[00:00:04]
OKAY, I CALLED[1. OPENING OF MEETING WITH ROLL CALL]
THE ORDER THE MAY MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL.AND ABSENT ARE CANDACE SULLIVAN AND TIM THOMPSON.
ARE THERE ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA? UH, NONE THAT I KNOW OF.
AND I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE NO MINUTES OR WRITTEN DECISIONS, SO THERE IS NO CONSENT AGENDA.
[4.A. HEARINGS: INTRODUCTION, SWEARING-IN, SUMMARY OF PROCESS]
I WILL GO THROUGH MY INTRODUCTION.SHORT PRESERVATION COMMISSION IS THE PUBLIC COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE CITY OF NEW BERN'S.
BOARD OF ALDERMAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PRESERVING AND SAFEGUARDING NEW BERN'S, LOCALLY DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICTS, DOWNTOWN AND RIVERSIDE, BASED ON US DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, STATE STATUTES, CITY ORDINANCES, AND NEW VERN'S HISTORIC GUIDELINES.
TWO OF THE MAJOR TASKS OF THE HBC, INCLUDING APPROVING APPLICANT APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS, AND PREVENTING DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
DUE TO NEGLECT, HBC HOLDS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING.
THIS IS ONE 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 THEY I RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE APPLICATION.
THE COMMISSION CANNOT CONSIDER COMMENTS BASED ON PERSONAL LIKES OR DISLIKES, HEARSAY OR PERSONAL OPINION, THAT CANNOT BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO SPECIFIC HISTORIC GUIDELINES.
LIKEWISE, COMMISSIONERS SHALL REFRAIN FROM STATING PERSONAL OPINIONS, PERSONAL LIKES OR DISLIKES, OR HEARSAY DURING THE HEARING COMMISSION'S DECISION ON AN APPLICATION'S BASED SOLELY ON TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT A HEARING THAT DIRECTLY RELATES TO THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES.
CAN WE SWEAR IN OUR PRESENTERS? YES, YOU CAN.
WHO IS GOING TO BE SPEAKING TONIGHT? ANYONE WHO'S GONNA BE SPEAKING YOU ALL, YOU ALL, YOU ALL WHO ARE STANDING ARE GONNA BE SPEAKING.
COULD YOU ALL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH TO HELP YOU? GOD? I DO.
READY, PLEASE SIGN THE, UH, OR PRINT YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS ON THAT SHEET.
NO, THAT ADDRESS WOULD BE THE ADDRESS OF THE HOUSE OR HIS MAILING ADDRESS IS BEING PROPERTY ADDRESS COMPLETED WHERE YOU LIVE.
I'M GOING TO REVIEW THE PROCESS THAT WE'LL BE FOLLOWING TONIGHT AS WE DO EVERY NIGHT.
HBC ADMINISTRATOR WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, UH, CAN ADD COMMENTS AND, AND PRESENT.
IS THAT COMING THROUGH? CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME OUT THERE IN THE BACK DOOR? OKAY.
I WILL GET CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.
UH, APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE CAN ADD COMMENTS AND, AND PRESENT EVIDENCE AS PART OF THE APPLICATION.
PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS WHO RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE HEARING CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE.
A REBUTTAL IS ALLOWED BY THE APPLICANT AND BY PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS WHO RECEIVE NOTICE.
OTHERS WHO CAN JUSTIFY THAT THEY HAVE RELEVANT INFORMATION WILL BE AND WILL BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED, CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE.
THE HBC ADMINISTRATOR WILL PRESENT THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE FINAL COMMENTS ON THEIR APPLICATION.
THE COMMISSIONERS WILL DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE AND 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 WILL BE DISCUSSED AND I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
VOTE CAN, UH, COA CAN BE APPROVED, UH, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS OR DENIED.
AND WITH THAT, WE'LL GO TO THE FIRST APPLICATION.
[00:05:01]
OKAY.[4.B. 403 E. FRONT ST. (Sudan Shriners’ Temple) – to include demolition of the entire building and redevelopment with a 2-story and 3-story expansion of the County Administration Building.]
FIRST APPLICATION TONIGHT IS FOR 4 0 3 EAST FRONT STREET, UH, WHICH IS CURRENTLY THE SHRINERS TEMPLE.UH, AND THIS IS A PROJECT BY THE BY CRAVEN COUNTY, AND THE APPLICANT'S NAME IS DAVID GRIFFIN, WHO IS THEIR ARCHITECT.
UM, THEY HAVE PROVIDED HERE, UH, THE DESCRIPTION, UH, REFERENCE TO THE, UM, GUIDELINES, UH, AND SOME DESCRIPTION OF THE MATERIALS.
UH, THEN, UH, THEY'VE PROVIDED SITE PLAN PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE APPLICANT IS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER AND HAS PROVIDED THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION FORM FOR THAT, AND THAT HAS BEEN SIGNED AND NOTARIZED.
SO, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS COME UP SINCE THE LAST MEETING IS, UH, THEY HAVE PROVIDED, UH, UH, AN EMAIL WHICH SHOWS THEIR, UM, THEY'VE CONTACTED, UH, AN ORGANIZATION IN THIS CASE, THE SHRINERS, UH, WITH REGARD TO, UM, SALVAGING SOME OF THE ITEMS. I BELIEVE THEY'RE STILL, UM, CONTACTING, UH, ONE OR TWO OTHER AGENCIES WHO AREN'T RESPONDING.
UM, THEY ALSO PROVIDED THE, UH, DRAWINGS, THE HISTORIC DRAWINGS THAT WE ASKED, UH, THAT WE ASKED FOR, BUT THE, THAT ARE REQUIRED.
UH, AND THIS IS, UH, PRIMARILY JUST A LIST OF ALL THE FILES, UM, ALMOST ALL OF WHICH ARE DRAWINGS RELATED TO THE BUILDING, BUT THERE ARE SOME, UH, UH, OTHER HISTORIC DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE FUNCTION OF, UH, THE SHRINERS, SUCH AS A MAP OF THE SHRINERS HOSPITALS AND, UH, THE SUDAN GEOGRAPHIC AREAS, ET CETERA.
SO, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, IT'S ALL DRAWINGS.
AND SO HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES.
UH, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO READ, UH, ESPECIALLY AT THAT DISTANCE, BUT YOU CAN TELL THIS IS A HISTORIC, UM, UH, DRAWING FROM APPARENTLY THE FORTIES OR FIFTIES.
AND THIS IS, UH, SOME SECTIONS OF THE BUILDING.
AND NOW YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, DRAWING OF THE, UH, TOWER AND THE ONION DOME AND A SECTION THROUGH THE, THROUGH THE ONION DOME, UH, STRUCTURE THERE.
UH, AND, UH, THE OTHER SECTIONS ARE THROUGH THE AUDITORIUM AND OTHER PARTS OF THE BUILDING.
UM, JUST ON THAT ONE SHEET, UM, THIS IS NOW A, UM, ACTUALLY IT'S A BLOW UP OF THAT, UH, ONION DOME, THOSE ONION DOME DRAWINGS, OR A PORTION OF THE ONION DRAWING, DRAWING OF THE ONION DOME.
THEN THIS IS A, AN ELEVATION DRAWING OF THE BROAD STREET ELEVATION FOR THE BUILDING, SHOWING ALL THE, UH, ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES HERE AND CALL WITH CALLOUTS, UH, AND SUCH ON IT.
THE NEXT ONE, AND THESE ARE JUST SAMPLES.
I'M NOT GONNA SHOW YOU ALL OF 'EM BECAUSE THERE WERE MANY, MANY DRAWINGS.
UH, AND, UH, THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY A DRAWING OF THE MINETTE THAT'S THERE AND SHOWING HOW IT'S CONSTRUCTED OUT OF BRICK AND, UM, UH, THE VARIOUS, THE COING IT TAKES IN ORDER TO CREATE THAT SHAPE, ET CETERA.
SOME OF THE DIMENSIONS, UM, IN PLAN SECTION, UM, THESE ARE DETAILS FROM THE CONFERENCE ROOM THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED OUT ON, IN THE ONE STORY PORTION ADJACENT TO BROAD STREET.
SO SOME OF THE, THE FLOOR PLAN, THE LIGHTING, THE, UH, CABINETRY, SOME CABINETRY DETAILS, ET CETERA.
SO THERE WERE, THERE WAS QUITE A LOT OF DRAWINGS.
UM, SO THEN OUR NEXT DOCUMENT HERE IS THE LETTER FROM THE SHIPPO, UH, THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE.
UH, THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE PROCESS AS WELL, UM, GIVING THEIR, UM, ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDING.
AND SO THIS STARTS OUT WITH THIS, UH, JUST DESCRIPTION OF THE LETTER THAT THEY'RE WRITING.
AND THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, THE NEXT ONE GOES THROUGH THE, UH, THE DATE LINE IN WHICH IT, UM, THE, UH, BUILDING WAS DETERMINED TO BE A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE.
UM, AND THEN A PARA SMALL PARAGRAPH ON THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING WAS DAMAGED BY FLOODWATERS.
OH, BY THE WAY, THE OFFICIAL NAME IS THE ES SMU LEC SUDAN TEMPLE.
UH, AND THEN, UH, THE NEXT ONE, UM, NEXT PARAGRAPH, UH, HAS TO DO WITH STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE.
[00:10:02]
UH, NEW BERN IS NOT REQUESTED FOR THEM TO DETERMINE THAT, SO IT WAS NOT LISTED ON THEIR LIST.THE NEXT, UH, FEW PARAGRAPHS, I'M GONNA READ THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED AREA, UH, BECAUSE I WILL OTHERWISE BE DOING THAT LATER IN THE PRESENTATION ANYWAY, SO, UH, IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE AT THIS POINT.
UH, THE NEW BERN CHAPTER OF THE SUDAN SHRINERS WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1916 AND WAS OFFICIALLY CHARTERED THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
THE CHAPTER GREW QUICKLY, WELCOME, WELCOMING MEMBERS FROM ACROSS EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA.
IN ADDITION TO THEIR FRATERNAL CEREMONIES AND ACTIVITIES, THE ORGANIZATION REGULARLY RAISED FUNDS FOR VARIOUS CHARITABLE CAUSES, INCLUDING THE OXFORD ORPHANAGE, THE MASONIC HOME, THE SHRINERS WIDOWS FUND, AND LATER THE SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN.
SKIPPING DOWN THE BUILDING DERIVES ITS PRIMARY SIGNIFICANCE FROM ITS ARCHITECTURE.
THE TEMPLE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE MOORISH REVIVAL STYLE, AN EXOTIC REVIVAL STYLE EVOCATIVE OF ISLAMIC AND MIDDLE EASTERN ARCHITECTURE.
THE STYLE ROSE TO PROMINENCE DURING THE LATE 18TH AND EARLY 19TH CENTURY.
AS TRADE IN CONTACT WITH ASIA AND THE MIDDLE EAST INCREASED LIKE MANY EXOTIC REVIVAL STYLES.
THE MOORISH REVIVAL STYLE EXPERIENCED A RESURGENCE DURING THE 1920S AND 1930S.
THE STYLE WAS MOST POPULAR FOR HOTELS, THEATERS, CASINOS, AND GARDEN STRUCTURES.
THE SHRINERS, WHICH WERE ESTABLISHED IN 1872, OFTEN SELECTED THE MOORISH REVIVAL STYLE FOR THEIR TEMPLES AS IT REFLECTED THE ORGANIZATION'S MIDDLE EASTERN INFLUENCES.
SKIPPING DOWN MOST OF THE MORRIS REVIVAL STYLE TEMPLES DATE TO THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY, BUT SOME LATER TEMPLE BUILDINGS LIKE THE ES SMU ALAM SUDAN TEMPLE IN NEW BERN CONTINUED TO REFLECT HALLMARKS OF THE STYLE.
THE ES SE CHE SUDAN TEMPLE IS ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT AS AN INTACT VERNACULAR.
EXAMPLE OF THE MOISH REVIVAL STYLE IN NEWBURN BUILT IN 1951.
THE TEMPLE BLENDS THE DEFINING FEATURES OF THE MOORISH REVIVAL STYLE WITH THE CLEAN LINES AND SIMPLE GEOMETRIC FORMS OF MID-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE, RESULTING IN A UNIQUE INTERPRETATION OF THE STYLE DESIGNED BY LOCAL WILMINGTON ARCHITECT BART STEVENS AND HIS SON ROBERT STEVENS.
THE SUDAN TEMPLE FEATURES A LARGE ONION DOME, HORSESHOE ARCHES WITH DECORATIVE LATTICE WORK, A STEPPED PARAPET AND A CORNER MINETTE, WHICH ARE COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MOORISH REVIVAL STYLE.
ALTHOUGH THE LARGE BANKS OF WINDOWS ALONG THE CENTRAL TOWER ARE MORE INDICATIVE OF MODERN INFLUENCES, THE LATTICEWORK PAINS ECHO THE ORNAMENTATION OF THE HORSESHOE ARCHES AND ARE REMINISCENT OF THE PERFORATED SCREEN WALLS FOUND ON MORE ELABORATE EXAMPLES OF THE MOORISH REVIVAL STYLE.
LIKEWISE, THE WINDOWS THROUGHOUT THE MAJORITY OF THE 1951 SECTION OF THE BUILDING REFERENCE THESE LATTICE DETAILS.
EXHIBITING THREE PART METAL SASHES WITH TRIANGULAR PANES ARRANGED IN AN X SHAPE COMPARED TO OTHER EXAMPLES OF THE STYLE OF THE SUDAN.
TEMPLE IS RELATIVELY SIMPLE IN ITS DESIGN.
THE BUILDING, SIMPLE GEOMETRIC FLAT, FLAT ROOF FORM, SUBDUED ORNAMENTATION AND LARGE BANKS OF WINDOWS ALONG THE CENTRAL TOWER AND WEST BLOCK REFLECT THE MODERN ARCHITECTURAL STYLES POPULAR DURING THE MID 20TH CENTURY.
INTERESTINGLY, THE TEMPLE ALSO EXHIBITS SOME FEATURES REMINISCENT OF THE EGYPTIAN REVIVAL STYLE AND EXOTIC REVIVAL STYLE POPULAR DURING THE LATE 19TH AND EARLY 20TH CENTURIES.
OH, I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE EGYPTIAN, NOT, UH, NOT THE, UM, NOT THE MOORISH.
THE FIRST STORY OF THE ENTRY TOWER IS SLOPED AND ANGLED, WHICH IS AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE ASSOCIATED WITH THE EGYPTIAN REVIVAL STYLE.
THE BATTERED BRICK ENTRY SURROUND WITH HEAVY ANGLED ARCHITRAVE AND A LARGE CENTRAL KEYSTONE ECHO.
THE SLOPED FORM OF THE FIRST STORY, A SIDE ENTRY ALONG THE EAST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING DISPLAYS A NEARLY IDENTICAL SURROUND SECONDARY ENTRIES ALONG THE FACADE.
ALSO EXHIBIT AN ANGLED ARCHA WITH A CENTRAL KEYSTONE, BUT LACK THE BATTERED BRICKS AROUND THE WINDOW, LENTILS ALONG THE FACADE, AND A PORTION OF THE EAST ELEVATION OF THE MAIN BLOCK FEATURE ANGLED SPLAY JACKED ARCHES WITH AN OVERSIZED KEYSTONE MIRRORING THE ARCHITRAVES ABOVE THE ENTRIES.
SKIPPING DOWN THE SUDAN TEMPLE RETAINS A HIGH DEGREE OF ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY, DESPITE DAMAGE DURING HURRICANE FLORENCE, THE 1951 AND 1956 SECTIONS OF THE BUILDING REMAIN EX EXTENT AND RELATIVELY
[00:15:01]
INTACT.SKIPPING AGAIN, THE INTERIORS APPEAR TO RETAIN ORIGINAL MATERIALS, INCLUDING HISTORIC WALL AND FLOOR TREATMENTS, DOORS AND BATHROOM FIXTURES.
THE STAGE AND COLLAPSIBLE BLEACHERS IN THE AUDITORIUM ALSO REMAIN EXTANT, ALTHOUGH I THINK THEY'VE NOW BEEN REMOVED.
UH, THEN OVERALL, THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF THE E ES SMU CHEM SUDAN TEMPLE REFLECTS ITS HISTORIC APPEARANCE WITH FEW MATERIAL CHANGES.
THEREFORE, THE SUDAN TEMPLE RETAINS THE CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES NECESSARY TO COMMUNICATE ITS ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AS AN INTACT VERNACULAR.
EXAMPLE OF THE MOORISH REVIVAL STYLE IN NEWBURGH, THE E SMU HAN SUDAN TEMPLE'S BLEND OF EXOTIC REVIVAL STYLES AND MODERN DESIGN RESULTS IN A DISTINCT VERNACULAR EXPRESSION OF THE MORSE REVIVAL STYLE THAT CONNECTS THE NEAR EASTERN INFLUENCES OF THE SUDAN SHRINERS WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLES POPULAR AT THE TIME OF THE BUILDING'S CONSTRUCTION.
THE TEMPLE IS NOT ONLY A UNIQUE EXAMPLE OF ITS STYLE, BUT IS DISTINCTIVE FROM THE SURROUNDING RESIDENCES, COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, AND INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS FOUND IN THE NEW BERN HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE SUDAN TEMPLE ALSO RETAINS A HIGH DEGREE OF INTEGRITY OF LOCATION DESIGN, SETTING MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP FEELING AND ASSOCIATION.
AND THAT WAS SIGNED BY LAUREN POOL, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SPECIALIST FOR THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE.
UH, THIS NEXT DOCUMENT IS THE ONE THAT, UH, IT DOCUMENTS THE, UM, CHANGE OF THE TEMPLE FROM A PREVIOUS, UH, NON-CONTRIBUTING STATUS TO CONTRIBUTING STATUS.
UH, AND WHEREAS THE SENTENCE IS HERE, THE SMU ALAM SUDAN TEMPLE SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND THIS IS THE ENTRY IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER FOR THAT ONE CONTRIBUTING BUILDING.
UM, THAT WAS THEIR BIBLIOGRAPHY.
AND THEN IT WAS ALSO LISTED IN A WEEKLY REPORT, UM, SENT FOR ALL THE CHANGES IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
UH, IT WAS APPROVED IN ON DECEMBER 28TH, 2023.
SO, SO NOW, UM, BACK TO THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION.
THEY PROVIDED SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.
AND HERE YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE THINGS WE WERE JUST, I WAS JUST DESCRIBING WHERE THAT LETTER WAS JUST DESCRIBING ON THE BROAD STREET ELEVATION, ALSO THIS ANGLE HERE AND A CLOSEUP OF THE DOORWAY AND SOME OF THE DETAILS IN THE DOORWAY.
AND THEN THE, ON THE SIDE, THE ENTIRE SIDE HERE.
BUT ALSO YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, THE ENTRANCEWAY HERE.
I THINK WE HAVE A CLOSEUP VIEW OF THAT AS WELL.
UH, THEN THE ONE STORY GARAGE ADDITION ON THE BACK AND THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, THE WHITE AREA IS PRIMARILY THE AREA THAT IS THE AUDITORIUM.
AND IN THE VERY BACK, YOU CAN SEE THE ONE STORY, UH, GARAGE ADDITION ALL THE WAY THE BACK, AND THAT'S THE WEST ELEVATION AND THE MINETTE AS WELL.
SO THIS IS THE, UM, SITE PLAN THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING FOR THE SITE.
UM, THIS PROPOSES COMPLETE DEMOLITION OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING AND THEN PROPOSES AN ADDITION OR A BUILDING, WHICH IS ACTUALLY ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, WHICH IS THE RECTANGLE, THE TALL RECTANGLE, BLUE RECTANGLE ON THE LEFT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE MY LITTLE POINTER GOING THERE IN A CIRCLE.
UM, THAT'S AN EXISTING BUILDING.
THEN, UH, THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT IS CURRENTLY, UM, SOME LANDSCAPING IN A PARKING LOT.
AND SO IT'S THERE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO START THE ADDITION OF THE, UM, THE NEW STRUCTURE.
AND THAT WOULD EXTEND ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THIS POINT HERE.
THIS IS ALL ONE BIG STRUCTURE YOU'LL SEE IN A MINUTE WITH PARKING ON THE FIRST FLOOR, WHICH IS WHY IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST PARKING LOT, BUT IT'S NOT.
IT'S AN UN, IT'S AN UNDER STRUCTURED PARKING AREA, UH, I GUESS I SHOULD SAY.
UH, AND THEN THE REST OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY IS, UH, PARKING.
ALSO TO NOTE THAT, UH, THEY ARE INTENDING TO, AT LEAST IN THIS SKETCH, UH, MAY RETAIN THE,
[00:20:01]
UM, LITTLE, UH, BRICKED AREA AT THE CORNER OF, UH, EAST FRONT AND BROAD STREET, UH, WHERE THE STATUE AND I THINK, UH, SOME WALLS AND FLAG POLES AND SUCH ARE THERE.UM, SO THEN THE NEXT DIAGRAM, UM, SHADES IN THE AREA WHERE THE SECOND FLOOR AND THIRD FLOOR WILL BE, UH, ON TOP OF THAT PARKING.
SO, UM, YOU CAN SEE IT'S, UH, NOT EXACTLY A SQUARE OR RECTANGLE, BUT, UM, PRIMARILY COVERS ALMOST ALL OF THAT PARKING IN THAT AREA THERE.
AND THEN WE'LL SEE THE LAST ONE HERE, UM, IS, UH, A PLAN THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE HPC TO SHOW WHERE THE EXISTING BUILDING, UM, CURRENTLY IS ON THE SITE, UH, IN RELATION TO THE NEW BUILDING.
AND SO THIS IS THE FOOTPRINT HERE.
AND SO, UM, I ACTUALLY, UH, IF YOU'LL, UH, EXCUSE I ADD, UM, MR. GRIFFIN, I ADDED A LITTLE SQUARE HERE, UM, TO SHOW WHERE THE TOWER WOULD BE.
CAN YOU GUYS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU LIKE, YOU CAN ALL SEE THAT.
I CAN ZOOM IN TO HIGHLIGHT THAT A LITTLE BETTER.
UM, IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE WHERE YOU HAVE, UH, PROPOSED, UH, THE FRONT STEPS, UH, FOR THE ENTRYWAY, WHICH WE'LL SEE IN A SECOND IN THE RENDERINGS.
SO, UM, AND JUST TO, UH, BE SURE, UM, I ALSO ADDED SOME AERIAL PHOTO PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE COUNTY, GIS HERE AND, UH, ZOOMED IN, UM, TO SHOW THAT, UM, THAT IS INDEED WHERE THAT TOWER IS, WHERE THAT, UM, KIND OF, UH, JOG IN THE FRONT FACADE HAPPENS IN FOOTPRINT AND DELINEATED THERE IN RED.
