGISTER INVENTORY DESCRIPTION FROM 2003 DESCRIBES THE STRUCTURE AS TWO STORIES, THREE BAYS WIDE, GABLE END ROOF, TWO STORY SHED, ROOF REAR ADDITION, AND ONE STORY REAR WING.
THE SAND BACK DESCRIPTION FROM 1988, UM, HAS NOTHING RELEVANT TO THE FENCING PROJECT.
UM, IT WAS PURCHASED DURING THE 1890S BY THE FREIGHT AGENT FOR THE ATLANTIC AND NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD.
DAVID SS WILLIS, HENCE THE NAME FOR THE HOUSE.
SO, UH, STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING.
HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES WERE APPROPRIATE TO THIS APPLICATION FOR FENCES AND GARDEN WALLS.
[00:15:02]
FOR PAINT, 2.5, SORRY, 5.4 0.2, 5.3, AND 5.4 0.4.AND STATEMENTS OF REASON BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION IN STAFF'S JUDGMENT ARE THE PROJECT IS FENCING REPLACEMENT WITHIN THE TIGHT WEAVE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES.
THE 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 TO INCLUDE REMOVAL OF EXISTING FENCING AND GATE AND INSTALLATION OF NEW WOOD FENCING AND GATE.
IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE FROM STATE, CITY OR GOV OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT BODY SEEING NONE THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE ANY FINAL COMMENTS? NO.
DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD? ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? UH, JUST COMMENT THAT THE, UH, ADDITIONAL PICTURES HELPED CLARIFY FROM THE OTHER SIDE AND THE SIX, THE SIX FOOT HEIGHT I THINK YOU'RE COMPLYING WITH NOW.
AND THE, UH, THE MATERIALS ARE APPROPRIATE, THE STAININGS APPROPRIATE.
AND, AND JUST TO CONFIRM, THE RED LINE IS, UH, SIX FEET OR LESS, CORRECT? YEAH.
AS, AS YOU'VE INDICATED IN THE APPLICATION MM-HMM.
THIS WILL, I THINK THIS WILL ALSO APPROVE, UH, THIS WILL ALSO IMPROVE THE, UH, THE PROPERTY.
WE ALWAYS ENCOURAGE, UH, CHAIN LINK FENCE TO GO AWAY WHEN POSSIBLE.
UH, THIS WOODEN FENCE I THINK WILL JUST REALLY HELP THAT HORN, THAT WHOLE CORNER.
ANYONE ELSE? I'D LIKE TO HEAR A MOTION ON THIS PROJECT.
YEAH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE FIND THE APPLICATION FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ADDRESS, UH, 4 0 7 MED TAPE TREE TO BE NOT ENCUMBERS WITH NEW BE'S CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTIONS 15 4 11 TO 15 429 AND NEW BERN'S HISTORIC HISTORY GUIDELINES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC GUIDELINES AND FINDINGS OF FACT, FENCES AND GARDEN WALLS, 2.3 AND FOUR, PAINT 5.4, 0.23 AND FOUR.
UH, FINDINGS OF FACT, THE PROJECT IS FENCING REPLACEMENT WITHIN THE TIGHT WEAVE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES.
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY.
AND THE PROJECT IS NOT IN CONGRESS WITH THE GUIDELINES.
OPPOSED? HEARING NONE TO APPROVE.
[4.C. 221 Middle St. – to include a renovation of the front façade at the first floor]
ARE WE READY FOR 2 21? MIDDLE STREET.UM, ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH THIS PROJECT? NO.
SO AGAIN, THE, UH, APPLICATION, UH, AND WE SEE THAT THE OWNER'S NAME IS ANDY SCHIFF.
UH, AND THE APPLICANT IS AMY PERRY.
WE HAVE, UH, AN OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION FOR AMY TO SPEAK FOR THE OWNER THAT WILL SHOW UP MOMENTARILY.
UH, THEY HAVE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES ON THE FRONT OF THE PAGE AND CHECKED OFF VARIOUS THINGS ON THE BACK.
AND THAT, UH, MS. PERRY IS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER AND HAS SIGNED THE APPLICATION AND DATED IT.
SO THIS IS THE, UH, OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION.
AND HERE IT'S SIGNED BY, UH, IN THE PRESENCE OF A NOTARY BY MR. SHIP.
SO THESE ARE SEVERAL PAGES OF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT.
UM, YOU SHOULD HAVE ALL HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THESE, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE, BUT WE CAN COME BACK TO THEM IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
THEY REFERENCE VARIOUS, UM, GUIDELINES
[00:20:10]
AND THEY PROVIDE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MATERIALS AND ALSO A LIST OF ALL THE VARIOUS ATTACHMENTS.UM, AND THIS WAS A PREVIOUS, UH, LETTER AUTHORIZING MS. PERRY TO REPRESENT MR. SCHIFF.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS BUILDING RIGHT HERE.
AND THESE ARE PHOTOS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
UH, AND UH, TO NOTE IS TO THE LEFT IS THE CURRENT CYPRESS HALL RESTAURANT.
UH, TO THE RIGHT IS, UH, MAGNOLIA.
I THINK IT'S, UH, BLUE MAGNOLIA ON THE FIRST.
UM, AND TWO STORY BUILDING WITH, UH, AND THE, THE BUILDING HAD BEEN THE ANTIQUE SHOP, UH, DOWNTOWN WITH THE ELVIS OUT FRONT.
AND THIS IS A CLOSEUP VIEW OF THE TOP AND THE AWNING, UH, CURRENT EXISTING AWNING AND AN EVEN CLOSER SHOT OF, UH, THE UPPER LEFT WINDOW.
THIS IS NOW A SHOT FROM INSIDE THE AWNING OR INSIDE THE BUILDING LOOKING AT THE TRANSOM, UH, THAT WAS CLOSED UP WHEN THE AWNING WAS PUT UP.
AND THIS IS A FACADE OF THE ADJACENT CYPRUS HALL, UH, STOREFRONT.
AND IT IS THE BASIS FOR THEIR DESIGN.
AGAIN, ANOTHER VIEW OF THAT SHOWING, OF COURSE THE OPENING WINDOWS.
SO THIS IS A, A LARGER, WIDER VIEW SHOWING THE, ALSO THE ADJACENT BUILDING TO THE RIGHT.
AND THIS IS A CLOSEUP VIEW OF THE LOWER LEFT CORNER OF THE SUBJECT AREA.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THE CYPRESS HALL WOODWORK ON THE LEFT, A GAP FOR SHOWING THE, UM, ORIGINAL BRICK OF THE BUILDING.
AND THEN THE, UH, MORE MODERN, UH, STOREFRONT, UH, BEGINNING THERE ON THE LEFT.
AND THEN WE ANGLES ACROSS TO SHOW THE REST OF THE STOREFRONT CLOSE UP.
YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE MATERIALS, UH, BETTER THAN BEFORE.
AND THIS ONE AGAIN, THEN FROM BACK, FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
ALRIGHT, I'LL HAVE TO MAKE THIS SMALLER.
THESE ARE THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, STARTING WITH, UH, ELEVATIONS OF THE EXISTING, UH, CONDITION.
UH, SHOWING THE CYPRESS HALL BUILDING ON THE LEFT AND THEN THE SUBJECT BUILDING ON THE RIGHT WITH ITS CANOPY AND THE MODERN STOREFRONT.
THEY ALSO INCLUDE A PLAN VIEW OF THAT STOREFRONT SHOWING THE ANGLED WALL AND THE DOUBLE DOORS.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED ELEVATION.
UH, AND LIKE I SAID, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO USE THE EXISTING CYPRESS HALL STOREFRONT AS THEIR INSPIRATION FOR THIS ONE, PARTICULARLY THE WOODWORK.
UH, UM, AND THIS WILL INDEED BE AN EXPANSION OF THE CYPRESS HALL, UH, KITCHEN AND BAR.
AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE PLAN VIEW, WHICH YOU CAN'T SEE IN THE ELEVATION, IS THAT THE STOREFRONT IS TO BE FLAT ACROSS THE FRONT.
NOT ANGLED LIKE THE EXISTING, BUT THE DOOR WILL BE RECESSED.
AND HERE'S ACTUALLY A RENDERING OF THAT.
SO ALSO THE SAME COLOR OF THE WOODWORK.
UH, SAME KIND OF DETAILING ON THE CORNICE IN THIS CASE.
AND WE'LL SEE THIS IN SECTION AS WELL.
UM, THEY PROPOSED A, UH, PLANTER ON TOP OF THAT CORNICE.
AND THEN SOME, UH, TRELLIS WORK, UH, STAINLESS STEEL TRELLIS WORK FOR SOME PLANTS TO CROW TO CLIMB UP THE FACADE.
AND OF COURSE THE NEW SIGNAGE AS WELL.
UM, AND, UM, IT'S PROBABLY TOO SMALL FOR MOST TO SEE.
SO I WILL READ STARTING AT THE TOP, THE STAINLESS STEEL CABLE TRELLIS SYSTEM WITH STANDOFF BRACKETS.
NEXT, UH, IS THE PAINTED WOOD PLANTER BOX WITH WATERPROOF LINER.
TELL YOU WHAT, I'M GONNA MAKE IT BIGGER.
YOU CAN SCROLL IT DOWN AS WE GO.
[00:25:01]
UH, WITH WATERPROOF LINER AND INTEGRAL DRAINAGE PAN, A NEW PAINTED WOOD CORNICE, UH, THAT CORNICE WILL HAVE NEW RECESSED CAN LIGHTS IN IT.THEN, UH, THERE WILL BE NEW WOOD FRAMED TRANSOM WINDOW, A NEW STOREFRONT HEADER SUPPORT WITH PAINTED EXTERIOR WOOD PANELING.
UH, AND THEY SHOW HERE THE, UH, EXISTING PIER, BRICK PIER BEYOND WITH NEW PAINTED WOOD PANELING.
SO THAT'S ACTUALLY WOOD THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THERE BEYOND.
AND THEN THE HYDRAULIC OPERABLE STOREFRONT SYSTEM IS THE WINDOW AND THEN THE WOOD FRAMED WALL, A KNEE WALL WITH PAINTED WOOD.
EXTERIOR PANELING IS ALSO SOMETIMES CALLED BULKHEAD.
AND THEN THERE ARE A SERIES OF TECHNICAL DRAWINGS REGARDING THE, UM, HYDRAULIC WINDOWS.
SO KIND OF GO THROUGH THEM QUICKLY.
IF WE NEED TO REFER TO THEM, WE CAN.
ALL RIGHT THEN, UH, WE HAVE NOW WE'LL MAKE LARGER THE ZONING AND INSPECTIONS, UH, REPORT WHERE, UH, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HAS INDICATED THAT IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE AND THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR HAS INDICATED THAT IT WILL REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT.
AND THEN WE'RE READY WITH OUR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THE APPLICANT CARE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? YES.
ARE THERE ANY PROPONENTS OF THE PROJECT THAT, UH, RECEIVE NOTICE AND WANT TO SPEAK ANY OPPONENTS OF THE PROJECT? OKAY, YOU, YOUR FINDINGS? UH, ANYONE ELSE WITH RELEVANT? ANYONE ELSE WITH RELEVANT INFORMATION? OKAY.
ALRIGHT, SO THE UM, PROJECT IS, UH, FOR ANDY SCHIFF, UH, WITH AMY PERRY AS HIS REPRESENTATIVE.
AND THE PROJECT IS 2 21 MIDDLE STREET.
IT IS THE SCOTT BUILDING BUILT CIRCA 1885 AND REMODELED, REMODELED AND ENLARGED, UH, CIRCA 1920 TO 23.
UH, THAT DOES NOT, OF COURSE INCLUDE THE STOREFRONT.
UH, IT IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, UH, FOR THE PROJECT IS TO INCLUDE A RENOVATION OF THE FRONT FACADE AT THE FIRST FLOOR AND A NEW SIGN AT THE SECOND FLOOR.
UH, THE NATIONAL REGISTER INVENTORY DESCRIPTION IS THE BUILDING IS TWO STORIES.
BRICK IS CORNER PILE ASTER DEFINING TWO THREE BAY SECTIONS, AND A CORBEL CORNICE FOR THE SAND BET DESCRIPTION.
UM, HE STATES, DURING THE EARLY 1980S, SOLOMON H SCOTT ESTABLISHED A DELIVERY STABLE AND A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, WHICH HAD STOOD ON THIS SITE SINCE THE 1880S.
THIS EARLY STRUCTURE WAS EXTENSIVELY REMODELED ABOUT 1923 WHEN THE PRESENT PRESSED BRICK FACADE WAS ADDED.
BETWEEN THE 1920S AND THE 1940S, THE SCOTT FAMILY LEASED THE BUILDING TO TRENT MOTOR COMPANY AND THE CAROLINA RUBBER SUPPLY COMPANY.
SINCE 1943, IT HAS BEEN OCCUPIED BY SCOTT AND COMPANY, A REFRIGERATION AND PROPANE BUSINESS OPERATED BY THE DESCENDANTS OF SH SCOTT, BOTH BUILDINGS 2 21 AND 2 23 MIDDLE STREET.
THAT IS THE BLUE MAGNOLIA INCLUDED DISPLAY CONSERVATIVE, NEARLY IDENTICAL FACADES OF PRESSED BRICK WITH DETAILING CONSISTING OF CORNER PILE ASTERS, PLAIN CORDED CORNICES, AND STONE LENTILS ABOVE THE WINDOW OPENINGS.
SO STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES AS APPROPRIATE TO THIS APPLICATION FOR SIGNAGE, 2.8 0.1 2.8 0.2, AND 2.84 FOR DESIGN PRINCIPLES, 3.32, 3.4, AND 3.5 FOR MODIFICATIONS.
3.21, 3.2 0.2 3.24, AND 3.2 0.5 FOR WALLS, TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION.
4.1, 4.2 4.23 AND 4.24 FOR ENTRANCES, 4.41, 4.43 FOR WOOD, 5.21 AND 5.2 0.2 FOR METALS, 5.3 0.23 AND FOUR FOR PAINT.
5.4 0.2 AND THREE FOR MASONRY MAINTENANCE, 6.1, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR FOR WOOD MAINTENANCE, 6.1 0.56 AND SEVEN.
THIS, THE STATEMENTS ARE REASON
[00:30:01]
BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION IN STAFF'S JUDGMENT.R THE PROJECT IS A FACADE, RENOVATION AND SIGN ADDITION PROJECT WITHIN THE DENSE FABRIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES.
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY.
AND THE PROJECT IS NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH THE GUIDELINES.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION TO INCLUDE A RENOVATION OF THE FRONT FACADE AND SIGN, UH, FRONT SIDE OF THE FIRST FLOOR AND SIGN AT THE SECOND FLOOR.
ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FROM THE STATE, CITY OR GOVERNMENT BODY SEEING NONE.
ANY, UH, FINAL COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT? NO.
DO I HAVE ONE QUESTION? THE PLANTERS, WHICH ARE DECORATIVE, I ASSUME IF THEY WERE REMOVED LATER, WHAT'S BEHIND THAT? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE, NEED TO BE FIXED IF THE PLANTERS WERE LATER REMOVED? THERE IS, UM, IT'S BEHIND THE ING SO WE CAN'T SEE MR. CHAIR.
SHE NEED TO COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE.
BECAUSE WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE FLEXIBLE ON THINGS THAT ARE REMOVABLE.
JIM, SO SHOULD IT BE REMOVED? WHAT'S THERE? WERE YOU SWORN YOU NEED? YES MA'AM.
WE NEED TO HEAR HER ANSWER FIRST.
AGAIN, I WAS JUST ENHANCING MY, MY QUESTION.
IT IS ASSUMED THAT THERE'S A BRICK BEHIND THAT PLANTER BOX AND BEHIND THE AWNING AREA.
UM, IF THE PLANTER WERE TO BE REMOVED, THEN YES, POTENTIALLY THERE WOULD NEED TO BE JUST, UH, WOOD PANELING OR ANOTHER, UM, TYPE OF MATERIAL THAT WOULD WORK WITH THE OTHER ELEMENTS.
WOULD, WOULD POSSIBLY NEED TO BE PUT THERE IF THE BRICK IS IN DISREPAIR.
SO IT'S NOT LIKELY TO DESTROY ANY ORIGINAL FABRIC? NO.
WELL, AND THAT, THAT BRINGS UP ANOTHER QUESTION.
UH, IS THE PLANTER BOX CONSIDERED, UH, ORNAMENTATION? 'CAUSE WE TYPICALLY, WE'VE BEEN VERY CONSERVATIVE AS FAR AS WHAT WE ALLOW, UM, ON, UH, ON THE STOREFRONTS ON THE BUILDING SIDE DOWNTOWN, JUST TO MAINTAIN, YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC CHARACTER.
AND I'M LOOKING AT, UH, 4.2 0.2, UH, IF THE PLANNER IS CONSIDERED ORNAMENTATION, UH, IT SAYS IT'S NOT.
4.2 0.2 SAYS IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO INTRODUCE TRIMBLE ORNAMENTATION TO A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE WITHOUT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT SUCH ELEMENTS HISTORICALLY EXISTED.
SO WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY PLANTERS ON ANY OF THE, UH, UH, BUILDINGS, UH, IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT.
SO AGAIN, I'M ASKING THE QUESTION, IS THIS ORNAMENTATION, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT, UH, WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH? ONE OPTION WOULD BE TO, UH, LET THE APPLICANT, UH, REMOVE THE AWNING, SEE WHAT WE'VE GOT, SEE IF THE BRICKWORK IS DAMAGED, AND THEN COME BACK FOR, UH, AN AMENDED, UH, REQUEST TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
AND THAT'S WHY THE QUESTION ABOUT REMOVABLE, BECAUSE IF IT'S REMOVABLE AND EVERYTHING'S STILL INTACT, IT'S LESS OF AN ISSUE.
NOW IS IS IT GOING IN PLACE OF, OF THE AWNING? IS THAT, IS THAT WHERE PHYSICALLY IT'S IN PLACE WHERE THE AWNING WAS? CORRECT.
CAN WE SEE THE ELEVATION, MA, THE SCREEN WHILE YOU BRING THAT UP, MAY I ASK, HAS THERE BEEN ANY INVESTIGATIVE WORK DONE BEHIND THE AWNING AT THIS POINT? NOT BEHIND THE AWNING AREA ABOVE WHERE THAT TRANSO WINDOW IS.
WE HAD SEEN PICTURES, DIDN'T WE? FROM THE INSIDE WE COULD SEE UP TO WHERE THE TRANSOM WAS.
IS, IS THIS THE ELEVATION YOU WANTED? UH, THAT'S FINE.
