AGENDA. I. Call to Order. II. Approval of Minutes: January 10, Public Hearing:

Transcription

1 AGENDA Town of Southern Pines Historic District Commission Regular Meeting Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. Boyd Room of the Planning Office 180 SW Broad Street, Southern Pines, NC I. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes: January 10, 2019 III. IV. Oath of Testimony Public Hearing: HD Certificate of Appropriateness - Major Works; New Building; 215 South Bennett Street; Owner/Applicant, Mr. Gerald Bateman; Agent, Koontz Jones Design V. Old Business VI. VII. New Business Adjournment

2 MINUTES Town of Southern Pines Historic District Commission Regular Meeting Boyd Room of the Planning Department Office 180 SW Broad Street January 10, 2019 at 4:00 PM The Town of Southern Pines Historic District Commission held its regular meeting on Thursday, January 10, 2019, at 4:00 PM in the Boyd Room of the Planning Department office, 180 SW Broad Street, Southern Pines, North Carolina. Historic District Commission members present: Chairperson Darlene Stark, Steady Meares, Carolyn Burns, Lynn Anderson, Molly Goodman and Dorothy Shankle. Historic District Commission member Mart Gibson was absent. Town staff members present: B.J. Grieve, Senior Planner, Suzy Russell (formerly Suzy Sutphin), Planner, and Cindy Williams, Secretary to the Historic District Commission. Chairperson Stark called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Molly Goodman made a motion, which was seconded by Dorothy Shankle, to approve the Minutes of the December 13, 2018 meeting. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. HD Certificate of Appropriateness: Major Works, New Building; 215 South Bennett Street; Owner/Applicant, Mr. Gerald Bateman; Agent, Koontz Jones Design OATH OF TESTIMONY: Cindy Williams administered the oath of testimony to those wishing to speak during the hearing. STAFF REPORT Suzy Russell: Ms. Russell stated that Planning staff had received a request from Mr. Bob Koontz on behalf of the applicant to continue the public hearing for a second time until the next regular meeting of the Historic District Commission. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Bob Koontz: Mr. Koontz stated that the applicant had obtained pricing for the construction materials but was still awaiting the results of an appraisal. The final determination as to whether the building will consist of two stories or three will be based on the appraisal. Mr. Koontz requested a thirty (30) day extension on behalf of the applicant. January 2019 Minutes Historic District Commission Meeting Page 1 of 4

3 BJ Grieve asked Mr. Koontz when any revisions would be submitted. Mr. Koontz responded that the applicant is hopeful that no modifications will be necessary, but if any are required, he would submit the changes within two weeks. Ms. Russell stated that she was comfortable with that deadline. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: Lynn Anderson made a motion, which was seconded by Steady Meares, to continue public hearing HD until the February 14, 2019 regular meeting. The motion carried unanimously. 2. HD Certificate of Appropriateness: Major Works, ADA Sidewalk addition; 135 East Massachusetts Avenue; Neal Smith Engineering, Inc. Neal Smith Engineering has submitted an application on behalf of Michael and Ashley Hove requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness: Major Works for the purpose of making accessibility improvements at 135 East Massachusetts Avenue. The proposed improvements include adding an ADA accessible five (5) foot wide striped sidewalk that will tie into the existing Town sidewalk at East Massachusetts Avenue and would extend along the right side of the existing driveway to the upper end of the driveway. The applicant is proposing to connect a ramp at the upper end of the newly constructed sidewalk. The ramp would be built alongside the existing deck to end on the rear side of the deck adjacent to the existing stairway. The existing sliding glass door that is located off the deck on the rear right wall of the building would be removed and be framed-in to create more wall space with a single hung ADAaccessible wooden door. The applicant proposes to build a wooden ADA ramp at this entrance for ease of access. The proposed use for this structure is a law office, which is a change of use from current residential use of the building. The subject parcel is identified as PIN (Parcel ID ). Per the Moore County GIS, the property owners are listed as Michael and Ashley Hove. The subject property is zoned CB (Central Business). STAFF REPORT SUZY RUSSELL: Ms. Russell stated that a residence and carriage house currently exist on the site, both of which are contributing structures built in The purpose of the proposed modifications is to bring the property into compliance with ADA regulations. The applicant is proposing the addition of a five (5) foot wide walkway along the right side of the driveway that will tie into the Town sidewalk, run next to the carriage house and tie into a ramp leading to the rear of the deck. The ramp will match the existing deck and railing. The applicant is proposing the replacement of an existing sliding door with a single door that is ADA compliant and to build a small ramp at that entrance. Either side of the door will be rebuilt to match the rest of the house, and the new decking will also be of an approved color. January 2019 Minutes Historic District Commission Meeting Page 2 of 4