AND, UH, THAT IT IS INDEED A SQUARE IN PLAN BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE THE DOME ON TOP OF IT.
UM, SO IT'S SQUARING PLAN WITH THE, UM, WITH THE BOTTOM PORTION HERE, UM, RAKING OUT SLIGHTLY, UM, AND FATTENING OUT, SO TO SAY, AT THE BOTTOM.
SO HERE'S THE FIRST IMAGE OF THE, UH, PROPOSAL.
AND SO, UH, YOU CAN SEE IT'S DEFINITELY NOT A PARKING LOT, UH, IN APPEARANCE.
UM, IT'S DEFINITELY LOOKS MORE LIKE A THREE STORY BUILDING.
UH, AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE PARKING AREA HAS BEEN SCREENED HERE BELOW.
UH, AND THEN, UH, THE NEXT TWO FLOORS ARE, UH, OCCUPIED SPACE.
UH, THEY HAVE, UH, THEIR STAIR TOWER AND, UM, UH, ELEVATOR TOWER HERE AS WELL.
UH, OBVIOUSLY THE ENTRYWAY IS ON THE RIGHT, AND THAT IS A LOBBY HERE.
AND ALL OF THIS IS, UH, PRIMARILY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS A FLOOD ZONE HERE.
SO, UH, THE FIRST FLOOR UP TO A CERTAIN LEVEL, UM, CANNOT BE OCCUPIABLE SPACE.
SO, UM, THEY CAN'T HAVE, UM, OFFICES, FOR EXAMPLE, OR EVEN CONFERENCE ROOMS ON THAT LEVEL.
SO THIS IS AN OPEN GLASS ATRIUM IN THIS, AND ALSO YOU CAN SEE HOW IT EXTENDS AND WE'LL SEE IN A MINUTE BETTER, UH, HOW IT ATTACHES TO THE EXISTING, UH, TO THE EXISTING ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
UM, ALSO TO NOTE ARE SOME OF THESE, UH, OTHER SITE FEATURES LIKE A HANDICAP RAMP AND, UM, UM, PLANTING, UH, BEDS AND, UH, GRASS DRIP AND TREES AND, UH, THE PARKING ALONG THE EDGES TO REMAIN MOSTLY, EXCEPT FOR THIS, MAYBE THIS GRASS STRIP HERE.
UM, MORE, UH, LONG ON VIEW, I SUPPOSE, BUT ALSO SHOWS THE, UH, MORE OF THE EASTERN FACADE.
UM, THE, UH, UM, TWO, THREE STORY, UM, PROPORTION, UH, REMAINS UNTIL THIS PORTION TOWARDS THE BACK, UH, IS JUST ONE STORY.
AND THEN THE SECOND, THE, I GUESS THAT THIRD FLOOR IS THEN PUSHED BACK AND WE'LL SEE WHY IN A MINUTE.
AND YOU GET AN IDEA OF THE PARKING AREA, THEN GOING BACK UP BROAD STREET.
NOW, THIS IS THE EXISTING ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WHICH ENDS HERE AT THIS, UH, PARAPET WALL AT THE, UH, ROOF LINE HERE.
AND SO EVERYTHING TO THE RIGHT OF THAT WOULD BE NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THIS IS, UH, ANOTHER STAIR TOWER, I BELIEVE HERE.
[00:25:08]
THEN, UH, A BETTER VIEW OF THAT, UH, EASTERN FACADE, UH, AGAIN WITH THEN ANOTHER HANDICAP RAMP ON OFF FOR ACCESS TO AND FROM THE PARKING AREA.AND THEN ON THIS SIDE ALSO, THE, THE, THE BLACK, UH, SQUARES HERE ARE THE SCREENS FOR SCREENING THE PARKING THAT'S, UM, ACTUALLY BEHIND THERE.
AND THERE YOU HAVE A BETTER VIEW.
AND YOU CAN SEE NOW THAT THE THIRD FLOOR IS PUSHED BACK AND THERE'S, UH, SOME PEOPLE WANDERING AROUND UP HERE, UH, AND PERHAPS SOME LANDSCAPING.
AND YOU CAN SEE LANDSCAPING ALONG THIS SIDE OF THE BUILDING AS WELL.
AND THEN, UH, ANOTHER VIEW FROM BROAD STREET, MORE STRAIGHT ON THIS IS A VIEW, UH, GIVING YOU AN IDEA OF THE, UM, RELATIONSHIP OF THE BUILDING TO THE PARKING LOT, AND THEN THE SPACE AND RIVER BEYOND AND THE ROUNDABOUT.
AND THIS IS THAT ROOFTOP, UH, AREA WITH A VIEW OVER THE RIVER.
AND THEN, UH, THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, UM, THAT, UH, IS, UH, QUITE A BIT FARTHER AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE THAN THE, UM, EXISTING, UH, SHRINERS TEMPLE.
AND YOU NOW YOU CAN SEE THE PARKING UNDERNEATH.
THIS IS HOW YOU ACCESS IN AND OUT, AND ANOTHER STAIR TOWER HERE.
SO, UH, THEN WE HAVE OUR ZONING AND INSPECTION REVIEW, WHICH, UH, INDICATES THAT A ZONING PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED AND DEMOLITION BUILDING AND FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THIS.
AND THEN WHEN YOU ARE READY, I AM READY WITH MY STAFF REPORT.
UM, I'M GONNA USE THE GUIDELINES FOR DEMOLITION, UH, THAT ARE PART OF OUR SORT, THE GUIDELINES.
AND JUST ASK A, A FEW QUESTIONS ARE, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS, I GUESS YOU GUYS WANT TO COMMENT BEFORE WE GO ON? NO, HE'S COVERED EVERYTHING.
IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO DEMOLISH VIABLE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO CREATE AN INFILL CONSTRUCTION OPPORTUNITY.
SO I, I DIDN'T SEE IN THE, IN THE MATERIAL THAT YOU PRESENTED AN ASSESSMENT OF THE VIABILITY OF THE, OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO SPEAK TO? YES, SIR.
UH, THE VIABILITY OF, AS IN SALVAGED, I'M SORRY, THE VIABILITY AS IN A REUSE IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
THE VIABILITY OF THE BUILDING AS IT, AS IT SITS TODAY.
WHY, WHY DO, WHY DO WE NEED TO DEMOLISH IT? GOTCHA.
AND MR. CHAIR, BEFORE THIS GENTLEMAN STARTS HIS COMMENTS, IF YOU COULD HAVE HIS MA HAVE HIM STATE HIS NAME, HIS RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROJECT FOR THE RECORD.
UH, DAVID GRIFFIN, OAKLEY COUNTY ARCHITECTS, UH, REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF CRAVEN COUNTY TONIGHT.
SO IS, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'RE PREPARED TO, TO TALK TONIGHT? IS, IS A REPORT ON THE VIABILITY OF THE BUILDING? UH, YES.
UM, BACK TO REUSE OF THE STRUCTURE, THERE'S, UH, THREE ELEMENTS THAT WERE TOUGH TO OVERCOME AS FAR AS A REUSE ONE, THE FINISHED FLOOR OF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS ALREADY IN A FLOOD AREA.
AND IT'S NOT A STRUCTURE YOU CAN ELEVATE.
I MEAN, THIS IS A LOAD BEARING MASONRY CONSTRUCTION, SO THAT'S TOUGH TO OVERCOME AS FAR AS REUSE.
BACK TO NEW CONCEPT, WE'RE TRYING TO ELEVATE, TAKE ADVANTAGE FOR PARKING.
THE SECOND ONE IS THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.
UH, THE COUNTY IS LOOKING TO EXPAND THEIR ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, WHICH WE DID LOOK AT TWO STRUCTURES, DOESN'T WORK, DOESN'T WORK FOR THEIR PROGRAM NEEDS OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO WITH EXPANSION.
SO REALLY, I'M JUST IN THE WRONG PLACE ON EARTH FOR WHERE THE EXISTING BUILDING IS, WHICH IS WHAT MATT WAS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN.
YOUR EXISTING BUILDING IS ABOUT A THIRD INTO OUR NEW CONCEPT PLAN.
THE THIRD PIECE IS WE NEED PARKING.
I MEAN, THE PARKING DEMAND, WELL, ONE DOWNTOWN, BUT FOR THE COUNTY IS TREMENDOUS THERE.
SO EVERY BIT OF REAL ESTATE THEY GOT, WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO GAIN MORE PARKING
[00:30:01]
FOR THEM IN THE LONG TERM.YOU GAVE, YOU GAVE US A COUPLE OF REASONS WHY YOU DON'T WANT THE BUILDING THERE, BUT I I DIDN'T HEAR A LOT OF DIALOGUE ABOUT THE VIABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF OTHER THAN THE FIRST FLOOR IS DAMAGED.
IS THAT SOMETHING FOR THAT STRUCTURE? THE COST OF REHABILITATION? YOU'VE GOT, UH, I'M GONNA SAY DAMAGES THAT EXCEED THE 50% MARK OF VALUE.
SO IT'S GONNA TRIGGER US BRINGING THAT BUILDING UP TO CODE.
NOW, TAKE A BUILDING OF THAT AGE, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF CODE DEFICIENCIES TO MAKE UP.
SO IT BECOMES, UM, NOT A GOOD, NOT FEASIBLE FINANCIALLY FOR THAT KIND OF UPGRADE.
NOT COUNTING THE FACT OF THE LAYOUT OF THAT BUILDING JUST DOESN'T SERVE THE PURPOSE OF, UH, OFFICE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
YOU'VE GOT A LARGE ASSEMBLY ROOM, MINIMAL DAYLIGHT FOR A STRUCTURE THAT SIZE.
IT'S JUST, LIKE I SAID, THE FEASIBILITY OF SPENDING THE MONEY FOR THAT REHABILITATION DOESN'T SOLVE REALLY THE OWNER'S NEEDS FOR THAT PROPERTY.
IT'S, IT'S COSTLY IS WHAT I HEARD.
I, I DON'T WANT TO DOMINATE THE CONVERSATION.
ARE THERE OTHERS WHO WANT TO COMMENT ON I'M LISTENING TO ALL THAT YOU'RE SAYING.
HUH? I'M LISTENING TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING,
WELL, I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE AFTER.
I, I, WELL, I'M GOING THROUGH THE GUIDELINES.
WELL, WE HAVEN'T EVEN HAD, THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT THE ORDER WE NORMALLY FOLLOW.
CORRECT? WE HAVEN'T HAD A RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK WHY, WHY ARE WE JUMPING INTO, WELL, THIS DISCUSSION, I'M, I'M TRYING TO SEE IF, IF, IF WE'VE MET, IF, IF HE HAS INFORMATION TO, TO COMPLETE, UH, ALL OF THE GUIDELINES.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASCERTAIN HERE, BECAUSE I DIDN'T HEAR DEMOLITION.
I, I THINK MR. MORRISON, THAT THERE'S A QUESTION PERHAPS BY THE CHAIRMAN ABOUT THE COMPLETENESS OF THE APPLICATION TO ADDRESS ALL THE GUIDELINES AS IT PERTAINS TO DEMOLITION.
AND I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME QUESTION HERE TO TRY TO FLESH OUT THE COMPLETENESS OF THE APPLICATION.
AND ONCE YOU ALL ARE SATISFIED THAT THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE, WE CAN MOVE TO THE REMAINING PROCEDURAL ISSUES.
BECAUSE TYPICALLY WHEN WE'VE HAD DEMOLITION REQUESTS, AND AS RECENT, RECENTLY IS CRAVEN TERROR, EXCUSE ME, TRENT COURT, WE REALLY DIDN'T GET TOO DEEP IN THE WEEDS AS TO WHY YOU CAN'T USE IT IF, UH, BUT I, I'M, I'M GOING BY THE GUIDELINES.
THE, THE GUIDELINES WOULD SAY THAT WE, THAT'S ONE OF THE HURDLES THAT HAVE TO PASS.
IT SAYS THAT HAVE THEY CON HAVE THEY PROVIDED ALTERNATIVES TO THE DEMOLITION? I BELIEVE WHAT YOU SUMMARY SAID IS THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED.
I THINK IT'S DEEPER THAN NOT INTERESTING.
BUT, UM, PERHAPS IT'S THE, THE OWNER CONSIDERS IT NOT FEASIBLE, PERHAPS IS BETTER THAN SAYING NOT INTERESTING.
IS THAT FAIR? NO, I THINK AT THE MOMENT HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE, THE, THE ISSUE OF VIABILITY.
THERE, THERE, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THE, THERE ARE FOUR, NOT, NOT THE ISSUE OF, UM, ALTERNATIVES TO DEMOLITION.
I'M GONNA GET TO THAT ONE, BUT, OKAY.
WELL, THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
I I'M REALLY, YOU SAID IT BETTER THAN, THAN I WOULD'VE, I'M JUST TRYING TO TEST THE COMPLETENESS OF THE APPLICATION.
WE'VE HEARD SOME TESTIMONY ABOUT VIABILITY.
UM, THE, THE GUIDELINE SAYS, UM, NOTIFY, UH, PRESERVATION ORGANIZATIONS AND ALLOW FOR SALVAGE OF DESIGN COMPONENTS, ET CETERA.
THE QUESTION IS HOW REALLY, HOW HAVE YOU DONE THAT? HOW AGGRESSIVELY IS THAT? YES.
UH, ONE WITH THE SHRINERS THEMSELVES, THEY HAVE SOME COMPONENTS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE THEIR LIST WE'RE STILL WORKING OUT THAT PROBABLY GONNA BE SOME OF THE EXTERNAL PRODUCTS.
THEY DID HAVE SOME INTEREST OF A FEW ITEMS. INSIDE OTHER PARTY IS THE, UM, PRESERVATION FOUNDATION IS INTERESTED IN THE BRICK SALVAGE.
AND SOME OF THOSE BRICKS THEY'RE TRYING TO FIND, SHOULD THEY TAKE THAT ROUTE, THEY NEED SOMEWHERE TO PARK ALL THOSE BRICKS TO BE CLEAN.
SO I'M GONNA SAY THAT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS.
THAT'S THE TWO INTERESTED PARTIES SO FAR IS THE BRICK VENEER FROM THE FOUNDATION AND THEN THE SHRINERS WITH SOME OF THEIR INTERNAL ITEMS. OKAY.
SO, SO GOING TO, YOU HAVE, OR, OR THERE'LL BE MORE QUESTIONS.
I'M SURE YOU'RE GONNA ADDRESS LOOKS LIKE ALL PARTS OF OUR CRITERIA.
[00:35:01]
OH, UM, YEAH, YOU HAVE SOME MORE THINGS TO DO FIRST, RIGHT? MM-HMM,SO THIS IS, I THINK IF YOU'RE SATISFIED WITH THE COMPLETENESS OF THE APPLICATION AND IF THE APPLICANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE IS DONE OFFERING ANY COMMENTS THAT HE MIGHT HAVE, THEN THIS WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO NO MORE, NO MORE QUESTIONS.
I GUESS WHAT I'M HEARING, I, I DON'T HAVE ANY, I CAN HANG OUT.
BUT, UH, LET'S GO TO THE, UH, PUBLIC
ARE THERE, ARE THERE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE WHO WERE NOTIFIED AND WANT TO SPEAK TO THE, UH, THE DEMOLITION OR THE CONSTRUCTION? SIR? AND YOUR NAME IS? HI, I AM RAY STICKLE.
I LIVE AT TWO 19 NEW STREET, KIND OF RIGHT BEHIND THIS STRUCTURE.
UH, AND I'VE TALKED TO A LOT OF MY NEIGHBORS.
WE HAVE A, A FEW CONCERNS AND MAYBE THEY'RE IN THE APPLICATION, THEY'LL GET TO 'EM.
UM, MOSTLY IT'S EITHER PRE OR POST BUILD.
SO THE PRE STUFF IS ALL AROUND REMEDIATION OF PESTS.
SO WHEN THEY BRING THIS BUILDING DOWN, WHAT KIND OF PEST? REMEDIATION FOR RATS, BATS, BUGS, ANYTHING ELSE? 'CAUSE WHEN THEY TEAR IT DOWN, THEY'RE GONNA GO SOMEWHERE.
UM, THINGS, SAME, SIMILAR THINGS WITH MOLD, ASBESTOS, OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT CAN, IS CONTAINED IN THE BUILDING.
UM, AND THEN AFTER IT'S BUILT, THE CONCERNS ARE REALLY ABOUT, AND, AND THE PICTURES HELPED A LOT BY THE WAY, SO THAT'S VERY GOOD.
UH, BUT ABATEMENT OR CONTROL OF LIGHT OR NOISE POLLUTION RELATED TO ALL THE TRAFFIC AND THE VEHICLES.
YOU KNOW, A LOT OF BUILDINGS HAVE A LOT OF EXTERIOR LIGHTS, WHICH WOULD BE SHINING RIGHT IN OUR BACKYARDS ESSENTIALLY.
UH, AND THEN, UM, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS SUGGESTED MAYBE BUILDING A, A WALL OF SOME SORT.
SO MAYBE THAT'S A USE FOR SOME OF YOUR BRICKS.
UM, BUT, UM, THAT MIGHT PROVIDE SOME NOISE BARRIER, THAT KIND OF THING.
AND THEN THEY HAD A QUESTION ON SETBACK, BUT YOU SHOWED THE PICTURES.
IT IS, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S UP AGAINST THAT SIDEWALK SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING BUILDING, SO, OKAY.
SO THOSE ARE, ANYWAY, THOSE ARE THE CONCERNS.
WE WILL SEE IF THAT'S SORTED OUT THROUGH THE PRESENTATION.
UH, IS THERE, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD, UH, WHO HAS BEEN NOTIFIED, WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT? OKAY, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR RECOMMENDATIONS.
I DIDN'T GET NOTIFIED, BUT I BELIEVE I HAVE STANDING.
YOU DO HAVE STANDING YOU WANT TO, AND, AND MR. CHAIR, IF WE COULD ELICIT SOME TESTIMONY TO ESTABLISH THE STANDING THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
IF WE COULD ELICIT SOME TESTIMONY TO DEVELOP IN THE RECORD FOR STANDING, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
I'VE LIVED AND WORKED IN NEW BERN FOR 25 YEARS, AND I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WALK THROUGH THIS BUILDING WITH THE SHRINERS BEFORE IT WAS SOLD TO DO AN EVALUATION OF THE BUILDING.
AND WE CAME TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU REALLY COULD REMOVE THE PORTION, UH, THE DORMITORY ADDITION, RETAIN THE FACADE AND THE ONION DOME AND ALL THOSE PIECES THAT MAKE IT A HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND BUILD A BUILDING BEHIND IT THAT WOULD SATISFY THE COUNTY AND ALL THEIR PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S EVEN GOTTEN THIS FAR, EVEN THINKING OF DEMOLISHING A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
I MEAN, IS THE ELKS BUILDING NEXT THE, IT JUST SETS A VERY BAD PRECEDENT FOR US TO REMOVE HISTORIC FABRIC.
THAT, THAT IS SUCH A TREASURED PART OF THIS COMMUNITY.
JUST TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE RECORD, YOU ALL WILL NEED TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT MS. BECK'S STANDING AS IT RELATES TO THIS APPLICATION.
UM, SHE HAS NOT RECEIVED NOTICE, WHICH INDICATES SHE'S NOT A PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN THE DESIGNATED FOOTAGE.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE SATISFIED THAT SHE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE SOME TYPE OF SPECIAL DAMAGES SUCH THAT SHE HAS A UNIQUE EXPOSURE DIFFERENT FROM MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
SO ONCE WE WRESTLE WITH AND COME TO A, A, A CONSENSUS ABOUT THAT INITIAL THRESHOLD ISSUE, THEN YOU CAN CONSIDER AND WEIGH THE REMAINING INFORMATION THAT SHE OFFERED.
AND HOW WOULD WE DO THAT? LOOK AT HER ARCHITECT'S LICENSE.
I, I BELIEVE THAT FOR STANDING YOU HAVE TO BE A PROFESSIONAL.
AND IN THIS, IN THIS QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD, ONCE YOU'RE SWORN IN, THAT THAT GIVES YOU THAT STANDING NO,
[00:40:01]
BEING SWORN IN DOES NOT CONVERT STANDING.UM, CERTAINLY YOU ALL HAVE THE PREROGATIVE TO ENTERTAIN EXPERT TESTIMONY.
SO SOMEONE WHO HAS EXPERIENCED TRAINING EDUCATION, UM, THAT WOULD PUT YOU PUT THEM IN A POSITION TO OFFER YOU EVIDENCE OR OFFER YOU A PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE.
HOWEVER, BEFORE AN EXPERT WITNESS CAN TESTIFY, EITHER THEY NEED TO BE RETAINED BY A PERSON WITH STANDING OR HAVE STANDING HIMSELF.
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT SECOND PART? REPEAT THE SECOND.
UH, EITHER THEY NEED TO BE RETAINED, UM, AND BE AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF SOMEONE WITHSTANDING OR DEMONSTRATE STANDING THEMSELF.
HOW, HOW WOULD SHE DEMONSTRATE STANDING? I GUESS THAT WOULD, BASED ON HER TESTIMONY, HER PROFFER OF HER RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROJECT, SOME TYPE OF SPECIAL DAMAGE THAT SHE MIGHT INCUR UNIQUE TO PERSONS OTHER THAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
FOR INSTANCE, IF SOMEONE CAME IN AND SAID, UH, I'VE GOT SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE, WE WOULD EXPECT SOME DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT THEY FOUND.
WE DON'T HAVE YOUR ANALYSIS PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE.
WELL, EVEN BEFORE, BEFORE THERE, THERE FORM, DID YOU DO A FORMAL ANALYSIS FOR THEM? YES.
ON JIM, WAIT, EVEN BEFORE WE GET THERE, SO IN THE THE CASE WITH THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT OBVIOUSLY HAS STANDING, IT'S THEIR PROPERTY.
THEY HAVE DAMAGES POTENTIALLY THAT WOULD BE UNIQUE TO THEM, DIFFERENT THAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
THEY HAVE RETAINED, UM, THE GENTLEMAN WHO TESTIFIED TODAY, WHO IS ABLE TO OFFER OFF EXPERT TESTIMONY BECAUSE HE'S THEIR, THEIR ARCHITECT.
SO HE HAS UNIQUE SKILLS AND TRAINING THAT ALLOW HIM TO GIVE INFORMATION AND OFFER TESTIMONY, EVEN OPINION TESTIMONY.
IF YOU'RE, UM, INCLINED TO ACCEPT IT.
THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS MS. BECK IS NOT TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF SOMEONE WITHSTANDING.
SO SHE WOULD NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SHE HERSELF HAS STANDING MM-HMM.
AND YOU ALL WOULD NEED TO BE SATISFIED THAT THAT THRESHOLD HAS BEEN SATISFIED OR, OR THAT SHE REPRESENTS SOMEONE WHO IS, WHO DOES HAVE STANDING.
I BELIEVE MY STANDING COMES FROM THE FACT THAT I AM A PROFESSIONAL AND I WALKED THROUGH THE PROJECT WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER BEFORE IT WAS SOLD IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION.
AND, YOU KNOW, I ALSO WANNA REMIND YOU THAT YOUR CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVALUATIONS NUMBER TWO HAS NOT BEEN MET AS PART OF THAT APPLICATION.
AND SO, I MEAN, THERE, THERE'S JUST A LOT OF THINGS.
SO AGAIN, BEFORE WE GET TO THE SUBSTANCE OF HER PROPOSED TESTIMONY, YOU ALL NEED TO BE SATISFIED AND MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT MS. ABACK HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT SHE HAS STANDING.
CAN WE ASK A QUESTION? ABSOLUTELY.
UM, ARE YOU EMPLOYED BY THE, UM, PREVIOUS OWNER? ANY, ANY? I WAS NOT EMPLOYED BY THEM NO.
OR RECEIVED ANY PAYMENTS FROM THEM? NO.
ANY PREVIOUS OWNER SOLD THE BUILDING, CORRECT? I I WOULD SUGGEST SHE DOESN'T HAVE STANDING.
IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU, YOU, YOU, I UNDERSTAND YOUR INPUT, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE STANDING BY THE DEFINITION THAT WE WOULD USE.
IS THAT CORRECT? GIVEN YOU ALL THE LAW ON THAT AND YOU ALL AS THE FINER OF FACTS AND, AND, UM, WELL, TRI AS A FACT AND A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING HAVE TO APPLY THAT LAW.
AND IF YOU'RE SATISFIED THAT SHE'S NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE A RELATIONSHIP THAT ESTABLISH ESTABLISHES STANDING AND SHE DOES NOT HAVE STANDING.
I I, WELL, I HAVE TO DISCUSS, DO HAVE TO VOTE.
YOU JUST HAVE, I I WOULD THINK SHE DOES HAVE STANDING 'CAUSE SHE'S A PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECT IN THE COMMUNITY AND HAS WORKED ON MANY PROJECTS.
SO I THINK HER PROFESSIONALISM WOULD BE ENOUGH FOR STANDING, BUT IT'S ALSO HER OPINION AND WE CAN VOTE ON THAT.
BUT I DO THINK SHE HAS STANDING.
SO IF THERE'S NOT CONSENSUS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AS TO STANDING, THEN YOU ALL WOULD NEED TO MAKE A FINDING, ENTERTAIN A VOTE THAT EITHER MS. ABA DOES OR DOES NOT HAVE STANDING AND SEE WHERE WE LAND.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? I SECOND IT.
IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE DETERMINED FROM THE INFORMATION PROVIDED THAT MS. ABACK HAS STANDING.
IS THAT SUFFICIENT THAT YOUR DETERMINATION? YEP.
YOU HAVE STANDING? THAT'S, THAT'S MY TESTIMONY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT THAT'S, UH, THAT'S IT.
[00:45:04]
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS STANDING POTENTIALLY OR IN REALITY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE.I THINK WE'RE READY FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
ALRIGHT, SO THIS IS THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE PROJECT AT 4 0 3 EAST FRONT STREET.
HISTORIC PROPERTY NAME IS ESS LEC SUDAN TEMPLE BUILT CIRCA 1951 FOR THE APPLICANT WHO IS CRAVEN COUNTY AND DAVID GRIFFIN OAKLEY COLLIER ARCHITECTS.
UH, IT IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, UH, AND THE ACTUAL HISTORIC DISTRICT INVENTORY, UH, HAS NO DESCRIPTION, UH, EVEN AFTER IT WAS ADDED, OTHER THAN THAT ONE LINER WE SAW.
UH, AND THEN, UH, HOWEVER, UH, THE STAFF REPORT INCLUDES THE LE DESCRIPTION FROM THE LETTER THAT I READ EARLIER, ALL THAT, ALL THOSE YELLOW THINGS.
SO WE CAN SKIP THROUGH THAT, RIGHT? YEAH.
UH, SO THE PROJECT IS TO INCLUDE 4 0 3, UH, IS TO INCLUDE DEMOLITION OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING AND REDEVELOPMENT WITH A TWO STORY AND THREE STORY EXPANSION OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN STANDARDS.
AKA GUIDELINES ARE APPROPRIATE TO THIS APPLICATION.
THE PROCESS FOR WHICH CONSISTS OF TWO DELIBERATIONS, DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT DELIBERATION, ONE FOR DEMOLITION, 6.4 DEMOLITION.
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 COA 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, COA, WHERE DEMOLITION IS FIRST CONSIDERED, AND IF ALLOWED, FOLLOWED BY CONSIDERATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
DEMOLITION SHALL NOT PROCEED UNLESS BOTH PARTS OF THE COA ARE APPROVED.
IF DEMOLITION IS DENIED, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY AND ITS STRUCTURES TO PREVENT DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT.
THE HPC 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 6.4 0.2, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO DEMOLISH A VIABLE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO CREATE AN INFILL CONSTRUCTION OPPORTUNITY.
THE HPC RESERVES THE RIGHT TO POSTPONE DEMOLITION UNTIL DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING PERMITS ARE APPROVED FOR REDEVELOPMENT PLANS.
6.4 0.4 REPAIR DRAWINGS AND PHOTOGRAPHICALLY DOCUMENT THE SITE PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, INCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHS OF INTERIORS, EXTERIORS, ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AND CONTEXT WITHIN THE STREET SCAPE AND 6.4 0.5, NOTIFY PRESERVATION ORGANIZATIONS AND ALLOW FOR THE SALVAGE OF DESIGN COMPONENTS, ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, AND BUILDING MATERIALS FOR REUSE.
IN ADDITION, THE GUIDELINES STIPULATE IN RENDERING A DECISION ON THE DEMOLITION COA.
THE HPC SHOULD ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING THREE CONSIDERATIONS.
ADDRESS THE HISTORICAL, CULTURAL, AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STRUCTURE.
IS IT THAT CONTR? IS IT A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE? STAFF? YES.
THE TEMPLE WAS ADDED TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER INVENTORY AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE ON DECEMBER 28TH, 2023.
IS IT SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE OF ITS HISTORIC USE AND EVENT, A PERSON, A BUILDER, OR AN ARCHITECT STAFF? ACCORDING TO THE TECHNICAL ADVICE LETTER FROM THE SHIPPO DATED DECEMBER 22ND, 2023, NOT PRIMARILY THE LETTER STATES, ALTHOUGH THE ES, SMU, CHEM SUDAN TEMPLE HAS STRONG
[00:50:01]
CONNECTIONS TO THE SOCIAL AND FRATERNAL HISTORY OF NEW BERN AND EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA, THE BUILDING DERIVES ITS PRIMARY SIGNIFICANCE FROM ITS ARCHITECTURE.IS IT THE LAST OR THE OLDEST EXAMPLE OF A CERTAIN BUILDING TYPE STAFF? IT DEPENDS.
IT COULD BE THE ONLY ONE OF THIS TYPE.
ACCORDING TO THE TECHNICAL ADVICE LETTER FROM THE SHIPPO DATED DECEMBER 22ND, 2023.
THE BUILDING IS PRIMARILY A MOORISH REVIVAL STYLE BUILDING DESIGNED AT THE END OF THE PERIOD FOR THE STYLE DESIGNATED DESIGNED WITH MODERN AND EGYPTIAN REVIVAL STYLE FEATURES WHILE MENTIONING OTHER EARLIER MOISH REVIVAL STYLES.
THE LETTER DOES NOT MENTION ANY THAT ARE A COMBINATION OF THESE STYLES, MAKING IT POSSIBLY THE ONLY SUCH BUILDING IN THE WORLD.
THE LETTER CONCLUDES THE DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING WITH THE ES SMU ALAM SUDAN TEMPLES BLEND OF EXOTIC REVIVAL STYLES AND MODERN DESIGN RESULTS IN A DISTINCT VERNACULAR EXPRESSION OF THE MOORISH REVIVAL STYLE THAT CONNECTS THE NEAR EASTERN INFLUENCES OF THE SUDAN SHRINERS WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLES POPULAR AT THE TIME OF THE BUILDING'S CONSTRUCTION.
THE TEMPLE IS NOT ONLY A UNIQUE EXAMPLE OF ITS STYLE, BUT IS DISTINCTIVE FROM THE SURROUNDING RESIDENCES, COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, AND INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS FOUND IN THE NEW BERN HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE SUDAN TEMPLE ALSO RETAINS A HIGH DEGREE OF INTEGRITY OF LOCATION DESIGN, SETTING MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP FEELING, AND ASSOCIATION UNQUOTE.
SO IT IS POSSIBLY THE ONLY ONE OF ITS KIND.
IT IS DISTINCTIVE IN NEWBURN AND STILL RETAINS ITS HISTORIC INTEGRITY.
CONSIDERATION TWO IS TO ADDRESS THE INTEGRITY OF THE STRUCTURE.
WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS OF FOUNDATIONS? FLOORS, WALLS, WINDOWS, DOORS AND ROOFS.
STAFF ACCOMPANIED THE SEVERAL TOURS OF THE BUILDING.
SINCE THE FLOODING FROM FLORENCE.
THERE ARE VERY FEW APPARENT CONCERNING CONDITIONS OF FOUNDATION'S, FLOORS, WALLS, WINDOWS, DOORS, AND ROOFS.
THE APPARENT DAMAGES ARE EITHER ISOLATED, MINOR CASES CAUSED BY WATER INTRUSION OR SUPERFICIAL DAMAGE FROM VANDALISM.
THE RETRACTABLE SEATING UNITS IN THE AUDITORIUM HAVE BEEN REMOVED BY THE NEW OWNERS.
IS IT A HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE? UH, STAFF, A REPORT FROM THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR IS PENDING.
IT SEEMS SINCE THE NEW OWNERS HAVE TAKEN POSSESSION OF AND SECURED THE SITE, THE VANDALISM HAS CEASED CONSIDERATION.
ADDRESS ATTEMPTED PRESERVATION EFFORTS.
HAVE OPTIONS FOR REHABILITATION BEEN EXPLORED WITH PRESERVATION ORGANIZATIONS? STAFF? THE APPLICANTS HAVE STATED THAT THEY HAVE, THAT THEY HAVE LOOKED AT REHABILITATION AND REUSE OF THE BUILDING AND ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THIS.
STAFF IS NOT AWARE OF ANY EXPLORATION OF OPTIONS FOR REHABILITATION WITH PRESERVATION ORGANIZATIONS.
THE APPLICANTS HAVE INDICATED THE BRICK PAVERS AND POSSIBLY STATUE AND FLAG POLES WILL REMAIN ON THE CORNER.
AT THE ROUNDABOUT, THEY'RE CONSIDERING WHETHER TO PRESERVE THE ROT, IRON FENCING, AND FENCE POSTS STILL IN PLACE ALONG BROAD STREET AT EAST FRONT STREET FROM THE 19TH CENTURY OLD NELSON HOUSE THAT WAS ALSO THE SHRINER'S ORIGINAL OLD TEMPLE HOME.
UH, THE NORTH END OF THE PARKING LOT WAS ALSO THE SITE OF THE 18TH CENTURY HOUSE OF THE INFAMOUS ENGLISH COLONIAL GOVERNOR TRYOUT.
THIS SITE SHOULD BE MARKED WITH HISTORIC SIGNAGE.
HAS THE APPLICANT BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN SEEKING ALTERNATIVES TO DEMOLITION STAFF? THE APPLICANTS HAVE STATED THEY HAVE LOOKED AT ALTERNATIVES TO DEMOLITION AND ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THIS.
AND THE DESIGN REVIEW MEETINGS.
HPC HAS SUGGESTED VARIOUS OPTIONS FOR RETAINING IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE BUILDING AND DEMOLITION OF THE REST.
IT SEEMS THE APPLICANT HAS DETERMINED THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN THE PRESERVATION OF ANY PARTS OF THE BUILDING.
HAVE ALTERNATIVES FOR STRUCTURE, RELOCATION AND SALE OF THE PROPERTY BEEN PURSUED? STAFF THE STRUCTURE IS FAR TOO LARGE A MASSIVE RELOCATION.
THEREFORE THIS IS NOT A VIABLE CONSIDERATION.
THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THEY WILL OFFER FOR OTHER, THEY WILL OFFER FOR OTHERS TO SALVAGE PARTS.
SO THE STATEMENTS OF REASON BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION IN STAFF'S JUDGMENT.
R ONE, THE PROJECT IS A PROPOSAL TO DEMOLISH ONE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT AND IN THE NEW BERN LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
DESPITE THE FLOODING OF HURRICANE FLORENCE IN 2018, IN SUBSEQUENT VACANCY, THE SHIPPO HAS INDICATED THE SUDAN TEMPLE RETAINS A HIGH DEGREE OF ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY.
THE BUILDING POSSESSES MANY PROMINENT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT MAKE IT A UNIQUE COMBINATION OF THE MORRIS REVIVAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH MODERN AND EGYPTIAN REVIVAL FEATURES FOUR.
PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING WOULD PRESERVE SOME OF THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE BUILDING.
PRESERVING PARTS OF THE BUILDING WOULD HONOR THE HISTORY OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
[00:55:01]
THE SHRINERS WITH AND FOR THE NEW BERN COMMUNITY AND THEIR MISSION BEYOND NEW BERN.PRESERVING PARTS OF THE BUILDING PROVIDE A PHYSICAL PRESENCE AND OPPORTUNITY TO TRIGGER MEMORIES AND STORIES OF THE WORK AND EXPERIENCES OF THE NEW BURN SUDAN SHRINERS.
SO, UM, HERE'S AN EXAMPLE IN DURHAM, A HISTORIC WAREHOUSE AND LOCAL GRILL, UH, THE FACADE OF WHICH WAS PRESERVED WHILE A, UH, MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE WAS BUILT BEHIND IT.
UH, THIS ONE ANGLE IN THE LOWER RIGHT, A LITTLE BIT HARD TO SEE.
UM, SHOWS THE RELATIVELY SIMPLE STRUCTURE TO, UM, SUPPORT THAT, UM, A UH, AN I-BEAM HERE ALONG THE BACKSIDE THERE.
AND THERE MUST BE SOME OTHER STRUCTURE ALONG THE BACK AS WELL.
PRESERVATION AND REUSE OF ANY OF THE EXISTING BUILDING MUST CONSIDER THE ENTIRE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS IN THE AE FLOOD HAZARD ZONE.
THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR AREA OF ANY PRESERVED PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING CAN ONLY BE USED FOR STORAGE, PARKING, OR ACCESS TO THE UPPER FLOORS.
THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT FOR THE SITE WILL NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE HPC IN DELIBERATION.
TWO BEFORE A COA AND A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MAY BE ISSUED.
AND NINE, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY.
AND THEN THE HPC SHALL DELIBERATE ON THIS FIRST SEGMENT OF THE PROCESS BEFORE PROCEEDING TO DELIBERATION TWO.
AND THAT'S WHERE I WILL PA PAUSE, UH, BECAUSE, UM, DELIBERATION TO MAY OR MAY NOT BE NECESSARY DEPENDING.
UM, I CAN I ASK THE ARCHITECT A QUESTION AGAIN? YEP.
MR. CHAIR, GENERALLY THE, THE BOARD OFFERS THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE ANY FINAL COMMENTS BEFORE YOU DELIBERATE.
WOULD YOU MAKE SOME FINAL COMMENTS BEFORE WE ASK QUESTIONS? UH, TIME.
GOT QUESTION THERE? A QUESTION? DID, DID YOU SAY, DID YOU SAY YOU, YOU JUST WANT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS? NO, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU'VE GOT, BUT WE HAVE NO ADDITIONAL COMMENT AT THIS TIME IF I WAS FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE.
UM, I, I THINK I REMEMBER IN THE, UM, IN THE WORK SESSION, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE NEW STRUCTURE IS GONNA BE SET BACK FARTHER FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SHARED WALL THERE.
IS THAT TRUE? CAN YOU STATE THAT AGAIN? CORRECT.
WE'VE GOT AN AIR GAP BACK THERE.
PULLING US OFF THE BACK PROPERTY LINE.
HOW FAR? UH, IT'S ALMOST A PARKING LOT WIDTH.
SO YOU'RE SOMEWHERE 60 50 TO 60 FEET.
AND IT'S HOW, WHAT WAS THE, WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING TO, TO WHAT YOU HAVE SET THAT, UH, THE, THE GARAGE BUILDING IN THE BACK IS RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE.
THAT CENTER SECTION IN THE BACK.
SO THERE WAS AN IMAGE ON ONE OF THESE THAT SHOWS, UH, FROM THE BACKSIDE OR THAT'LL WORK.
IF YOU LOOK AT A DOUBLE LOADED PARKING, YOU'RE AROUND 65 FEET.
SO THE BUILDING IS 70 SOME FEET OFF OF THAT BACK PROPERTY LINE AT THE, UM, THE GRAY OVERLAID OF THE EXISTING SUDAN BUILDING.
YOU'RE A LITTLE CLOSER WHERE THE PROPERTY BITES IN, SO YOU'RE CLOSER TO 50 SOME FEET AT THAT POINT.
SO I'M ASKING FOR THE, UH, NEIGHBORS AND THINGS SO THEY CAN SEE THAT IT'S SET BACK FARTHER.
WHAT IS YOUR LIGHTING PLAN FOR THAT AREA? NOT DEVELOPED AT THIS TIME, BUT WE WILL TAKE ALL THOSE CONSIDERATIONS INTO PLAY AS WE MOVE THROUGH WITH THE DESIGN.
COULD WE, BUT YES, THE IDEA IS TO NOT SHED LIGHT ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
YEAH, BECAUSE I, I COULD SEE IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY HAVING SOME MORE SURFACE LIGHTING, BUT ON THE SIDE MAYBE LOW LIGHTING SO THAT WE PROJECTED THE, I SAID RESIDENCE.
THERE'S, THERE WILL BE A, SOME FORM OF GREENERY BUFFER THERE, BUT YET THE LIGHTING WAS THE STATE MOSTLY FOCUSED ON THE PUBLIC PARKING SIDE.
NOW, IN THIS PHASE OF THE DISCUSSION, WE'RE PRIMARILY TALKING ABOUT DEMOLITION, NOT, NOT THE NEW DESIGN PARTICULARLY.
IS THERE OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION ON THE DEMOLITION QUESTION? MR. CHAIRMAN, CITING THE NEW BERN NC.GOV WEBPAGE, OUR PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PREVENT CHANGES IN THE
[01:00:01]
HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT WOULD BE INCONGRUOUS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE SPECIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.I THINK THAT WE NEED TO CRAFT A DEMOLITION MOTION THAT INCLUDES, UM, A CONDITION THAT WE DO A LITTLE FACADE.
ME, I THINK THAT THE, UH, MAIN TOWER AND DOME AND THE FIVE BAY PORTION WITH THE TWO STORY WINDOWS THAT FACES BROAD STREET.
I THINK WE NEED A CONDITION THAT THAT HAS TO BE PRESERVED.
AND OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK THAT'S ALL I SEE THAT'S IMPORTANT THERE.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO, I WOULD LIKE MY COLLEAGUES HELP IN CRAFTING A MOTION TO THAT.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION THERE, MR. MR. PARSONS.
WHAT GUIDELINE GIVES US THAT AUTHORITY? I'M NOT TROUBLED BY THAT.
I'M TROUBLED BY THE FACT THAT WE ARE CHARGED WITH PREVENTING CHANGES IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND I THINK THAT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TOWER AND DOME AND THAT FACADE, UH, WOULD BE AN INCONGRUOUS CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT.
IT'S A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, BUT I, I, I THINK GUIDELINE 6.4 0.2 GIVES US THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.
AND, AND IT DEALS WITH, IS IT A VIABLE STRUCTURE? WE, WE WALKED THROUGH IT, MATT WALKED THROUGH IT, SO ALL THE SARAH WOULD WALK THROUGH IT AND, AND WOULD SAY THIS IS A VIABLE STRUCTURE.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M PROUD ENOUGH TO SAY THAT WE LIVE IN A STATE THAT CAN PICK UP A LIGHTHOUSE AND MOVE IT.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROBLEM ABOUT SAVING THE TOWER AND DO IN THAT FACADE.
SO IN THE SPIRIT OF BEING HELPFUL, MR. CHAIR, YOU, YOU'VE HIGHLIGHTED GUIDELINES 6.4 0.2, WHICH SAYS IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO DEMOLISH FILEABLE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN ORDER, IN ORDER TO CREATE AN INFILL CONSTRUCTION OPPORTUNITY.
AND I'M HEARING TWO COMPETING SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT THAT I THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO, UH, UNPACK.
FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, IF A STRUCTURE IS DETERMINED TO BE VIABLE, THEN IT SHOULD NOT BE DEMOLISHED.
RIGHT? IF A STRUCTURE IS NOT VIABLE, IT CAN BE DEMOLISHED.
I DON'T THINK TO MR. MORRISON'S POINT, ANYONE HAS, UM, GIVEN A GUIDELINE THAT ALLOWS THE HPC TO DEMAND PARTIAL DEMOLITION OR RETENTION PART OF A STRUCTURE.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANY PRECEDENT THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS SET THAT WOULD ALLOW THE SAME.
YEAH, I, I I THINK WE'RE GETTING THERE.
I I THINK THE KEY ISSUE IS VIABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE.
I, I DIDN'T HEAR A LOT OTHER THAN THE FIRST FLOOR HAS PROBLEMS. WELL, AND VIABILITY IS SOMEWHAT SUBJECTIVE.
UM, SOMEWHAT TO THE LIGHTHOUSE SCENARIO.
ANYTHING CAN BE DONE IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES TO PULL IT OFF.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE NOT, WELL, NOT AUTHORIZED AT THE MOMENT TO COMMIT TO SALVAGING PORTIONS OF A BUILDING, BUT YES, I UNDERSTAND THE VIABILITY PART, BUT THAT IS THE SUBJECTIVENESS OF IT WOULD BE WHERE WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A, MIGHT NOT SEE EYE TO EYE ON THAT PIECE.