SO FROM A CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT, THERE'S GONNA BE SOME TYPE OF SEAM THAT'S GONNA BE VISIBLE ON THE BRICK.
I DEFINITELY EXPECT SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE THE ROOF WAS ATTACHED WITH SOME FASTENERS OR SOMETHING.
SO I WOULD EXPECT THERE'S SOME DAMAGE TO SHOW UP WHEN THE ROOF IS TAKEN DOWN.
AND THERE'S FLASHING THERE TOO.
SO THAT, I'M SURE THERE'S ADHESIVE, OR CAN I SEE THAT PICTURE FROM THE INSIDE AGAIN? MM-HMM.
[00:35:07]
IS THAT TOO LARGE? IT IS, YEAH.CAN I SEE THE ONE ABOVE AGAIN WITH THE, THE VIEW FROM THE OUTSIDE THAT SHOWS, SHOWS THE AWNING.
THERE'S, THERE'S DAYLIGHT RIGHT HERE.
THIS ONE'S THE CLOSEST SHOT OF THAT FLASHING.
DO YOU WANT ANOTHER PHOTO? NO, THAT'S PRETTY GOOD.
UM, I DOUBT IT WOULD COME DOWN AS A CLEAN BRICK.
I THINK SOMETHING HAS TO BE IN FRONT OF THE CURRENT MARK LINE WHERE THE AWNING WAS ATTACHED TO.
IF IT HAS TO BE A PLANTER IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
SO I, I GUESS PUTTING UP SOMETHING THERE, IT MAKES SENSE, BUT DOES IT NEED TO BE PLANS GROWING THERE? WELL, AGAIN, MY MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER NOT APPROVING THE PLANTER BOX AT THIS POINT AND LET THE APPLICANT COME BACK ONCE IT'S DEFINITIVE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THERE, WHAT, WHAT'S THERE AND WHAT'S A GOOD SOLUTION.
AND IT, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT GROWING PLANTS ARE NOT STRUCTURAL.
THEY'RE NOT, THEY DON'T SERVE ANY CONSTRUCTIVE PURPOSE AT ALL.
THEY'RE NOT HOLDING UP THE BUILDING.
SO THAT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE DECORATIVE AND THAT I, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE THAT WE SHOULD NOT APPROVE THE FLATTER BOX AT THIS TIME.
THAT'S, THAT'S POTENTIALLY A CONSIDERATION OR A, A, UH, UH, CONDITION.
LET'S, LET'S SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER ISSUES.
UH, DID I MISS IT? ARE ARE, ARE THOSE WINDOWS BEING REPLACED IN THE, THEY ARE BEING REPAIRED.
REPAIRED, CORRECT? YEAH, THE SIX OVER SIX WINDOWS, YES.
SO THE EXISTING WOOD STRUCTURE OF THAT TRAM WILL NOT REMAIN, BUT IT'LL BE REBUILT AT THE SAME HEAD HEIGHT.
OTHER COMMENTS? CONCERNS? I, I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THE IDEA OF COMING BACK BECAUSE I HEAR TWO DIFFERENT STORIES.
I HEAR IT'S NOT STRUCTURAL AND IT'S ORNAMENTATION, BUT THEN I HEAR IT'S, UM, IT, IF IT, YOU'VE COME BACK AND IT'S, YOU MIGHT MAKE A DECISION TO DO SOMETHING ELSE.
SO I FEEL LIKE THAT WE'RE, WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS BEING TALKED ABOUT HERE.
I I I THINK THE SUGGESTION IT MAY IS, IS WE MAY, THEY MAY COME BACK WITH SOMETHING WHICH IS NON-ORAL, THAT, THAT, THAT HIDES WHATEVER IS UNDER THERE.
AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, IF I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT CORRECTLY, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SPECULATION AND THERE'S SOME DAMAGE, UH, SOME CHANGE TO THE BRICKWORK DON'T KNOW YET UNTIL IT'S, IT'S PULLED OFF AND THERE'S A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY SEE WHAT IT IS.
SO MY PROPOSAL IS, IS, UH, YOU KNOW, LET'S, LET'S PULL THIS THING OFF, UH, SEE WHAT WE'VE GOT, LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REST OF THE APPLICATION.
UH, IT'S, THIS IS, THIS IS GREAT.
UH, PARTICULARLY GETTING RID OF THE METAL AWNING.
AND JUST SAYING, LET'S BE, LET'S BE SOMEWHAT CAUTIOUS AS FAR AS INTRODUCING ORNAMENTATION THAT WE TYPICALLY, TYPICALLY HAVE NOT INTRODUCED, UH, BEFORE ON OTHER BUILDINGS.
FOR EXAMPLE, UH, THERE WAS, UH, A SITUATION A FEW YEARS AGO WHERE SOMEONE WANTED TO ADD A BALCONY TO A, UH, A STOREFRONT, A SECOND FLOOR BALCONY TO ONE OF THE STOREFRONTS, UH, CLOSE TO THESE TWO BUILDINGS.
AND WE DENIED IT FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THAT WAS, UH, SOMETHING THAT THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING LIKE THAT HAD EVER EXISTED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ALBERT HOTEL, WHICH DID HAVE A METAL BALCONY ON IT AT ONE TIME.
SO AGAIN, IN MY, MY ARGUMENT HERE IS THIS IS ORNAMENTATION.
WE HAVE A GUIDELINE THAT AT LEAST SAYS, BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT INTRODUCING ORNAMENTATION WHERE THERE'S NO DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE.
AND I'M SAYING, LET'S, LET'S NOT DO THIS RIGHT NOW.
[00:40:01]
WE HAVE A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.COULD WE GET, IT MAY BE COMPLETELY FINE.
WHO KNOWS? I THINK 3.2 0.4 GETS MAYBE TO THE QUESTION OF FINDING OUT.
AND 3.2 0.4 SAYS, REBUILD MISSING WRITTEN, INSENSITIVELY ALTERED DESIGN COMPONENTS BASED ON DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE OF THE ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION.
AND YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BACK.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO READ FROM THE GUIDELINES NUMBER ONE, 1.1.
THE PURPOSE OF THE NEW BRUN STARK DISTRICT GUIDELINES IS TO HELP PRESERVE THE HISTORIC CHARACTER AND ARCHITECTURAL FABRIC OF NEWBURG.
AND I THINK THAT SOME FURTHER INVESTIGATION WOULD GIVE US THE BEST CHANCE AT PRESERVING AS MUCH MM-HMM.
WE COULD, COULDN'T WE GET ON A SLIPPERY ROAD WITH THAT ORNAMENTATION THING? WHAT ABOUT THE, CAN WE GET BACK TO THAT, UM, TO THE FACADE VIEW? LIKE IF WE ARE SAYING THE PLANTERS ARE ORNAMENTAL, WHAT ABOUT THE SIDE ELEMENTS AND THE ELEMENTS OVER THE WINDOW AND I THEN WE COULD PULL THE WHOLE TRIGGER ON ALL THE ORNAMENTAL PARTS ON THAT WHOLE FACADE? ARE YOU SAYING THERE ARE OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ADDITION? WELL, IF, IF THE PLANTER, LET'S, LET'S SAY THERE WOULD BE NO PLANS IN IT, BUT WE HAVE THAT BLACK COVER UP PIECE UP THERE, WOULD THAT STILL BE ORNAMENTAL? OKAY.
THE EYE OF THE BOULDER, I GUESS IT DOESN'T COME THROUGH.
IF WE SAY THERE WOULD BE NO PLANS GROWING IN THAT WHOLE THING, IS THAT THEN STILL A PROBLEM? I, I THINK THE SUGGESTION IS TO APPROVE WITHOUT THE PLANNER, WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT THAT INVESTIGATION WILL TAKE PLACE OF WHAT THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL WAS UNDER THERE.
IS IT STABLE? CAN IT BE CORRECT? CAN IT BE FIXED AND, AND COME BACK WITH THAT AS A SOLUTION AS OPPOSED TO AN ORNAMENTAL ADDITION? AND I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE YEAH.
JUST, JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, UM, THE PREFERENCE IS TO KEEP THE ORIGINAL BRICK IF AT, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, CLEAN IT UP IN REPAIR, OTHERWISE WE COULD THEN REEVALUATE IF SOME OTHER, UH, MEDIUM IS NEEDED.
I, I ASK A, A DUMB QUESTION HERE.
IS, IS THE AWNING ORIGINAL? NO.
OR WAS THAT IN ADDITION? THAT WAS LATER.
THAT WAS, THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY IN ADDITION.
THAT WAS, THAT WAS IN MOST LIKELY, IN ADDITION, MOST LIKELY.
THAT'S, THAT'S MY, UM, HANGUP WITH THIS IS THE AWNING, IS THE 1950S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, ORNAMENTAL KEEP THE RAIN OFF OF YOU AS YOU COME THROUGH THE DOOR KIND OF THING.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE THERE WHEN YOU, WHEN WE SAY NO ORNAMENTAL, UM, NO CHANGES TO BUILDINGS, BECAUSE CLEARLY THERE ARE.
WELL, THAT'S NO SLIPPERY SLOPE.
WE, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE JUST SAY YOU CAN'T TAKE THE OWNING DOWN IF IT'S HISTORIC, YOU KNOW, BUT WE'RE SPLITTING HERE ABOUT ORNAMENTATION, I GUESS IS MY POINT.
WELL, AND JUST, I, I CAN'T RECITE THE GUIDELINE, BUT I DID SEE IT.
UH, IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO ENCOURAGE IS THE REMOVAL OF INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL.
AND I MAYBE ONE OF YOU CAN FIND THE GUIDELINE QUICKLY, BUT THERE IS A GUIDELINE THAT SAYS METAL AWNINGS ARE NOT, UH, ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
AND WE ALWAYS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE ORIGINAL MATERIAL.
IT, I, I ASSUME THAT MEANS, WELL, IT IS EXISTING MATERIAL, THERE'S REPLACEMENT IN KIND, BUT I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT, UH, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO GET RID OF THE MENTAL AWNING.
UH, THIS, YOU KNOW, IT IMPROVES THE, THE STREET STREETSCAPE.
QUESTION TWO, IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET PHOTOGRAPHIC MATERIAL FROM THAT BUILDING TO SEE HOW IT LOOKED BEFORE IT GOT THE METAL AWNING ON IT? I LOOKED IN, UH, UH, JOHN GREEN'S BOOK, UH, WITH THE HISTORIC PHOTOS.
THERE WAS NO CLEAR PHOTO OF THAT BUILDING WHERE YOU COULD MAKE ANYTHING OUT.
[00:45:01]
THE 200 BLOCK, BUT NOTHING WHERE YOU CAN REALLY SEE WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE.UH, PETER'S BOOK, UH, THERE'S REALLY NO PHOTO IN THERE OTHER THAN, UH, I GUESS IT WAS A 1980S PHOTO THAT PETER MADE.
UH, YOU CAN SEE THE METAL AWNING ON THE BUILDING IN IN WHAT YEAR? I'M SORRY.
UH, THAT HE PROBABLY TOOK THE PHOTO IN THE EIGHTIES.
BUT OBVIOUSLY THE BUILDING NEXT TO IT, THE CYPRESS HALL GOT APPROVAL WITH THE CURRENT FORM, AND I WOULD SAY THERE'S NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE IN THE ORNAMENTAL ISSUES.
THAT'S WHATEVER
SO FOR ME, THIS IS THE SAME DESIGN AND THE SAME STYLE.
SO I DON'T SEE ANY, IF THAT WAS NOT VIOLATING THE GUIDELINES, WHY SHOULD THE OTHER ONE DO IT? SO THERE'S NO, I, I WASN'T, UH, INVOLVED WITH THAT APPLICATION, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE IS NO ORNAMENTATION IF WE CONSIDER THE PLANTER ORNAMENTATION.
THERE IS NO ORNAMENTATION ON THE EXISTING SAPO.
IF WE DON'T MAKE IT A PLANTER, BUT A COVERUP PIECE FOR WHATEVER, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER A COVERUP PIECE IS NEEDED.
BUT THEY NEED, THEY NEED TO, THEY NEED TO PLAN SOMETHING.
THEY PULL THE WHOLE THING DOWN AND THEN WANT TO GET STARTED.
AND THERE'S A, A BIG BACK, BIG BACK BLACK GAP IN THE PLAN THAT, I DUNNO.
WELL, NO MATTER WHAT THEY FIND AN ORNAMENTAL, AN ORNAMENTAL PLANNER IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE WAY.
SUSTAIN TO COVER UP DAMAGE TO THE MASONRY.
COULD WE MAKE IT CONDITIONAL? LIKE IF THE MASONRY RELEASE IS DAMAGED, WE APPROVE IT AS IS? YEAH, SOMEONE CAN MAKE THAT MOTION.
WHAT ABOUT THAT? IF THE PLANNER'S NOT ACCEPTABLE UNLESS, YEAH.
SO THE, THE, THE BLACK FACADE IS CONSIDERED STRUCTURAL.
ARE YOU TELLING ME? BUT THE, THE PLANTER IS ORNAMENTAL.
I, I'M, I'M NOT FOLLOWING THAT BECAUSE THAT'S ALSO A FACADE.
YEAH, WELL THE, THE, THE BLACK STUFF IS THE WALL FINISH AND THE PLANTER IS AN ORNAMENT LIKE VICTORIA KNOBS AND GINGERBREAD WOULD BE, OR ITALIANATE BRACKETS.
UM, I, I CLEARLY, I SEE IT IN MY MIND.
UM, TIM, CAN YOU CRAFT A MOTION THAT I, LET ME, LET ME JUST ASK, ARE THERE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER ISSUES BESIDES THIS ONE? I DON'T SEE ANY THEN, THEN LET'S CRAFT A MOTION AND SEE WHERE WE SIT.
I WOULD SAY THAT I'M DELIGHTED WITH THE WAY CYPRESS HALL, THE EXISTING BUILDING LOOKS NOW MM-HMM.
AND THE CLOSER THIS BUILDING LOOKS LIKE THAT, THE HAPPIER I WILL BE.
UH, SO WE HAVE HEARD, UH, THE, UH, STAFF FINDINGS, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU WERE ASKING FOR A MOTION.
A MOTION ON THIS, THIS APPLICATION.
UM, I MOVE THAT WE FIND THE APPLICATION, UH, FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 2 21 MIDDLE STREET, UM, TO BE NOT IN INCONGRUOUS CONGRESS WITH NEW BERN'S CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTIONS 15 DASH FOUR 11 TO 15 DASH 4 29 AND NEW BERN'S HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC GUIDELINES AND FINDINGS OF FACT.
SO THE GUIDELINES THAT APPLY, UH, 2.8 0.1, 2.8 0.2 2.8 0.4 UNDER DESIGN PRINCIPLES, 3.1, 0.1 3.1 0.2 3.1 0.4 3.1 0.5 MODIFICATIONS, 3.2, 3.24, 3.25 WALLS, TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION.
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, UM, UH, ANOTHER APPLICABLE GUIDELINE.
IT'S 4.4 0.2, MAYBE 4.3 0.7, UH, CONCERNING, UH, AWNINGS, UM, ENTRANCES.
[00:50:01]
4.41 4.4 0.3.PAINT 4.2, UH, 5.4 0.2 5.4 0.3.
MASONRY MAINTENANCE, 6.11, 6.1 0.2 6.1 0.3 6.1 0.4.
WOOD MAINTENANCE, 6.15, 6.1 0.6 6.1 0.7.
UM, COMMISSIONER PARSONS, YOU MENTIONED A GUIDELINE THAT I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THIS WAS, IT'S 1.1, ONE POINT GUIDELINE, 1.14.
HAS THE ARCHITECTURAL LAMENTATION CORRECT? 4.4 0.2, WHICH I BELIEVE IS ALREADY IN HERE.
SO BASED ON THAT, UM, FINDING FINDINGS OF FACT, UH, THE PROJECT IS A FACADE RENOVATION WITH DENSE FABRIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES.
WITH ONE EXCEPTION, THE, UH, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND, UH, MADE COMMENTS.
UH, THE PROJECT IS NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH THE GUIDELINES WITH ONE CONDITION.
AND THAT CONDITION IS THAT THE, UH, THE PROPOSED PLANTER IS CONSIDERED ORNAMENTATION.
AND IT IS NOT CLEAR ONCE THE METAL AWNING HAS BEEN REMOVED, EXACTLY WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE FACADE, UH, AND MASONRY AND BRICKWORK WILL BE.
SO AT THIS POINT, THE COMMISSION WILL NOT APPROVE THE PLANTER, BUT WE ASK THAT THE APPLICA APPLICANT COME BACK ONCE.
UH, IT'S, IT'S CLEAR WHAT THE STATUS IS OF THE FACADE, THE BRICKWORK, SO FORTH.
THE APPLICANT COME BACK WITH A PROPOSAL OF WHAT TO DO IF THERE IS DAMAGE AND IT'S NOT REPAIRABLE.
SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE APPROVE THIS APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITION NOTED.
OPPOSED? NAY? OPPOSED? I HEARD TWO OPPOSED.
MR. CHAIR YOU MIGHT CALL FOR, YOU MIGHT CALL FOR A ROLL CALL.
JUDGE, YOU NEED TO YAY OR NAY.
SO WE HAVE TWO NOSS AND SEVEN YESES.
COULD I HAVE A MOTION? WELL, DO WE ISSUE A C O A OR DO WE WAIT TILL WE ANSWER THAT CONDITION? YOU CAN ISSUE A C O A NOW IF THE BOARD IS SO INCLINED AND THEN THE APPLICANT CAN COME BACK, UM, AND REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THAT C O A IF THE CONDITION IS TRIGGERED.
AND SECOND, DID WE ISSUE THE C O A ALL IN FAVOR STATE? AYE.
OPPOSED? OKAY, CARRIES A AND DO YOU UNDERSTAND, I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION YET.
SO JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE INTENT, IF THE BRICK IS NOT DAMAGED AND CAN REMAIN, WE DO NOT NEED TO COME BACK AND THE BRICK NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED.
IF, IF, IF THE UNDERLYING MATERIAL IS, IS UNDAMAGED AND ACCEPTABLE, JUST NOTIFY MATT, I GUESS, OR WE WOULD OR DO YOU NEED TO COME BACK WITH AN AMENDMENT FOR THAT OR, WELL, WE HAVEN'T APPROVED THE PLANTER, SO, YEAH.
UH, I MEAN IF THE, THE APPLICANT WILL KNOW ONCE THE AWNING IS REMOVED.
IS IT REPAIRABLE? DO WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT? YEAH.
