Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Designers propose under‑building garage and raised first floor at 226 East Front Street
Summary
An applicant asked the New Bern Historic Preservation Commission to amend an approved Certificate of Appropriateness so parking can be located under a raised first floor; staff said revised elevations, building sections and elevation tags are required to show compliance with flood‑elevation rules before the item returns for design review.
The New Bern Historic Preservation Commission heard a presentation on an amended Certificate of Appropriateness request for 226 East Front Street during its July work session. The applicant proposes to use the foundation area beneath the first floor for enclosed garages, extend an elevator to that level and remove an arcade at the rear and the front ramp, which will raise the building’s first‑floor elevation compared with the previously approved plans.
Staff said the change will alter the building’s relationship to the LIM/LIMWA flood elevation rules. The regulatorily important measurement is the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member (for example, joists or beams), not simply the finished‑floor height; the group discussed a 12‑foot reference level and asked for profile and section drawings that show the bottom of the lowest horizontal member relative to the flood elevation.
Commissioners also discussed site grading and parking logistics. Staff reported a zoning review and special‑use permit flagged that exterior ground‑level parking will be reduced by three stalls while the internal, stacked garage layout adds seven spaces — a net gain of four spots — and noted questions about tandem/stacked access. The group asked for clearer plan notes showing where excavation will occur, how garage doors and openings will be arranged, and how the structure will avoid horizontal members crossing garage door openings.
Appearance and materials drew further scrutiny. Commission members requested accurate elevation tags and material notes: the current renderings show full brick across the base but the team said the plan is for pilasters with brick veneer infill (brick veneer over block) and breakaway panels between pilasters. Commissioners asked the applicant to correct the renderings and to indicate guardrail heights and stair enclosures consistently across elevations.
Staff asked the applicant to return with revised drawings and a building section before the next design‑review meeting. The commission did not vote on the application at the work session and no formal action was taken; staff said revised materials should be provided in time for the August design‑review meeting cutoff so the item can proceed to the formal agenda if ready.