BUT LIKE I SAID, THAT'S STILL THIS, YOUR BOARD'S RULING, IS IT, IT'S SUBJECTIVE ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE'S A COST ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
DO YOU DISAGREE? THAT NOT JUST COST? I MEAN, BACK TO WHAT YOU SAID, IT'S A BUILDING I CAN'T ELEVATE.
SO THIS IS JUST HIGHLY, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE ONLY I SAY A STRUCTURE.
MY NEW FINISHED FLOOR BEHIND IT IS FOUR FEET TALLER.
SO NOW YOU'VE GOT THIS, I CAN'T WALK THROUGH IT, I CAN'T GO THROUGH IT WITHOUT MODIFYING IT, RAISING THE EXISTING DOOR OR CHANGING ANY OF THE WINDOWS.
IT BECOMES PURELY A, JUST A FACADE, A FREESTANDING FACADE.
SO THAT'S WHERE I'M GONNA SAY THE VIABILITY IS SUBJECTIVE.
IS IT VIABLE AS JUST A FREESTANDING WALL OR IS IT VIABLE AS AN OCCUPIABLE BUILDING FACADE? I SAID IT'S A COMPLICATED ANSWER TO THAT ONE O OKAY.
I MEAN, YOU, YOU, YOU TAKING THE POSITION THAT, THAT THE BUILDING IS NOT VIABLE.
OUR, OUR, OUR GUIDELINE WOULD SAY THAT, UH, I WAS, WE CAN'T ALLOW IT TO BE DEMOLISHED IF IT IS VIABLE.
I GUESS THAT WOULD BE, YOU'D BE RULING.
WHAT WOULD THE RULING BE ON THIS? WELL, WE HAVEN'T MADE A RULING.
WE'RE MAKING PARTS AND PIECES VIABLE.
AND I, I THINK THAT'S NOT, NOT REALLY THE INTENT HERE.
WE DIDN'T, IN TRENT COURT, WE SAID, OKAY, SAVE THE MEDALLIONS, WHICH ARE ARTWORK.
[01:05:02]
WE DIDN'T SAY SAVE A WALL FOR THE BILL.WE WANTED TO, COULDN'T FIND A WAY TO SAY IT THERE.
BUT IF I MAY, JUST TO GIVE YOU ONE OTHER POINT OF VIEW, THAT, UM, I, I'D LIKE TO SIMPLIFY IN A WAY THAT I'M NOT SURE FITS IN THIS FRAMEWORK.
WE'RE BUILDING AROUND OURSELVES TO MAKE SOME DECISION TONIGHT.
BUT BASICALLY HOW, HOW, HOW LONG WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS AT DESIGN REVIEW, UH, MONTHS.
AND, UM, WE, WE'VE GOT THREE CONSIDERATIONS.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST CONSIDERATION IS, UH, A HISTORICAL, CULTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE.
AND I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN THIS LETTER FROM MM-HMM.
UM, THE, THE SECOND CONSIDERATION, AND, AND PROBABLY ONE OF, OF, OF, UH, GREAT DISCUSSION TONIGHT IS THE INTEGRITY OF THE IN, UH, STRUCTURE.
UM, I, I ACCEPT THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT, THAT BUILDING DOES NOT SUIT YOUR CLIENT'S PURPOSES.
UM, I ACCEPT THE, THE FACT THAT YOU DETERMINE IT'S NOT VIABLE, YOU KNOW, IT DOES ESSENTIALLY FOR REASONS IT MAY INCLUDE COST AND INVESTMENT AND FOR MY, FOR MY CLIENT.
UM, BUT IT'S, AS I SEE IT, UM, THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE IT FROM BEING VIABLE TO SOME OTHER OWNER CORRECT.
WHO COULD USE IT FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE.
AND, AND, AND SO JUST BECAUSE YOUR CLIENT CAN'T USE IT AS IT IS, DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT CORRECT.
REUSABLE OR, OR ADAPTIVELY REUSABLE.
SO, SO IN MY MIND, ADAPTIVELY REUSABLE IS IMPORTANT TO OUR DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
AND, UM, BUT I ACCEPT THE, HAVING BEEN IN YOUR POSITION WITH CLIENTS HAVING SIMILAR PROBLEMS, I I, YOU KNOW, I ACCEPT, I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOUR APPLICATION IS BEING PRESENTED IN THE WAY IT IS WITH CONSIDERATION NUMBER TWO.
UM, SO CONSIDERATION NUMBER THREE COMES AROUND AND TALKS ABOUT PRESERVATION EFFORTS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE WE, UH, UH, EXPLORED OPTIONS FOR REHABILITATION, UH, AND WHATNOT.
AND SO YOU MENTIONED TWO ORGANIZATIONS.
HAVE YOU CONTACTED ANY OTHERS WHO HAVEN'T RESPONDED OR I DID REACH OUT TO HABITAT TRYING TO FIND WHO WOULD THEIR DECISION MAKER WOULD BE.
THAT'LL PROBABLY STILL COME AROUND ONCE I FIND, SO THERE MAY BE THREE ORGANIZATIONS.
YOU TOUCHED, UM, SO, SO BASED ON THE WAY I'M READING NUMBER TWO FOR THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE VIABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE OR THE FITNESS OF THE STRUCTURE FOR YOUR PURPOSE, WE'VE BEEN SITTING IN THESE DESIGN REVIEW MEETINGS TALKING ABOUT SAVING A PIECE OF SOMETHING AND INCORPORATING IT SOMEHOW ON THIS SITE.
AND I DON'T SEE THAT IN YOUR APPLICATION AT THE MOMENT, IS THAT OTHER THAN FLAGPOLES? CORRECT.
THIS IS, WE WERE SEEKING DEMOLITION PHASE TWO.
OUR CONCEPT, AS WE SAID PREVIOUS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS.
UM, IF WE KNOW MORE WISHES, WE CAN ATTEMPT, BUT I'M REALLY NOT AUTHORIZED TO.
AND, AND, AND SO THIS IS A CONSIDERATION.
THREE IS WHERE I HAVE A, A, A SERIOUS BREAKDOWN IN CONSCIENCE.
YOU KNOW, ON ONE HAND WE WANT TO BE A, WE, AND I'M SPEAKING FOR THE BOARD, MAY BE UNFAIRLY WANT TO BE A COMMUNITY PLAYER.
WE RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR, UM, COUNTY FACILITIES.
UM, WE LIKE IT DOWNTOWN, OR AT LEAST I DO.
I I THINK THEY OUGHT TO BE DOWNTOWN.
I THINK IT, IT SERVES A VERY IMPORTANT PURPOSE.
UM, I, I CAN SEE ANY NUMBER OF WAYS THAT SOME ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PIECE OF THIS BUILDING COULD BE INCORPORATED SOMEHOW AND, AND KIND OF GET US PAST THIS ADAPTIVE REUSE THING AND, AND, AND MAKE IT, NOT NECESSARILY LEMONADE, BUT UH, YOU KNOW, A SITUATION THAT IS BENEFICIAL, UM, NOT NOT ONLY TO THE COMMUNITY, BUT TO YOUR CLIENT.
AND, AND TO PRESERVATION IN, IN TERMS OF, UM, HAVING RETAINED SOME KIND OF EVIDENCE OF WHAT, WHAT IS A, A, A, A VERY SUBSTANTIAL BUILDING, WHETHER YOU LIKE THE ARCHITECTURE OF IT OR NOT, YOU KNOW, SO IT, IT, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CARICATURE.
AND, AND, AND SO I'M, I'M HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE GETTING BEHIND YOU WITHOUT HAVING TO HELP ME HELP YOU IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.
IF THERE IS A LANGUAGE WITHIN THE GUIDELINES AND YOU CAN TELL US WHAT IT
[01:10:01]
IS YOU'RE AFTER, WE CAN LOOK AT IT.SO YOU EITHER, I GUESS AT THIS POINT, YOU GOTTA TELL US WHAT THE MAGIC PIECE IS TO LET US SEE WHAT WE CAN INCORPORATE.
UH, BUT, OR UNFORTUNATELY, I'VE BEEN IN YOUR POSITION BEFORE, AND I KNOW THAT'S YOUR BURDEN AND NOT MINE,
SO YEAH, I GUESS THAT'LL BE THAT.
WE, WE'VE TRIED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AND WE, WE'VE, THE RESPONSE HAS BEEN, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED.
I, I THINK YOU SEE, THERE'S, THERE'S INTEREST ON OUR SIDE IN, IN DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
ARE YOU WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A SERIOUS DISCUSSION AND, AND, AND TRY TO MEET THE GUIDELINES? GUIDELINES AS IN SAVING A PORTION OF THE BUILDING? THIS I'M BEING OKAY.
YOU'RE PUTTING A LIMITATION ON IT WITH SO MUCH GRAYNESS.
I NEED TO KNOW WHICH WAY I'M MANEUVERING HERE.
AND MR. MORRISON JUST TO BE HELPFUL, SO, WELL, NOT MR. MORRISON, MR. BISBY, SO THAT EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE.
I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT THERE IS A GUIDELINE THAT REQUIRES SOMEONE TO MAINTAIN A PORTION OF THE BUILDING.
A QUESTION TO, TO, UM, DIDN'T YOU TALK ABOUT WINDOWS AND SCALE OF THE NEW BUILDING REFLECTING SOME OF THE OLD BUILDINGS, CORRECT.
COULD YOU TALK ABOUT THAT AGAIN? YEAH.
WE WERE, THE CONCEPT, THE MOSTLY THE SAME.
FRONT FACADE WAS A KIND OF A NOD OR HOMAGE TO THE TEMPLE WITH THE SAME STAIR TOWER.
UM, CAN YOU SEE THAT WINDOW, UH, BLEW BY THE SAME, UH, TALLER, THINNER WINDOWS ALONG THE FRONT.
THE STAIR TOWER'S GOT THE SAME, I'M GONNA CALL IT X PATTERN IN THE GLASS, WHICH IS, LIKE I SAID, REALLY KIND OF PICKING UP THE CHARACTER OF THE FRONT TEMPLE WALL.
BUT THE BUILDING WILL STILL BE FULLY GONE AND NO REMAINS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN WILL BE REMAINING ON THE SIDE.
THAT'S WHAT, SAY ASK AGAIN, SORRY.
WELL, EVEN IF THAT'S INCORPORATED, THE BUILDING WILL STILL BE GONE AND NO REMAINS OF IT WILL BE ON SITE, CORRECT.
IN THIS, IN THIS SCENARIO, YES.
I HAVE A GREAT RESPECT FOR MS. BULLOCK, BUT I ALSO HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR MR. SHELLY.
HE'S GIVEN US AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT'S BEEN DONE IN ANOTHER PLACE.
HE SHOWS A FACADE THAT HAS BEEN RETAINED WITH A NEW BUILDING BEHIND IT.
AND I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR THAT.
AND I, UH, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
THAT'S WHAT I THINK OUGHT TO HAPPEN.
I THINK OUR MAIN PROBLEM IS HOW DO WE RELATE THAT TO THE GUIDELINES? LIKE HOW CAN WE PULL THE GUIDELINES IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT REQUEST VIABILITY? I MEAN, THAT'S VIABLE.
BUT THEN WE NEED TO HAVE, IF IT'S VIABLE, WE NEED TO DENY THE TION FULLY AND NOT JUST PARTIALLY.
WELL, THAT'S, I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE THIS IS GOING.
I GUESS WE'RE TRYING TO SAY IN A VERY POLITE WAY.
IF LIKE, OKAY, HERE AGAIN, I'M TALKING OUTSIDE THIS FRAMEWORK.
WE'RE BUILDING AROUND OURSELVES, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE.
MISS JAMIE'S GOING TO TELL ME REAL SHORTLY.
BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY, I, I THINK WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS, IS TO SEE A, AN EFFORT OF INCORPORATING SOMETHING MORE SIGNIFICANT AS A ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
THAT'S YOUR IDEA THEN THEREFORE, IT'S NOT A GUIDELINE PROBLEM.
I WOULD, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT EASY ON THE COUNTY AND LET THEM JUST KEEP THAT BROAD STREET FACADE WITH THE TOWER AND THE DOME.
BUT IF THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE, THEN I THINK WE HAVE TO KEEP THE WHOLE THING.
ARE YOU, WE CAN'T DESIGN THIS BUILDING FOR YOU.
I THINK LET'S MAKE THAT CLEAR.
BUT YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF ISSUES.
AND WHAT WE'D WOULD LIKE, RATHER THAN DENYING IT HERE TONIGHT, WHICH I,
[01:15:01]
I KIND OF THINK IT'S HEADED THAT WAY, IS FOR YOU TO AGREE TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THAT BUILDING INTO THE DESIGN.I GOTTA GO TO A HIGHER AUTHORITY ON THAT ONE.
JUST, UH, FOR THE RECORD, I'M GENE HODGES, ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER OF CRAVEN COUNTY.
UM, I PUT MY FULL LEGAL NAME ON HERE, WHICH IS MILTON E HODGES JR.
UM, IF, IF THIS BOARD IS LOOKING FOR A COMMITMENT TO ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS TONIGHT, NOBODY HERE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO COMMIT TO ANY ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS IN ORDER TO GET THIS, UH, THIS COA, SO THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AN EFFORT, NOT A, NOT, NOT A DESIGN.
WOULD A CONTINUANCE BE HELPFUL? A CONTINUANCE? WE'D BE WILLING, I THINK TO DO, FOR, TO GET AN EFFORT TO, TO COME UP WITH AN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN THAT INCORPORATES TO SOME DEGREE THE FEATURES OF THAT BUILDING.
IS THERE A TIMELINE?
UM, YOU, YOU USUALLY, WE ASKED WHEN, WHEN, WHEN.
WHEN'S THE SOONEST YOU CAN DO IT.
I MEAN, THAT'S GONNA BE, THAT'S GONNA BE A BIT OF A, IF YOU PUT THIS IN FOR CONTINUANCE, WE CAN ALWAYS POSTPONE MORE.
AND AS LONG AS IT'S MUTUALLY AGREED UPON, WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT TIME LIMITS AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
SO, A CONTINUANCE WITH, UH, WITHOUT A, WITHOUT A DETERMINED DATE, WE CAN THEN A PETITION TO PUT IT BACK ON THE AGENDA.
WELL, I THINK WE WOULD GIVE IT A DATE.
YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN MOVE THE DATE.
DO YOU WANT ONE MONTH, TWO, THREE MONTHS? YOU NEED TO GIVE, YOU NEED TO GIVE US AT LEAST 60 TO 90 DAYS.
RIGHT NOW, HOW ABOUT A 90 DAY CONTINUANCE? AND IF, IF YOU PICK A DATE, IF WE GET IT EARLIER, WE CAN THEN PETITION TO HAVE IT ON EARLIER.
AND, AND IF YOU'RE DONE EARLIER, I, I WOULD LOVE TO BE IN A WORK SESSION SO WE CAN THRESH IT OUT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I, I MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE THIS APPLICATION UNTIL AUGUST.
CAN SOMEBODY HELP ME WITH THE DATE, OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:30 PM IN CITY HALL, AUGUST TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT AUGUST 21ST, UH, AUGUST 21ST, UH, CONTINUED TO AUGUST 21ST.
AND THE REASON FOR, FOR THE CONTINUANCE IS TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO EXPLORE SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVES WITH, UH, RETAINING SOME HISTORIC FABRIC.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, STATE AYE.
OPPOSED? HEARING NONE CONTINUED.
SO, JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR, THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR, THE REGULAR MEETING IN AUGUST.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT CAN GO TO THE INFORMAL MEETINGS TO GET FEEDBACK AND INPUT FROM THE COMMISSION.
BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, YOU CAN COME TO ANY OF THE DESIGN REVIEWS ALONG THE WAY.
AND THE NEXT ONE IS, UH, JUNE 5TH, THREE WEEKS.
[4.C. 712 POLLOCK ST. – to include a new accessory structure in the Tertiary AVC.]
SEVEN 12 P*****K STREET? YES.ALRIGHT, SO THIS IS THE APPLICATION FOR SEVEN 12 P*****K STREET.
UM, AND THEY'VE, UH, THE OWNERS ARE PAUL AND LAURA HANLIN.
UH, AND THEY'VE PROVIDED A BRIEF DESCRIPTION, UH, AND ALSO ON PLANS ARE ALL THE, UM, MATERIALS.
MR. HANLON SIGNED THE APPLICATION.
SO REPRESENTING THEMSELVES, THIS IS A, UM, UH, STREET VIEW OF THE FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE.
UH, THE PROJECT IS FOR A GARAGE, HOWEVER, ALL THE WAY IN THE BACK.
THIS IS TO PROVIDE YOU SOME CONTEXT AND LOCATION.
IF YOU RECOGNIZE WHERE THIS IS.
THE, UH, TRIUM PALACE GARDENS ARE ON JUST TO THE RIGHT.
UH, AND THEN, UM, THIS IS THEIRS, THEIR DRIVEWAY BACK TO THE REAR YARD.
AND THEN THIS IS THE GRAVEL AREA IS APPROXIMATELY WHERE THE, WHERE THE CAR IS PARKED IS APPROXIMATELY WHERE THE GARAGE
[01:20:01]
WILL BE.UM, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO DISCERN EXACTLY, BUT WELL, UH, P*****K STREET AT THE BOTTOM, THE MAIN HOUSE IN THE FRONT, THERE IS A SECOND HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY, UH, RIGHT BEHIND THE MAIN HOUSE.
AND THEN, UH, THE LAST HALF OF THE PROPERTY IS BASICALLY ALL OPEN AND YOU CAN SEE A CAR PARKED THERE, UH, TOWARDS THE, TOWARDS THE REAR.
THEN THIS IS A SKETCH, WHICH IS NOW UPSIDE DOWN, UM, SHOWING P*****K STREET AT THE TOP, THE HOUSE, THE MAIN HOUSE AT THE TOP THERE.
THEN THE MIDDLE HOUSE, THE DRIVEWAY COMES ALONG THE SIDE OF THAT, AND THEN TO THE RIGHT OF THAT.
AND THEN THE GARAGE AT THE REAR, WHICH IS FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE AND THE REAR AT ITS CLOSEST POINTS.
IT ALSO, IT'S 26 BY 40 AND INCLUDES A SIX FOOT APRON AND IS, UH, OVER 60 FEET AWAY FROM THE, UH, HOUSE, FROM THE REAR HOUSE.
SO THIS IS, UH, THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR THIS.
UH, AND IT IS A THREE CAR GARAGE, UH, ONE AND A HALF STORY.
UH, AND YOU CAN SEE, UM, ALSO ON THE SIDE.
WELL, LET'S JUST START WITH THE FRONT.
UH, GIVE YOU ALL THE DETAILS ON THE FRONT AND I'LL ZOOM IN SOME MORE FOR THAT.
SO, UH, THE ROOFING IS SHINGLES.
THE, UM, THE TRIM IS, UM, UH, HERE AT SIX INCH AND FOUR INCH WIDE.
AND THEN THERE ARE ACTUALLY SHAKES.
THESE ARE THE, UH, LIKE HARDY BOARD OR CONCRETE PANEL SHAKES.
UH, THE TRIM AROUND THE WINDOWS SIX INCH AND FOUR SIX INCH FOR THE HEADER, AND FOUR INCH FOR THE SIDE AND THE BOTTOM.
THE SIDING IS THE HORIZONTAL, UH, CONCRETE, UH, PANEL, UM, SIDING PARTY BOARD.
UH, AND THEN THE CORNER BOARDS ARE FOUR INCH.
AND THE BASE OF THE, UH, STRUCTURE IS A BRICK VENEER.
UM, THEY HAVE SINCE PROVIDED A NOTE, UH, IN AN EMAIL THAT THIS, UH, BOTTOM BOARD IS TO BE, UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS EIGHT INCHES, BUT I SHOULD CHECK THAT.
UH, AND THEN ON THE SIDE, WE HAVE THE SAME MATERIALS WITH A MUCH LARGER PRESENCE OF THE SHAKES ON THE GABLE.
UH, WE HAVE A DOUBLE WINDOW HERE, AND, UH, THE PITCH IS 10 AND 12 AND THE REAR IS BLANK.
UH, SO THE GARAGE DOORS ARE TO THE, ON THE LEFT FACADE HERE.
UH, THE HAS THE GARAGE DOOR, UH, AND LIGHT ON THIS SIDE.
AND HERE YOU CAN SEE THE SIDE VIEW OF THE, UM, GABLES.
THEN AS FAR AS THE PLANS GO, WE HAVE, UH, IT'S A SLAB ON GRADE FOR THE, UM, GARAGE.
AND WE HAVE A SECTION OF THE WALL.
WE HAVE THE ROOFING PLAN ON THE UPPER RIGHT, AND THE GARAGE IS JUST AN EMPTY GARAGE WITH, THEN THERE'S A STAIRWAY GOING UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR, SECOND FLOOR, OR THE SECOND HALF STORY.
AND THAT HALF STORY, UM, HAD SLOPING ROOFS TO A FLAT EIGHT FOOT CEILING IN THE MIDDLE.
UH, AND THEN OUT TO THE GABLES.
I MEAN THE, UH, DORMER, SORRY.
ANYTHING ELSE IN THERE? AND THAT'S TO BE USED FOR STORAGE.
UH, THESE, THIS IS THE, ONE OF THE EMAILS THAT PROVIDES THE MATERIALS.
UM, THE SHINGLES ON THE ROOF ARE OUR DIMENSIONAL ASPHALT SHINGLES.
THE SIDINGS ARE HARDY SIDING AND CORNERS AND TRIM ARE ALL HARDY PLANK.
UM, THE DOORS ARE FIBERGLASS, ENTRY DOOR AND AN AN ALUMINUM GARAGE DOORS.
THE WINDOWS ARE ONE OVER ONE PVC.
UM, AND THERE'S A SIX FOOT APRON IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE.
NO MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, AND THERE'S JUST ELECTRICITY FOR LIGHTS AND GARAGE DOORS.
AND THERE'S WATER TO A FAUCET.
THEN, UH, THERE'S THE CORNER BOARDS ARE NOW CHANGED TO SIX INCH.
AND THE, UM, SIDING BOARD, OH, UH, ALL THE SIDING HAVE EIGHT INCH, WHAT WE CALL EXPOSURE.
UM, SO EIGHT INCHES OF OVER OVERLAP.
UM, UH, THE BOARD STICKING OUT FROM EACH OTHER.
AND THEN, UH, THE SKIRT BOARD IS 12 INCH.
[01:25:01]
A RESULT OF OUR DESIGN REVIEW MEETING.UH, SOME OF THE THINGS WE DISCUSSED THERE.
THIS IS NOW THE, UH, ZONING AND INSPECTIONS, UH, FORM.
AND THE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS INDICATED THAT ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION IS REQUIRED AND THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT A, UH, BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED.