AND IF IT'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT, UM,
[00:55:01]
YOU KNOW, THE FIRST STEP IS TO TALK WITH MATT AND COME, COME BACK AND WE'LL COME BACK INFORM MATT WHAT THE, WHAT THE ANSWER TO THAT.ARE YOU GONNA REPAIR OR, OR RESTORE THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL? WHAT, WHAT YOU PLAN TO DO, BUT JUST NOT A PLANTER.
SO A PLANTER IS OUT REGARDLESS.
WELL, UM, LET'S NOT SAY THE PLANTER IS OUT REGARDLESS.
THE PLANNER IS NOT, IS NOT IN PLAY RIGHT NOW.
IF IT'S DAMAGED AND YOU COME BACK, UH, WITH AN AMENDMENT TO DO SOMETHING WITH, WITH THE AREA THAT CAN'T BE FIXED, THEN YES.
YOU KNOW, WE'LL, WE'LL CONSIDER THAT AGAIN.
[4.D. 837 S. Front St. (Trent Court, Area A) – to include demolition of 13 buildings and redevelopment of the land area.]
8 37 SOUTH FRONT.NOW I ASKED THE SAME QUESTION.
ARE, ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH THIS? AND LET ME EXPAND ON THAT.
THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN PRESENTED A NUMBER OF TIMES, UM, AND, AND WILL BE PRE PRESENTED TONIGHT, HOPEFULLY FOR THE LAST TIME, UH, WITH MAYBE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
BUT IS THERE ANYONE SITTING WHO IS AN ALTERABLE MADE UP THEIR MIND ABOUT THE OUTCOME OF THIS, UH, C O L? NO.
HEARING NONE, NO CONFLICTS EXIST.
THIS IS THE APPLICATION, THE FIRST PAGE, UH, FOR 8 37 SOUTH FRONT STREET.
UH, THIS IS FOR TRENT COURT, UH, AND ONLY APPORTIONED THEREOF.
THAT IS, UH, NOW LABELED AS AREA A.
UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER ON THE FORM IS LISTED AS TIFFANY ESCU.
TIFFANY ESCU WAS THE, UH, UM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY.
UH, SHE IS NO LONGER, UH, IN THAT POSITION.
UH, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY NOW HAS AN INTERIM, UH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND THAT HAPPENS TO BE, UH, MR. REGINALD BARNER.
UH, HE IS IN THE ROOM, UH, AND SO HE IS THEN AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK, UH, FOR THE, UH, HOUSING AUTHORITY, THE APPLICANT, THE OWNER, UH, ON THIS PROJECT.
UH, SO THEY HAVE, UH, PROVIDED, UH, INFORMATION ON THIS FIRST PAGE.
UH, AND IT ACTUALLY CONTINUES ON AN ADDITION, UH, AND IT ON AN ADDITIONAL PAGE.
UH, AND THEY'VE PROVIDED A SITE PLAN AND THEY ARE THE OWNER.
AND THIS WAS TIFFANY'S, UH, SIGNATURE WITH HER, UH, DATE AT THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION OF THIS APPLICATION.
UH, THE APPLICATION, UH, SO THIS IS THE ADDITIONAL PAGE THAT EXPLAINS, UH, THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE PROJECT, UH, BEGINS.
UH, THERE ARE MANY NUMBERS HERE, BUT MAINLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SEE THE REMOVAL AND SALVAGE OF 30 FORECAST BAR RELIEFS LOCATED IN THE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS TO BE, THAT WILL BE DEMOLISHED.
THE BUILDINGS WILL BE DEMOLISHED, THE BAR RELIEFS WILL BE SALVAGED.
UH, AND THEN ALSO NUMBER F, DEMOLITION OF 12, UH, DWELLING STRUCTURES AND ONE OFFICE BUILDING, INCLUDING THEIR FOUNDATIONS, FOOTINGS, ET CETERA, AND VARIOUS OTHER DEMOLITION, MISCELLANEOUS DEMOLITION PIECES.
UH, YOU CAN READ THERE OR YOU HAVE READ ALREADY.
AND THEY ALSO, OH, I'M SORRY, THEY ALSO INDICATED, AND, UH, FOLLOWING DEMOLITION, ONGOING MAINTENANCE WILL BE PERFORMED BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY UNTIL REDEVELOPMENT CAN OCCUR.
AND THAT'S LAWN, TREE, SIDEWALKS, PLAYGROUND, AND BASKETBALL COURT.
AND THEY HAVE ALSO PROVIDED A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO GO WITH THIS.
BUT WE'LL START FIRST WITH THE DEMOLITION PLAN.
AND THIS IS A SITE PLAN THAT ILLUSTRATES WHICH BUILDINGS WILL OR ARE PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED.
SO LET'S START ALONG THE RIVER.
UH, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE IMAGE, UH, THIS LARGER BUILDING HERE IS THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
UH, AND THEN WE HAVE THE OTHER, UH, 12 STRUCTURES BEGINNING HERE ON THE LOWER RIGHT.
[01:00:01]
IS BUILDING A, BEHIND THAT IS BUILDING B.THESE ARE PARALLEL TO THE RIVER, UH, BUILDING, D, E, AND F, AND THEN PERPENDICULAR TO THE RIVER, UH, WITH SOME SLOPE DOWN SLOPE TOWARDS THE RIVER ARE, UH, G H I N J.
THOSE ALL ARE THOSE, UH, RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ARE ALL PART OF THE ORIGINAL, UH, CONSTRUCTION.
THE OLDER BUILDINGS AND THEN THE TWO ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS HERE AT THE TOP, THEY WERE BUILT 11 YEARS AFTER THOSE ORIGINAL BUILDINGS.
AND THOSE ARE BUILDINGS Y AND A TWO.
WE'LL BE REFERRING TO ALL THOSE LETTERS QUITE FREQUENTLY, I BELIEVE.
UH, AND SO THEY INCLUDED WITH THEIR DEMOLITION PLAN, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH ALL THOSE BUILDINGS, UH, WITH THE DEMOLITION PLAN, A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH SHOWS, UH, THEY WILL BE LEAVING THE EXISTING PARKING LOT AT THE ADMINISTRATION, BUILDING THE EXISTING, UH, BASKETBALL COURT, UH, AND THE EXISTING PLAYGROUND.
THEY'LL BE LEAVING THE EXISTING STREETS, UH, AS THEY ARE.
UH, THEY'LL BE TAKING OUT ALL OF THE SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
UH, THEY WILL BE ADDING SOME TRAILS THROUGH THE OPEN SPACE AREA HERE AT THE BOTTOM.
UH, AND THEY WILL BE ADDING THESE BRICK PANELS ALONG SOME OF THOSE TRAILS.
THEY INDICATE ONE HERE, BUT THEY'VE SHOWN SEVERAL ALONG THAT TRAIL.
UH, THEY WILL BE ADDING BENCHES AS WELL ALONG THESE TRAILS AND AROUND THE PLAYGROUND, UH, TRASH BINS AS WELL.
THERE ARE SEVERAL SPOTS INDICATED, AND THEY INDICATE AT LEAST ONE PLAQUE ON A STAND HERE AT THE EDGE OF THE PLAYGROUND, UH, WITH THE BENCHES, UH, FACING THAT.
UM, IN ADDITION, THE GREEN, DARKER GREEN AREAS INDICATE TREES THAT WILL REMAIN.
SOME OF THEM ARE QUITE SUBSTANTIAL, UH, AND THEY EVEN HAVE ADDED SOME NEW TREES AS WELL.
SO THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THEIR REDEVELOPMENT FOR THAT FOR THIS PHASE A OR AREA A, SORRY.
UH, THEY'VE INCLUDED SOME CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR THESE.
THIS IS A SECTION THROUGH THE BRICK PANEL SHOWING HOW THE BAR RELIEFS ARE ATTACHED, UH, IN THAT, UH, UM, IN THOSE BRICK PANELS SHOW A, A PICTURE OF THE BENCH AND ALSO HOW THE BENCH WOULD BE ARRANGED WITH A TRASH CAN AND A SPACE FOR A WHEELCHAIR NEXT TO THAT.
OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO TO, UM, MANY PICTURES OF THE VARIOUS BUILDINGS.
UM, START WITH THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
AND HERE WE HAVE, UH, THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING FROM THE STREET.
AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S ALSO UP ON SEVERAL STEP, UH, TAKES SEVERAL STEPS TO GET TO THE FIRST FLOOR RELEVANT FOR FLOODING.
UH, AND HERE WE HAVE THIS BUILDING ALSO HAS SOME OF THESE, UH, BOWEL RELIEFS AS WELL.
THESE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, UH, AS PART OF THEIR, UM, DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT FOR THE PROJECT.
UH, THIS IS NOW A CLOSER VIEW OF THE FRONT DOOR, UH, CLOSER VIEW OF THE ONE BOWEL RELIEF.
HERE IS A SIDE VIEW OR REAR VIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
YOU CAN SEE THERE'S EVEN DIFFERENT MATERIALS ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
THEY'VE PROVIDED, UM, PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ROOF AND THE ROOFING AND THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ON THE ROOF.
AND THESE ARE, UH, JUST EXCERPTS OF THE SEVERAL HUNDRED PHOTOGRAPHS.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO SHOW YOU GUYS SEVERAL HUNDRED PHOTOGRAPHS TONIGHT.
SO PICKED, UH, UM, A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE.
THIS IS AN, UH, PHOTO OF THE ENTRYWAY INTO THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
AND ONE OF THE ROOMS IN ON THAT, THAT BUILDING ONLY HAS ONE FLOOR.
UH, HERE YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE, UH, FLOOD WATERS HAD RISEN TO THIS, UH, SILL HEIGHT ESSENTIALLY, AND THE SWITCH HEIGHT AS EVIDENCED BY THE MOLD THAT'S, UH, NOW GROWING BENEATH THAT LINE.
HERE'S ANOTHER PHOTO WITH ANOTHER BIT OF, UM, MOLD ON THE RIGHT.
HERE'S A PHOTOGRAPH WHERE SOMEONE'S EVEN MARKED, UH, THAT THE FLOOD LEVEL WAS AT 52 AND A HALF INCHES, UH, ABOVE THE FLOOR.
AND ANOTHER ROOM WITH, UH, SHOWING THE MOLD LINE, THE WATER LINE AND MOLD
[01:05:01]
LINE.THERE'S ANOTHER, UH, ONE WHICH ALSO, UH, STATES, UH, THE, THE WATER LEVEL AT 54 INCHES.
SO MAKE SURE I GET TO THE CENTER HERE.
UM, THE NEXT IMAGE IS, UH, ON, IN THE CRAWL SPACE.
UNDER THE FLOOR, UH, INDICATES, UH, SOME RUSTING OF THE STRUCTURE, THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS, UH, THAT ARE HOLDING UP THE FLOOR OR, AND SUPPORTING THE FLOOR, AS WELL AS THE CORRUGATED METAL PAN THAT IS USED UP TO POUR THE CONCRETE INTO AND SUPPORT THE FLOOR AS WELL.
CAN SEE SOME, UH, SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION THERE.
THAT WAS THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING NOW FOR BUILDING A, WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE, UH, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING PARKING LOT HERE, UH, AND IS FACING THE RIVER, THAT ONE THAT WAS IN THE LOWER RIGHT OF THE PLAN.
UM, MOST ALL THE BUILDINGS HAVE LETTERS ON THEM TO IDENTIFY THEM.
THIS ONE, UH, SHOWS UNITS ONE AND THREE AND SHOWS THE TYPICAL, UH, ENTRY DETAILS FOR THESE OLDER BUILDINGS.
UH, THE ENTRANCE, UH, ROOF HERE IS A CANTILEVER ROOF NOTICE.
THEY'RE FULLY SUPPORTED AS WITH A CANTILEVER.
THE FRONT EDGE IS A WAVY EDGE PATTERN.
UH, THE ENTRANCEWAYS ALL HAVE THESE BA RELIEFS ACROSS THEIR FRONT DOOR, ENTRANCEWAYS, AND, UH, EVEN ON THE END UNITS, UH, UH, THIS BEING NUMBER TWO, UH, ALSO HAS A CANTILEVER ROOF, UH, WITH THE CURVED CURVY EDGES.
THIS IS NOW UNITS FOUR AND FIVE, SAME THING.
SO THAT'S THE TYPICAL FRONT ENTRANCE.
FOR THE OLDER BUILDINGS ON THE BACK.
UH, THE TREATMENT IS QUITE DIFFERENT.
UH, THE ROOFS HAVE A TYPICAL HIP ROOF CONSTRUCTION SUPPORTED BY WOOD BRACKETS ON BOTH SIDES.
AND YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE NO BAR RELIEFS OVER THE ENTRANCES.
UH, VERY DIFFERENT WINDOW FENESTRATION PATTERN.
AND THE, UH, THEY'VE ALLOWED THEMSELVES TO PUT THE, UH, MECHANICAL UNITS ALONG THE BACK OF THIS AS WELL AS SURFACE MOUNTED, UM, UTILITIES, UH, TO NOTE HERE, UH, WE FIRST SEE THE ROOFING, UH, AND, UH, ONE OF THE OTHER FEATURES OF THIS IS THE SEMI-CIRCULAR ROOF VENT OR ATTIC VENT.
UH, AND THEN THE CHIMNEYS ARE USED AS VENTING, UH, VENT STACKS FOR THE VARIOUS PIECES OF EQUIPMENT AND VENTILATION FOR THE PROPERTY OR FOR THESE BUILDINGS.
UH, THIS BEING A FULL SIZE END VIEW, UH, FOR UNIT, FOR BUILDING A UNIT.
UH, THIS ONE HAS THE, THE SAME FLAT CANTILEVERED ROOF NOW HAS A WINDOW OVER THE DOORWAY, BUT NOW YOU SEE FOR THE FIRST TIME THE CORNER, UH, THE CORNER WRAPAROUND WINDOWS.
AND YOU CAN SEE THERE IS NO COLUMN AT THE CORNER, AGAIN, USING CANTILEVERS AT THE CORNER TO SUPPORT THE ROOF.
THIS IS ALSO A WRAPAROUND HERE BELOW A CANTILEVER FOR THE FLOOR ABOVE THAT WINDOW, THERE IS A, A LARGE BIT.
THIS IS REFERRED TO ALSO IN THE SHIPPO, UM, LETTER THAT WE WILL TALK ABOUT LATER.
UM, NOW WE HAVE SOME FOR THIS BUILDING, WE HAVE SOME VIEWS OF THE INTERIOR, AND SO WE'LL GO THROUGH A FEW OF THOSE.
UH, THIS BEING, UH, THE FRONT DOOR OUT TOWARDS THE FRONT STREET THAT FACES THE RIVER.
NOW LOOKING BACK INTO THE REST OF THE APARTMENT, THESE APARTMENTS ARE TWO STORY APARTMENTS, AND THIS IS THE FIRST FLOOR THAT'S THE BACK DOOR OUT OF THE KITCHEN.
THIS MAY BE A DIFFERENT, UH, KITCHEN, BUT SAME BUILDING, UH, ALSO DIFFERENT BACK DOOR, BUT THE SAME BUILDING OR DIFFERENT APARTMENT FOR THE BACK DOOR, THE SAME BUILDING.
AND IN SOME CASES, THE STAIRWAY IS ALIGNED WITH THE FRONT DOOR, WITH THE DOOR.
SO GOING UPSTAIRS, THE BATHROOMS IN SOME OF THE UNITS,
[01:10:03]
THAT'S A DIFFERENT TUB THAN THE LAST ONE.UH, THERE'S SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF SOME OF THE MECHANICAL UNITS, AND THIS WOULD BE AN UPSTAIRS, UH, BEDROOM, UH, EVIDENCED BY THE TOP OF THE STAIRWAY HERE.
SEE THE CONDITIONS QUITE DIFFERENT FOR THESE, UH, FOR BUILDING B, UH, THAT PROVIDED THE EXTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS.
THIS BEING THE FRONT, AS YOU CAN TELL BY THE BOW RELEASE AND THE CANTILEVER GROUPS.
LITTLE CLOSER UP, SAME KIND OF THING AS THE LAST BUILDING.
THE BACK, AGAIN, SIMILAR TO BUILDING A AND NOW AN INTERIOR VIEW OF ONE OF THE UNITS FROM BUILDING B, F BEING THE FRONT DOOR.
THIS IS THE SAME ROOM, DIFFERENT ANGLE.
THIS IS THE KITCHEN OF THAT SAME UNIT.
YOU CAN SEE THE PINK ON THE RIGHT.
UH, SO WE'RE LOOKING FROM THE FRONT ROOM INTO THE KITCHEN.
THE LOWER CABINETS HAVE BEEN REMOVED APPARENTLY.
UH, FROM, ACTUALLY FROM THE OPPOSITE ANGLE.
THERE'S ANOTHER UNIT, UH, WITHOUT THE WALLPAPER.
UH, AND THE KITCHEN FOR THAT UNIT.
THAT'S THE WATER HEATER THERE.
THIS IS AN UPSTAIRS BEDROOM AND AN UPSTAIRS BATHROOM.
AND THE DOWNSTAIRS ELECTRICAL PANEL AT THE BACK DOOR, UH, APPARENTLY, UH, SERVICING ABOUT EIGHT DIFFERENT UNITS.
THEN THEY ALSO PROVIDED PHOTOS FOR, UH, THE CRAWLSPACE.
UH, AND THIS IS THE ACCESS WAY TO THE CRAWLSPACE.
UH, THE METAL PANEL HAS BEEN LIFTED HERE, AND, UH, EITHER THIS ONE OR A DIFFERENT ONE.
AS YOU LOOK IN THAT CRAWLSPACE, UH, YOU SEE, UH, SOME, UH, PLUMBING OR OTHER PIPING THAT'S, UH, PASSING THROUGH THE CRAWLSPACE.
AND YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE DEBRIS THAT'S EITHER FALLEN OR HAS BEEN WASHED INTO THE CRAWLSPACE.
FOR BUILDING C HERE WE ACTUALLY GET A CLOSEUP VIEW OF THE, UM, CORNER WINDOWS FROM THE OUTSIDE AND THEN SEVERAL OF THE BOWEL RELIEFS AND, UM, PHOTOS OF THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, PHOTOS OF THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
AND THERE WERE NO PHOTOS OF THE INTERIOR OF THAT BUILDING.
AND, AND ACTUALLY THERE WERE NO MORE PHOTOS OF THE INTERIORS OF THE REST OF ANY OF THE BUILDINGS.
UH, FOR BUILDING D WE SEE THE FRONT.
SO WE MAY BE ABLE TO GO A LITTLE QUICKER HERE FOR BUILDING E AGAIN, THE FRONT AND THE BACK FOR BUILDING F.