4 Dorothy Starkle asked if any new lighting is being proposed and Darlene Stark asked if any trees will be removed. Ms. Russell responded that no additional lighting is being added and no trees are going to be removed. APPLICANT PRESENTATION JESSE COYLE: Mr. Jesse Coyle addressed the Commission and stated that he intends to open a law office at this location and the proposed changes will make the office more easily accessible for his clients. The intent is to make every effort to match existing colors and materials as closely as possible. Carolyn Burns asked if the parking lot is currently gravel. Mr. Coyle responded yes, and they intend to leave it as is. BJ Grieve stated that marking the parking spaces would not be appropriate to the character of the site; however, that should be given consideration as it would require a modification to the parking standards of the UDO. Ms. Russell responded that the parking area will not be used for client parking. The applicant is tying into the sidewalk in hopes that clients will park on the street, as on-site parking is not required in the CB zoning district. Mr. Coyle commented that he felt changes to the parking lot would detract from the historic appearance of the property. Molly Goodman inquired about the availability of handicap parking. Ms. Russell responded that the walkway will lead to the street and provide ADA access. Lynn Anderson asked if any signage was being requested as part of the application. Mr. Coyle responded that he would submit signage at a later date. Chairperson Stark asked if any changes to the landscaping were being proposed. Mr. Coyle responded that he would like to trim some of the overgrown shrubbery as well as a row of dead bushes along the interior property line. Chairperson Stark asked if the only exterior work will be the ramp and Mr. Coyle responded the ramp and the walkway from the sidewalk. Ms. Anderson commented that the proposed changes are consistent with the existing conditions. Ms. Goodman commented that they are meeting ADA requirements and the new door will match the existing door. January 2019 Minutes Historic District Commission Meeting Page 3 of 4

5 Molly Goodman made a motion, which was seconded by Lynn Anderson to close the public hearing. The motion carried unanimously. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: FINDINGS OF FACT The following findings of fact were made by the Historic District Commission: FINDING OF FACT #1 Carolyn Burns made a motion, which was seconded by Steady Meares, that as a finding of fact the application is complete and the facts submitted are relevant to the case. The motion carried unanimously. FINDING OF FACT #2 Carolyn Burns made a motion, which was seconded by Lynn Anderson, that as a finding of fact application HD complies with Section Criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness Major Work, Criteria (C) 1-3. The motion carried unanimously. Carolyn Burns made a motion, which was seconded by Steady Meares, to approve HD The motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: Ms. Russell stated that she had spoken with the managers of the downtown store Riot who stated that they were not aware that approval of the sign was required. They want to change the hanging sign to a wall sign and said they hoped to submit an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by the end of January Chairperson Stark recommended that Planning staff attend a Southern Pines Business Association or similar meeting to share the Historic District Guidelines. NEW BUSINESS: Ms. Russell stated that she is in the process of creating a record of all of the properties within the Historic District and determining whether the properties are currently in compliance. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 PM. Respectfully submitted: Cindy Williams Secretary to the Historic District Commission January 2019 Minutes Historic District Commission Meeting Page 4 of 4