AND SO THEN WE'RE READY WITH OUR FINDINGS AND EVALUATION WHENEVER YOU ARE.
ARE THERE ANY PROPONENTS OR OPPONENTS HERE? WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IS WHO IS THE, UH, REPRESENTATIVE? ARE THERE COMMENTS FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE? DO YOU HAVE, DO YOU WANNA MAKE ANY COMMENTS? NO.
READY FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FOR PAUL AND LAURA HANLON, UH, FOR THEIR PROJECT AT SEVEN 12 P*****K STREET.
UH, THE HISTORIC PROPERTY ACTUALLY HAS, UH, TWO HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY.
THE MAIN HOUSE, THE JOHN CHADWICK HOUSE, WHICH WAS BUILT 1790 TO 1795, AND THEN REMODELED AROUND 1930 TO 1940.
UH, AND THEN THAT SECOND BUILDING, THE SECOND HOUSE IS, UH, WAS BUILT CIRCA 1940.
UH, BOTH OF THEM ARE CONSIDERED CONTRIBUTING.
UH, AND AGAIN, JUST FOR SOME CONTEXT ALSO, MAYBE FOR SOME DESIGN, UM, POINTS, UH, THE JOHN CHADWICK HOUSE IS 20TH CENTURY REMODELING, REMODELING AND CLOSING LATE GEORGIAN CORE, THREE BAYS WIDE.
THREE BAYS DEEP MODERN ENTRANCE PORCH IN THE RIGHT FRONT BAY, AND DOUBLE STORY REAR PORCH, A GABLE FRONT ROOF WITH TRIANGULAR BRACKETS.
AND FOR THE OUTBUILDING, IT'S ONE STORY.
L PLAN, THREE BAYS WIDE, THREE DEEP ENGAGED PORCH SQUARE POSTS, GABLE ROOFS, AND TRIANGULAR BRACKETS.
I HIGHLIGHTED THE THINGS THAT SEEMED TO BE, UH, UH, COMMON BETWEEN THE TWO SANDECK DESCRIPTION FROM 1988.
UH, THE MOST RELEVANT INFORMATION FOR THE JOHN HAT CHADWICK HOUSE IS, UH, SOME OF THE ORIGINAL NINE SIX SASH AND MOLDED TWO PART WINDOW SURROUNDS WERE REUSED WHEN THE HOUSE WAS REMODELED.
SO THOSE WOULD'VE BEEN FROM THE SEVEN 17 HUNDREDS.
THESE PROVIDE THE ONLY EXTERNAL CLUES TO THE AGE OF THE ORIGINAL GEORGIAN FRAME WITHIN THE DOMINANT CABLE ROOF WITH ITS KICK AT THE EAVES.
AND THE EXPOSED RAFTER ENDS DATES FROM THE 1930 TO 1940 REMODELING, AS DOES THE TWO STORY REAR SHED PORCH.
THERE IS NO DESCRIPTION IN SANDECK FOR THE OUTBUILDING.
SO THE PROJECT FOR SEVEN TO A P*****K STREET IS TO INCLUDE A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE TERTIARY.
A, B, C STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS, AKA GUIDELINES THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO THIS APPLICATION FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, 2.6, 0.1, AND TWO FOR PARKING, 2.7 0.1, AND TWO FOR DESIGN PRINCIPLES, 3.1, 0.1 AND TWO, AND 3.14 AND FIVE FOR FOUNDATIONS.
4.13 FOR WALLS, TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION, 4.2 0.4 AND FIVE FOR WINDOWS, DOORS AND OPENINGS.
4.3 0.2 AND THREE FOR CONTEMPORARY MATERIALS, 5.5, 1, 2, 3, 5, AND SIX.
AND STATEMENTS OR REASON BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION AND STAFF'S JUDGMENT ARE ONE, THE APPLICATION IS FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE TIGHT WEAVE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
TWO, 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 FOUR, THE PROJECT IS NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH THE GUIDELINES.
THE HPC MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
REVISED PLANS ACCORDING TO THE CHANGES AGREED UPON AT THE HEARING SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE HPC STAFF FOR APPROVAL ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES AND PRIOR TO THE FINAL INSPECTION BY THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DIVISION.
IT'S THE END OF OUR REPORT DISCUSSION.
ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UH, ARE SOME REVISIONS SUGGESTED AT THIS POINT? UM, UH, THE ONLY THING I THOUGHT OF WAS THE, MAYBE, UH, THE BRACKETS AND THE EVES MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADDED IF YOU WANTED TO KIND OF REFLECT THE, THE ORIGINAL BUILDINGS.
SO I THINK I'M TALKING TO PAUL.
UM, JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR, UH, BEING RESPONSIVE TO THE FEEDBACK WE HAD DURING DESIGN REVIEW.
I APPRECIATE SEEING THE, UH, UH, CHANGES IN YOUR APPLICATION.
[01:30:05]
APOLOGIZE FOR MISSING THAT REVIEW, BUT I DIDN'T SEE IT.IT IS SMOOTH, HARDY PAN HARDY BOARD, NOT GREEN, CORRECT? IT'S SMOOTH.
OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. SARS? AND IS ANY LANDSCAPING REQUIRED OR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? ARE YOU MAKING ANY LANDSCAPING? NO, NOT, AND THAT WOULD BE A ZONING QUESTION, BUT NO.
READY TO HEAR A MOTION? THEN I MOVE THAT WE FIND THE APPLICATION FOR SEVEN 12 P*****K STREET.
UH, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO BE NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH NEW BURN'S.
CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTION 15 4 11 TO 15 4 29.
AND NEW BERN, NEW BERN'S HISTORIC DISTRICT STANDARDS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING, UH, SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND FINDINGS OF FACT.
UM, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES 2.6 0.1 2.6 0.2.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES, 3.1, 0.1 3.1 0.2 3.1 0.4 3.1 0.5, UH, FOUNDATIONS, 4.1 0.3.
WALLS, TRIM AND ORATION, 4.24, 4.2 0.5, WINDOWS, DORS AND OPENINGS.
UM, AND CONTEMPORARY MATERIALS, 5.23.
UM, FINDINGS OF FACT BEING THE, UH, UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS IN TIGHT WEAVE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
UH, THE DESIGN COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS, UH, UH, MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STANDARDS.
UH, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE, UH, REVIEWED.
UH, THE APPLICATION COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY, AND THE PROJECT IS NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH THE GUIDE OR STANDARDS.
[4.D. 508 C St. – to include: new wood steps, porch columns, and railing, reuse side windows for the missing windows, new brick sidewalk, all in the Primary AVC; replace side windows with shorter windows in the Secondary AVC; remove new rear window and replace with a wood French door in the Tertiary AVC.]
5 0 8 C STREET GRANT.ALRIGHT, SO THIS IS THE APPLICATION FOR 5 0 8 C STREET FOR RICE OROZCO.
IS THAT IT? DID I DO? ALL RIGHT.
UM, UH, AND THE SCOPE OF WORK IS ATTACHED AS WELL AS THE GUIDELINES AND MATERIALS.
UH, AND THEN, UH, THEY PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS AND DRAWINGS AND, UH, MR. OROZCO, HE SIGNED THIS RIGHT? WAIT A MINUTE.
UH, THIS IS HIS SCOPE OF WORK.
THE WINDOWS FOR IS TO REBUILD ALL EXISTING WINDOWS.
UH, MOVE TWO EXISTING WINDOWS FROM THE FIRST FLOOR KITCHEN TO THE SECOND FLOOR WHERE TWO WINDOWS ARE MISSING.
UH, THESE ARE ALL THE SAME SIZE AND STYLE.
UH, REPLACED THE TWO KITCHEN WINDOWS THAT WERE MOVED WITH WOODEN, SAME STYLE, SMALLER HEIGHT, SAME WIDTH FOR OVER THE KITCHEN COUNTERTOP.
UH, NEW WINDOW HEADERS WILL BE AT THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE EXISTING WINDOWS, UH, EXTERIOR OPENING UNDER THE TWO REMOVED WINDOWS, WHICH ARE SIDE FACING, UH, WILL BE REPAIRED WITH MATCHING WOOD SIDING.
UH, THEN THE EXTERIOR TRIM WILL BE SIZED DOWN AND REUSED.
SO, AND WHAT, WITH REGARD TO THE FRONT PORCH STEPS AND HANDRAIL? UM, THERE WERE NONE WHEN THEY, UPON PURCHASE, UH, THE WOODEN FRONT STEPS ARE 96 INCHES IN WIDTH, AND THE STEPS ARE BUILT TO BUILDING CODE WOODEN HANDRAIL WITH BALLISTERS OF THREE INCHES APART.
END POSTS WE CAPPED AND ALSO TRIMMED AT THE BOTTOM.
A PRIMER COATING APPLIED TO THE FRONT AND BACK OF ALL WOOD SURFACES PRIOR TO CUTTING AND FITTING.
AND END CUTS WILL BE PRIMED BEFORE INSTALLATION AND OPAQUE STAIN WILL BE USED FOR THE FRONT SIDEWALK.
[01:35:01]
PREVIOUS OWNERS, UH, AND PHOTOS SENT TO ME THE FRONT PORCH COLUMNS AND RA RAILINGS.EXISTING COLUMNS ALREADY INSTALLED AT THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, WOODEN PORCH RAILINGS TWO FOOT HIGH WITH BALLISTERS THAT ARE THREE INCHES APART.
UH, A PRIMER COATING, UH, AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS WITH REGARD TO THE WOOD.
UH, THEY'LL BE PAINTED WHITE TO MATCH THE HOUSE TRIM, UH, AND THEY WILL BE MAKING AN EFFORT TO RETAIN AND REPAIR HISTORIC MATERIALS.
SO, UM, THIS IS AN AERIAL, NO, WE NEED TO GO A LITTLE SMALLER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HERE WITH THE BLUE OUTLINE.
THIS IS C STREET HERE, AND THEN THIS IS NATIONAL AVENUE, IS THE LARGER STREET IN THE UPPER RIGHT.
UH, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY HAVE DELINEATED WITH A YELLOW DASH LINE, UH, BECAUSE, UH, IT'S UNUSUAL THAT, UH, A HOUSE ON A SIDE STREET IS INCLUDED IN THE RIVERSIDE HISTORIC DIS ON THIS SIDE OF, OF NATIONAL AVENUE IS INCLUDED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO, UM, SO THAT'S A, A CLOSER UP VIEW OF THE AERIAL.
AND HERE YOU CAN SEE, UM, ESSENTIALLY, UH, THEY HAVE A PARKING AREA ON THE, THE, I GUESS THAT'S THE NORTHEAST SIDE AND, UH, MOSTLY GRASS.
UM, THEY ALSO HAVE TWO, UM, OUTBUILDINGS IN THE BACK HERE, WHICH THEY HAVE A SEPARATE, UH, MINOR COA SUBMITTED FOR REMOVAL OF THOSE.
UM, ANOTHER COA HAS BEEN, UH, APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR A DECK ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, UH, RELEVANT TO THIS BECAUSE, UM, THEY'RE PROPOSING A DOOR WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE DROP THREE FEET TO THE GROUND.
SO, UM, THIS IS THE WAY WE FOUND IT IN 2019, UH, WITH PREVIOUS OWNER, UM, THEY HAD REMOVED THE, THE WOOD COLUMNS, UH, AND THEY REPLACED THEM WITH THESE, UH, SQUARE POSTS.
UH, AND WE WEREN'T QUITE SURE IF THEY WERE GONNA BE PERMANENT OR NOT.
UM, THEY DID REPLACE SOME OF THE SIDING.
THEY REMOVED THE FRONT STEPS ENTIRELY.
UH, ALSO, HERE'S ANOTHER ANGLE, ANOTHER VIEW OF THAT.
SO THESE ARE THE POSTS THAT THEY, UH, COLUMNS, SORRY, THAT THEY HAD REMOVED THE ORIGINAL COLUMNS.
UH, AND I'VE DRAWN ON HERE, A, A RED LINE, A STRAIGHT LINE TO SHOW THAT THESE COLUMNS HAVE, UH, AN ENTASIS TO THEM, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE A LITTLE FATTER IN THE MIDDLE, UH, IN ORDER TO, UM, MITIGATE THE OPTICAL ILLUSION THAT LONG SKINNY THINGS HAVE THAT THEY LOOK, UM, EXTRA SKINNY AND MAYBE FLIMSY.
UH, THE GREEKS AND THE ROMANS USE THIS, UH, TECHNIQUE OF FATTENING THE MIDDLE OF A COLUMN, AND IT'S CALLED ENTASIS, AND WAS CONTINUED TO TODAY FOR MANY COLUMNS, ALTHOUGH NOT ALWAYS ANYMORE.
THEY'RE STILL THERE TODAY IN THE YARD.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH SOLID WITH JUST A SMALL CORE ON THE INSIDE, I THINK TO, UH, UH, I DUNNO WHY.
UM, AND THEN, UH, AT THE TIME, UH, WE DISCOVERED THAT THEY HAD ENCLOSED THIS ENTIRE OPEN PORCH THAT WAS BACK HERE, UM, WITH SIDING.
AND, UM, ALTHOUGH SOME PRETTY NICE, GOOD SIDING, UH, AND ADDED THAT DOOR.
AND IN THIS PHOTO, IF YOU LOOK IN THE BACKGROUND HERE ON THE LEFT, YOU CAN SEE THE TWIN HOUSE HAS ONE OF THOSE OPEN PORCHES.
THAT'S WHAT IT, THAT'S WHAT THIS ONE HAD LOOKED LIKE AS WELL.
SO, UM, THIS IS NOW ALSO THE REAR ELEVATION.
YOU CAN SEE THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD ALSO PUT IN, UH, THIS SMALL, UH, WINDOW IN THE, OR WHAT WOULD BE THEIR KITCHEN AREA.
UH, AND IN 2022, THE BUILDING LOOKED LIKE THIS.
THEY HAD INSTALLED SOME, UH, NEW STRAIGHT SIDED, UH, COLUMNS.
UH, AND, UM, NOT A WHOLE LOT ELSE.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN PAINT THE PIECES THAT THEY PUT ON, UH, IN THE FRONT ANYWAY, IN THE, ON THE OTHER SIDE.
UH, NOW ON THE, IN THE REAR THEY DID IN 2023.
THIS IS, UH, WHAT WE, UH, OBSERVED AT THE TIME.
THIS WAS ALSO A DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT.
UM, UM, UH, I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S NOT ON, ON THE LIST, BUT IT WAS, UH, ON OUR, UM, UH, CONCERN.
IT WAS AN ITEM OF, UH, A PROPERTY OF CONCERN AT THE TIME.
SO WE WERE, WE WERE MONITORING IT.
[01:40:01]
AND SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THE NEW, UH, COLUMNS ARE STRAIGHT SIDED.THEY ARE TAPERED, BUT STILL STRAIGHT SIDED, UH, STRAIGHT.
UM, AND THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE THERE TODAY BECAUSE NOW THIS IS 2024, JUST, UH, ABOUT A MONTH AGO, THIS PHOTO TAKEN WITH THE NEW OWNERS.
UM, THE NEW OWNERS, UH, STARTED WITH, UH, SOME NEW STAIRWAY, UH, CONSTRUCTION.
WE STOPPED THAT, UM, BECAUSE OF LACK OF A COA.
AND, UH, BY THAT TIME, THE TWO WINDOWS AT THE SECOND FLOOR HAD BEEN BOARDED OVER, UH, WHEREAS PREVIOUSLY THEY WERE THERE.
SO MAYBE THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD SOME PROBLEMS WITH THEM ANYWAY, UH, AND NOW THE NEW, UH, AND THE NEW BRICK, UH, SIDEWALK IS FINE BECAUSE, UM, UH, A WALKWAY WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO, THEY JUST REPLACED IT AND DID A DIFFERENT MATERIAL.
UH, AND SO THEY WANT TO TALK TO US ABOUT THEIR, UM, STAIRWAY DESIGN.
AND YOU'VE HEARD SOME OF THE DESCRIPTION ALREADY.
THESE ARE THE TWO OUTBUILDINGS OUT IN THE BACK THAT'S, UH, ACTUALLY, UM, NOT A PART OF THIS APPLICATION.
UM, THEN, UM, THESE ARE THEIR PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE, UH, PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT'S PHOTOGRAPHS, SORRY.
SO IF WE NEED TO REFER TO THEM, WE CAN, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE RAILING THAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON PUTTING IN.
UH, IT'S ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS, UH, RAIL, UH, IT'S RAILING IN ONE OF THE NEIGHBORING HOUSES.
SO YOU CAN SEE IT HAS THE, UH, THE NICE, UH, HAND GRIP RAIL ON THE TOP.
UH, THE BALLISTERS ARE SQUARE IN SECTION AND IT HAS A BOTTOM RAIL.
AND THE BALLISTERS ARE CENTERED ON THE HAND GRIP AND THE BOTTOM RAIL, WHERE THE TOP RAIL AND THE BOTTOM RAIL.
THIS IS A VERY LARGE, UH, PHOTO OF THE TRIM DETAIL THAT THEY WILL BE PUTTING AROUND THE POSTS AT THE BOTTOM, UH, OF THE, UH, FOR THE STAIRWAY.
UH, AND EACH POST WILL BE CAPPED.
UH, THESE ARE THE TWO SIDE WINDOWS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE AND PUT IN THE FRONT WINDOWS ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
UM, WE CAN SEE THAT THEY ARE ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS.
UM, AND SO, UM, YOU GUYS CAN DECIDE IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
AND THEN THEY WILL BE REPLACING THESE, OR IN THESE OPENINGS, THEY'LL BE PUTTING, UM, SHORTER WINDOWS THAT ARE THE SAME WIDTH.
UM, AND AT THE SAME, UH, AND THE, THE HEADER WILL REMAIN AT THE SAME PLACE.
THE WI THE SILL WILL COME UP HIGHER IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR KITCHEN COUNTER.
ALRIGHT? AND THIS WAS THEIR FIRST EXAMPLE OF THOSE WINDOWS.
UH, BUT THEY HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY, UM, SHOWN THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH FROM THIS SAME HOUSE OF THE, UM, SIZE AND SHAPE THAT THE WINDOWS WILL BE, BE AT THE LOCATIONS WHERE THE, UH, WHERE THE TWO WINDOWS WERE REMOVED.
UH, AND THEN FOR THE REAR ELEVATION, UM, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW AND PUT SIDING OVER IT AND ADD A FRENCH DOOR.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE A DRAWING OF THIS.
SO THAT'S, UH, THEIR PROPOSAL FOR SOME REASON, UH, I THINK HE RAN OUT OF PAPER AT THE BOTTOM OF HIS DRAWING, UH, TO GET THE FULL BOTTOM.
BUT, UM, THE MAIN THING IS WE KNOW WHERE THE DOOR WILL BE AND THE FACT THAT THE WINDOW WILL BE GONE.
AND THEN THEY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL WIND, UH, PHOTOS FROM THE INSIDE VIEW OF THOSE TWO SIDE WINDOWS.
AND THEN THE SMALL WINDOW THAT'S TO BE BOARDED OVER, REMOVED AND BOARDED OVER.
UH, AND THE ZONING AND INSPECTIONS FORM, UM, A ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION IS REQUIRED.
AND, UH, THE A, UH, BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED.
AND I, I THINK THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED WITH A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE INTERIOR ANYWAY.
AND THEN WE'RE READY WITH OUR STAFF REPORT.
WHENEVER YOU ARE THE OWNER, LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS.
ARE THERE ANY OPPONENTS OR PROP PRO PROPONENTS THAT WANT TO COMMENT? HI, I'M KATHY JOE JONES, AND I LIVE AT FIVE
[01:45:01]
11 C STREET.I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THE CHANGES THAT OUR NEW NEIGHBOR HAS IN PLACE AND ANYTHING TO REVITALIZE AND IMPROVE.
UH, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE MONITOR THE OTHER TWO HOMES, BUT THAT'S, THIS MAY NOT BE THE CORRECT VENUE FOR THAT TYPE OF A DISCUSSION.
THE ONES THAT ARE ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET, UM, TAKE PRIDE IN MY HOME AND I WOULD LIKE FOR OUR STREET TO REFLECT THAT.
AND IF THOSE FOUR HOUSES ARE TO BE RETAINED BY THIS HISTORICAL SOCIETY COMMITTEE, HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE, I THINK IF THOSE FOUR HOUSES ARE TO BE UNDER SCRUTINY, THEN THEY SHOULD DEFINITELY BE FULL MICROSCOPIC VIEW THERE.
AND, UM, BUT AS FOR THIS HOME, I'M EXCITED TO HAVE RENOVATION THERE AND REVITALIZATION, AND THE BRICK WORK IS AMAZING, AND I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE WHAT'S FINISHED.
OH, WHAT WAS YOUR ADDRESS AGAIN? FIVE 11 C STREET.
MAY I BE SWORN IN? SO I SWORN YEAH, DID, YEAH.
AND YOU'RE BEING SWORN IN TO SPEAK.
DO YOU PROMISE TO TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH? NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO YOU, GOD, I DO.
AND THEN PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS ON THERE.
I'M A RESIDENT AT 5 0 9 C STREET, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.
UM, I'M ALSO HERE TO VOICE MY SUPPORT, UM, FOR THE PROJECT.
UM, I HAVE THE LOVELY PERSPECTIVE.
I SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON MY FRONT PORCH, AND I SEE THREE HOUSES ACROSS FROM ME THAT COULD BE VERY BEAUTIFUL HOMES, BUT HAVE BEEN SEVERELY NEGLECTED.
AND SO I HAVE A LOT OF EXCITEMENT FOR WHAT'S IN STORE FOR 5 0 8 C STREET.
UM, BUT I'M DEFINITELY, UM, A LITTLE, WHAT'S THE WORD? UM, ANGSTY, PERTURBED, PERTURBED, I WOULD SAY.
UM, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE, UM, I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZED.
IT'S AN EYESORE TO LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THREE ABANDONED HOUSES.
I THINK IT'S ASKING FOR TROUBLE.
UM, I DON'T MEAN THAT IN LIKE A THREATENING WAY.
I MEAN THAT MORE IN LIKE VERMIN AND PESTS AND, UM, JUST THE GENERAL NUISANCE AND EYESORE OF IT ALL.
UM, AND ADDITIONALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, I HAVE CONCERNS.
UM, I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE UPSTAIRS WINDOWS I SAW IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, UM, THE UPSTAIRS WINDOWS WERE NOT THERE.
THERE WAS, I BELIEVE FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNERS, SOME TARPS, AND THEY WERE LIKE, SLASHED AND RIPPED, AND THEY FLAP IN THE WIND, AND IT WAS HORRIBLE TO LISTEN TO AT NIGHT.
SO I DID WANNA JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE.