THIS IS THE FRONT, OR ACTUALLY THE SIDE, I'M SORRY, THE END.
AND HERE YOU SEE THE CORNER WINDOWS IN THIS, THIS PHOTOGRAPH, UH, THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING FOR BUILDING G.
THIS IS AGAIN, NOW AN END AGAIN.
NOW WE'RE TALKING THESE ARE THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE PERPENDICULAR.
YES, BUILDING G IS NOW PERPENDICULAR.
AND SO WE'RE LOOKING TOWARDS THE RIVER.
YOU CAN SEE THE PLAYGROUND IN THE BACKGROUND.
AND AS THE BUILDING MIRRORS THE RIVER, THE SLOPE, UH, GETS LOWER.
AND SO THEY HAD TO CONSTRUCT THIS WITH A STEP DOWN FOR EACH OF THESE FOUR BUILDINGS.
AND THIS BEING THE BACKSIDE, AS EVIDENCED BY THE DOORWAY, ROOFS HERE IS AN ENTRANCE ON THE END.
AND THIS IS ACTUALLY ON THE RIVERSIDE OF THIS BUILDING, BUILDING H UH, THIS IS THE BACK, I MEAN, SORRY, THE FRONT NOW, UH, AND THESE FRONTS THEN WERE FACING EACH OTHER.
UH, SO THERE WERE FOUR BUILDINGS, TWO FACING EACH OTHER, AND THEN THE OTHER TWO FACING EACH OTHER.
[01:15:01]
AND THEN, UH, TWO HAD THEIR BACKS TO EACH OTHER.SO THIS IS THE FRONT AND THEN THE FRONT OF I, SO THE RIVER TO THE LEFT, AND A STEP DOWN AGAIN, DOWN AT THAT, AT THE LEFT END THERE.
AND THIS IS NOW THE BACK OF BUILDING I WITH THE STEP DOWN ON THIS RIGHT SIDE.
SO, UM, THE RIVER IS TO THE RIGHT BUILDING.
J UH, THIS IS THE UPPER END OF BUILDING J ON THE LEFT.
THIS FRONT NOW IS FACING THE STREET, UM, UH, THAT IS ALONG THE PERIPHERY OF, OF TRENT COURT.
IT'S THE ACTUAL STREET THAT LEADS DOWN TO THE RIVER.
AND THAT IS THE LOWER END, THE RIGHT END OF THE FRONT OF THIS BUILDING.
J UM, THIS ONE HAS A SOMEWHAT UNIQUE END, UH, UNIT HERE, A SINGLE DOOR WITH A CANTILEVERED ROOF THAT DID NOT HAVE A SUPPORT FOR THE CANTILEVER AT THE CORNER.
AND SO IT HAS THE ONE SINGLE COLUMN.
UH, THIS IS THEN THE BACKSIDE OF BUILDING J THE RIVER TO THE LEFT.
THE STEP UP IS RIGHT HERE OFF THE EDGE OF THE, UM, PHOTOGRAPH.
AND THEN THIS IS THE UPPER PART OF THE BACK OF JAY.
UM, I PROVIDED, OR THEY'VE PROVIDED A, A LARGE, UH, UM, DETAIL OF THAT STEP UP.
BUT THIS BRINGS US TO WHAT'S GOING TO BE COMING UP SOON REGARDING THE NEW ROOFING AND NEW FLASHING THAT WAS INSTALLED RECENTLY.
SO BUILDING Y AS I MENTIONED, WAS A NEWER BUILDING BUILT 11 YEARS LATER.
UH, SIMILAR STYLE, BUT DIFFERENT, UM, UM, OR SIMILAR FORM I GUESS WITH, UH, DIFFERENT STYLING.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE FRONT DOORS, UH, ARE SEPARATED BY A BRICK FIN.
UH, THE, UM, COVER IS MUCH WIDER, UH, BUT IS STILL CANTILEVERED, UH, AT ONE CORNER, BUT NOT THE OTHER APPARENTLY.
UH, AND, UH, THERE IS NO BALL RELIEF OVER THE FRONT DOORS.
THIS IS THE RIGHT SIDE OF THOSE, OF THAT BUILDING.
AND YOU'LL SEE HERE THIS, THESE BUILDINGS, THESE TWO BUILDINGS HAVE AN EXTRA, UM, MECHANICAL ROOM ADDED ON THE END WITH A LARGE CHIMNEY.
AND SO THAT ELIMINATED ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL CHIMNEYS THAT WERE ALONG THE RIDGE OF THE, UH, OLDER ONES.
THE BACKSIDE STILL HAS THE HIP ROOF, ROOF, UH, ROOFING OVER THE DOORWAYS.
UH, AND THIS BEING THE RIGHT SIDE.
AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S NOT NEARLY AS MUCH, UM, SURFACE MOUNTED UTILITIES.
A TWO IS THE LAST ONE, AND ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS Y.
AGAIN, NO INTERIOR VIEWS FOR ANY OF THESE.
SO, AND THIS ONE POINTS OUT THAT MECHANICAL ROOM.
UH, THERE IS SOME SURFACE MOUNTED UTILITY WORK, AND THAT'S THE FULL VIEW OF THE BACK OF THAT.
AND THE ENDS OF THESE ARE JUST BLANK BRICK WALLS.
SO THOSE ARE ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS? YES.
UM, SO NOW, UH, WE'LL MOVE TO SOME OF THE SUBS, MORE RECENT PROJECTS, UM, TO, UM, MAINTAIN THE BUILDINGS.
UH, THIS WAS A PROJECT THAT INCLUDED ALL, UH, SIX ON THIS SIDE, FOUR ON THAT SIDE.
SO ALL 10 OF THE ONES, UH, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, PLUS TWO ADDITIONAL ONES.
THESE ARE ALL THE OLD, UH, STRUCTURES AT TRENT COURT.
UH, SO THE TWO ADDITIONAL ONES ARE K AND L, BUT NOT AS SUBJECT OF THIS PROJECT, BUT THE, UH, UH, OF THIS APPLICATION.
BUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR, UH, PROJECT, UM, THIS WAS FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE ROOFING AND THE FLASHING.
UH, SO YOU CAN SEE HERE, THEY HAVE THEM ALL IDENTIFIED BY NUMBERS AND, UH, BUILDING TYPES.
[01:20:01]
SO JUST SCROLL THROUGH HERE.THEY HAVE ROOF PLAN VIEWS SHOWING ALL THE VARIOUS, UM, ELEMENTS, THE CHIMNEYS, THE RIDGES, THE, UM, ATTIC VENTS, RIGHT? AND THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT STEPPED DOWN WITH THESE ANGLED, UM, SECTIONS.
AND HERE ARE THE DETAILS SHOWING, UH, ALL THE VARIOUS FLASHING AND EDGE, UH, ROOF EDGING DETAILS, UM, TO COMPLETE THAT PROJECT.
AND THEY ALSO INCLUDED, UM, SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS, UM, INCLUDING ONE THAT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT WE SHOWED EARLIER OF THAT CORNER RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE.
THE NEXT PROJECT, UH, OR THE NEXT PREVIOUS PROJECT WAS A 2010 REPOINTING PROJECT, UH, THAT WAS DONE FOR ALL OF THOSE SAME BUILDINGS, THOSE SAME 10, 12 BUILDINGS.
UH, AND THESE ARE ALL SHOWN IN ELEVATION HERE, SO MANY BUILDINGS.
AND THEN EVEN INCLUDED THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AND THEY'RE SHOWING SOME DETAILS OF HOW TO DO THE, UH, REPOINTING, UH, PAYING ATTENTION TO DETAILS AND HOW TO GRIND THEM OUT AND HOW TO REPAIR CRACKS AND SUCH.
ALRIGHT, UM, THE NEXT ONE, THE NEXT PROJECT ALSO THE SAME YEAR WAS, UM, AN H V A C RETROFIT.
SO THEY, UH, WERE, THEY REPLACED, UH, MANY OR ALMOST ALL OF THE FURNACES AND DUCT AND VENTING FOR EACH OF THOSE IN THE, ALSO THOSE SAME BUILDINGS AGAIN, BUT ALSO AT, UM, CRAVEN TERRACE AT THE SAME TIME.
UH, BUT, UH, THOSE FROM CRAVEN TERRACE HAVE BEEN EXCERPTED FROM THESE SETS OF PLANS.
BUT HERE YOU CAN SEE ALL THE FLOOR PLANS FOR ALL THE VARIOUS TYPES OF UNITS.
YOU CAN GO THROUGH THEM MORE QUICKLY.
AND THEN, UH, HERE THEY IDENTIFY THE EQUIPMENT TO BE SWITCHED OUT, THE DUCT WORK AND THE, THE VENTS.
ALRIGHT, AND SOME DETAILS REGARDING THAT.
SO THOSE WERE ALL THE ESSENTIALLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AS, UH, DOCUMENTATION OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS.
SO NEXT WAS A REQUIREMENT IN OUR PROCESS TO ESTABLISH WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING IS A BUILDING THAT'S ON THE STATE'S LIST OF STRUCTURES OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE.
UH, THIS IS THE EMAIL, UH, THAT ACCOMPANIED THE LIST.
AND IT IS ONE PAGE WITH 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 BUILDINGS ON IT.
THERE ARE 10 BUILDINGS LISTED AS STATE OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE IN THE ENTIRE STATE.
UH, NONE OF WHICH ARE IN NEW BERN.
SO OBVIOUSLY THIS PROJECT IS NOT ON THERE.
THEN, UH, THE H P C ALSO REQUESTED AS PART OF THEIR PROCESS A LETTER, UH, DESCRIBING THE EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR OF THE BUILDINGS FROM THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, ALSO KNOWN AS SHIPPO.
AND THIS IS THE LETTER THAT THEY PROVIDED.
UH, AND THE FIRST PARAGRAPH IS THE INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION.
THE SECOND PARAGRAPH DESCRIBES, UH, HOW THE PUBLIC, UH, HAS HOUSING CON TRENT COURT IS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER LISTED NEW BERN HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE NEW BERN LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UH, IN 2018, SEVERAL OF THE BUILDINGS WERE, UH, AFFECTED BY FLOOD WATERS FROM HURRICANE FLORENCE.
AND OF THE COMPLEXES, 218 UNITS 108 APARTMENTS WERE RENDERED UNINHABITABLE BY THE FLOOD DAMAGE.
UH, IN AUGUST OF 2023, UM, H P C UH,
[01:25:01]
RECEIVED AN APPLICATION AND REQUESTED, UH, THE, UH, THIS LETTER HERE.SO, UH, ACCORDING TO OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, UM, THEY REITERATE THOSE.
THEN, UH, THEN WE, UH, REQUESTED THIS LETTER, SORRY, I THINK THAT WAS AT THIS POINT THAT THEN THEY QUOTE, UM, OR REFER TO, UH, GENERAL STATUTE SECTION ONE 60 D 9 49.
THAT PROVIDES, UH, THEN AN APPLICATION FOR C O A AUTHORIZING THE DEMOLITION OF A SITE, OF A BUILDING SITE OR STRUCTURE MAY BE DENIED BY THE LOCAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
AND A REVIEW OF THE RECORDS MAINTAINED IN SHIPPO, UH, INDICATES THAT IT'S NOT A BUILDING OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE.
THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IS THAT TRENT COURT IS A PUBLIC HOUSING COMPLEX, UH, CONSISTING OF 29 2 STORY BRICK APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND ONE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
THEY EXPLAINED THAT, UH, SEVERAL OF 'EM WERE CONSTRUCTED IN 1940 AND 1941, AND THEN THE OTHER NEW ONES WERE, UH, BUILT IN 1952.
UH, THEY DESCRIBE THE LAYOUT OF THE ENTIRE, UH, TRENT COURT AS A CAMPUS WAS INTENDED TO BE A CAMPUS LIKE COMPLEX, DESIGNED BY NOTABLE KINSTON ARCHITECTS, A MITCHELL WOOTEN AND JOHN J ROLAND.
UH, THEY REITERATE THAT IT IS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE AND, UH, HOW IT BECAME, UH, PART OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT, UH, TRENT COURT.
THEN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, THE NEXT TRENT COURT IS ONE OF TWO PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS CONSTRUCTED BY THE NEW BERN HOUSING AUTHORITY USING FEDERAL FUNDS DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION.
THE NEW BERN HOUSING AUTHORITY WAS CREATED IN 1939 TO ADDRESS THE CITY'S LACK OF SAFE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING USING FUNDS FROM THE PROJECT WORKS ADMINISTRATION INTENDED FOR SLUM CLEARANCE AND LOW COST HOUSING.
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTED THE TWO PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS DURING THE EARLY 1940S.
TRENT COURT SERVED WHITE RESIDENTS AND CRAVEN TERRACE LOCATED SOUTH OF CEDAR STREET.
STREETS HOUSED BLACK RESIDENTS CONSTRUCTED DURING A PERIOD IN WHICH SLUM CLEARANCE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF SANITARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS GAINING NATIONAL ATTENTION.
TRENT COURT IS HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT AS ONE OF THE CITY'S EARLY EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE SUBSTANDARD HOUSING AND ALLEVIATE THE GROWING NEED FOR SAFE LOW INCOME HOUSING FOR ITS RESIDENTS.
THE NEXT PARAGRAPH DESCRIBES THAT ITS ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AS AN INTACT EXAMPLE OF A DEPRESSION ERA, PUBLIC HOUSING COMPLEX, DESIGNED BY NOTABLE KINSTON ARCHITECT, A MITCHELL WOOTEN, AND HIS ASSOCIATE JOHN JAY ROLAND WOOTEN IS A WELL-KNOWN LOCAL ARCHITECT.
HIS FIRM MITCHELL WOOTEN AND ASSOCIATES DESIGNED RESIDENCES, GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, AND PUBLIC HOUSING COMPLEXES THROUGHOUT EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA.
HIS EARLY WORK REFLECTED THE POPULAR COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE, BUT HIS LATER COMMISSIONS, INCLUDING TRENT COURT, COMBINED THE ART MODERN AND INTERNATIONAL STYLES WITH MORE TRADITIONAL FORMS. AT TRENT COURT, THE HIP ROOF FORM BRICK EXTERIOR BROAD BRICK CHIMNEYS AND ARCHED LOUVRE VENTS EXHIBITED BY THE APARTMENT BUILDING REFLECT THE COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE.
WHILE THE UTILITARIAN DESIGN CANTILEVER FLAT ROOF HOODS OVER THE ENTRIES AND CORNER WINDOWS ARE MORE INDICATIVE OF WOOTENS MODERN INFLUENCES.
THE BA RELIEF PANELS ABOVE THE ENTRIES DEPICTING CHILDREN IN VARIOUS STATES OF PLAY AND RECREATION ARE REFLECTIVE OF THE ART MODERNA STYLE, AS WELL AS THE NEW DEALS EMPHASIS ON PUBLIC ART.
UNLIKE THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS, THE OFFICE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LACKS COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE FEATURES.
THE LONG, LOW SINGLE STORY BUILDING DISPLAYS, DISPLAYS THE FLAT ROOF GEOMETRIC FORM, LACK OF ORNAMENTATION AND BANDED WINDOWS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE INTERNATIONAL STYLE.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPERTY LIES BOTH WITHIN THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS AND THE DESIGN OF THE COMPLEXES LANDSCAPE.
ACCORDING TO THE 2003 UPDATED NOMINATION, THE COMPLEX WAS DESIGNED TO CREATE A CAMPUS LIKE SETTING WITH TREELINE STREETS, CENTRAL COURTYARDS, AND AN INTERCONNECTED NETWORK OF SIDEWALKS REFLECTING THE EMPHASIS ON OPEN GREEN SPACE AND A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE ENVIRONMENT COMMON TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING COMPLEXES OF THE PERIOD.
SO BASED ON PHOTOGRAPHS PROVIDED BY THE NEW BERN, H P
[01:30:01]
C TRENT COURT RETAINS A HIGH DEGREE OF ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY DESPITE DAMAGE DURING HURRICANE FLORENCE, ALL THE BUILDINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMPLEX REMAIN EXTENT OR IN EXISTENCE, THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN OF THE COMPLEX AND THE SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS ALSO REMAINS INTACT.WINDOWS THROUGHOUT THE COMPLEX HAVE BEEN REPLACED, AND THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDINGS IN AREA A WERE DAMAGED BY FLOOD WATERS.
HOWEVER, THE FLOOR PLANS REMAIN UNCHANGED AND THE INTERIORS APPEAR TO REMAIN RETAINED SOME ORIGINAL MATERIALS.
OVERALL, TRENT COURT RETAINS THE CHARACTER DEFINING DESIGN AND LANDSCAPE FEATURES NECESSARY TO COMMUNICATE ITS HISTORY AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AS ONE OF TWO GOVERNMENT FUNDED PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS DESIGNED BY MITCHELL WOOTEN AND JOHN ROLAND FOR THE NEWBURN HOUSING AUTHORITY DURING THE DEPRESSION ERA.
SO THE NORTH CAROLINA SHIPPO BELIEVES THAT TRENT COURT RETAINS SUFFICIENT INTEGRITY TO REMAIN A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER LISTED NEW BERN HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE NEW BERN LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO WE HAVE TWO MORE ITEMS. ONE IS, UH, THE ZONING AND INSPECTION REVIEW FOR THIS PROJECT, AND THE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS HAS STATED THAT IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE.
UM, COMMENT BEING NO BUILDINGS ARE PROPOSED AT THIS TIME, AND THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR HAS INDICATED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT AND ALSO NOTES THAT DEMOLITION PERMITS ARE REQUIRED.
AND THEN OUR LAST ITEM IS THAT, UH, THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR HAS PROVIDED A LETTER, UH, SUMMARIZING HIS, UH, REVIEW OF THE ABILITY FOR OR NOT FOR THE H P C MEMBERS TO ACCESS THE BUILDING OR THE BUILDINGS.
UH, AND THE INDICATES THE 13 BUILDINGS LOCATED AT EIGHT SE THREE SEVEN SOUTH FRONT STREET AND TRAN COURT AREA, A BEING PROPOSED FOR DEMOLITION ARE DETERIORATED AND UNSAFE FOR ENTRY DUE TO THE HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS THAT EXIST FROM THE SUBSTANTIAL FLOODING THAT OCCURRED DURING HURRICANE FLORENCE IN SEPTEMBER, 2018.
I REVIEWED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED BUILDINGS AND HAVE DETERMINED THAT THESE BUILDINGS ARE UNSAFE FOR THE COMMISSION TO VISIT DUE TO THE DILAPIDATED INTERIOR ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO MOLD AND THE POSSIBILITY OF STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES.