6 Agenda Item To: Via: Historic District Commission Chris Kennedy, Community Development Director From: Suzy Sutphin, Planner 1 Subject: HD Certificate of Appropriateness: Major Works, New Building; 215 South Bennett Street; Owner/Applicant, Mr. Gerald Bateman; Agent, Koontz Jones Design Date: February 14, 2019 I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION REQUEST: Mr. Bob Koontz with Koontz Jones Design on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Gerald Bateman, has submitted an application requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness: Major Works for the purpose of building a new three-story brick structure on the vacant lot at the corner of South Bennett Street and West New York Avenue. The applicant is proposing to use this site for the new location of the Southern Pines Growler Shop. Ground floor retail would be located on the first story with office space located on the second and third stories. On October 9, 2018 the Town of Southern Pines Historic District Commission (HDC) issued a Certificate of Appropriateness Major Works for a conceptual approval including the condition that the applicant return to the HDC to clarify specific details related to awnings, screening of rooftop mechanical equipment, exterior light fixtures, signage, garage doors, glass on the first floor, entryways, brick, doors, patio surface, dumpster screening, site furnishings and landscaping. The applicant is on the agenda for February 14, 2019 to address these details after being granted two (2) continuances. The subject parcel is identified as PIN (Parcel ID ). Per the Moore County GIS, the property owner(s) is listed as Mr. Gerald Bateman. The subject property is zoned CB (Central Business). II. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION (Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 4:00 P.M. Historic District Commission Meeting): A public hearing for this request was opened at the December 13, 2018 Historic District Commission Meeting. All public notice requirements were met for that hearing date. The applicant stated that he wished to provide the Historic District Commission with additional application materials to address deficiencies identified in the staff memo. At the request of the applicant, the Commission voted to continue the public hearing on this item to the HD February HDC Page 1 of 82

7 January 10, 2019 Historic District Commission Meeting with the Condition that all additional application materials must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on January 2, On January 2, 2019 the applicant s authorized agent, Mr. Bob Koontz, called Planning staff to state that aspects of the project are on hold and to request a second continuance to the March 14, 2019 HDC meeting. Mr. Koontz was informed that no continuance may be granted administratively since the public hearing had been opened on December 13, Therefore, Mr. Koontz attended the January 10, 2019 HDC meeting and requested another continuance from the HDC. III. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION (Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 4:00 P.M. Historic District Commission Meeting): A public hearing for this request was opened at the January 10, 2019 Historic District Commission Meeting. All public notice requirements were met for the original hearing date. The applicant stated that he wished to provide the Historic District Commission with a thorough application and the applicant needed time to address pricing concerns identified during cost analysis. At the request of the applicant, the Commission voted to continue the public hearing on this item to the February 14, 2019 Historic District Commission Meeting with the condition that all additional application materials must be submitted by January 24 by 5:00 P.M. The applicant ed additional information on January 25, This information was found to be inadequate. Staff requested that the applicant supply a detailed narrative explaining all modifications as well as to address what will remain the same from the previous submittal. The applicant submitted a narrative on January 31, IV. PROJECT INFORMATION: A. Physical Address: 215 South Bennett Street Southern Pines, NC B. Owners/Applicant: Gerald Bateman 205 West Pennsylvania Avenue Southern Pines, NC C. Authorized Agent: Koontz Jones Design 150 Page Street Southern Pines, NC HD February HDC Page 2 of 82

8 D. Zoning of Property The subject property is presently zoned CB (Central Business) and located within the Historic District Overlay. Figure 1: Vicinity & Zoning Map (Subject Property Outlined in Blue) HD February HDC Page 3 of 82