UM, AND THAT I, I DISAGREE WITH THE TERMINOLOGY WEATHERED.
I THINK THAT THESE HOMES ARE SITTING AND ROTTING AND, UM, THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TO VOICE MY SUPPORT BECAUSE I, QUITE FRANKLY, THE COLUMNS, I UNDERSTAND THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THOSE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT.
AND I'M ALL FOR PRESERVING HISTORIC BUILDINGS.
UM, BUT THAT BEING SAID, ANYTHING AT THIS POINT IS ABSOLUTELY 10 MILLION TIMES BETTER THAN WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW.
I'LL, AND WE DO HAVE A COMMITTEE THAT WOULD, WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF THERE'S OTHER OPPORTUNITIES THERE.
READY FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION? OKAY.
SO THESE ARE THE FINDINGS AND EVALUATION FOR, UH, MR. OROZCO AT THE PROPERTY AT 5 0 8 C STREET.
UH, IT IS THE A OH AFER RENTAL HOUSE, UH, CIRCA 1914.
AND IT IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, A NATIONAL REGISTER INVENTORY DESCRIPTION FROM 1988.
UH, QUOTE, THIS TWO STORY DOUBLE PILE FRAME, SIDE HALL PLAN HOUSE REMAINS RENTAL PROPERTY
[01:50:01]
BACK IN 1988, TOP BY A STANDING SEAM TIN FRONT GABLE ROOF WITH RETURNS.THE HOUSE FEATURES A THREE BAY FACADE SPAN BY A ONE STORY FULL FACADE PORCH WITH TUSCAN COLUMNS SQUARE IN SECTION BALLISTERS, AND A BRICK LATTICE FOUNDATION.
UH, ONE STORY L EXTENDS TO THE REAR WITH A NARROW PORCH ALONG THE INNER ELEVATION, AND A CHIMNEY RISES TO THE RIGHT WEST OF THE ROOF.
RIDGE WINDOWS ARE TWO OVER TWO SASH, AND THEN SAND BECK HAD NO DESCRIPTION.
UH, SO FI THE PROJECT FOR 5 0 8 C STREET IS TO INCLUDE NEW WOOD STEPS, PORCH COLUMNS AND RAILING REUSE SIDE WINDOWS FOR THE MISSING WINDOWS, NEW BRICK SIDEWALK, ALL IN THE PRIMARY.
A, B, C, REPLACE SIDE WINDOWS WITH SHORTER WINDOWS AND THE SECONDARY A, B, C, AND REMOVE NEW REAR WINDOW AND REPLACE WITH A WOOD FRENCH DOOR IN THE TERTIARY.
A, B, C STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING, HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDE STANDARDS.
AKA GUIDELINES THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO THIS APPLICATION FOR PARKING.
2.7 0.1, DESIGN PRINCIPLES, 3.12 AND FOUR FOR MODIFICATIONS.
3.2, 0.1, TWO, AND THREE FOR WALLS, TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION, 4.2 0.1 AND FOUR FOR WINDOWS, DOORS AND OPENINGS.
AND FOR ENTRANCES, 4.4 0.1, TWO, AND FOUR.
UH, WOOD, 5.2, 0.1, AND TWO FOR PAINT.
5.4 0.1, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR.
STATEMENTS OF FACT, BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION ARE THE STRUCTURE IS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE IN THE TIGHT WEAVE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THE PROJECT IS MODIFICATIONS TO A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN ALL ABCS.
THREE, THE PROPOSED DESIGN COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY IN FIVE, THE APPLICATION IS NOT INCONGRUOUS FOR THE GUIDELINES.
SO THE HPC MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
UH, REVISED PLANS ACCORDING TO THE CHANGES AGREED UPON AT THE HEARING SHOULD BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE HPC STAFF FOR APPROVAL ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES AND PRIOR TO THE FINAL INSPECTION BY THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DIVISION.
I ECHO WHAT THE HOMEOWNER SAID.
CERTAINLY ENCOURAGING TO SEE IT, SO THANK YOU.
AND IT'S, IT'S SAD THAT THE FOUR HOUSES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ARE NOT AS NICE AS THE ONES ACROSS THE STREET.
BUT, UH, SO YOU WILL HAVE THE DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT WORK GROUP.
UM, THE ONLY THING I WOULD POINT OUT IS WHEN YOU GET A DESIGN, IF YOU HAVE A DESIGN FOR THE FRENCH DOORS ON THE BACK, JUST INCLUDE A COPY OF WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE TO MR. SHELLEY.
IT'S NOT IN ANOTHER MEETING, BUT JUST LET HIM SEE IT.
I, IN THE DESIGN REVIEW WE TALKED, I ASKED ABOUT THE, UH, WINDOW IN THE BATHROOM ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
DO WE DESIGN THE HOUSE? A PANTRY AND THE CLOSET? IF SHE COULD COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE.
IF YOU'LL NEED TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
I'M PUT THERE IN THE ROOM, YOUR HONOR.
I ACTUALLY HAVE A HISTORIC PLACE DOWNTOWN, AND HE DOES ALL OF MY PROJECTS.
SO WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS.
UM, THAT SECTION THAT YOU MENTIONED ABOUT PUTTING OTHER WINDOWS IN IS GOING TO BE A CLOSET, A PANTRY, AND PART OF A LAUNDRY ROOM.
AND THE LAUNDRY ROOM ALREADY HAS THE DOOR IN IT.
SO THERE JUST WASN'T AN OPTION TO PUT WINDOWS ON THAT SIDE.
I THOUGHT THERE WAS A BATHROOM THERE TOO.
I JUST THINK IT REFLECTS WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE OPEN PORCH THERE.
AND YOU HAVE IT ALL CLOSED IN AND THE AUDIO COULD HAVE A WINDOW.
I DO KNOW THAT THE WINDOWS THAT WE'RE HAVING BUILT, THE SMALLER ONES ARE BEING DONE BY PRECISION.
AND I JUST DON'T ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT'S IN THE BUDGET TO BUILD MORE, HAVE OTHER WINDOWS BUILT FOR THAT SIDE.
I MEAN, THAT WAS JUST MY CONSIDERATION.
WHAT, WHAT IS, WHAT IS, WHAT IS YOUR POINT SPECIFICALLY? UM, IF YOU SHOW, MATT'S TRYING TO FIND IT RIGHT NOW.
AND IT'S BEEN ENCLOSED BY A PREVIOUS OWNER.
AND THERE'S, I SUGGESTED IN THE WORK, I CALL IT WORK SESSION,
[01:55:01]
THAT THERE'D BE SOME MORE WINDOWS TO REFLECT THAT IT WAS AN OPEN PORCH.UM, IT LOOKS VERY NEW CONSTRUCTION NOW.
AND YOU'RE SAYING IT'S POTENTIALLY A FUTURE.
THERE'S, THERE'S A PANTRY IN A LAUNDRY ROOM AND A CLOSET.
SO IT JUST ISN'T APPROPRIATE TO PUT A WINDOW.
IT'S ALREADY THE PREVIOUS OWNER.
ANY OTHER ITEMS? UH, ALTHOUGH THE PREVIOUS OWNER NEVER GOT, NEVER GOT APPROVAL.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT'S, IT'S EXISTING.
IT'S, IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU'RE WORKING ON.
THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A CHECK, RIGHT? NO, NO.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE AND WE FIND THE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 5 0 8 C STREET TO BE NOT IN CONGRESS WITH NEW BERN'S CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTION 15 4 11 TO 15 4 29.
AND NEW BERN'S HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC GUIDELINES AND FINDINGS OF FACT PARKING, 2.7 0.1, DESIGN PRINCIPLES, 3.2 AND FOUR, MODIFICATIONS, 3.2 0.2 AND THREE WALLS, TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION, 4.2 0.1 AND FOUR WINDOWS, DOORS AND OPENINGS, 4.3 0.1, TWO AND THREE ENTRANCES, 4.4, 0.12, AND FOUR WOOD, OR 5.2 0.1, AND TWO, PAINT.
5.4, 0.1, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR.
AND FINDINGS OF FACT, THE STRUCTURE IS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE IN THE TIGHT WEAVE PATTERN.
THE PROJECT IS A MODIFICATION TO IT, A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN ALL THE ABCS.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES.
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY.
AND THE APPLICATION IS NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH THE GUIDELINES.
AND THE ONLY CONDITION I WOULD SUGGEST WAS THAT YOU PROVIDE A, A CUT SHEET FOR THE PROPOSED FRENCH DOOR TO MR. SHELLEY SECOND MOVE.
WE APPROVE THE, UM, APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITION NOTED.
[4.E. 240 Middle St. (Bynum’s) – to include a storefront remodel in Primary AVC, first and second floor façade remodels in the Secondary and Tertiary AVCs.]
TWO 40.THIS IS THE, UM, APPLICATION FOR THE PROJECT.
UH, THE OWNERS ARE BUD BECK, LLC, AND THE APPLICANT IS LUCIAN BOND FOR TARHEEL ASSOCIATES.
THE MATERIALS ARE, UH, THE GUIDELINES ARE ATTACHED, AND THE MATERIALS ARE ATTACHED, UH, PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS, ELEVATIONS, UH, AND THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZATIONS COMING UP.
MR. VAUGHN HAS SIGNED THIS AS THEIR AUTH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, UH, WHICH IS, UH, EVIDENCE BY THIS FORM HERE, SIGNED AND NOTARIZED.
UH, WE START WITH, UH, THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY, UH, AND AN EXCERPT, EXCERPT FROM THE SANBORN MAP HERE, UH, TWO 40.
AND SHOWING THE ARROW HERE, UH, SHOWS IT'S THIS, UM, UH, PROPERTY RIGHT HERE.
UH, AND THIS ALSO SHOWS THERE'S AN OVERHANG ON THE FRONT OVER THE, UM, PROPERTY LINE AND THROUGH THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND THEN ALSO A TWO STORY PORTION, UH, IN THE FRONT, AND A ONE STORY PORTION AT THE REAR.
AND IT'S ALL CONSTRUCTED OF MASONRY.
THAT'S WHAT THE RED REPRESENTS.
THEN, UH, THEY ALSO PROVIDED A HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPH, UM, SHOWING, UH, WITH THIS AWNING HERE AND THIS DOORWAY.
AND THEN THE FOUR WINDOWS ABOVE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UM, YOU CAN ALSO SEE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH THE, UH, COINS, WHICH IS THESE CORNER, UH, UH, STONES, UH, AND ALSO A STOREFRONT, UH, UNDERNEATH THE CANOPY, AS WELL AS A COUPLE STEPS TO THE DOORWAY AND TRANSOM, ET CETERA.
UM, THE WINDOWS ALL HAVE THE EYEBROWS, UH, BUT YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE NEIGHBOR IS SIMILAR.
AND THIS WILL COME UP IN THE STAFF REPORT.
[02:00:01]
A CLOSEUP, ACTUALLY, SORRY, STARTED WITH THAT.YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE DENTALS ARE, ARE THERE, UH, RIGHT UNDERNEATH THE, UM, THE, UM, SIGN FREEZE, AS THEY CALL IT, UH, WHERE THE SIGNAGE IS.
AND THEN IN THE 1960S, THE, UH, FACADE WAS, UH, COVERED WITH THIS, UH, SCREEN, UM, THAT'S SET OFF FROM THE ACTUAL FACADE BY A FEW INCHES OR FOOT.
UH, AND THEN, UH, IN A MODERN, VERY MODERN STYLE, UH, FOR BINS RUG AT THE TIME, UH, EVEN BACK THEN.
AND ALSO THE B THE, UH, UM, STOREFRONT WAS NOW CHANGED, REMOVED THE, UH, RIGHT HAND DOORWAY AND USED THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE FOR, UH, STOREFRONT.
SOME TILE WORK WAS ADDED DOWN HERE AS WELL, BUT BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY A SCREEN, IT WAS RELATIVELY EASY TO REMOVE AND RESTORE BACK TO, UM, THE ORIGINAL.
UH, AND HERE WE HAVE TWO MORE, UH, IMAGES, UH, ALONG THE WAY.
SO, UM, THIS ONE ON THE RIGHT, I THINK REPRESENTING MORE CLOSER TO TODAY, UH, WITH THE, UH, SHUTTERS ON WINDOWS.
UM, THEN, UM, MR. UM, SAN BECK'S BOOK.
UM, THESE ARE THE EXCERPTS WITH SOME PHOTOGRAPHS HERE.
IT'S CALLED THE GEORGE BISHOP STORES.
UM, AND IT'S PLURAL BECAUSE, UM, EVEN THOUGH HE IS ONLY SHOWING ONE THIS, UH, FACADE HERE, UM, THIS IS ONE OF TWO TWINS.
UH, AND THE BUILDING NEXT TO IT THAT I SHOWED, UH, BRIEFLY IN THE HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPH, UH, IS A TWIN OF THIS ONE.
BUT IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, IT WAS, UH, AT THIS TIME IT WAS STILL, UH, HAD A MODERN FACADE ON IT.
SO IT WAS UNINTERESTING, I GUESS, TO MR. SANDBERG FOR THE PRO PROJECT.
BUT WE'LL HEAR A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT, UH, IN A MINUTE, UH, FROM HIS, UH, DESCRIPTION.
SO THIS IS NOW, UH, THE WAY IT IS, UH, IN 2024.
AND IN THIS CASE, UH, SO THE, UH, THE STOREFRONT ACTUALLY HAS A BULKHEAD ON THE LEFT, UM, DOORS ON IN THE CENTER, BUT THEN THE RIGHT HAND, UH, THIRD OF THE STOREFRONT IS FLUSHED WITH THE DOOR, WITH THE RECESS DOORS.
AND HERE'S AN ANGLE VIEW OF IT AT AN ANGLE HERE.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE PRETTY CLEARLY THE, UH, DENTALS ALONG THE, UH, CANOPY EDGE.
AND HERE WE HAVE LOTS OF DENTALS ALONG THE TOP, UNDERNEATH THE EYEBROWS, UM, HERE, LIKE ABOVE THE SIGN FREEZE, AND THEN THE, UH, CANOPY AS WELL.
UH, BUT HERE YOU ALSO SEE WE HAVE TODAY, UH, IT'S, UH, THE SHUTTERS, BUT PAINTED BRICK, ALL THE BRICK AND THE COINS HAVE ALL BEEN PAINTED, UH, THIS, UH, YELLOW COLOR.
AND SO SOME CLOSEUPS OF THE, UM, WHERE THE COINS MEET THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
UH, THE PAINT, UH, DELINEATES THE PROPERTY LINE.
UM, AND THEN, UH, DOWN BELOW, UH, YOU CAN STILL SEE SOME OF THE COINS HAVE BEEN, UH, UH, COMPLETED DOWN HERE ON, AND ON THE RIGHT PHOTOGRAPH, YOU CAN SEE THE COINS HERE AS WELL.
UM, ARE NOW EVERY, UH, ONE IS IN THERE, AS OPPOSED TO IF YOU LOOK ABOVE, IT'S EVERY OTHER ONE, RIGHT? UH, THEN, UH, AND THERE'S A CLOSEUP OF THE ONES AT THE BOTTOM.
SO SOME, SOME QUESTION AS TO WHAT THE MATERIAL IS, UH, AND THEN, UM, UH, CLOSE UP ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
AND YOU CAN SEE ALSO THAT THIS BUILDING IS SEPARATED FROM THE ADJACENT BUILDING BY, UH, I THINK IT'S A FOOT AND A HALF OR SO, FOOT, 10 INCHES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND HERE YOU CAN SEE IT MORE CLEARLY IN THIS RIGHT HAND PHOTOGRAPH, UH, AND AT THE GROUND LEVEL THAT'S BEEN, UH, CLOSED UP.
UH, BUT APPARENTLY THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, IS ALONG THE FACE OF THE BUILDING ON THE RIGHT, CORRECT.
SO THIS UNPAINTED BRICK ACTUALLY BELONGS TO THIS PROPERTY OWNER ON THE LEFT.
AND SO SOME MORE OF THE DETAILS, UH, SHOWING HOW THE, UM, UH, THE ROOFING AND THE FLASHING FOR THE ROOFING, UH, AND THEN, UH, MEETS WITH A SIGN FREEZE AREA, AND THEN ALSO HOW THAT TILE WORK, UH, TERMINATES,
[02:05:01]
UH, ALONG THAT SIDE.SO MOVING TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, UM, WHERE IT'S THIS ONE STORY PORTION PLUS THE TWO STORY IN THE BACKGROUND, UH, THAT'S BRICK.
UM, THE ONE STORY PORTION IS CONCRETE BLOCK, AND THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS ARE ALL UNPAINTED BRICK WITH SOME PAINTED, UH, BRICK THERE.
AND, UH, AND PRETTY BAD CONDITION IN TERMS OF THE DOORS AND, UH, THE, UM, THE BASE OF THE WALLS AND SUCH.
UM, BUT THEY DO STILL HAVE SOME GRASS, UH, AREA HERE AS A YARD, SO TO SAY.
THE PROPERTY LINE EXTENDS BEYOND EVEN THE, IT INCLUDES PARKING SPACES.
SO, UM, HERE WE HAVE SOME DETAILS OF THE CONDITION OF THAT PORTION OF BUILDING.
AND THEN UP ON THE ROOF, UM, WE CAN SEE, UH, THE NEIGHBORING WALLS ON THE LEFT AND ON THE RIGHT.
AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THESE TWO WINDOWS AND THIS SLOPING AREA, I THINK WE SEE A LITTLE CLOSER UP IN A MINUTE.
UH, AND THERE IS A, UM, CUTOUT, UM, ON THE FLOOR PLAN OF THE BUILDING FOR THE UTILITIES THERE, UH, WHICH BECOMES INTERESTING.
SO THIS IS THE, UH, THIRD PIECE.
IT'S THE, IT'S BASICALLY METAL ROOFING OVER THE STAIRWAY THAT HAS BEEN ADDED AT A LATER DATE, UH, TO ACCESS FROM INSIDE ON THE FIRST FLOOR TO THE INSIDE ON THE SECOND FLOOR, USING THE EXTERIOR WINDOW AS A WAY TO GET INTO THE SECOND FLOOR.
SO, UM, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE THAT.
UH, AND THEN SOME DETAILS ABOUT THE BRICKWORK HERE ON THE RIGHT, UH, AT THE TOP AND OVER THE WINDOWS DISPLAY JACK ARCHES HERE.
AND, UH, CURRENTLY THE WINDOWS HAVE SOME METAL BARS ON THEM FOR SECURITY AND THE JOINT AT THE CORNER WITH THE OTHER NEIGHBOR.
SO THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY IN BLACK WITH THE BLUE LINE AROUND IT.
UH, SO IT'S HARD TO TELL, UH, WHAT'S WHAT, BUT YOU CAN TELL WHAT IT'S NOT, WHAT'S NOT.
UH, AND IT ALSO SHOWS THAT THERE ARE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE PART OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THIS IS THE SURVEY SHOWING THAT VERY SAME THING WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL.
AND HERE YOU CAN SEE IT'S THE, IT'S 0.6 OR TWO FOOT GAP, SOMETHING.
AND THERE'S ABOUT 0.0, 0.6 FEET OF THE NEIGHBOR'S BUILDING THAT'S ON THIS PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THIS SURVEY.
UH, SO THE, ALL THE DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK IS HERE.
UH, I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH ITS MANY PAGES.
UH, I HOPE YOU ALL READ IT, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE CAN GET TO IT.
BUT IT'S ALSO NOTATED ON THE PLANS, MOST OF IT, WHICH WE WILL GO THROUGH.
AND THEY LISTED ALL THE GUIDELINES HERE, VERBATIM AND THE MATERIALS, IT'S BRICK AND WOOD AND WHAT ELSE? QUARRY TILE FLOOR AND ALUMINUM FRAME, CANVAS, AWNING.
AND, UH, THEN AT THE, THAT WAS THE FRONT.
AND THEN AT THE REAR, SAME THING, BRICK AND WOOD AND ALUMINUM FRAME WITH CANVAS AWNING.
UM, UH, THIS IS ALSO FOR THE THIRD PROPERTY.
SO THE APARTMENT UPSTAIRS IS TO BECOME A THIRD, UM, DEEDED PROPERTY, ESSENTIALLY CONDO.
SO THE BUILDING'S BEING CONDO WISE, UM, WITH A STORE IN THE FRONT, THE STORE IN THE BACK ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
AND THEN THE SECOND FLOOR WILL BE, UH, AN APARTMENT.
SO WE AGAIN, UM, FOR IT'S ALL, UH, BRICKWOOD AND CANVAS ONS.
SO HERE ARE, UH, SOME NEW ELEVATIONS SINCE THE DESIGN REVIEW.
UH, THESE CAME IN TODAY, SO I WISH I COULD HAVE SHARED THEM WITH YOU EARLIER.
BUT, UM, SO, UM, THE, THE ORIGINAL OR THE CURRENT, UM, ELEVATIONS ARE THE TWO ON THE LEFT UP
[02:10:01]
TOP AND BOTTOM.SO WE SEE THE, THE CURRENT AWNING AND THE STOREFRONT ALL REPRESENTED HERE, UH, ON THE FRONT.
AND THEN ON THE BACK, WE HAVE THE YELLOW, UM, CONCRETE BLOCK SECTION HERE WITH THE EXISTING, UH, TWO WINDOWS, UH, AND THE, UH, THE STAIRWAY ROOFING, UH, PIECE.
SO AT LEAST KEEPING IT SIMPLE ON THE BACK SINCE WE'RE THERE.
THE BACK WILL, UM, HAVE A NEW STOREFRONT ON THE BACK WITH A DOOR IN THE MIDDLE AND TWO, UH, STOREFRONT WINDOWS AND THEN, AND SOME BRICKWORK.
UH, INSTEAD OF THE CONCRETE BLOCK WITH THE SAME DETAIL OF THE, OVER THE, UH, WINDOWS AND DOOR, UH, THAT, THAT, THAT JACK ARCHES THERE, UH, THERE WOULD BE AN AWNING ON THE BACK.
AND THEN WHERE THE, UH, CURRENT, UM, UH, CUTOUT IS FOR THE UTILITIES, UM, THERE WILL BE A GATE PLACED IN FRONT OF THAT, UH, AS WELL AS THE, UM, ENTIRE BRICK FACADE WILL BE, UM, CONTINUED ACROSS STRAIGHT ACROSS, FLAT, ACROSS COPLANAR, ACROSS, UH, TO THE ADJACENT BUILDING.
AND SO CREATING A, A NEW DOOR, A NEW OPENING, I WON'T SAY DOORWAY, GATEWAY, GATEWAY, UH, FOR THE UTILITIES.