AND THEN ALSO ADDED SINCE HE IS ALSO THE, UH, CITY'S FLOODPLAIN MANAGER.
UH, THESE STRUCTURES ARE ALL LOCATED IN AN AE FLOOD ZONE WITH A BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF NINE FEET.
THESE STRUCTURES WERE DETERMINED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED, WHICH MEANS THAT WHEN REPAIRED, THEY MUST COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THE LOWEST FINISHED FLOOR MUST BE ELEVATED TO ABOVE THE B F E PLUS TWO FEET.
UH, AND MR. BOSWELL IS HERE TODAY.
UH, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, UM, TALK TO HIM ABOUT THESE ISSUES, UM, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CALL MR. BOSWELL FORWARD.
MR. SHELLEY DID A GREAT JOB OF, UH, SUMMARIZING MY MEMO THERE.
UM, JUST A QUICK INTRODUCTION ABOUT MYSELF.
UH, I AM THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR AND THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE CITY.
UM, I HOLD A LEVEL THREE STANDARD CERTIFICATE AND ALL FIVE OF THE INSPECTION DISCIPLINES.
AND AS HE STATED, I AM A CERTIFIED FLOODPLAIN MANAGER.
UM, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU'VE GOT ABOUT, UH, THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES OR THE, THE FLOOD ZONE ASPECT OF IT.
I I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, ASK ONE THING THAT WILL CLARIFY SOME, UH, QUESTIONS IN THE FUTURE.
UH, AND THAT IS, UM, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BUILDINGS ARE IN THE FLOOD ZONE, UH, A, A E FLOOD ZONE.
UH, AND, UM, COULD YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THE LIMITATIONS ARE FOR REUSE OF THOSE BUILDINGS AS THEY ARE? WELL, SO THE ONLY THINGS THAT ARE PERMITTED TO BE, UH, BELOW THE BASE PLAY ELEVATION ARE PARKING, STORAGE, AND BUILDING ACCESS.
UM, SO BECAUSE THESE STRUCTURES WERE DETERMINED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED, WHICH THAT MEANS THAT THE COST OF REPAIRS WAS COMPARED TO THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURES, AND IF THAT'S MORE THAN 50%, THEY ARE DETERMINED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED.
UM, SO AGAIN, IN, UH, IF, IF THESE BUILDINGS WERE TO BE REPAIRED, THE, THE, THE LOWEST FINISHED FLOOR WOULD'VE TO BE ELEVATED ABOVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION PLUS TWO FOOT OF FREEBOARD, UM, TO SO ABOVE 11 FEET, NOT 11 FEET OFF THE GROUND, BUT 11 FEET FROM ZERO.
[01:35:01]
SO WOULD THAT, UH, ALLOW USES ON THE SECOND LEVEL POTENTIALLY.SO THE CURRENT V F E IS NINE FEET? YES, SIR.
AND THE USAGE, AGAIN, WAS A BUILDING STORAGE, YOU SAID? UH, UH, BUILDING ACCESS, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? BUILDING? SO PARKING, BUILDING ACCESS AND STORAGE ARE THE ONLY THREE THINGS THAT ARE PERMITTED BELOW B F E.
WHAT IS BUILDING ACCESS? UH, LIKE A, A SET OF, UH, UH, A LITTLE FOUR YEAR TO ACCESS THE SECOND FLOOR, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, A SMALL LITTLE AREA, PROBABLY THE, THE BOTTOM OF A SET OF STAIRS TO ACCESS SOMETHING ON THE, ON A HIGHER FLOOR.
AND THEN JUST STORAGE OF SOMETHING.
YEAH, JUST A COLD, DARK STORAGE, REALLY.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT IF YOU REMAIN HERE FOR, FOR OUR MAIN DISCUSSION, I DO HAVE ONE, UH, LOOKING, DID LOOK INTO THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
UM, ONE OF THE OPTIONS IS DRY FLOOD PROOFING.
HOW WOULD THAT WORK WITH A BUILDING THAT'S SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED? SO DRY FLOOD PROOFING IS NOT ALLOWED ON A, ON A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
DO WE HAVE ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT WHAT THE ELEVATION OF THE SECOND FLOOR OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE? I DO, I DO NOT KNOW.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE EVIDENCE WHAT THE ELEVATION OF THE FIRST FLOOR IS, CORRECT? YES.
SO THE, THE CLOSEST I I, MY OFFICE DOES NOT HAVE AN ELEVATION CERTIFICATE FOR THESE BUILDINGS.
UM, I WAS ABLE TO PULL ONE FROM A, A BUILDING, UM, DOWN THE ROAD, UM, AND THEIR, UM, HIGHEST ADJACENT GRADE WAS ABOUT SEVEN FOOT.
SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, ASSUMING EVERYTHING'S FAIRLY FLAT OUT THERE, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE GROUND LEVEL IS, IS ABOUT SEVEN FOOT.
SO, YOU KNOW, 11 FOOT WOULD BE FIVE, YOU KNOW, FIVE MORE FEET WOULD'VE TO GO UP.
UM, SO IF IT WAS 11 FEET OR, UH, ADDITIONAL SEVEN AND FOUR ACCESS TO THOSE BUILDINGS, UM, THEY WOULD DEFINITELY BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO ACCESS IT DUE TO THE HEIGHT.
IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ELEVATORS OR RAMPS OR SOMETHING.
AND THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE.
AND, AND ANOTHER, EXCUSE ME, BUT YOU ALSO SAY COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS.
DOES THAT INCLUDE ELECTRICAL? EVERYTHING HAS TO LOOK CORRECT.
EVERYTHING WOULD'VE TO MEET ALL THE STANDARDS FOR, FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION? YES, SIR.
SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE AN ELEVATION START FOR THIS PARTICULAR, I, I HAVE NO, NO, MA'AM.
I, I HAVE NOT SEEN AN ELEVATION CERTIFICATE FOR, FOR THOSE BUILDINGS.
I OBSERVED THAT THERE ARE CONTOUR LINES ON THE DEMOLITION.
WELL, THE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING BUILDINGS, UH, SO THE DEMOLITION, THE, THE CONDOR LINES ARE THERE AND, UH, BUT THAT DOESN'T HELP ABOUT HOW HIGH THE SECOND FLOOR IS AND DEVELOPING THAT.
THIS IS 7, 6 8 FEET GROUND INFORMATION.
IS THERE A QUESTION THERE? NO, I'M, I'M DONE.
MATT, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE? NOPE, THAT CONCLUDES, UH, THIS STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
ARE THERE ANY, UH, WELL, IS THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE, UH, THE OWNER? ABSOLUTELY.
I THANK YOU ALL FOR, FOR GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY AGAIN TO COME BACK, UH, BEFORE YOU.
UM, I, I THINK MATT LAID OUT, UH, WHAT OUR APPLICATION HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE, UH, AS WE'VE PRESENTED TO YOU ALL BEFORE.
I THINK THE ADDITIONAL COMMENT FROM THE SHIPPO OFFICE INDICATES TWO THINGS.
ONE IS THAT, AS YOU INDICATED, CHAIRMAN, THAT THERE'S NO SPECIFIC BUILDING, UH, IN NEW BERN THAT HAS STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, WHICH THEN ALSO INDICATES IN HERE THAT IT INDICATES THAT IF YOU WERE GOING TO DENY IT, IT WAS BASED OFF OF A FACT THAT THERE WAS A BUILDING THAT HAD STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE,
[01:40:01]
WHICH IT DOESN'T IN NEW BERN.SO THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED AS IT RELATES TO, UH, THEY IDENTIFIED AND WE AGREE WITH THAT.
YOU KNOW, IT IS WITHIN YOUR HISTORIC DISTRICT, UH, THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS THAT THEY'VE INDICATED, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO ARGUMENT THERE.
HOWEVER, UH, AS INDICATED BY THE, UH, THE INSPECTOR AND THE DOCUMENTATION AND BY FEMA'S, UH, BACK WHEN THE FLOOD OCCURRED, AND YOU ALL JUST HEARD THAT FEMA'S INDICATED THAT THEY'RE NOT GIVING ANY MONEY TO THE COMMUNITY BASED ON BUILD BACK IN PLACE, THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY WOULD GIVE MONEY IS TO ELEVATE ALL THE NEW BUILDINGS THAT WOULD COME BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY.
SO WE'RE NOT ABLE, AND EVEN IF THEY WOULD ALLOW, UH, FUNDS TO GO TOWARDS, UH, BUILDING BACK IN PLACE IF IT WAS NOT ELEVATED, THEY'VE MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT IF ANOTHER FLOOD HAPPENED, AGAIN, THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ANY ADDITIONAL NEW FUNDING EVER IF YOU DON'T DEAL BASED ON THOSE NEW STANDARDS AND ABOVE THAT BASE ELEVATION LEVEL.
SO WE, WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED ALL OF THOSE THINGS AND WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THAT IN OUR EXERCISES WHEN WE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION, AND THAT'S WHY WE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION TO, FOR DEMOLITION, UH, AND WITH THE ALTERNATIVE TO GET FEMA FUNDING TO COME BACK TO THE COMMUNITY AND BUILD BACK NEW.
AND EVEN, I LIKED EVEN HIGHLIGHT THAT EVEN PRIOR TO ALL MY EXISTENCE IN THE COMMUNITY AND THE WORK THAT YOU ALL DID WHEN YOU GOT THE INITIAL C N I GRANT, THIS WAS, THAT WAS EVEN BEFORE THE FLOOD.
AND SO I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF CONVERSATION REFERENCING THE C N I AND THE PROPOSALS THAT CAME THERE.
BUT EVEN WITH THAT, PRIOR TO THE FLOOD, THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE COMMUNITY THROUGH LOCAL CHARETTES WAS TO DEMOLISH ALL OF THE BUILDINGS AT TRIP COURT.
AND SO THAT WAS A, THAT WAS PART OF THE C N I PLAN AND WITH ONE CONDITION.
AND THAT ONE CONDITION WAS, IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION, NOT A REQUIREMENT, BUT A SUGGESTION AND A RECOMMENDATION TO KEEP ONE BUILDING.
AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS COMING BACK TO YOU ALL ASKING FOR COMPLETE DEMOLITION TO ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO GET THE FUNDS FROM, FROM FEMA AND TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP A NEW DEVELOPMENTS, A MIXED INCOME AND A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT BACK ON THAT PROPERTY THAT HAS A HIGHEST, HIGHEST AND BEST USE THAT'S BENEFICIAL FOR THE OVERALL COMMUNITY.
THE GREEN SPACE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED, AND WE ARE GONNA KEEP WITH THAT.
ADDITIONALLY, YOU ALL MADE RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH WE HAD ALREADY DISCUSSED WITH SHIPPO BEFORE, OVER A YEAR AND A HALF AGO OF KEEPING THE BALL RELEASES.
SO THAT'S ALREADY A PART OF THE M O A THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS TO KEEP THE BAR RELEASES, BRING THEM BACK INTO SOME FORM IN THE NEW BUILDINGS THAT WE BUILD BACK AND, AND AS WE'VE OUTLINED NOW INTO THE PARK INTO THE GREEN SPACE.
SO WE WANT TO KEEP THE, THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNITY.
I THINK THERE ARE MANY WAYS THAT WE CAN, WE CAN ADDRESS THE ARCHITECTURAL NATURE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT THOSE BUILDINGS HAVE REPRESENTED, AND WE CAN DO THAT IN, IN, FROM A PICTORIAL STANDPOINT WITH ADDITIONAL PICTURES AND ET CETERA ON DISPLAY WITHIN THE GREEN SPACE TO STILL BE ABLE TO SHOW AND HIGHLIGHT, UM, AND HIGHLIGHT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THOSE BUILDINGS AND WHAT THEY REPRESENTED WITHOUT US HAVING TO KEEP A PARTICULAR BUILDING.
BUT, UH, WE, WE STILL STAND TONIGHT TO ASK YOU ALL FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF OUR APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO, UH, FOR COMPLETE DEMOLITION.
ARE THERE PROPONENTS OF THE PROJECT TO HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? DO YOU, YOU WERE, I'VE NOT BEEN SWORN IN.
I CAN'T YOU, YOU HAVEN'T BEEN SWORN IN, RIGHT? COME.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? YES, SIR.
UM, MY NAME IS SABRINA BENGAL.
I LIVE AT 3 29 A MIDDLE STREET, AND I AM CURRENTLY A COMMISSIONER ON THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD.
SO I REPRESENT THE OWNERSHIP OF, OF THE, UH, OF THE BOARD.
AND I JUST WANNA SAY HOW NICE IT IS TO BE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING.
I THINK I APPOINTED A FEW OF YOU SO I KNOW OF YOUR GOOD WORK AND THE REASON YOU'RE HERE.
I THINK YOU KNOW THAT I HAVE BEEN, UM, A CHAMPION FOR, UM, HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THIS CITY.
UH, ALWAYS LIVING IN A HISTORIC HOME SINCE I MOVED HERE 45 YEARS AGO.
AND, UM, I UNDERSTAND THE GOOD WORK THAT YOU DO AND HOW DIFFICULT IT IS.
I ACTUALLY, THIS WAS THE FIRST BOARD I SAT ON IN MY SERVICE TO THIS COMMUNITY.
SO I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.
I'M HERE TONIGHT TO ASK THAT YOU PLEASE APPROVE FULL DEMOLITION OF THIS PROPERTY.
I UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
[01:45:01]
HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND THE STORIES THAT THEY TELL, THE STRENGTH THAT IT HAS BROUGHT TO THIS COMMUNITY OVER THE YEARS.MANY OF YOU LIVE HERE BECAUSE OF OUR BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC CITY, BUT BUT YOU LIVE IN GOOD, COMFORTABLE, BEAUTIFUL HOMES.
PEOPLE DO NOT NEED TO LIVE IN THESE HOMES AS YOU SEE NOW.
THEY ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO TODAY'S FAMILIES.
AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY I WANTED TO BE ON THIS COMMISSION, IS BECAUSE WE NEED TO CHANGE THE STANDARD OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS CITY.
AND THIS IS GOING TO BE THE FIRST STEP IN MAKING THAT HAPPEN.
BUT WE HAVE TO MAKE THIS STEP.
IT, IT IS PAINFUL IN SOME WAYS.
AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS.
I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS OF WANTING TO KEEP THAT BUILD ONE BUILDING TO TELL A STORY, BUT WE CAN TELL A STORY IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS BY, AND I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A GREAT EXAMPLE AND TRIP.
I'M GONNA PICK ON YOU A LITTLE BIT.
UM, THIS BEAUTIFUL, THIS BEAUTIFUL NEW ELEVATOR BUILDING THAT YOU SEE BEFORE US.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S BEEN HERE FOREVER BECAUSE OF THE BEAUTIFUL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS THAT WERE ON THERE.
I CAN'T TELL YOU THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SAID THEY CAN'T BELIEVE HOW BEAUTIFUL IT MATCHED.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE BECAUSE WE USE SOME OF THOSE SAME ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, BUT IT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN THERE.
SO I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE SHOWN THAT YOU CAN MAKE SOMETHING THAT IS NEW, ALMOST LOOK LIKE IT'S BEEN THERE.
SO WHEN WE DO COME BACK AND WE DO APPLY WITH BUILDINGS AND WHAT THAT NEW CAMPUS IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, WE CAN TAKE SOME OF THESE FEATURES AND RECREATE SOME OF THE ROOF LINES THAT HE SHOWED, SOME OF, SOME OF THE, UM, MATERIALS AND THINGS THAT WE, THAT WERE USED THERE.
AND I THINK WE CAN TELL THE STORY JUST AS WELL.
BUT AT THIS POINT, WE ARE CONSTRAINED BY FIRST FEMA AND BY HUD.
DO THEY FUND HOUSING? THEY DON'T FUND MUSEUMS. THEY DON'T FUND COMMUNITY BUILDINGS.
WE WILL, BY LEAVING A BUILDING THERE, WE WILL HAVE NO FUNDS TO, UM, REHAB IT, TO FIX IT UP, TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT.
AND IT'LL BE JUST ANOTHER BUILDING THAT SITS THERE.
I KNOW WE HAVE DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT, BUT, BUT, UM, I'M CONCERNED THAT WE, THAT WOULD JUST BE ANOTHER REASON THAT OUR CITIZENS WOULD GROW WEARY.
AND I, I BELIEVE WHAT NEW WE CAN BRING WILL BENEFIT AND ENHANCE OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AS LONG AS WE SAVE THE RELIEFS, I AM A HUNDRED PERCENT COMMITTED TO SAVING THOSE RELIEFS.
I'D LOVE TO SEE THEM IN A FENCE LINE, YOU KNOW, ON THAT BEAUTIFUL WALKWAY THAT WE CAN FINALLY MAKE HAPPEN AND JUST ENHANCE, UH, THE AREA.
BUT I THINK STORYBOARDS WOULD TELL A GREAT STORY ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED THERE.
AND I JUST URGE YOU ALL TO REALLY LOOK AT THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF YOU AND GIVE US A POSITIVE VOTE THIS EVENING AND LET US MOVE AHEAD.
FIVE YEARS IS WAY, WAY TOO LONG FOR THOSE BUILDINGS TO HAVE BEEN STANDING.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S HARD ON THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE THERE.
AND WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN OPENING UP THAT DOOR TO REALLY CHANGING THE FACE OF OUR CITY AND OUR COMMUNITY, AND HELPING ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN OUR COMMUNITY, NOT JUST ONE PARTY TOWN.
SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THIS EVENING.
UM, MS. BENGAL, BEFORE YOU COULD SIT DOWN, COULD YOU PLEASE ADD YOUR NAME TO THE YES SIR.
ARE THERE OTHER PROPONENTS OF THE PROJECT, UM, WHO HAVE STATUS, WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? ARE THERE ANY OPPONENTS OF THE PROJECT WHO HAVE STATUS? WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? IS THERE ANYONE WITHOUT ANY STATUS WHO BELIEVES THAT THEY HAVE RELEVANT INFORMATION? WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY, WE ARE READY FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, MY FINDINGS ARE, UH, THIS IS A PROJECT FOR THE NEW BERN HOUSING AUTHORITY.
THE ADDRESS OF THE PROJECT IS 8 37 SOUTH FRONT STREET.
ITS HISTORIC PROPERTY NAME IS TRENT COURT, AND IS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE, THE NATIONAL REGISTER.
NEW BERN HISTORIC DISTRICT INVENTORY DESCRIPTION FROM 2003 SAYS, UH, THE TRENT COURT PUBLIC HOUSING COMPLEX CONTAINS 29 2 STORY MULTIFAMILY HOUSING UNITS, A ONE STORY OFFICE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FRONT STREET, BUILT FOR THE NEW BERN HOUSING AUTHORITY AND A TWO STORY RETAIL STORE ON THE WEST SIDE OF FLEET STREET.