9 V. STAFF REVIEW: A. Application Submittal Date: Application Submitted November 05, 2018 Notice of Public Hearing: o Posted On-site: November 27, 2018 o Mailed: November 27, 2018 o Internet: November 27, 2018 Historic District Commission Hearing: December 13, 2018 (continued at request of applicant to January 10, 2019) Historic District Commission Hearing: January 10, 2019 (continued at the request of applicant to February 14, 2019) B. Criteria for Review: The criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness are found in UDO The Commission shall take criteria (A) and (B) into consideration for purposes of deliberation. The Commission shall use criteria (C) for adoption of findings of fact Criteria (A) In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Commission shall take into account the historical and/or architectural Significance under consideration and the exterior form and appearance of any proposed additions or modifications to that structure that are visible from a public right-of-way. The Commission shall not consider interior arrangement or use. (B) The Commission shall consider the following factors when determining whether the application is or is not congruous with the historic aspects of the Historic District: 1. The height of the building in relation to the average height of the nearest adjacent and opposite buildings. 2. The setback and placement on Lot of the building in relation to the average setback and placement of the nearest adjacent and opposite buildings. 3. Exterior construction materials, including texture and pattern. 4. Architectural detailing, such as lintels, cornices, brick bond and foundation materials. 5. Roof shapes, forms and materials. 6. Proportion, shape, positioning and location, pattern and size of any elements of fenestration. 7. General form and proportions of buildings and structures. 8. Appurtenant fixtures and other features such as lighting. 9. Structural conditions and soundness. HD February HDC Page 4 of 82

10 10. Architectural scale. 11. Secretary of the Interior Guidelines. (C) Prior to approving the application, the Commission shall make the following findings: 1. Work is compatible and appropriate in preserving, retaining, repairing, or restoring the defining historic character of a property and the district. Specifically, the work is considered compatible and appropriate in terms of material, design, dimensions, mass, scale, orientation, color and other applicable considerations; 2. Work does not damage or remove significant character defining features of the building and will not adversely affect its contribution to the larger historic district; and 3. Work is consistent with the adopted design guidelines for the historic district. C. Staff Comments The Historic District Commission is considering a Certificate of Appropriateness Major Works for a proposed new building in the Historic District Overlay. Per UDO (A), a Certificate of Appropriateness replaces an Architectural Compliance Permit in the Historic District Overlay. Therefore, a Certificate of Appropriateness may modify the Development Design Standards found in UDO 4.10 that are typically applicable to commercial development elsewhere in Southern Pines. The Historic District Commission may therefore wish to consider the Development Design Standards of the UDO in addition to the criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness. As previously stated, the primary criteria for consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness are found in UDO These criteria were found to be met by a previous conceptual submittal that was reviewed and approved at the HDC meeting in September. However, the HDC found that there was not enough clarification on thirteen (13) details. At that time the HDC placed a condition on the applicant requesting that the applicant address the thirteen (13) details, which are presented below as identified by the HDC. Items requiring clarification identified in the conceptual approval of HD-13-18: (See attachments for reference concerning the following thirteen (13) details.) 1) Awnings The applicant stated in their narrative they are proposing to use black metal or canvas awnings with shaped steel brackets. The applicant has stated that the awnings will provide shade on the patio level and will provide a visual change in the exterior. The applicant has not addressed the size or clearance of the proposed awnings in the narrative provided. Staff reviewed the awning detail where the applicant states the awning will be six (6) feet tall and will meet the HD February HDC Page 5 of 82

