Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic board approves certificate of appropriateness for building addition at former Joel’s Coffee site
Summary
The Historic Architectural Review Board unanimously approved a certificate of appropriateness for an exterior addition to the former Joel’s Coffee building (proposed Hedges Eye Care), finding the design consistent with the historic district and City of Newberry regulations.
The Historic Architectural Review Board of the City of Newberry voted unanimously May 5 to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an exterior addition to the former Joel’s Coffee building, a cracker/bungalow‑style structure in the city’s historic district.
John Paul Perez of the Planning and Community Development Department presented the application and recommended the board adopt the resolution approving a certificate of appropriateness under section 11.11 of the City of Newberry Land Development Regulations. Perez said the application covers an exterior addition primarily sited off the street facade and that the proposal is sensitive to existing materials and roof forms.
Architect Danny Garcia told the board the proposed tower feature will serve as a reception area to bring daylight into the office rather than being purely decorative. Perez and staff said the addition continues the building’s gabled roof form and uses vernacular features consistent with the area’s Bahamian/Florida evolution of the cracker and bungalow style.
The application package showed the portion of the building to be demolished, the footprint of the addition and elevations. Staff noted the mural on part of the façade will be handled separately, and any repainting or continuation of the mural would return to the board for review. Perez said most of the addition is set back from the street, producing minimal façade impact.
After questions about parking — board members asked how the approved design could interact with later site‑plan decisions — the board made a motion to approve. The motion, moved by a board member and seconded from the dais, passed by unanimous voice vote; the attorney read the resolution as CA202501CA25-01 and the board recorded the resolution as adopted.
No conditions beyond standard HARB criteria were recorded at the public meeting; staff said the site plan will return to Planning and Zoning for review of parking and related site features. The approval covers the design of the exterior addition only and does not approve final site‑plan details.