WHO KNEW
THE FIRST 12 BUILT IN 1940 TO 41 ARE DESIGNATED A THROUGH L AND ARE LOCATED ALONG SOUTH FRONT STREET,
[01:50:01]
FLEET STREET, AND WALT BELLAMY DRIVE.THE 17 BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED IN 1952 ARE FARTHER NORTH AND ARE DESIGNATED M THROUGH Z AND AA TO DOUBLE C.
THE ONE STORY OFFICE BUILT IN 1942 IS AT THE BEND OF THE ROAD WHERE SOUTH FRONT AND FLEET STREETS JOIN.
THE TWO STORY BRICK AND CONCRETE BLOCK STORE WAS ALSO BUILT IN 1952.
ALL BUILDINGS ARE CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES ARRANGED AND CLUSTERED GROUPS ALONG TREELINE STREETS AND LANDSCAPE COURTYARDS.
IN 1940 TO 41, BUILDINGS ARE ENRICHED BY FLEMISH GARDEN WALL BOND BRICKWORK, CASTSTONE BALL RELIEF PANELS ABOVE THE ENTRANCES, PORTRAYING SCENES OF CHILDREN AT PLAY, CANTILEVER CONCRETE ROOFS ABOVE ENTRANCES, BANDS OF MULTI PANE METAL WINDOWS THAT WRAP AROUND CORNERS, KI ROOFS, ARCH TOP VENTILATION, DORMERS, AND INTERIOR CHIMNEYS.
THE 1952 STRUCTURES ARE OF SIMPLER DESIGN WITH RUNNING BOND BRICK WALLS, AND SMALL SASH WINDOWS ABOVE THE DOORS.
THE PROJECT WAS THE LARGEST BUILDING EFFORT IN THE CITY DURING THE 1940S AND 1950S, AND WAS ASSISTED BY $1.5 MILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDING.
BOTH PHASES OF THE COMPLEX BUILT FOR WHITE RESIDENTS WERE DESIGNED BY ARCHITECTS, A MITCHELL WOOTEN AND JOHN J. ROWLAND OF KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA, AND BUILT BY THE FOWLER JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NEW BERN.
UH, SAND BECK HAS NO DESCRIPTION.
THIS PROJECT IS TO INCLUDE DEMOLITION OF 13 BUILDINGS AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND AREA.
STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT STANDARDS.
A K A GUIDELINES ARE APPROPRIATE TO THIS APPLICATION, THE PROCESS FOR WHICH CONSISTS OF TWO DELIBERATIONS, DEMOLITION, AND REDEVELOPMENT.
SO DELIBERATION, ONE FOR DEMOLITION, SECTION 6.4 FOR DEMOLITION STATES.
THE SUCCESS OF PRESERVATION DEPENDS ON ADAPTIVE REUSE OF HISTORIC RESOURCES TO MEET CURRENT NEEDS.
DEMOLITION IS AN IRREVERSIBLE ACTION RESULTING IN A PERMANENT LOSS OF THE INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES.
PREPARATION OF A DEMOLITION C O A APPLICATION SHOULD INCLUDE A DETAILED REPORT ON THE HISTORY OF THE STRUCTURE AND PROPERTY FROM THE SHIPPO.
DEMOLITION OF A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE REQUIRES A TWO-PART C O A, WHERE DEMOLITION IS FIRST CONSIDERED, AND IF ALLOWED, FOLLOWED BY CONSIDERATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
DEMOLITION SHALL NOT PROCEED UNLESS BOTH PARTS OF THE C O A ARE APPROVED.
IF DEMOLITION IS DENIED, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY AND ITS STRUCTURES TO PREVENT DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT.
THE H P C MAY DENY THE DEMOLITION OF A STRUCTURE OR SITE IF IT IS CURRENTLY LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.
SO THE GUIDELINES FOR DEMOLITION ARE 6.4, 0.2, THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE.
UH, I SHOULD ACTUALLY READ THESE, SORRY, 6.4 0.2.
IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO DEMOLISH A VIABLE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO CREATE AN INFILL CONSTRUCTION OPPORTUNITY.
THE H P C RESERVES THE RIGHT TO POSTPONE DEMOLITION UNTIL DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING PERMITS ARE APPROVED FOR REDEVELOPMENT PLANS.
6.4 0.4, PREPARE DRAWINGS AND PHOTOGRAPHICALLY DOCUMENT THE SITE PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, INCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHS OF INTERIORS, EXTERIORS, ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AND CONTEXT WITHIN THE STREETSCAPE 6.4 0.5, NOTIFY PRESERVATION ORGANIZATIONS AND ALLOW FOR THE SALVAGE OF DESIGN COMPONENTS, ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND BUILDING MATERIALS FOR REUSE FOR PREVENTION BY DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT.
6.2 0.1, PERFORM ROUTINE INSPECTIONS TO EVALUATE THE CONDITIONS OF MATERIALS.
6.2 0.2, PRESERVE HISTORIC DESIGN COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS BY IMPLEMENTING REPAIRS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SUBSTRATES ENCOUNTERED.
6.2 0.3, REPAIR HISTORIC DESIGN COMPONENTS BY USING PATCH AND CONSOLIDATING REINFORCING AND SPLICING METHODS THAT INCORPORATE MATCHING SALVAGE HISTORIC MATERIALS.
6.2 0.4, REPLICATE MISSING AND DETERIORATED DESIGN COMPONENTS WITH CUSTOM FABRICATED MEMBERS THAT MATCH THE SPACING PROPORTION DIMENSION.
CROSS SECTION OF PROFILE OF MATERIAL BEING REPLACED.
6.2 0.5 MATERIALS ARE TO BE REPLACED IN KIND WHEN MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS ARE WARRANTED.
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR INCONGRUENT MATERIAL IS PERMITTED.
HOWEVER, WHOLESALE REPLACEMENT OF INCONGRUENT MATERIAL WITH THE SAME OR ANOTHER INCONGRUENT MATERIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
AND 6.2 0.6 BOARDED WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE NOT AN ACCEPTABLE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR PRACTICE.
TEMPORARY APPROVAL MAY BE GIVEN TO BOARD WINDOWS AND DOORS TEMPORARILY UNTIL PERMANENT REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENTS ARE IMPLEMENTED.
HOWEVER, BOARDING SHALL BE PAINTED OR SHEATHED WITH PRE-FINISHED SHEET METAL.
IN ADDITION, THE GUIDELINES STIPULATE IN RENDERING A DECISION ON THE DEMOLITION C O A.
THE H P C SHOULD ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING THREE CONSIDERATIONS.
CONSIDERATION ONE, TO ADDRESS THE HISTORICAL, CULTURAL, AND ARCHITECTURAL
[01:55:01]
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STRUCTURE.FIRST, IS IT A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE? STAFF SAYS YES AS INDICATED IN THE INVENTORY IN THE 2003 NATIONAL REGISTER REGISTRATION FORM FOR THE NEW BERN HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND TRENT COURT REMAINS TO BE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AS CONFIRMED IN THE OCTOBER 9TH, 2023 TECHNICAL ADVICE REPORT FROM THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE.
SECOND IS ITS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE OF ITS HISTORIC USE AND EVENT, A PERSON, A BUILDER, OR AN ARCHITECT.
THE 2003 NATIONAL REGISTER REGISTRATION FORM FOR THE NEW BERN HISTORIC DISTRICT INDICATES, INDICATES BOTH PHASES OF TRENT COURT CONSTITUTED THE LARGEST BUILDING EFFORT IN THE CITY DURING THE 1940S AND 1950S.
WERE DESIGNED BY ARCHITECTS, A MITCHELL WOOTEN AND JOHN J. ROWLAND OF KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA, AND BUILT BY THE FOWLER JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
UH, THE OCTOBER 9TH, 2023 TECHNICAL ADVICE REPORT FROM THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, ADD USING FUNDS FROM THE PROJECT WORKS ADMINISTRATION, UH, ET CETERA.
I READ THIS EARLIER, UM, SO I WILL FAST FORWARD TO THE NEXT ONE.
UH, THE SHIPPO TECHNICAL ADVICE ALSO ADDS SIGNIFICANCE TO TRENT COURT AS AN INTACT EXAMPLE OF A DEPRESSION AREA PUBLIC HOUSING COMPLEX, WHICH I ALSO READ EARLIER AS WELL.
UM, AND IS IT THE LAST OR THE OLDEST EXAMPLE OF A CERTAIN BUILDING TYPE? UH, THIS IS NOT INDICATED IN THE 20, IN THE 2003 NATIONAL REGISTER REGISTRATION FORM FOR THE NEW BERN HISTORIC DISTRICT, NOR IN THE SHIPPO TECHNICAL ADVICE REPORT.
HOWEVER, STAFF IS AWARE OF NO OTHER BUILDINGS WITH THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OLDEST STRUCTURES.
THERE ARE ABOUT FIVE OR SIX SIMILAR STRUCTURES IN THE CRAVEN TERRACE DEVELOPMENT.
HOWEVER, SEVERAL HISTORICALLY AND ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS ARE EITHER MISSING OR ALTERED.
THERE ARE NO WRAPAROUND WINDOWS AND NO CURVED ATTIC VENTS.
THE CANTILEVERED ENTRY ROOFS DO NOT HAVE THE CURVY FRONT EDGE.
AND MANY HAVE COLUMNS WHERE TRENT COURT DOES NOT.
AT CRAVEN TERRACE, THE BALL RELIEFS ARE TERRACOTTA AND LOCATED ON THE BACKYARD SIDES, WHETHER THAT IS THE FRONT ENTRY OR BACKSIDE OF THE BUILDING.
SO CONSIDERATION TWO, UH, AND YOU ALL SHOULD BE ENDING UP DISCUSSING THESE OR CONFIRMING THESE, BUT, UH, WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS OF THE FOUNDATIONS, FLOORS, WALLS, WINDOWS, DOORS, AND ROOFS? UH, FOR THIS, FROM THE STAFF'S POINT OF VIEW, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE THAT THE CONDITIONS OF THESE ELEMENTS, PLUS THE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, BUT ACCEPTING THE ROOF'S, INTERIOR WALLS, WINDOWS, AND EXTERIOR DOORS ARE BEYOND THE STATE, WHEREBY REPAIRS WOULD BE POSSIBLE OR REASONABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
IS IT A HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE? UH, STAFF REPORTS IN 2018, THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR DETERMINED THAT THE 13 STRUCTURES PROPOSED FOR DEMOLITION HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED.
IN ADDITION, THE DOCUMENTATION BY THE APPLICANT INDICATES SOME POTENTIAL STRUCTURAL EFFECTS AND THE EXISTENCE OF
ADDRESS ATTEMPTED PRESERVATION EFFORTS, HAVE OPTIONS FOR REHABILITATION BEEN EXPLORED WITH PRESERVATION ORGANIZATIONS? UH, STAFF IS NOT AWARE OF ANY EXPLORATIONS OF OPTIONS FOR REHABILITATION WITH PRESERVATION ORGANIZATIONS.
HAS THE APPLICANT BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN SEEKING ALTERNATIVES TO DEMOLITION? UH, STAFF REPORTS THE APPLICANT HAS NOT INDICATED SUCH TO THE STAFF, THE APPLICANT, THE H P C AND THE COMMUNITY IN SEVERAL PLANNING EFFORTS, INCLUDING THE 2016 CHOICE NEIGHBORHOOD'S, GREATER FIVE POINTS TRANSFORMATION PLAN HAVE INDICATED SAVING AT LEAST ONE OF THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS, QUOTE, TO PRESERVE THE HISTORY OF THE SITE.
POTENTIAL USES MAY INCLUDE A LEASING OFFICE, COMMUNITY MEETING SPACE, LOCAL HISTORY, MUSEUM SERVICE, PROVIDER SPACE, ET CETERA.
STAFF WOULD ADD THAT DUE TO FLOOD REGULATIONS, USE OF THE FIRST FLOOR WOULD BE LIMITED TO STORAGE, PARKING, AND FOR ACCESS TO THE SECOND FLOOR, THE ADDITION OF A D A LIFTS TO THE SECOND FLOOR WOULD ALLOW FOR COMPLETE REUSE OF THE SECOND FLOOR.
DRY FLOOD PROOFING IS ALSO ALLOWED INSTEAD OF ELEVATION, APPARENTLY IT'S WET FLOOD PROOFING, NOT DRY.
FLOOD PROOFING, UH, HAVE ALTERNATIVES FOR STRUCTURE RELOCATION AND SALE OF THE PROPERTY BEEN PURSUED.
UH, STAFF REPORTS THE APPLICANT HAS NOT INDICATED SUCH TO THE STAFF, AND IT MAY NOT BE A REALISTIC OPTION DUE TO THE COST TO MOVE LARGE MASONRY STRUCTURES.
AND SALE OF THESE IN PLACE MAY NOT BE REALISTIC DUE TO LAND OWNERSHIP AND FLOODING.
SO FOR STATEMENTS OF REASON, BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION AND STAFF'S JUDGMENT, R ONE, THE PROJECT IS A PROPOSAL TO DEMOLISH 13 CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES.
[02:00:01]
ALL OF THE STRUCTURES PROPOSED FOR DEMOLITION ARE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND IN THE NEW BERN LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT.THREE, DUE TO DAMAGE FROM THE FLOODING OF HURRICANE FLORENCE OF 2018 AND SUBSEQUENT VACANCY, THESE 13 STRUCTURES ARE NO LONGER VIABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
FOUR 10 OF THE 13 BUILDINGS WERE CONSTRUCTED IN 1940 TO 41, AND THE OTHER THREE WERE BUILT IN 1952.
THE OLDER ONES POSSESS SEVERAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT ARE UNIQUE AND REPRESENT AT TRANSITION PHASE.
FOR THE ARCHITECT THAT COMBINES COLONIAL REVIVAL, ART, MODERNA, AND INTERNATIONAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLES, FIVE, RETENTION OF ONE OF THE OLDEST BUILDINGS WOULD PRESERVE AN ON-LOCATION FULL SCALE PORTION OF THE HISTORY OF THE SITE.
AND THE BETTER REPRESENTATION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE THAN ONE OF THE NEWER BUILDINGS.
A PRESERVED BUILDING WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED TO COMPLY WITH THE PRESERVATION OF DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT GUIDELINES WITH STANDARDS SEVEN, RECOGNIZING ALL THE BUILDINGS IN AREA A ARE IN THE AE FLOOD ZONE.
THE SECOND FLOOR OF A PRESERVED BUILDING WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE REUSED AS OCCUPIED SPACE FOR SUPPORT FUNCTIONS FOR THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
AND THE FIRST FLOOR COULD BE USED FOR ACCESS TO THE SECOND FLOOR AND STORAGE.
THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT FOR THE SITE WILL NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE H P C IN DELIBERATION TWO BEFORE A C O A AND A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MAY BE ISSUED.
AND NINE, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY.
THE H P C SHALL DELIBERATE ON THIS FIRST SEGMENT OF THE PROCESS BEFORE PROCEEDING TO DELIBERATION TWO.
SO I PAUSE HERE, AND WHEN WE GET TO, IF WE GET TO DELIBERATION TWO, UM, THEN I CAN START, UH, RESTART THE FINDINGS AT THAT POINT.
WHAT QUESTIONS COME TO MIND BASED ON ALL THAT YOU HEARD? SO JUST, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT THE INFORMATION CORRECT, BUILDINGS A THROUGH L ARE FROM THE, LET'S, THAT WAS PHASE ONE, EARLY FORTIES, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, I, I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.
I'VE GOT AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT.
THAT'S, UM, THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM FOR NEW BERN HISTORIC DISTRICT, ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND BOUNDARY EXPANSION.
UM, AND THAT WAS CERTIFIED ON SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2003.
AND, AND I THINK THIS MAY HELP FACILITATE OUR DISCUSSIONS.
UM, OF NOTE, UH, THE EXPANSION OF THE DISTRICT WAS BASED ON BRINGING SHRINK COURT IN, AND IN PARTICULAR, TIM, THAT, UM, OF ALL THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, UH, WE LOOSELY REFER TO THIS AS OUR NOMINATION LETTER.
IN THAT LETTER, ALL THOSE ARCHITECT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ARE IN BUILDINGS A THROUGH L, WHICH WERE BUILT, UM, IN THE FIRST PHASE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT.
SO, MR. CHAIR, JUST AS A POINT OF CLARITY, I UNDERSTAND THAT MR. Y IS, IS INTRODUCING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
IS HE DOING THAT AS A WITNESS OR AS YEAH, A MEMBER DELIBERATING ON THE COMMISSION? I, I GUESS I'M, LAST MEETING WE WERE RECOMMENDED TO BRING IN EVIDENCE, AND SO I BROUGHT THIS, I IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU OUGHT TO BE A WITNESS OF IT.
SO WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? STAND UP THERE.
SO I, I THINK IF, 'CAUSE WE'RE IN A BIT OF A QUANDARY HERE, THAT IF MR. YER IS TESTIFYING BECAUSE HE HAS SOME RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO OFFER, HE WOULD NEED TO BE RECUSED, UM, FROM ANY DELIBERATIONS OR PARTICIPATION IN DELIBERATIONS.
AND THEN THE ISSUE ARISES, AND YOU ALL WILL HAVE TO DEBATE AND MAKE A FINDING WHETHER MR Y HAS STANDING OR HAS RELEVANT INFORMATION SUCH THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER HIS COMMENTS.
SO STEP ONE IS IF MR. YER IS GONNA BE A WITNESS, HE NEEDS TO BE RECUSED.
AND, AND WHAT HAPPENS AFTER WE GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS? DO I GET TO COME BACK? NO, SIR.
IF THE BOARD LEFT IT NOW, NO, SIR.
IF YOU'RE GONNA BE THERE, YOU CAN WEAR ONE OF TWO HATS.
YOU CAN EITHER BE A WITNESS OR YOU CAN DELIBERATE.
SO JAMIE, UM, WITHOUT, JUST, WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THAT, CAN HE JUST DISCUSS THAT INFORMATION THAT HE HAS? IT? I THINK YOUR DELIBERATIONS ARE CAN, ARE RESTRICTED TO THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEING PROFFERED IN THE RECORD AND THE TESTIMONY BEING PRESENTED TONIGHT.
IF THERE'S STRENUOUS INFORMATION THAT IS GOING TO BE BROUGHT IN, THAT IS WITNESS TESTIMONY.