11 eight (8) foot clearance criteria. The applicant states the awning will be canvas on the awning detail. This information found on the detail provided appears to meet the criteria set forth in the UDO (E) (2) and (3). The Historic District Commission should be aware that the applicant is required to meet the criteria in the UDO (E) (2) The minimum clearance between the lowest point of an awning and sidewalk shall be eight (8) feet and (3) Awnings shall be canvas or material of similar appearance and flexibility unless otherwise approved by the Town Council. Street facing awnings shall not be taller than six (6) feet unless specifically approved by the Town Council. Because the applicant has created a discrepancy with their responses, staff cannot determine whether or not the applicant appears to generally meet the criteria set forth in the UDO (E) (2) and (3). 2) Screening of Rooftop Mechanical Equipment The applicant proposes to utilize parapets as well as a rooftop fence constructed out of pressure treated wood in a shadow box pattern painted iron ore to match the windows to screen the rooftop mechanical equipment. The Historic District Commission should be aware that the applicant is required to meet the criteria in the UDO (H) Mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the street and shall not be located between the street and the building. The applicant appears to generally meet the criteria in the UDO (H). 3) Exterior Light Fixtures The applicant has not addressed the lighting in the narrative. Staff cannot determine what type of fixture nor the location of the light on the building walls based on the cut sheets provided. Staff can determine from the cut sheets that the applicant is proposing a streamline industrial grade black guard sconce for exterior over-door lighting. The applicant proposes to use a black caged outdoor wall light on the brick piers. On the upper walls they propose to use the frontier angle shade light in two different styles. The Historic District Commission should consider the relevant criteria set forth in UDO (B). 4) Signage The applicant stated that all signage will comply with Town standards and that they desire to utilize hanging signs within the design. The applicant has not provided any details concerning signage with this application. The Historic District Commission should be aware that the applicant is required to meet the criteria in the UDO 4.6 concerning signage. The applicant does not appear to meet the criteria for signage at this time. 5) Garage Doors The applicant has not addressed the garage doors in the narrative provided. Staff has determined from cut sheets and the elevation drawings there exists one oversized aluminum roll up garage door on the front elevation and one on HD February HDC Page 6 of 82

12 the right side elevation. The elevation plans indicate that the doors will be a roll-up style and will be made from aluminum. The door color is to match the windows. The garage doors appear to have windows. The windows can be glass or acrylic, insulated, tinted, low E or laminated safety glass. The applicant has not stated what type of window they are choosing. The Historic District Commission should be aware that the applicant is required to meet the criteria in the UDO Exhibit 4-16 that requires maximum spacing between entries in the CB zoning district to not exceed fifty (50) feet. The applicant has not addressed this criteria. Staff cannot determine whether or not the applicant appears to generally meet the criteria in the UDO Exhibit The Historic District Commission should consider the relevant criteria set forth in UDO (B) and the appropriate criteria for items six (6) and seven (7) below as well. 6) Glass on the First Floor The applicant is proposing aluminum clad windows in the color of iron ore. The applicant has stated the windows will be clear glazed non-reflective. The applicant has not stated whether the window material is glass or acrylic, insulated, low E or laminated safety glass. The Historic District Commission should be aware that the applicant is required to meet the criteria in the UDO (D): (1) Windows shall be glazed in non-reflective, clear glass. The applicant meets this requirement. UDO (D) further states: (2) On the ground floor a minimum of seventy (70) percent of the street-facing building facades between the elevations of two (2) and ten (10) feet above the sidewalk must be comprised of windows with at least eighty (80) percent transparency or doors. On upper floors a minimum of thirty (30) percent of the streetfacing walls of all structures shall be comprised of clear windows with at least sixty (60) percent transparency The applicant has not addressed the percent of proposed windows nor the percent of the proposed transparency. Staff cannot determine whether or not the applicant appears to generally meet the criteria in the UDO (D). The Historic District Commission should consider the relevant criteria set forth in UDO (B). 7) Entryways The applicant has not addressed doors in their narrative. Staff has viewed the elevation drawings and on the front elevation there is a label addressing three (3) dark-stained solid mahogany doors. In addition, there appears to be one (1) one solid door that is in exact appearance as the other three (3) doors mentioned prior. There is also a label addressing an oversized aluminum roll-up garage door. On the left side elevation there appears to be a double door that is not addressed. On the rear elevation there is a double door that is not addressed. On the right side elevation there is a single door on the tower that is not addressed as well as a garage door that is called out as an oversized aluminum roll up garage door. The applicant has provided cut sheets that provide information on the types of doors that are proposed. Please see item five (5) HD February HDC Page 7 of 82