UH, THEN ON THE SECOND FLOOR, UH, WHICH REMEMBER THIS IS PUSHED ALL THE WAY BACK, WHATEVER, 30, 40 FEET, UH, AND THE TWO WINDOWS WILL BECOME TWO DOORS.
SO THE SILLS WILL BE REMOVED AND LOWERED AND BECOME THRESHOLDS.
AND THEN, UH, A NEW AWNING OVER THE TWO WINDOWS.
AND THAT, UM, HOOD OR THE ROOFING OVER THE STAIRWAYS REMOVED AND THE OPENING BRICKED OVER.
UM, SO THEN AT THE FRONT, THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO OPTIONS, TWO IDEAS TO CONSIDER
ONE IS TO RETAIN THE EXISTING, UH, CANOPY, AND THE OTHER IS TO REPLACE IT WITH A CANVAS CANOPY.
SO THOSE ARE THE TWO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THESE TWO.
AND WE PRETTY MUCH DISCUSSED THIS AT THE DESIGN REVIEW TO BE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.
THERE'S, UH, GOING TO BE THE STOREFRONT ON THE LEFT, UH, TWO THIRDS, SO THREE QUARTERS OF THE FACADE, AND THEN A NEW DOORWAY FOR THE, UH, APARTMENT ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
AND THE STOREFRONT HAS THE BRICK BULKHEAD, AND IN THIS CASE, IT, UH, AS IN THE DESIGN REVIEW, IT IS PROPOSED TO BE PAINTED BRICK TO MATCH THE PAINTED BRICK ON THE REST OF THE FACADE.
THE COINS IN BOTH CASES WOULD STILL BE, UM, EXPOSED, UH, AS MUCH AS IS POSSIBLE, AND IF NECESSARY, UM, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE REPAIRED.
UM, SO THAT IS PERHAPS YET TO BE DETERMINED HOW SERIOUS THAT MAY TURN OUT TO BE.
UM, THE, UM, OH, THE BROWN, UH, REPRESENTATION IS ALL WOOD, UH, MAHOGANY WOOD, UH, AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO ZOOM IN ON EVERYTHING AGAIN.
AND SAME THING ON THE BACK HERE.
I BELIEVE THE DOORS ARE ALL MAHOGANY.
UM, AND, UH, THE WINDOW FRAMES ARE WOOD, AT LEAST OF A MAHOGANY TOO, EVEN ON THE BACK.
OKAY, SO MOVING FORWARD, THESE ARE THE PLANS.
THIS IS THE EXISTING PLAN, UM, WHICH HAS THE, THE STORE IS THE ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR, AND THEN THIS IS THE STAIRWAY THAT GOES TO THE SECOND FLOOR.
AND THE, UH, REAR WALL OF THE SECOND FLOOR IS THIS LINE HERE.
AND THIS IS WHY THAT STAIRWAY HAD THAT HOOD, UH, THAT ROOFING STICKING OUT.
UM, IN ORDER TO GET UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR.
WAIT, YEAH, I, HM, HERE IT IS HERE.
THE STAIRWAY COMING UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR.
UM, AND SO UPSTAIRS WAS, UM, OFFICES OR AN APARTMENT, BUT, UM, A, A SECOND SPACE, UM, A, SO, UH, THIS IS THE DEMOLITION PLAN FOR THE, FOR THE PROPERTY.
UH, AND I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT, UM, UH, THERE'S A TRENCH THAT YOU'RE CUTTING OUT OF THE FLOOR RIGHT ON, ON THIS, UH, UPPER SIDE OF THE, AND IT GOES OUT THE FRONT WALL AND ONTO THE SIDEWALK.
IT SHOWS A TRENCH OUT ON THE SIDEWALK.
WHAT? OH, IT'S GOING TO THE BACK.
[02:15:01]
WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY.WHAT THE TRENCH FOR PLUMBING OR YEAH, YEAH.
A TRENCH FOR PLUMBING, RIGHT? YEP.
SO, UH, THIS NOW IS THE FLOOR PLAN SHOWING THE, UH, STORE IN THE FRONT, THE STORE IN THE BACK, UH, DIVIDED RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE HERE, AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN BATHROOMS AND SUCH.
UM, THE STAIRWAY FOR UPSTAIRS AS SHOWN HERE AS WELL ON THE LEFT.
AND THE, UH, AT THE REAR, THE, UH, THE FOOTPRINT STAYS THE SAME WITH THAT ADDITIONAL GATEWAY ACROSS, UH, THE BACK WITH THE BRICK, UM, COVERING THAT WHOLE, WHOLE FACADE.
AND THEN THE SECOND FLOOR, THIS SHOWS THE STAIRWAY COMING UP IN THE APARTMENT UPSTAIRS.
UM, THEY ARE LOOKING TO ADD A DECK OF SORTS ON A PORTION OF THE, UH, ROOF OUT THERE.
THE EXISTING ROOF GOES ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE BACK EDGE, IF YOU REMEMBER.
SO JUST A PORTION WILL INCLUDE, UH, A DECK OVER THE EXISTING ROOFING THERE, UM, WITH, UH, SLEEPERS AND THE, UH, UH, REST OF THE STRUCTURE.
SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A DOOR FOR THE STOREFRONT, AND THEN, UH, THREE OPTIONS OF THE DOOR FOR THE, UM, RESIDENTS GOING UPSTAIRS.
AND THEN, UM, WE HAVE THE ZONING AND INSPECTIONS FORM ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION IS REQUIRED, AND IT WILL REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT.
AND THEN WE'RE READY WITH OUR, UM, REPORT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OPPONENTS OR PROPONENTS? LET'S SEE.
DID, DID YOU WANNA SAY ANYTHING, LUCY? NO.
SO THIS IS THE STAFF REPORT FOR, UM, BUD BECK, LLC, AND LUCIAN VON OF TARHEEL ASSOCIATES FOR TWO 40 MIDDLE STREET.
THIS IS ONE OF THE BISHOP STORES.
UM, TWO 40 AND 2 42 WERE THE TWO FISH SHIP STORES FROM 1885 TO 1888.
IT IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER INVENTORY.
IT SIMPLY DESCRIBES IT AS TWO STORIES.
BRICK RECESS STOREFRONT, FOUR UPPER WINDOWS, SEGMENTALLY, ARCHED, EMULATED HOODS AND CORNICE FROM 2003.
IN 1988, SAND BECK DESCRIBED THE MOST RELEVANT INFORMATION, UH, THAT HE HAD IS THESE TWO HANDSOMELY DETAILED BUILDINGS WERE ERECTED BETWEEN 1885 AND 1888 FOR GEORGE BISHOP.
THE IDENTICALLY DETAILED FOUR BAY WIDE BUILDINGS STAND ON THE SITE OF AN EARLIER PAIR OF BRICK STRUCTURES OF SIMILAR SIZE BUILT FOR BISHOP BEFORE 1882.
THE SANBORN INSURANCE MAPS INDICATE THAT THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE TWO STRUCTURES, UH, 2 42 MIDDLE STREET, UH, MAY INCORPORATE WITHIN IT THE REMAINS OF THE EARLIER STRUCTURE, WHICH SURVIVED THE GREAT FIRE OF 1885.
THAT INFAMOUS CONFLAGRATION DESTROYED ALL OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF MIDDLE STREET FROM THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CENTRAL PARTY WALL OF THIS PAIR OF BUILDINGS DOWN TO SOUTH FRONT STREET.
SO RIGHT HERE WAS THE EDGE, UH, THIS STILL INTACT FACADE OF THE SOUTHERN HALF WAS RECENTLY EXPOSED DURING A REHABILITATION PROJECT.
GOING FROM THAT MODERN, UM, REMOVING THAT MODERN FACADE, REVEALING THE NOTABLE CAST IRON HOOD DASH MOLDS OVER THE SECOND STORY, WINDOWS MOLDED CORNICES ABOVE THE STOREFRONT AND AT THE PARAPET AND STUCCO COINING AT EACH CORNER, THE SIDE ELEVATION VISIBLE FROM FEDERAL ALLEY, THAT WOULD BE THE OTHER.
UM, HALF OF THE PAIR OF BUILDINGS SHOWS THE BUILDING'S PARAPET AT GABLE ROOF CONFIGURATION AND THREE TO ONE COMMON BOND BRICKWORK SURVIVING.
SECOND STORY SASH INDICATE THAT THE ORIGINALS WERE OF THE SIX OVER SIX CONFIGURATION, MANY OF WHICH WERE LATER REPLACED WITH TWO OVER TWO SASH.
SO, UM, FOR TWO 40 MIDDLE STREET, THEY WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE A STOREFRONT REMODEL IN THE PRIMARY A, B, C AND FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR FACADE, REMODELS, AND THE SECONDARY AND TERTIARY ABCS.
STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING, HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GOT STANDARDS, AKA GUIDELINES THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO THIS APPLICATION FOR UTILITIES 2.3 0.1 AND SIX DESIGN PRINCIPLES, 3.1, TWO AND FOUR, MODIFICATIONS, 3.21, TWO AND FOUR, WALL STREAM AND ORNAMENTATION, 4.1 AND FOUR, WINDOWS, DOORS AND OPENINGS, 4.23 AND SEVEN.
ENTRANCES, 4.41, THREE AND FOUR.
DECKS AND PATIOS, 4.6 0.2 AND THREE, MASONRY, 5.1, TWO AND THREE FOR METALS.
THREE, 5.3 0.3, AND FOUR FOR PAINT.
[02:20:01]
SIX.STATEMENTS OF FACT BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION R THE STRUCTURE IS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE IN THE DENSE FABRIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THE PROJECT IS A REMODEL OF THE STOREFRONT AND REAR FACADES OF A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
IN ALL ADCS, THE PROPOSED DESIGN COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS.
AT A GUIDELINES, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY.
AND FIVE, THE APPLICATION IS NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH THE GUIDELINES HPC MAY WANT TO CONSIDER FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
REVISED PLANS, ACCORDING TO THE CHANGES AGREED UPON AT THE HEARING, SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE HPC STAFF FOR APPROVAL ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES AND PRIOR TO THE FINAL INSPECTION BY THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DIVISION.
UH, WHY ARE THE OPTIONS ON THE, ON THE, UH, TO AWNINGS? ON THE AWNINGS IS, IS, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR US TO MAKE IT A CHOICE OR YOU JUST WANT TO HAVE OPTIONS? YEAH.
ELLUCIAN VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATES.
UH, I REALLY WANT TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
I, I REALLY WAS ASKING FOR APPROVAL? UH, EITHER ONE.
IF WE, WE GET IN AND WE EVALUATE THAT EXISTING CANOPY AND FIND IT TO BE IN, IN GOOD SHAPE, UM, WE WANT THE OPTION OF BEING ABLE TO LEAVE IT.
THE, THE, THE METAL HAS BEEN PAINTED AND THE PAINT IS PEELING OFF.
UM, BUT WE JUST HAVEN'T DECIDED, JUST SO WE WANTED TO, TO COMMISSION TO CONSIDER ALLOWING US TO, TO GO EITHER WAY.
SO WE GAVE THE ALTERNATE ONE WAS TO KEEP IT ALTERNATE.
DISCUSSIONS, QUESTIONS TO ANSWER MY QUESTION.
THE WHOLE THING LOOKS FINE TO ME.
I LIKE THE REUSE OF THE BACK OF THE BUILDING AND COVERING OVER THAT CONCRETE BLOCK WITH THE BRICK VENEER THAT'S DOING A LOT TO THAT REAL ALLEY.
SO I GUESS WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT PAINTED BRICK.
I MEAN, WELL, NOT THE DU ALREADY PAINTED THE NEW BRICK.
HAVE, HAVE YOU COME TO GRIPS WITH HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT OR? WELL, I MEAN, THE, OUR PROPOSAL IS THAT WE WOULD ADD THE 24 INCHES OF BRICK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STOREFRONT AND THAT WE WOULD PAINT THAT BRICK TO MATCH THE EXISTING PAINTED BRICK, WHICH IT'LL BE THE EXISTING PAINTED BRICK WILL BE REPAINTED.
SO I I, I'VE LOST A GREAT DEAL OF SLEEP OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS, BUT I, I CAME UP WITH A, A PLAUSIBLE SOLUTION IN MY MIND.
UM, IF YOU WERE TO PUT BLOCK AND STUCCO AND THEN PAINT IT, WOULD THAT, THAT MIGHT TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM? I DON'T, NO, I DON'T SEE IT A PROBLEM.
I MEAN, WELL, I KNOW YOU DON'T SEE A PROBLEM PAINTED BRICK.
I'M TALKING ABOUT FOR US, WHERE WE GOT A RULE THAT SAYS YOU DON'T PAINT BRICK.
WELL, IT SAYS BRICK CAN BE PAINTED UNLESS IT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PAINTED.
SO WHAT I, IN MY OPINION, THE BUILDING THE BRICK ON THE BUILDING IS ALREADY PAINTED SO WE CAN GO BACK AND WHEN HE'S ADDING TO IT, HE PAINTS THE BRICK IN THE SAME COLOR BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PAINTED.
YOU'RE CONSTRUING THAT THE NEW BRICK SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE PAINTED YEAH.
AS THE OPENING BECAUSE THE BUILDING HAS BEEN ALREADY PAINTED.
IN ESSENCE, REPLACEMENT AND KIND.
I'M JUST TELLING YOU, YOU HAVE CALM ME EARLIER.
NOT THAT WE DEAL IN COLOR, BUT IS IT FEASIBLE TO GET A COLOR OR BRICK THAT YOU WANT THE COLOR TO BE AND THEN PAINT THE EXISTING BRICK THE COLOR TO MATCH? I HEAR, I HEAR WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM THOUGH, BUT WELL JUST, UH, I, I, BUT IT, IT CREATES FUTURE SITUATIONS, THAT'S ALL.
I, YEAH, I, I'M FULLY AWARE OF THE GUIDELINES AND, UH, WE MAKE CASE BY CASE DECISION WOULD WANT TO SAID YOU PRESS IT.
AND, AND THE ONLY REASON HE'S BEING ALLOWED TO PAINT THIS BRICK IS BECAUSE THE REST OF THE BUILDING IS ALREADY PAINTED.
I THINK IT WOULD CREATE MORE PROBLEMS IF WE'D GO OTHERWISE THAN IF WE ALLOWED THEM TO BE PAINTED.
PERHAPS THAT RATIONALE SHOULD END UP IN A FINDING EFFECT.
[02:25:01]
OKAY.BECAUSE YOUR GUIDELINE SAYS IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO PAINT MASONRY THAT HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN PAINTED.
SO THESE ARE BRICKS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN PAINTED.
AND YOU'RE GOING TO CONSTRUE THE WORDS IN THAT SENTENCE TO ALLOW BRICKS TO BE PAINTED THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN PAINTED.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SQUARE THAT FINDING WITH THAT GUIDELINE.
THE, THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, WHOEVER THAT ENDS UP CAN, CAN, WILL DEAL WITH THAT IF IT'S POSSIBLE.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, ANY OTHER ITEMS YOU WANT TO CONSIDER? OTHER THAN THAT? IT'S A VERY NICE, THOUGHTFUL APPROACH TO STEWARD PROPERTY.
WELL, WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION? YOU ARE THE BEST WORD SMITH OUT.
AND MR. CHAIR, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA NEED TO, I, WHOEVER MAKES THE MOTION IS GONNA NEED TO IDENTIFY WHICH DESIGN THEY'RE APPROVING.
WHY CAN'T WE APPROVE 'EM? BOTH APPROVE, APPROVE 'EM BOTH IS YOUR QUESTION.
YOU WANT TO APPROVE THEM BOTH? YES.
BUT IT SHOULD BE CLEAR IN THE MOTION.
AT LEAST IT SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR IN THE MOTION.
AND IF YOU'RE APPROVING THE PAINTED BRICK, THEN YOU NEED TO DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE AND SPREAD IT WITH YOUR GUIDELINES.
SO I NEED TO BRAVE SOUL TO VERBALIZE THAT WOULD BE COMMISSIONER MORRISON
I WOULD DO IT, BUT MY ENGLISH IS PROBABLY NOT GONNA GIVE ALL THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OUT OF IT.
WE FIND THE, A APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR TWO 40 MIDDLE STREET TO BE NOT IN CONGRESS WITH NEW BERN'S CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTIONS 15 4 11 TO 15 4 29.
AND NEW BERN'S HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC GUIDELINES AND FINDINGS OF FACT, EXCUSE ME WHILE I CATCH UP HERE.
UTILITIES 2.3 0.1 AND SIX, DESIGN PRINCIPLES, 3.1, 0.1, TWO AND FOUR.
MODIFICATIONS, 3.2 0.1, TWO AND FOUR WALLS, TRIM ON ATION, 4.2 0.1 AND FOUR WINDOWS, DOORS AND OPENINGS.
4.3 0.1, TWO, THREE, AND SEVEN.
ENTRANCES, 4.4 0.13 AND FOUR DECKS AND PATIOS, 4.6 0.2 AND THREE MASON LEAF MASONRY, 5.1 AND TWO METALS, 5.3 0.3, AND 5.3 0.4.
PAINT 5.4, 0.1, 2, 3, 4, AND SIX.
FINDINGS OF FACT, THE STRUCTURES A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE IN THE DENSE FABRIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THE PROJECT IS A REMODEL OF THE STOREFRONT AND REAR FACADES OF A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN ALL ABCS.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES.
AND THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY.
THE APPLICATION IS NOT IN CONGRESS WITH THE GUIDELINES, AND WE FIND THAT MASONRY GUIDELINE 5.1 0.3 IS NOT APPLICABLE GIVEN THE, THE MAJORITY OF THE BUILDING.
EXTREME MAJORITY OF THE BUILDING IS ALREADY PAINTED BRICK.
AND WE ARE ALSO APPROVING AT THE OWNER'S CHOICE EXHIBIT ONE OR EX EXAMPLE ONE AND EXAMPLE TWO FOR THE FRONT CANOPY.
DO YOU LIKE THAT? I THINK WE COVERED IT.
I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T GET TO ADD.
YOU NEEDED TO REMOVE OR ALSO REFERENCE 5.4 0.6.
SORRY, WHAT DID I NOT SAY THAT ONE? I APOLOGIZE.
YOU DID SAY IT, BUT UH, YOU WANT TO NOT SAY IT.
I WANT RE BECAUSE THAT'S ANOTHER ONE THAT TALKS ABOUT PAINTED BRICK.
[02:30:01]
FOR THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR, MR. MORRISON, ARE YOU REMOVING GUIDELINE 5.4 0.6 FROM THE MOTION YOU JUST MADE? CORRECT.AND MR. RUSH, WERE YOU THE SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.
YOU'RE, YOU SECOND THE MOTION.
I'LL SECOND THE MOTION TO REMOVE 5.4 0.6.
AND WITH THAT IN MIND, UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. MORRISON INTENDED TO EXCLUDE 5.4 0.6 FROM HIS MOTION, EVERYBODY THAT VOTED IN FAVOR IS STILL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE ALTERED MOTION STATE.
ALRIGHT, WE NEED A MOTION FOR THE COA MOTION.
DO WE ISSUE THE COA ALL IN FAVOR STATE? AYE.
[4.F. 111 Pollock St. – to include a new porch addition in the Secondary AVC.]
P*****K.ALRIGHT, THIS IS THE APPLICATION FOR THIS ARY FAMILY, UH, LIMITED.
AND SARAH LERACH IS THE APPLICANT.
UH, THEY'VE PROVIDED THE DESCRIPTION, THE GUIDELINES, THE MATERIALS, ALL VARIOUS INFORMATION.
MS. LERACH IS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND HAS SIGNED THE APPLICATION.
HERE IS HER AUTHORIZATION WITH A NOTARIZED SIGNATURE, UH, IN, IN CALIFORNIA.
APPARENTLY THEY HAVE AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
UH, AND SO THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY, THIS PROJECT IS THE EXACT SAME PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED ABOUT TWO TO THREE YEARS AGO.
UH, AND IT WAS NOT COMPLETED AT THE TIME AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, AND NOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH IT EXACTLY AS IT WAS BEFORE.
UH, AND JUST BECAUSE NO, ALMOST NONE OF YOU WERE HERE BACK THEN.
UH, IT IS A PORCH ON THE EAST OR NORTH, UH, EAST OR RIVERSIDE OF THE BUILDING.
AND LET ME GO BACK TO THE PHOTOS.
IT'S ACTUALLY MORE HELPFUL AT A MOMENT.
UM, YOU CAN SEE IN THE TOP MIDDLE, UM, UH, PHOTO THERE IS A, UH, BOARDED UP DOORWAY AND THE GHOST OF A STAIRWAY.
SO THAT PORCH WILL GO ACTUALLY HERE, UH, AND EXTEND OUT.
IT'S ACTUALLY A PORCH, NOT JUST A STOOP ANYMORE.
UH, AND SO WE'LL SEE THE PLANS HERE IN A MINUTE.
UH, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, ESSENTIALLY WITH THE RIVER AT THE TOP AND, UH, P*****K STREET ON THE LEFT.
UH, AND THE PORCH ADDITION IS HERE AT THE TOP IN, UH, KIND OF CROSS HATCHING REPRESENTING THE ROOFING.
UH, AND THEN HERE'S A, A PLAN OF THAT, THE ROOF PLAN.
UM, THIS IS AN EXISTING FLOOR, UH, FIRST FLOOR PLAN SHOWING THE NOW GONE, UH, UH, STOOP STAIRWAY, UH, AND TO BE REPLACED WITH THE NEW FLOOR PLAN HERE, UH, IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS DRAWING SHEET.
UH, AND HERE WE CAN SEE STAIRWAYS ON THE LEFT COMING FROM P*****K STREET UP TO THE, UH, NOW LARGER PORCH.
UM, AND LEMME SEE, WAS THERE, THERE'S NO CHANGES TO THE DOORS OR THE WINDOWS HERE.
UH, THAT THE PORCH HAS A FOUNDATION, UH, A ONE STORY FOUNDATION, UH, DUE TO THE, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, LOCATION, THE FIRST FLOOR, BUT ALSO THIS IS NOW OPEN, UM, PROBABLY DUE TO THE FLOOD, UM, UH, PARAMETERS FOR THE PREP FOR THE BUILDING HERE.
THERE SEEMED TO BE RATHER STURDY, UH, MASONRY, UH, COLUMNS AND, AND STEM WALLS.
UH, AND UH, IN THE DEMOLITION, YOU SAY TO REMOVE MASONRY TO CREATE AN OPENING.
AND THEN ON THE FLOOR PLAN, IT'S NOT THERE.
YOU SEE THAT? UH, I DON'T, SORRY.
OKAY, WE JUST NEED TO CLARIFY THAT.