[02:05:01]
AND TO THE EXTENT THAT WIS WITNESS TESTIMONY HAS ALREADY BEEN ELICITED, I THINK THE CHAIR WOULD HAVE TO GIVE SOME TYPE OF LIMITING INSTRUCTION ABOUT DISREGARDING ANY WITNESS TESTIMONY.WELL, SO I'LL WITHDRAW MY STATEMENT IF THAT HELPS US GET FORWARD TODAY.
IF WE'RE PRESENTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AT THIS POINT, ARE THERE FIXED POSITIONS THAT WE NEED TO READDRESS OR ARE ALL THE PEOPLE IN PANEL TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT CAPABLE OF PROCESSING THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE RECORD AND CONTAINED IN THE TESTIMONY TONIGHT AND LIMITING THEIR DELIBERATIONS AND THEIR FINDINGS BASED ON THE INFORMATION IN THE RECORD? MM-HMM.
NO, NO DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE SAID ORIGINALLY.
I, I'M JUST SIMPLY PROVIDING FACTS AS OPPOSED TO OPINIONS AS I THOUGHT WE DISCUSSED AT OUR LAST HEARING.
PEOPLE, THE, THE ENTITIES OR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE THE ABILITY TO PRESENT FACTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR MAKING A DECISION ARE WITNESSES.
I'LL MAKE AN OBSERVATION BECAUSE I, I WAS INTERESTED IN SEEING THE SHIPPO WRITE UP AND, UH, WHAT I FOCUSED ON WAS THEY VIEWED TRENT COURT AS AN ENTIRETY AS TRENT COURT, NOT AS TWO COMPONENTS.
AND AT THE END THEY SAY THAT NORTH CAROLINA SHIPPO BELIEVES THAT TRENT COURT RETAINS SUFFICIENT INTEGRITY TO REMAIN A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE TO NATIONAL REGISTER LISTED NEW BERN HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE NEW BERN LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THEY DON'T QUALIFY THESE 13 BUILDINGS.
THEY SAY THAT TRENT COURT RE REMAINS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE TO THAT NATIONAL REGISTER LISTED DISTRICT.
SO I READ THAT AS SAYING THAT, UM, DESPITE 13 BUILDINGS BEING DEMOLISHED, TRENT COURT STILL RETAINS THAT CHARACTER.
W WITH, WITH KIND OF THAT THOUGHT IN MIND, I WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING.
IF BUILDINGS, L AND K ARE NOT IN THE DEMOLITION ZONE, BUT ARE THE SAME VINTAGE AND ARCHITECTURAL, UM, INTEGRITY AS THE ONES BEING DEMOLISHED, IS THAT TRUE? CAN WE HAVE THAT STATEMENT THAT AGAIN? YES.
THOSE, THOSE TWO ARE, UH, OF THE SAME TIME PERIOD AS THE, AS THE, LET'S SEE, THERE'S SIX 10, THE 10 THAT ARE IN THE FRONT, NOT THE TWO IN THE BACK.
BASED ON MATT'S NARRATIVE, A THROUGH L IS BUILT IN 1940 AND 41.
SO L AND KAY ARE NOT IN THE DEMOLITION ZONE, BUT ARE IN THE POPULATION OF, OF HOUSES OR RESIDENCES THAT WE CONSIDER ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT.
AND THE BUILDING IS SPEC'S, COMMENTS.
AND I, I DO WONDER IS AS A BODY HOW WE COULD DICTATE A USE BEYOND THE CURRENT USE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS, IS TO CHANGE THE USE OF THE BUILDING FROM RESIDENTIAL.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE A RECOMMENDATION.
NO, WE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE JUST PRESENTED THE FINDINGS.
THEY, THEY PRESENTED THE FINDINGS AND, AND WE'RE HERE TO SORT THROUGH THOSE FINDINGS.
UH, THE, THE THOUGHT I JUST OFFERED, I MEAN, A LOT OF THE, BUT YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE COMMENTED ABOUT REUSE THE FIRST FLOOR VERSUS THE SECOND FLOOR.
SO HOW IS THAT NOT CHANGING THE USE? WELL, IT IS, BUT IT'S NOT A RECOMMENDATION.
IT'S, IT'S A FACT THAT IT CAN BE REUSED.
WELL, I MEAN, UH, UH, RELATIVE TO THE, UM, RELATIVE TO THE FLOOD REQUIREMENTS.
BUT YOU, YOU POINTED OUT SPECIFIC PURPOSES IT COULD BE USED FOR.
OH, THE, UH, THE, THE SECOND FLOOR, RIGHT.
THE TRANSFORMATION PLAN, UH, QUOTED FROM THERE AND THEY HAD A WHOLE SERIES OF, OF STATED USES THAT WAS A QUOTE FROM THE, UH, TRANSFORMATION PLAN, THE CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN, WHICH, UM, ISN'T PRESENTED TONIGHT.
THE 2016 CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN.
THAT'S, THAT'S NOT IN EVIDENCE TONIGHT, IS IT? NO, SIR.
THE CHOICE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THERE IS AN, AN EXCERPT OR I THINK MAYBE A TWO SENTENCE QUOTE THAT HAS BEEN SELECTED THAT'S CONTAINED IN A STAFF REPORT.
CAN YOU GO TO THE EARL THE TOP PART OF THE SHIPPO LETTER? THANK YOU.
[02:10:01]
I TELL ME WHEN TO STOP.OKAY, LET'S STOP RIGHT HERE FOR A SECOND.
UM, MAYBE A LITTLE FURTHER UP.
I'M LOOKING FOR A SPECIFIC, UM, PORTION.
SO IN THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH, IT TALKS ABOUT SHIPPO UNDER THIS STATUTE IS NON-BINDING AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN OFFICIAL RULING BY OUR OFFICE OR A DETERMINATION REGARDING HOW THE COMMISSION, I'M ASSUMING THAT'S US YES.
SHOULD DECIDE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN THIS CASE.
SO I KNOW THE PROCESS WAS TO GET THEIR FEEDBACK, BUT IS NON-BINDING IN OUR DECISION HERE TONIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR TO EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM.
THEY HAVE IT LABELED AS THEIR TECHNICAL ADVICE RIGHT THERE.
THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO RULE THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO RETAIN A BUILDING AND, AND THEY HAVEN'T SAID THAT EITHER.
WE, WE JUST HAVE TO DETERMINE AS A GROUP, IF, IF THERE'S ENOUGH HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE TO, TO ASK TO THAT ONE OR MORE OF THESE BUILDINGS BE RETAINED.
AND FROM WHAT IT'S WORTH, THIS IS TYPICALLY ANYTIME WE ASK SHIPPO FOR FEEDBACK ON SOMETHING, THIS IS TYPICALLY THE WAY THAT THEY APPROACH IT.
WE'RE GIVING YOU TECHNICAL ADVICE.
WE'RE NOT TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO.
BUT, UH, THEY ALSO, YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT MAINTAINING THE CAMPUS LIKE FEEL AND STRUCTURE AND, AND WHAT I AM, WHAT I WANT US ALL TO BE SURE OF IS THAT WE'RE ALL KEEPING IN MIND IS THAT THIS IS ALL THEIR FINDING, BUT WE'RE NOT BOUND BY THIS DOCUMENT.
YOU'RE CORRECT MS. SULLIVAN, BECAUSE THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS.
YOU ALL ARE THE FINDERS OF FACT, AND YOU EVALUATE EACH PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND YOU ASSIGN WHAT WEIGHT SHOULD BE ASSESSED TO ANY PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE.
I, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SAYING THAT I'M TRYING TO SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT SHOULD NOT BE OVERLOOKED IN, IN ALL OF OUR DISCUSSIONS TONIGHT BECAUSE IT IS ONE PIECE OF THIS PRO PROJECT.
HOW OLD, WHAT IS THE AGE OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS AND THE REST OF THE COMPLEX WHEN WERE, WHEN WERE THEY THOSE BUILT? THEY WERE ALL, THEY WERE BUILT IN 1952.
SO ONLY SEVEN YEARS DIFFERENCE OR, OR, OR NO, 11.
SO TWO BUILDINGS TO BE RETAINED, K AND L ARE IN THE SAME PERIOD AS THE ONES TO BE DESTROYED.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO RETAINED IS, UH, PERHAPS THE WRONG WORD TO USE.
TWO, THOSE BUILDINGS, THEY ARE ARCHITECTURALLY DIFFERENT AND THEY'RE ARCHITECTURALLY THE SAME AS THE, UH, OLDEST BUILDINGS IN THE PHASE OR AREA, A PORTION OF THE COMPLEX.
BUT THEY HAVE NO BY RELEASE, IS THAT CORRECT? THEY DO HAVE BAR RELEASE, YEAH.
CAN I SEE THE DEFINITION FROM THE GUIDELINES? WE HAD THE DEFINITION OF THE GUIDELINES FOR DEMOLITION IN THERE.
CAN WE PULL THAT UP AGAIN? I THINK THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT USE AND SIGNIFICANCE.
WE COULD GET THE GUIDELINES ABOUT THAT AGAIN HERE.
UH, NO, WE HAD SOMETHING DIFFERENT BEFORE.
THERE'S THE, UH, THIS PARAGRAPH.
UH, AND THIS COMES FROM THE GUIDELINES.
I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
DIDN'T WE HAVE THE FULL, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS, BUT IT STATED SOMETHING ABOUT DEMOLITION AND THE BENEFITS OF WHY SOMETHING IS BEING DEMOLITION.
WE HAVE SOMETHING NOW I CAN GO DOWN, UH, TO THE GUIDELINES HERE.
[02:15:01]
THINK IT'S SOMEWHERE, MAYBE I LOOKED IT UP BY MYSELF.I DON'T REMEMBER THE, I THINK IT WAS 6.4 0.1 OR 6.4 0.2.
I DON'T HAVE THE GUIDELINES HERE RIGHT NOW.
WHAT, WHAT WAS THE POINT THOUGH? WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING? WELL, I THINK THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THERE THAT IF, IF, IF DEMOLITION IS ASKED FOR AND IT HAS SOME JUSTIFICATION WITH IT.
MY, I'M RUNNING OUT OF WORDS RIGHT NOW.
BUT IF HE COULD GET 6.4 0.1, I THINK IT WASN'T THERE.
IT REFERS TO DEMOLITION OF A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
I'M PRETTY SURE I READ IT SOMETIME DURING THE DAY.
BUT I THINK WHAT THE MAIN QUESTION IS WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS HERE? ARE WE, WHAT ARE WE KEEPING IF WE DENY THE APPLICATION? AND WHAT ARE WE LOSING IF WE DENY THE APPLICATION? YEAH.
I'M, I'M A STRONG SUPPORTER OF SUPPORTING HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
THERE'S ALSO A NEED FOR PEOPLE IN HOUSING.
I'M NOT SURE GUIDELINE RELATED, BUT THERE'S A NEED FOR PUBLIC HOUSING.
SO THE CHAIRMAN'S QUESTION, SO THE ANSWER TO IS THIS THE LAST OR OLDEST EXAMPLE OF A CERTAIN BUILDING TYPE, WHICH IS CONSIDERATION ONE.
SO BECAUSE OF K AND MILL, RIGHT? THAT'S NOT THE CASE, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND I, AND I KNOW THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME THEY MAY WANT TO EVENTUALLY TO DEAL WITH THAT, BUT THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ANOTHER BOARD AT ANOTHER DAY, I THINK.
UM, BUT, BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, THERE WILL BE EXISTING BUILDINGS THAT ARE ARCHITECT ARCHITECTURALLY THE SAME AS THE ONES BEING DESTROYED.
AND I THINK, UH, THERE ARE ALSO BUILDINGS IN CRAVEN TERRACE, WHICH IS MENTIONED.
AND I BELIEVE A BUILDING WAS RETAINED THERE, UM, FOR DISPLAY.
I GUESS, UH, ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS AND POINTS OF VIEW THAT NEED TO GET ON THE TABLE? WELL, I, I GUESS LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS DISCUSS THAT, UH, EACH APPLICATION IS UNIQUE AND HAS ITS OWN MERITS.
AND AS AN H P C, WE'RE USUALLY DEALING WITH A MUCH SMALLER TRACK.
AND TYPICALLY IT'S ONE STRUCTURE, MAYBE TWO STRUCTURES ON THE TRACK.
AND WE'RE USUALLY DEALING WITH A, UH, SINGLE APPLICANT OR AT LEAST A, YOU KNOW, A, A FINITE SET OF, OF APPLICANTS OR STAKEHOLDERS OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM.
UH, WE ALWAYS, WHEN IT COMES TO DEMOLITION, WE ALWAYS HAVE, UH, THE OPTION TO, UH, YOU KNOW, TO ENCOURAGE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO SELL THE PROPERTY SO THAT SOMEONE ELSE CAN REHAB IT.
WELL, THIS, THIS SITUATION IS ABSOLUTELY UNIQUE.
YOU'VE BEEN ON THE H P C FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, JIM, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE EVER SEEN ANYTHING OF THIS SCOPE AND THIS NATURE.
IT'S JUST SO UNIQUE AND I DON'T THINK WE'LL SEE ANYTHING LIKE THIS AGAIN.
SO THIS IS ONE OF THESE THINGS WHERE IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY FIT INTO, INTO THE GUIDELINES AS WE NORMALLY PROCESS THIS.
UH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT MULTIPLE BUILDINGS, UH, LARGE BUILDINGS, UH, THIS THING IS IN A FLOODPLAIN.
WE'VE GOT MULTIPLE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES.
YES, THE NEWMAN HOUSING AUTHORITY OWNS THE PROPERTY, BUT FUNDING COMES FROM ANOTHER SOURCE.
SO EVEN IF THE OUTCOME WAS TO DENY IT, HOW DO WE
AND, AND THERE ARE SOME, SOME GOOD REASONS FOR PROCEEDING BASED ON THE INFORMATION AND THE APPLICATION AND, UH, PARTICULARLY IN REGARD TO THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDINGS.
SO, UM, IT, AND I, I, I, THAT'S ALL TRUE.
[02:20:01]
A BROADEST CON, BROADEST PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, OUR CHARGE IS TO, IS TO PRESERVE, UH, THE HISTORY AND THE STRUCTURES WE HAVE, RIGHT? AND IN THIS CASE, WE DO HAVE YET THE OPPORTUNITY OF, OF, OF RETAINING A COUPLE OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE ARCHITECTURALLY THE SAME AS THE ONES BEING DESTROYED.UH, I, I THINK ACHIEVING OUR, OUR GOAL, OUR CHARGE.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS? WELL, I, I'VE HEARD A LOT TONIGHT ABOUT FUNDING AND THERE IS NO FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT.
THERE'S, THERE IS NO FUNDING FOR THESE BUILDINGS.
BUT, UH, IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT RETAINING ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS WILL, THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING WILL NOT BE FUNDED.
BUT THIS DOES NOT BLOCK ANY FUNDING TO ANY OTHER PROJECT THAT HOUSING AUTHORITY MISSIONS TO UNDERTAKE IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT.
IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE POINT.
JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, FEMA IS GOING TO, GOING TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND DEMOLITION THESE UNITS AS IDENTIFIED IS INHABITABLE.
SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT DECISION YOU ALL MADE, THEY'RE INHABITABLE, THEY CAN NEVER BE USED AGAIN.
AND SO, AND ESPECIALLY FROM A RESIDENTIAL STANDPOINT.
SO, BUT FEMA IS PREPARED TO PROVIDE THE AGENCY AND HAS BEEN PREPARED SINCE 2018 TO PROVIDE THE AGENCY WITH FUNDING FOR THE DEMOLITION AND REHABIL RE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE.
WE GOTTA GET PAST STEP ONE, WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE, AND THAT IS TO GET APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION WHERE WE CAN MOVE ON WITH FEMA TO GET THE COMMITMENT OF THE FUNDING TO BE ABLE TO DEMOLISH THE UNITS AND REDEVELOP THE UNIT AND REDEVELOP THE SITE.
BUT THE UNITS THEMSELVES, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, ARE AS IDENTIFIED BY YOUR OWN BUILDING INSPECTOR.
REGGIE, MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME OUT.
WILL THERE BE FUTURE PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY? SO I, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION TONIGHT, I WANT TO KEEP US IN A SILO.
'CAUSE I, I, I'M, I'M, I'M CAUTIOUS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN A PATH THAT WE WE'RE NOT YET AT, AND THEN YOU MAKE A DECISION BASED ON SOMETHING THAT WE'VE NOT EVEN SUBMITTED TO YOU YET.
SO I WANT TO KEEP US FOCUSED ON THE APPLICATION THAT'S AT HAND AND NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE OF THAT REASON.
YEAH, THAT'S, IT'S OKAY TO BE EVASIVE.
I, I'M, I'M ALRIGHT WITH THAT.
I JUST FOUND THAT EVASIVE MYSELF.
I'VE BEEN HERE WITH YOU ALL FOR, FOR OVER A YEAR.
SO, SO WE'VE GOT, AND WE CAN'T GO TO PHASE TWO BECAUSE WE'VE NOT EVEN SUBMITTED A PHASE TWO APPLICATION TO YOU YET.
AND I DON'T WANT YOU TO MAKE A JUDGMENT DECISION ON THE PHASE TWO THAT WE'VE NOT EVEN SUBMITTED.
SO I'M NOT BEING EVASIVE, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THERE IS GOING TO BE A PHASE TWO.
I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PUBLIC PLAN CALLED THE GREATER FIVE POINTS TRANSFORMATION PLAN THAT I CAN'T FIND A WAY TO TALK ABOUT AT THE MOMENT.
AND YOU ALL CAN TAKE A, YOU ALL CAN LOOK AT THE GREATER FIVE POINTS PLAN AND LOOK AT IT FROM THAT STANDPOINT.
PLEASE, ALL I'M TRYING TO DO IS JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE STAY FOCUSED ON THE APPLICATION.
I GET WHERE YOU YOU'RE TRYING TO GO, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT YOU TO BACKEND, I DON'T WANT YOU TO BACKEND.
IS THIS THE FIRST STEP IN A PROCESS OF MANY MORE STEPS? WE HOPE SO.
AND OBVIOUSLY THOSE FUTURE STEPS ARE GONNA COME BACK TO US.
WELL, I'M GONNA ASK MY QUESTION AGAIN.
IF WE REQUIRE YOU TO RETAIN ONE BUILDING, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE WILL BE NO FEMA MONEY FOR DEMOLISHING THE REST OF THE BUILDING? THERE'LL BE NO FEMA MONEY? NO, SIR.
THAT'S WHAT I'M, THAT'S AN ANSWER A QUESTION THERE.