13 above. The Historic District Commission should be aware that the applicant is required to meet the criteria in the UDO Exhibit 4-16 that requires maximum spacing between entries in the CB zoning district to not exceed fifty (50) feet. The applicant has not addressed this criteria. The Historic District Commission should consider the relevant criteria set forth in UDO (B). 8) Brick and specifically that it is in keeping with the Historic District. The applicant is proposing Oak Grove oversized brick from Palmetto Brick. The Historic District Commission should be aware that the applicant is required to meet the criteria in UDO (C) that requires the building walls be primarily comprised of brick. The applicant meets this criteria. The applicant has stated in their narrative that the design, configuration, material and colors are harmonious with the existing buildings that surround this parcel as well as the Historic District as a whole. The Historic District Commission should consider the relevant criteria set forth in UDO (B). 9) Doors Please see item seven (7) Entryways above. 10) Patio Surface The applicant has modified its application and no longer proposes to use concrete with saw cut joints approximately 4 feet on center with a rock salt finish. The applicant is proposing to use Belgard aqualine permeable pavers in the color of Ardennes. The pavers would be utilized as part of the storm drainage system. The Historic District Commission should consider the relevant criteria set forth in UDO (B) as well as the Historic District Guidelines. 11) Dumpster Screening The applicant is proposing to use a pressure treated shadow box fence with pressure treated 6x6 posts topped with a metal decorative cap. The dumpster screening fence would be painted black iron ore to match the building windows. The Historic District Commission should be aware that the applicant is required to meet the criteria in UDO and The Historic District Commission should consider the relevant criteria set forth in UDO (B). 12) Site Furnishings The applicant is proposing to provide patio seating. The applicant has not provided specifications on the seating however they have provided photos. The table appears to be a square table with an umbrella hole and a basket weave design with four (4) matching chairs. Staff cannot determine the material the table and chairs are constructed from. The applicant is also proposing to use umbrellas. The applicant has provided a photo and states that the umbrellas are free from any advertisement. The proposed umbrellas will all be black in color. HD February HDC Page 8 of 82

14 The applicant appears to meet the criteria found in The Town of Southern Pines Code of Ordinances (B). The applicant has not stated the height or size or material of the proposed umbrellas. The Historic District Commission should be aware that the applicant is required to meet the criteria in the Code and should consider the relevant criteria set forth in UDO (B) as well as the Historic District Guidelines. 13) Landscaping The applicant has stated in their narrative that one (1) tree will be removed from the right-of-way along New York Avenue. The applicant is proposing to plant trees within the right-of-way along New York Avenue. Evergreen hedges would be planted along the patio walls and along the southern property boundary to screen the adjacent property. The applicant has submitted a proposed Landscape Plan and according to the plant materials list there are changes that have been made between the first submittal and the last submittal. Historic District Commission should be aware that the applicant is required to meet the criteria in the UDO and concerning street trees. Also the applicant will have to meet with the Town of Southern Pines Arborist to receive permission to plant within the town ROW as well as verify the planting of approved material. The Historic District Commission should consider the relevant criteria set forth in UDO (B) as well as the Historic District Guidelines. VI. ATTACHMENTS: 1. COA Major Works Application 2. Authority for Appointment of Agent 3. Deed 4. Historic District Commission Guidelines Map Excerpt 5. Zoning District Map 6. Applicant s Narrative 7. Photos of Existing Site Conditions 8. Photos of Existing Surrounding Site Conditions 9. Conceptual Site Plan 10. Elevation Drawings Tree Removal Plan Planting Plan 13. Detail Sheets and Conceptual Photos Planting Plan Tree Removal Plan Paver Design Plan 17. RLUAC Impact Review 18. US Department of the Interior Standards HD February HDC Page 9 of 82

15 VII. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: To either approve or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness Major Works application, the Historic District Commission must make findings of fact and conclusions to the applicable standards. The Historic District Commission shall first vote on whether the application is complete. The Historic District Commission shall then vote on whether the application complies with the Criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness, including the Principles and Guidelines of the Historic District. The Historic District Commission may choose one of the following motions or any alternative they wish: Finding of Fact #1 1) I move that as a finding of fact the application is complete and that the facts submitted are relevant to the case, in that... -Or- 2) I move that as a finding of fact the application is incomplete and/or that the facts submitted are not relevant to the case, in that Finding of Fact #2 1) I move that as a finding of fact the application complies with Section Criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness Major Work, Criteria (C) 1-3, in that -Or- 2) I move that as a finding of fact the application does not comply with Section Criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness Major Work, Criteria (C) 1-3, in that Therefore, I move to: 1) Approve HD ) Deny HD ) Approve HD with the following additional conditions HD February HDC Page 10 of 82