UM, YEAH, THAT, THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO DOORWAY.
BUT YEAH, SORRY, I'M, I'M ASKING YOU DURING MY PRESENTATION HERE.
SO, SO THIS WAS THE OLD, UM, STOOP STAIRWAY.
AND NOW THE, UH, ALSO FROM THE TWO VARIOUS SIDES.
UM, AND NOW FROM THE, UH, THE, THE PORCH WILL LOOK LIKE THIS, UH, WITH FOUR, UM, UH, TAPERED COLUMNS, UH, WOOD TAPERED COLUMNS.
[02:35:01]
IS WOOD.UH, WE HAVE BRICK MASONRY WITH BRICK ARCHES, UH, FOR THE, THE BASE OF THIS.
AND A NEW, UH, PAINTED WOOD STAIRS, UH, TO MATCH, UH, PATCH EXISTING STAIRS.
AND THE ROOFING ON THIS IS METAL ROOFING.
UM, THERE IS A PEDIMENT, UH, PORTION OF THE ROOF HERE, UH, FACING THE RIVER, I THINK.
SO LET'S SEE THEN, UM, UH, FROM THE SIDES, YOU CAN SEE IT'S A MUCH MORE SUBSTANTIAL FRONT PORCH.
UH, ALSO HAS ARCHES ON THE SIDES AS WELL.
UH, SAME MATERIALS ALL AROUND.
AND SO THE ZONING AND INSPECTIONS REPORT INDICATES THAT A ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION IS REQUIRED.
AND, UM, BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED.
FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIRED, AND THAT V ZONE CERTIFICATE MAY BE NEEDED.
UM, SO JUST DISCUSS THAT WITH MR. BOSWELL.
AND THEN I'M READY WHENEVER YOU ARE WITH THE STAFF.
SARAH, ANY COMMENTS? NO, NO, NO PROPONENTS OR OPPONENTS OUT THERE ANYMORE.
UH, SO THIS IS THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE CENTENARY FAMILY LIMITED AND GO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROJECT FOR ONE 11 P*****K STREET.
THIS IS HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE DR. HARVEY S'S HOUSE FROM 1935.
IT'S A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
AND THE, UH, NATIONAL REGISTER INVENTORY DESCRIPTION FROM 2003 DESCRIBES IT AS COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE BRICK, TWO STORIES ABOVE RAISED BASEMENT, UH, FIVE BAYS WIDE, MENTED ENTRANCE, GABLE END ROOF RETURN, CORNICES, AND EXTERIOR END.
CHIS SANDECK DESCRIPTION FROM 1988 IS THE MOST AND THE MOST RELEVANT INFORMATION.
THERE IS, UH, QUOTE, DESIGNED BY LOCAL ARCHITECT RAYMOND FUSAN.
THIS BRICK COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE RESIDENCE WAS BUILT 1935 TO 1936.
THE HOUSE WAS MOVED TO THIS LOCATION IN THE 1960S.
UH, ITS SYMMETRICAL CONSERVATIVE EXTERIOR EXEMPLIFIES THE RESTRAINED COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE, WHICH DOMINATED HIGH QUALITY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN MUCH OF THE NATION DURING THE 1920S AND THIRTIES.
AMONG THE NOTABLE EXTERIOR DETAILS ARE IAN CORNICE PEDIMENT INTO ENTRANCE DOORWAY WITH SIDELIGHTS AND A FAN LIGHT AND SEGMENTAL RELIEVING ARCHES OVER THE WINDOW.
OPENINGS EXTENDING TO THE NORTH END IS A SPACIOUS SIDE PORCH WITH A GABLE ROOF SUPPORTED BY TUSCAN COLUMNS.
UH, AND IF YOU WANT, I CAN SHOW YOU THAT IN THE PHOTOS THAT WERE PROVIDED.
ONE 11 P*****K STREET PROJECT IS TO INCLUDE A NEW PORCH ADDITION IN THE SECONDARY A, B, C.
SO THE UTILITIES, UM, 2.3 0.60, SORRY.
THE FOLLOWING, HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS, AKA GUIDELINES THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO THIS APPLICATION.
UTILITIES 2.3 0.6 DESIGN PRINCIPLES, 3.14 AND FIVE, MODIFICATIONS, 3.1 AND TWO ADDITIONS, 3.32 AND THREE FOUNDATIONS, 4.1, THREE AND FOUR.
WALLS, TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION, 4.1 AND FOUR WINDOWS, DOORS AND OPENINGS.
4.3 0.1 AND TWO ENTRANCES, 4.41, TWO AND FOUR FOR ROOFS, 4.5 0.4 MASONRY, FIVE POINT 0.1, TWO, THREE, AND FIVE FOR WOOD.
5.4 0.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, AND SEVEN.
STATEMENTS OF FACT BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION ARE ONE, THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE TIGHT WEAVE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THE PROPOSAL IS A PERMANENT REPLACEMENT OF AN INCONGRUOUS PREVIOUS ENTRY STAIRWAY.
THREE, EXCEPT FOR THE ALTERED PEDIMENT AND PAINTING THE NEW BRICK.
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 FIVE, THE PROJECT IS NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH THE GUIDELINES.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS WERE ADDED TO THE PREVIOUS COA, UH, TO RETAIN THE EXISTING PEDIMENT ABOVE THE ENTRYWAY AND RESPECT THAT HISTORIC FABRIC.
SECONDLY, TO THE CONSTRUCTION MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CHIEF BILLING, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO FLOODS.
THIRDLY, THE APPLICANT IS TO REVISE THE DRAWINGS TO SHOW THE BRICK AS WHITE COLORED BRICK.
AND FOURTHLY, THE APPLICANT IS TO INDICATE INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW OR RELOCATED LIGHTING.
[02:40:01]
THE ADDITIONAL FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO REVISE PLANS ACCORDING TO THE CHANGES AGREED UPON AT THE HEARING SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE HPC STAFF FOR APPROVAL ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES AND PRIOR TO THE FINAL INSPECTION BY THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DIVISION.AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR REPORT.
ARE ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE, THE BRICK, UH, COLUMNS UNDER THE, UNDER THE NEW DECK SHOULD BE PAINTED WHITE? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? NO, THEY'RE PROPOSED TO BE PAINTED WHITE, BUT OH, THEY'RE NOT SHOWN HERE ON THE DRAWING, BUT THEY'RE PROPOSED TO BE WELL, RIGHT.
THE UH, THE BRICK JOINTS ARE SHOWN BLACK AND THE BRICKS ARE SHOWN WHITE.
BUT IT SAYS NEW PAINTED BRICK MASONRY.
THEY'RE NOTATED TO BE WHITE, UH, PAINTED.
THAT'S WELL, THE CONDITION SAYS AS WHITE COLORED BRICK.
THE PREVIOUS WHITE COLORED BRICK.
PREVIOUS, WELL, THE PREVIOUS CONDITIONS WERE TO BE WHITE COLORED BRICK, UH, GIVEN YOUR PREVIOUS APPLICATION,
WHERE'S THE SLIPPERY SLOPE? THE, I TALKED TO THE OWNER TODAY AND THEY ARE PERFECTLY FINE WITH, WITH USING A, UM, HAVING IT BE A REGULAR BRICK, RED BRICK.
UM, NOT, AND I TALKED TO THEM ABOUT A WHITE BRICK, BUT THEY WOULD PREFER NOT TO DO A WHITE BRICK 'CAUSE IT'S NOT REALLY GONNA MATCH THE HOUSE.
SO WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE IT A REGULAR UNPAINTED BRICK.
AND I, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT IS THAT A BREEZEWAY? IT'S OPEN ARCHED UNDERNEATH.
AND WE DO HAVE CONCRETE MASONRY UNDER THERE.
CAN WE PAINT THAT GUIDELINES? NOT IF IT'S UNPAINTED, RIGHT? IT'S MASON.
DO THE GUIDELINES JUST SAY MASONRY OR YEAH, MASONRY.
THAT, THAT WELL OR CONCRETE IS NOT MASONRY, BUT MASONRY UNITS, I GUESS CIU CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS.
WOULD YOU LET US PAINT THE INSIDE CONCRETE MASONRY? IT APPEARS TO BE PAINTED NOW.
NO, WELL THIS IS NEW CONSTRUCTION.
WELL, YOU, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INSIDES OF THE NEW WALLS.
ARE THE WALLS OR THE FLOOR WALLS.
SO IF I CAN EXPLAIN, UM, THE WALLS ARE MADE OF CONCRETE BLOCK AND THEN FACED ON THE OUTSIDE OF BRICK.
UH, SO SINCE IT'S ALL OPEN, YOU CAN ALWAYS PUT STUCCO ON IT AND THEN PAINT IT
HERE'S THE PLAN VIEW, RIGHT? SO YOU CAN SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS PLAN VIEW, IN THE UPPER RIGHT, THE, UM, HEAVY BLACK DOUBLE X CROSS, UH, HATCHING IS THE CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT.
IT HAS, WHY DID IT GO SMALL? IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO LARGE.
RIGHT? AND THEN THE LIGHTER CROSS HATCHING IS THE ACTUAL BRICK.
HOW ABOUT WE JUST PROPOSE TO WRAP THE ENTIRE COLUMN IN BRICK? YEAH.
WELL, WELL THAT'S, WE HAVE A SAY ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE OUTSIDE.
I MEAN, WELL, DO WE SEE THOSE THINGS FROM ANY ANGLE IN THE BUILDING? REALLY? I, I THINK IF WE CAN JUST A SAY THAT.
YEAH, I THINK WE'D PREFER TO DO THAT.
WHAT, WHAT DO YOU WANNA DO? JUST WRAP THE WHOLE THING IN BRICK AND SO THERE'LL BE THING JUST PRICE.
WOULD SHE, UM, THE, THE PEDIMENT ABOVE THE DOORWAY, WHEN YOU SAID RETAIN, CAN WE REMOVE AND KEEP IT ON SITE? OR DO WE NEED TO KEEP IT IN PLACE? BECAUSE WITH THE, THE SLOPE OF THE ROOF, IT WOULD BE PARTIALLY COVERED BY THE CEILING OF THE, THE NEW PORCH.
SO, UM, THAT'S UP TO THESE GUYS.
BUT SO TO BE CLEAR, SO YOU GUYS KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, YOU CAN SEE HERE THE, UH, UH, THE HOUSE AND THE DESCRIPTION IN THE, UM, AND SAND BACK HERE WE GO.
THIS PEDIMENT, IT REACHES ALMOST TO THE WINDOW SILL.
UM, WHEREAS THE DESIGN FOR THE ROOFING, WE LOOK AT THE ELEVATION VERY CLOSELY.
THAT'S THE EXISTING, RIGHT? THAT'S THE EXISTING, RIGHT.
[02:45:01]
BE LIKE THAT.SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A FLAT PORTION UP AGAINST THE WALL THERE, UM, THAT IS AT OR BELOW THE TIP OF THE PREVIOUS PEDIMENT.
AND SO EVEN WITH THE STRUCTURE, EVEN IF IT'S ABOVE IT WITH THE STRUCTURE AND EVERYTHING, IT WOULD, UM, DAMAGE THE PEDIMENT UNDERNEATH THERE.
IT MAY ALSO BE QUESTIONABLE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD EVEN BE ABLE TO SEE IT.
UM, I DON'T WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR THE CEILING OF THAT? DO YOU KNOW? IT'S, IT WILL BE PAINTED.
I MEAN, IS IT GONNA BE FLAT OR? IT'S GONNA BE FLAT, YEAH.
SO WHAT WE SEE HERE, IT'S GONNA CUT THROUGH THE FAN LIGHT TOO.
IT, UH, IT WILL COVER, IT WILL HAVE TO, WE, WE DID A SECTION THROUGH THERE.
IS THAT NOT IN THIS SECTION? I DON'T SEE IT.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT IT DOES COVER SOME PORTION OF IT.
SO, UH, MAYBE A BETTER SOLUTION IS TO ACTUALLY HAVE THE CEILING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE, CAN YOU, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PHOTOS FOR A SECOND? YEP.
UH, BACK TO THE, UM, YOU HAVE THAT AND THAT, LET'S SEE, WHERE DO WE HAVE, DO YOU WANT THIS TOP ONE? YEAH.
WHAT IF WE HAVE A VAULTED CEILING IN THERE? YEAH.
A RAFTERS TO HAVE THE CEILING ATTACHED TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE JOISTS.
AND THEN I COULD, WHAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT, IF YOU TAKE THIS THING DOWN AND I THINK, CAN I, CAN I GET AN ZOOM IN ON THAT FRONT PAGE? I THINK IF, IF IT WOULD BE CUT A LITTLE BIT LIKE THE, THE HORIZONTAL PIECE, IF THAT GETS CUT DOWN BY, I DON'T KNOW HOW HIGH IT ACTUALLY IS RIGHT NOW, BUT IF IT GET, IF IT GETS CUT DOWN A LITTLE BIT, THE WHOLE THING WOULD COME DOWN BY THREE, FOUR INCHES AND THAT MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT TO GET THE ROOF OVER IT AND THEN BE SITTING UNDER THE ROOF.
IT, IT'S OUR INTENT TO LEAVE THAT, THAT WINDOW OVER OPEN.
UM, THE, THE SLOPE THAT I'VE GOT ON THAT, THAT ROOF COMES VERY CLOSE TO THE TOP OF THAT OR THE, THE SILL OF THAT TOP WINDOW UP THERE.
AND, UM, A PORTION OF THE TRIM OF THAT WINDOW MAY BE COVERED.
UM, WE CAN, I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN, UH, FRAME IT ON THE INSIDE SO THAT, THAT IT IS COMPLETELY OPEN, BUT THAT PEDIMENT ABOVE THAT, UM, IS EITHER, YOU KNOW, WE LIKE TO TAKE THAT OFF AND, AND PUT IT IN THE ATTIC.
IF, IF THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
I THINK IT'S SAVEABLE WITH THE, WITH THE RIGHT DESIGN, IT CAN STAY THERE.
IT MIGHT BE NEED TO BE ALTERED BY A LITTLE BIT, BUT I THINK IT CAN STAY THERE.
UM, IT, UH, I MEAN WE HAVE TO ATTACH THE NEW FRAMING, UM, UP AGAINST THAT HOUSE AND IT, IT JUST MAY CAUSE A PROBLEM.
I MEAN, WE CAN, WE CAN, WE CAN TRY AND LEAVE IT IN PLACE AND TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OF IT DURING CONSTRUCTION IF THAT WOULD, UM, OR YOU KNOW, IF YOU'LL ALLOW US TO TAKE THAT TOP PIECE OFF AND PUT IT UP.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THIS HOUSE WAS MOVED HERE IN THE SIXTIES TO MAKE WAY FOR THE OLD HOLIDAY INN.
AND I DON'T, SANDVIK DOESN'T HAVE ANY PHOTOS OF IT ORIGINALLY, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THIS HAD A WHOLE DIFFERENT FRONT ON IT WHEN IT WAS ON THE GROUND.
BUT THERE WERE DEFINITELY HOUSES LIKE THIS IN NEW BERN THAT HAVE THAT WHEN IT WAS FACING THE STREET.
SO, SO, UM, SO THE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER IS EVEN IF SHE WAS ABLE TO MAKE THE ROOF AVOID THE PEI, WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE UNDERNEATH, UNDER THE IMPEDIMENT? IT WOULD LOOK, I MEAN, IT WOULD BE SQUASHED UP AGAINST THE CEILING.
COULD IT BE, COULD IT BE AN OPEN CEILING? WOULD THAT HAVE JUST AN OPEN RAFTER CEILING AND MIGHT SHOW BETTER? WE'VE GOT A HIP ROOF ON THAT PORCH.
IT WOULD BE, NO, UNLESS IT'S FOLLOWING THE ANGLE OF THE, OF THE PEDIMENT, IT'S GONNA LOOK SILLY.
I MEAN WE, WE KIND OF REPLICATED THAT PEDIMENT OUT ON THE FRONT.
YEAH, I'VE SEE, I'VE NOTICED THAT, YOU KNOW, I WAS GONNA GO THERE NEXT.
CAN YOU TAKE IT OFF OF HERE AND PUT IT ON THE FRONT, WHICH YOU DID.
UH, AND LEAVE THE, AND LEAVE THE, I'M NOT GONNA SAY YES, WE CAN DO THAT.
[02:50:01]
WE COULD ATTEMPT TO, MM-HMM,UM, HONESTLY, IT'S BEEN SO LONG SINCE I CAN WE MAKE IT A CONDITION THAT IT GETS KIND OF REBUILT IF IT'S NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO BE SAVED? LIKE, JUST WELL THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I PROPOSED.
IS IT KIND OF REPLICATED? YEAH.
IS THAT FOLLOWING PRETTY MUCH THE DESIGN OF THAT PEI? YES.
I I CAN, I CAN LIVE WITH THAT I GUESS.
I THINK THE GUIDELINES I WANTED TO MAKE ONE COMMENT ABOUT THE BRICK SELECTION AND YOU SAID RED BRICK.
COULD IT BE A MODEL BRICK THAT HAS MAYBE HAS THAT MORTAR IN IT THAT REFLECTS SOME OF THE WHITE OF THE BUILDING? YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT MIXED BRICK KIND OF THING.
SO IT'S NOT SUCH A, I I HAD TALKED TO THEM ABOUT IN AN OVERSIZED, KIND OF UNEVEN, UM, MORE HISTORIC KIND OF BRICK.
UM, INSTEAD OF LIKE A SUIT, A WIRE CUT, VERY SQUARE EDGED BRICK.
BUT YOU MEAN LIKE A, A TAN OR LIKE A CREAM MORTAR OR SOMETHING OR WELL, I JUST MEAN THAT SOMETIMES THEY HAVE UM, SOME WHITE BRICK IN THERE THAT'S FROM THE MORTAR OR OH.
THAT IT'S A OLD BRICK KIND OF THING.
AND THAT WOULD REFLECT SOME OF THE VARIED BRICK VARIED.
OKAY, WE READY TO GO HERE? THANK YOU.
THINK SO LET'S, UH, WHO'S GONNA CRAFT A MOTION? COMMISSIONER MORRIS.
COMMISSIONER MORRIS ABLE TO DO THAT? MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE.
WE FIND THE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ONE 11 P*****K STREET TO BE NOT IN CONGRESS WITH NEW BERN'S CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTION 15 4 11 TO 15 4 29.
AND NEW BERN'S HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC GUIDELINES AND FINDINGS OF FACT, UTILITIES 2.3 0.6 DESIGN PRINCIPLES, 3.1, 0.14 AND FIVE MODIFICATIONS, 3.2 0.1 AND TWO ADDITIONS, 3.32 AND THREE FOUNDATIONS, 4.1 0.13 AND FOUR WALLS, TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION, 4.1 AND FOUR WINDOWS, DOORS AND OPENINGS.
4.1 AND TWO ENTRANCES, 4.24 AND FOUR.
FINDINGS OF FACT, THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE TITAN LEAD DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
PROPOSAL IS A PERMANENT REPLACEMENT OF AN INCONGRUOUS PREVIOUS ENTRY STAIRWAY.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES.
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND A COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY.
AND THE PROJECT IS NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH THE GUIDELINES, UH, CONDITIONS NOT THAT I SEE.
WHETHER BY THE MENT TO BE REBUILT IN THE FRONT.
WELL, DID WE CONCLUDE IT'S GONNA BE REBUILT OR AS DESIGN AS PROPOSED ON A DESIGN PROPOSED IS A REPLICA.
I SECOND MR. MAR'S NOTION WITH NO CONDITIONS.
ISSUE THE COA ALL IN FAVOR STATE.
RICHARD DID THE MOTION ON THAT, RIGHT? MM-HMM?
UM, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, UM, BECAUSE THE CHANGE WAS MADE AT THE MEETING, UH, FOR THE DRAWINGS TO NO LONGER BE PAINTED BRICK, WE NEED TO BE CLEAR THAT THE BRICK IS NOW GOING TO BE UNPAINTED BRICK AND WHICH COMPLIES WITH THE GUIDELINES.
AND WRAPPING AROUND THE COLUMNS IN THEIR ENTIRETY.
[02:55:01]
YEAH.OR, OR IT MIGHT BE UNREASONABLE.
[8. HPC ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT A. REPORT ON MAJOR COAS DENIED: (April 4 – May 1) – None B. REPORT ON MAJOR COAS, EXTENSIONS, AMENDMENTS, and CONDITION APPROVALS ISSUED: (April 4 – May 1) 710 Howard St. – amendment to add window screens 221 S. Front St. – Condition 2 of Amended CoA determined not applicable (deck is porch) 1207 N. Pasteur St. – replace wood and new wood windows and doors 4 CoAs from 4/17 HPC meeting soon C. REPORT ON MINOR COAS ISSUED: (April 4 – May 1) 214 S. Front St. – tree replacements 501 Metcalf St. ROW – tree replacement 508 C St. – new deck 516 Metcalf St. – modify handrails 613 Pollock (Metcalf St ROW) – tree replacements 620 Craven St. ROW – tree replacement 1361 National Ave ROW – tree replacement 1521 Rhem Ave ROW – tree replacement About 20 pending D. OTHER ITEMS AND UPDATES BY THE ADMINISTRATOR Terms ending for 3 members: MW, JM, and CS – all are qualified for another term]
ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT IN YOUR REPORT THAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT? MATTHEW? UM, SO, UM, WE JUST HAVE, THE MAIN THING IS THAT WE HAVE OUR THREE MEMBERS WHOSE TERMS ARE, WHOSE CURRENT TERMS ARE EXPIRING, ALL ARE QUALIFIED FOR ANOTHER TERM I BELIEVE.UM, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR ANYBODY, BUT, UM, UH, IF THEY ARE NO LONGER INTERESTED IN SERVING, THEY SHOULD CONTACT THEIR, UM, UH, ALDERMAN OR MAYOR, UH, TO LET THEM KNOW SO THAT THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO REPLACE YOU.
I COULD ACTUALLY JUST PUT IT THAT WAY, BUT OTHERWISE, UM, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY CONTACT 'EM ANYWAY JUST SO YOU CAN LET THEM KNOW YOU ARE INTERESTED IN CONTINUING.
UH, SO THAT, UH, UH, THEY DON'T HAVE TO START LOOKING FOR ANYONE.
WHICH COMMISSIONERS AT THE END OF THEIR, SO NWJM AND CS MARK GARNER.
UH, JIM MORRISON AND CANDACE OLAND.
AND I'VE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE, UM, TELL ME THAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN FILLING ANY VACANCIES.
DID THE MOTION, RICHARD? I DID IT.
WHICH, WHICHEVER ONE YOU GUYS CAN ARM WRESTLE FOR IT.