BUT, BUT I THINK THE, THE POINT IS, AS INDICATED, THE UNIT CAN'T BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL AND WE, AND WE WON'T HAVE MONEY TO MAINTAIN IT AND TO FIX IT UP.
AND SO IT, IT CAN'T BE USED FOR NON RESIDENT, FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
AND YOUR POLICY NOW DOESN'T ALLOW IT TO BE USED FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USE.
SO WE'RE BOTH IN A QUANDARY AS IT RELATES TO KEEPING THAT ONE BUILDING.
[02:25:01]
DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING TO KEEP THAT BUILDING UP AFTER, BECAUSE AS, AS THE COMMISSIONER INDICATED, HUD PROVIDES US MONEY FOR OPERATIONS ON HOUSING, NOT ON COMMERCIAL SPACE.AND, AND WE DON'T MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON WE UNDERSTAND THAT AND WE RESPECT THAT COST AND FUNDING.
JUST, JUST AS NO, WE, WE RESPECT THAT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, BUT WE, I THINK YOU'VE SUBMITTED SOME COMMERCIAL USE VERSUS RESIDENTIAL.
I THINK YOU'VE SUBMITTED SOME VERY GOOD EVIDENCE FOR WHY THE BUILDING'S INDICATED SHOULD BE DEMOLISHED.
SO PERHAPS WE COULD DEBATE THE MOTION.
WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION? I MOVE.
WE FIND THE APPLICATION FOR 8 37 SOUTH FRONT STREET TO BE DO IN CONGRESS WITH NEW BERN'S CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTION 15 4 11 4 15,429 AND NEW BERN'S HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC GUIDELINES AND FINDINGS OF FACT, UH, THE H P C HAS CONSIDERED THE CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEMOLITION CONSIDERATION.
ONE, IS IT A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE? NUMBER TWO, IS IT SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE OF ITS HISTORICAL USE AND EVENT PERSON BUILDER, ARCHITECT THREE IS THE LAST OR THE OLDEST EXAMPLE OF A CERTAIN BUILDING TYPE.
AND THEN IN CONSIDERATION TWO, ABOUT INTEGRITY IS, UH, INTEGRITY OF THE STRUCTURE.
WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS OF THE FOUNDATIONS FOR AS LAWS, ET CETERA.
IS IT A HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WELFARE IN CONSIDERATION THREE AND ADDRESS ATTEMPTED PRESERVATION EFFORTS, HAVE OPTIONS FOR REHABILITATION BEEN EXPLORED AS THE APPLICANT BEING UNSUCCESSFUL IN SEEKING ALTERNATIVES AND HAVE THE ALTERNATIVES FOR STRUCTURAL RELOCATION AND SALE BEEN PURSUED? FINDINGS OF FACT, THE PROJECT IS A PROPOSAL TO DEMOLISH 13 CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES.
ALL OF THE STRUCTURES PROPOSED FOR DEMOLITION OR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER, HISTORIC DISTRICT AND INBORN LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT DUE TO DAMAGE FROM THE FLOODING OF HURRICANE FLORENCE IN 2018 AND SUCH CON SUBSEQUENT VACANCY, THESE STRUCTURES 13 STRUCTURES ARE NO LONGER VIABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
10 OF THE 13 BUILDINGS WERE CONSTRUCTED IN 19 4 40 TO 41 AND THREE OTHERS BUILT IN 1952.
RETENTION OF ONE OF THE, I'LL SKIP THAT.
[8. HPC Administrator’s Report: A. Report on CoAs Issued 09/09/2023 – 10/04/2023 MAJORS: 100 Craven St. – window and door replacements, screening, flood barriers, sitework 3 pending MINORS: 100 Middle St. (Doubletree Hotel) – entry walk replacement with pavers 207 Broad St. ROW – tree replacement 311 Hancock St. – replacement signage 504 Middle St. – replace wood sign with bronze sign About 10 pending, plus about 15 waiting for info from applicants]
SKIPPING DOWN TO NUMBER EIGHT, MATT.UH, THE PROPOSED DEVELOP REDEVELOPMENT OR THE SITE WILL BE NEED, WILL NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE H P C IN DELIBERATION BEFORE A C O A AND A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MAY BE ISSUED.
AND LAST, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY.
SECOND, BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
IS THERE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? S BASED ON OUR PRIOR CONVERSATIONS AND WHERE SOME OF OUR CONVERSATION HAS GONE TONIGHT, WOULD IT NOT BENEFIT BOTH THE PUBLIC AND OUR BOARD AND THE APPLICANT TO IDENTIFY A BUILDING, EVEN IF IT'S NOT IN THE, AMONGST THE 13 BUILDINGS TO BE DEMOLISHED? AND THAT'S JUST A QUESTION.
MR. MR. CHAIR, YOU'RE POINTING AT ME.
THE ONLY BUILDINGS THAT YOU HAVE JURISDICTION OVER AT THIS POINT ARE THE 13 BUILDINGS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION.
WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO
SO THERE'S, LET'S DO ONE AT A TIME, ONE AT A TIME.
YOU KNOW, I, I, I, I THINK AN ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE FOR SAVING A BUILDING AND THE APPLICANT HAS MADE A VERY COMPELLING PRESENTATION OF WHY THE BUILDING'S SCHEDULED FOR DEMOLITION SHOULD NOT BE ADAPTABLY REUSED AND JUST TRYING TO HELP THE APPLICANT MOVE FORWARD.
IT WOULD, IF I WERE IN THEIR POSITION, I'D LIKE TO KNOW, OR I'D LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE YOU, YOU KNOW, A BUILDING IF, IF THAT WERE THE DECISION THAT WERE BEFORE US, BUT, BUT THAT'S ONLY A, A SUGGESTION.
I WAS JUST ASKING ABOUT THE DOCUMENTATION
[02:30:01]
AND HOW IT'S GONNA BE FINALIZED, OR IS THAT THE FINAL FORM OF THE, SO WHEN THE, WHEN WE, WHEN WE HAVE A PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION, THERE'S GONNA BE A DOCUMENTATION ABOUT THE WHOLE BUILDING'S INTERIOR OUTSIDE AND YES, I, I, I THINK THAT'S IN THE APPLICATION.UNLESS YOU'RE ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT'S, IS THAT, THAT, IS THAT IT? HE HAS, SO THOSE WERE EXCERPTS.
UM, WHAT I LEFT OUT WERE THE ORIGINAL BLUEPRINTS FOR THE, THAT'S WHAT I YEAH.
ORIGINAL BUILDINGS, WHICH INCLUDED FLOOR PLANS, ELEVATIONS.
UM, WERE THERE SOME SECTIONS AND DETAILS IN THERE? UM, MR. FORD? YES.
YEAH, WE, UH, MY NAME IS FRED FORD.
I'M STOCKTON ARCHITECTURE ASSISTING THE, UH, NEW BERN HOUSING AUTHORITY.
AND AS MATT KNOWS, WE SUBMITTED A SECTION 1 0 6 REVIEW, UH, FOR THE STATE COURT PRESERVATION OFFICE, WHICH PROMPTED THEIR LETTER RECOMMENDING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY MOVE INTO THE C O A, UM, AT THAT POINT.
SO THEY SEEMED, UH, RESPECTFULLY HAPPY WITH THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WE PROVIDED, UM, BASED ON THE CONDITIONS, SO, OKAY.
BUT YEAH, THERE'S, THERE'S, AND THEN THERE WERE ADDITIONAL SETS OF PLANS FROM SUBSEQUENT YEARS, UH, FOR, UH, REVISIONS AND REMODELS.
I CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER THEM ALL.
THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HAVE ADDED TO THAT SEEMS TO BE
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY WAS ABLE TO FIND SOME PLANS.
THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION WOULDN'T RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS 'CAUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANCE.
SO WE DID A LOT OF PHOTOGRAPHING, UH, TO TRY TO PRESERVE THOSE.
BUT SINCE WE'VE GOT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS, WE'VE ACTUALLY GONE AHEAD AND HAD THOSE SCANNED AND ARCHIVED ELECTRONICALLY.
SO, SO WE, WE ARE IN POSSESSION AND IN CONTROL OF ALL OF THOSE DOCUMENTS.
THAT, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
SO JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, DO WE HAVE ELECTRONIC COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL BLUEPRINT? YES.
WAS THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT HISTORIC ARTIFACT TO HOLD ON TO.
MATT SHOULDA HAVE COPIES TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY'RE AVAILABLE, CORRECT.
NOT NECESSARILY COMPREHENSIVE R RIGHT.
BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO SAY, OKAY.
OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
OKAY, WE'RE ON TO THE NEXT STEP.
DELIBERATION TWO FOR REDEVELOPMENT.
UH, STAFF SUBMITS FOLLOWING HISTORIC GUIDELINES ARE APPROPRIATE TO THIS PORTION OF THE APPLICATION BASED ON THE PLANS AND DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF THE PREPARATION OF THESE COMMEND RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, FOR THE GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC AND OPEN SPACES, THAT'D BE 2.2 0.1.
INTRODUCE PUBLIC ART STATUARY, ARTIFACTS, MEMORIALS, AND FOUNTAINS AS FOCAL POINTS AND SPACES THAT DO NOT OBSCURE HISTORIC BUILDINGS OR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.
CONSIDER THE SCALE AND HISTORIC CONTEXT OF ART FEATURES WHEN DETERMINING THE SETTING AND LOCATION.
INCORPORATE STREET SCAPE FURNITURE AND PAVEMENT TREATMENTS RECOMMENDED IN THE NEWBURN URBAN DESIGN PLAN.
WHEN IMPROVING SIDEWALKS AND STREETS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY, FURNITURE, TRASH, RECEPTACLES, MAILBOXES, NEWSPAPER RACKS, AND SIMILAR ELEMENTS SHALL BE OF A SCALE THAT DOES NOT DETRACT FROM HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
LOCATE BUILDINGS AND PLAY EQUIPMENT IN THE SECONDARY AND TERTIARY ABCS DO NOT OBSCURE HISTORIC BUILDINGS OR THEIR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.
POINTS OF H P C POLICY, THE POLICIES AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE H P C FOR EVALUATING A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN INCLUDES ONLY TWO SENTENCES.
ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED FOR THE SITE WILL BE EVALUATED BASED ON HISTORIC, UH, GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION.
AND A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST INCLUDE FOLLOWING ITEMS AS CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
UH, ONE, A REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL BY THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR.
AND TWO, A REASONABLE TIMEFRAME FOR COMPLETION OF REDEVELOPMENT.
STAFF SUBMITS THAT THE PROPOSED OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENTS ARE AN ACCEPTABLE REDEVELOPMENT SINCE IT IS LOCATED IN AN AREA INDICATED IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT AT H P C DESIGN REVIEW MEETINGS, THAT THE AREA SOUTH OF SOUTH FRONT STREET WOULD ULTIMATELY BECOME THE OPEN SPACE AMENITY FOR THE FINAL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ENTIRE
[02:35:01]
TRENT COURT TRACT AS PROPOSED AS OPEN SPACE.THIS WOULD NOT NEED ANY EVALUATION BY THE A H P C AS AN INFILL PROJECT, NOR BY THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR, HOWEVER, MAY NEED A TIMEFRAME FOR COMPLETION.
STATEMENTS OF REASON BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION AND STAFF'S JUDGMENT ARE ONE, THE PROJECT IS AN OPEN SPACE PROJECT LOCATED IN THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
TWO, THE PROPOSED DESIGN COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES.
AND THREE, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THE CHIEF BILLING INSPECTOR HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY.
THE H P C SHALL DELIBERATE ON THIS SEGMENT OF THE PROCESS BEFORE ISSUING ONE C O A FOR BOTH DECISIONS.
AND THE, THE PLAN THAT WE, THAT YOU WENT THROUGH BEFORE YES.
DOES ANYBODY NEED TO GO BACK AND SEE, SEE THAT? OKAY.
NO, BUT I DO WANT TO THANK THE APPLICANT FOR PUTTING THAT TOGETHER.
THAT'S, YOU KNOW, EXACTLY WHAT YOU NEEDED AND, UH, AND OF COURSE YOU CAN CHANGE IT GOING FORWARD IF WE'RE DISCUSSING IT.
I WAS ENCOURAGED TO SEE THE PLAQUE AND I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THE CRAVEN TERRACE HAS THE BEGINNING OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN HERITAGE TRAIL, AND I THINK IT'S A LOGICAL FLOW TO INCLUDE THIS.
HOW, HOW MANY OTHER MEDALLIONS ARE THERE? HOW WE TOTAL? 33.
BUT WE ALSO NEED TO BRING, BUT DAVE, I, IT'S 33, BUT JUST TO, BESIDES WHAT WE'RE GONNA PUT IN THE GREEN SPACE, WE COMMITTED IN THE SHIP, O M O A PROCESS TO INCORPORATE THOSE BAR RELEASES INTO THE NEW BUILDINGS THAT WE PLAN TO BUILD BACK AS WELL.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO WHAT THE, UM, GRAY AREA, I, I GUESS IT LOOKS LIKE PARKING SPACES, RIGHT? THAT'S EXISTING PARKING SPACES IN THE RIGHT CORNER.
THAT'S WHERE THE BUILDING WAS.
UH, YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE ACTUAL PLAN ITSELF? YES.
THAT, UH, WHAT MATT'S POINTING TO IS AN EXISTING PAR PARKING LOT.
THAT HAS ACCESSIBLE SPACES AND MAKES SENSE AND WHATNOT THAT THE CITY USES AS WELL.
AND THE OTHER CURRENT STATUS, THE OTHER GRAY AREA ON THE LEFT SIDE IS, UH, THAT'S AN EXISTING BASKETBALL COURT.
IT GIVES A REALLY GOOD FEEL FOR WHERE YOU WANNA GO WITH THAT.
'CAUSE YOUR, YOUR COMMENTS HELPED US ALSO LAY OUT THAT PLAN A LOT BETTER.
SO WE APPRECIATE THAT INPUT AS WELL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN? MOTION TO APPROVE THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE FIND THE, UM, APPLICATION FOR REDEVELOPMENT FOR CERTIFICATE AND APPROPRIATENESS FOR THREE 80.
WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE ADDRESS?
UH, TO BE NOT IN CONGRESS WITH NEW BERN'S.
CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTIONS 15 DASH 4 11 2 15 DASH 4 29 AND NEW BERN'S HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC GUIDELINES AND FINDINGS OF FACT, UH, SINCE THIS IS, UH, BASICALLY, UH, DOING DEMOLITION AND THEN CONVERTING IT TO OPEN SPACE, THE GUIDELINES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE OR GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC AND OPEN SPACES 2.2 0.1 2.2 0.2, AND 2.2 0.3.
UH, IN THE EVENT THAT, UH, THE AREA IS REDEVELOPED WITH ANY KIND OF STRUCTURES, THEN UM, THERE NEEDS TO BE AN APPLICATION FOR THOSE STRUCTURES BASED ON THE POLICIES AND RULES PROCEDURE OF THE H P C BASED ON, UH, ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED FOR THE SITE.
UH, THE PROJECT IS AN OPEN SPACE PROJECT LOCATED IN, I'M SORRY, I GOTTA ZOOM THIS OUT A LITTLE BIT.
[02:40:01]
THE PROJECT IS AN OPEN SPACE PROJECT LOCATED IN THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.THE PROPOSED DESIGN COMPONENT, DESIGN COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS, UH, MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES AND THE ZONING.
ADMIN IN ZONING, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CHIEF AND THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR HAVE REVIEWED, UH, THE PROPOSAL AND MADE APPROPRIATE COMMENTS.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, STATE AYE.
UM, NEED A MOTION TO ISSUE C O A.
WE ISSUE C O A FOR THE PROJECT.
WE HAVE NO PUBLIC
IT'LL BE THEIR TECHNICAL ADVICE FOR THEIR TECHNICAL ADVICE.
AND THAT REQUIRES A MOTION FROM US.
UM, I, I GUESS EVERYBODY WAS AT THE DESIGN REVIEW AND REMEMBERS THAT DISCUSSION.
SO WE NEED A MOTION TO ASK SHIPPO FOR THEIR ADVICE ON DEMOLITIONS FOR THAT BUILDING.
I, I MOVE THAT WE SEEK TECHNICAL ADVICE FROM SHIPPO ON DEMOLITION OF THE SHRINERS BUILDING.
WE ASK, UH, SHIPPO, UH, FOR THEIR ADVICE ON THE SHRINER BUILDING.
[Additional items]
SCHEDULED FOR 2024 ALREADY.YES, WE HAVE THAT ON THE SCREEN.
IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WERE NO DEVIATIONS.
THERE WAS ONE POTENTIAL QUESTION WITH JUNETEENTH, UH, BUT THAT WAS RESOLVED WITH, UM, TEMPORARILY AT LEAST, UH, LAST YEAR.
JUNETEENTH WAS, UH, NOT A DAY THAT THE CITY WAS CLOSED, BUT WAS, UH, GIVEN TO THE EMPLOYEES AS A FLOATING HOLIDAY.
AND, AND IF I CAN GO BACK ON THE REQUEST TO SHIPPO, I BELIEVE DEMOLITION WAS ONE OF THE POTENTIAL IDEAS.
SO IT'S NOT, IT'S A POTENTIAL DEMOLITION.
RIGHT? SO WE IT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT THEY, THEY ASKED FOR.
WE ASK FOR THEIR REPORT ON THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.
SO I JUST SAY DON'T SAY DEMOLITION OF IT.
YEAH, BUT THEY DO REQUIRE A, A COPY OF THE C O A REQUESTING THE C, THE DEMOLITION.
SO THAT WILL BE, DOES SOMEONE KNOW, DO YOU KNOW OUT OF YOUR HEAD WHEN THE BUILDING WAS BUILT? UH, YES.
AND THEN, UM, UH, WAS SOME ADDITIONAL WORK DONE IN 53? GO BY THAT AND THE DOORS ARE OPEN.
IF YOU CAN'T GO IN THERE, WHY DO THEY LEAVE THE DOORS OPEN?
NO, UH, IT, UH, THEY HAVE BOARDED UP THE BUILDING, SO WHEREAS IT WASN'T BOARDED UP BEFORE.
DO WE NEED TO SO APPROVE THIS? YES, WE DO.
SO, UM, MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AS MEETING SCHEDULED FOR 2024.
WE APPROVED THE SCHEDULE FOR MEETINGS IN 2024.
UM, ALL IN FAVOR OF STATE? AYE.
ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT IN YOUR REPORT THAT YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON? UM, NO.
ANY COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? NONE HERE.
[02:45:01]
MAKE MOTION TO ADJOURN.OPPOSED? YOUR ADJOURN? NOTHING TO.