16 HD February HDC Page 11 of 82

17 HD February HDC Page 12 of 82

18 HD February HDC Page 13 of 82

19 HD February HDC Page 14 of 82

20 HD February HDC Page 15 of 82

21 HD February HDC Page 16 of 82

22 HD February HDC Page 17 of 82

23 HD February HDC Page 18 of 82

24 HD February HDC Page 19 of 82

25 Historic District Commission Map (Subject Property Outlined in Yellow) HD February HDC Page 20 of 82

26 Zoning District Map for Central Business Zone (Property outlined in yellow) HD February HDC Page 21 of 82

27 Applicant s Narrative dated August 6, 2018: HD February HDC Page 22 of 82

28 HD February HDC Page 23 of 82

29 Applicant s Narrative dated January 28, 2019: HD February HDC Page 24 of 82

30 HD February HDC Page 25 of 82

31 Existing Site Conditions HD February HDC Page 26 of 82

32 HD February HDC Page 27 of 82

33 HD February HDC Page 28 of 82

34 HD February HDC Page 29 of 82

35 HD February HDC Page 30 of 82

36 HD February HDC Page 31 of 82

37 HD February HDC Page 32 of 82

38 HD February HDC Page 33 of 82

39 HD February HDC Page 34 of 82

40 HD February HDC Page 35 of 82

41 HD February HDC Page 36 of 82

42 HD February HDC Page 37 of 82

43 HD February HDC Page 38 of 82

44 HD February HDC Page 39 of 82

45 HD February HDC Page 40 of 82

46 HD February HDC Page 41 of 82

47 HD February HDC Page 42 of 82

48 Applicant s Plant Schedule from August 6, 2018: Applicant s Plant Schedule from January 28, 2019: HD February HDC Page 43 of 82

49 HD February HDC Page 44 of 82

50 HD February HDC Page 45 of 82

51 HD February HDC Page 46 of 82

52 HD February HDC Page 47 of 82

53 HD February HDC Page 48 of 82

54 HD February HDC Page 49 of 82

55 HD February HDC Page 50 of 82

56 HD February HDC Page 51 of 82

57 HD February HDC Page 52 of 82

58 HD February HDC Page 53 of 82

59 HD February HDC Page 54 of 82

60 HD February HDC Page 55 of 82

61 HD February HDC Page 56 of 82

62 HD February HDC Page 57 of 82

63 HD February HDC Page 58 of 82

64 HD February HDC Page 59 of 82

65 HD February HDC Page 60 of 82

66 HD February HDC Page 61 of 82

67 Applicant has requested a deviation from concrete for the material for the proposed patio. The applicant is proposing concrete permeable pavers for the patio material as of January 31, HD February HDC Page 62 of 82

68 HD February HDC Page 63 of 82

69 HD February HDC Page 64 of 82

70 HD February HDC Page 65 of 82

71 HD February HDC Page 66 of 82

72 HD February HDC Page 67 of 82

73 HD February HDC Page 68 of 82

74 HD February HDC Page 69 of 82

75 HD February HDC Page 70 of 82

76 HD February HDC Page 71 of 82

77 January 28, 2019 Submittal Materials (pages 72 82): HD February HDC Page 72 of 82

78 HD February HDC Page 73 of 82

79 HD February HDC Page 74 of 82

80 HD February HDC Page 75 of 82

81 HD February HDC Page 76 of 82

82 HD February HDC Page 77 of 82

83 HD February HDC Page 78 of 82

84 HD February HDC Page 79 of 82

85 HD February HDC Page 80 of 82

86 HD February HDC Page 81 of 82

87 U.S. Department of the Interior: The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The Standards (Department of Interior regulations, 36 CFR 67) pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. HD February HDC Page 82 of 82