Yeah.

Send your question.

Thank you.

Yeah.

We touch each other.

Thank you.

Perfect.

Good evening.

I call to order the Newport Historic District Commission meeting for Tuesday, July 14th, 2026, and ask our secretary to call the roll.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Deanna Amarillo.

Here.

Kelly Moran, I'm present.

Jim Madsen.

Here.

Frank Bala.

Here.

Ray Goddard.

Brooke Richter.

Here.

Ben Willett.

And Jan Don Tremont.

Here.

I confirm that we have a quorum for this evening's meeting.

I will ask two commissioners to affirm for the record that they reviewed all materials for the continued applications.

They were absent at the last meeting.

They have also watched the Thursday, June 11th, 2026 HDC meeting, and they are prepared to be voting commissioners this evening.

Those are commissioners Jim Madsen and Ben Willett.

Confirmed.

Okay.

So commissioners have been provided the minutes for Thursday, June 11th, 2026.

Commission members, are there any additions or corrections to those meeting minutes?

No.

Okay, I request a motion to accept the minutes for Thursday, June 11th, 2026 as presented.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

All applications approved and certificates of appropriateness issued this evening, Tuesday, July 14th, 2026 are valid for one year from the date of approval.

All of the applications in this meeting have a published staff report, which includes the confirmed location of each property within a Newport Historic District.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

The commission convened in our standard uh pre-meeting immediately prior to this evening.

We have no resequencing this evening, no withdrawals and no continuations.

And in acceptance of the staff findings and recommendations for approval.

So the first of those this evening is N1 for 14 Leroy Av.

Do we have anyone here for public comment on this application this evening?

Okay, so with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of 14 Leeroy Av, plat 36, lot 145 as presented, citing Newport standards 17 tag 80 tag 060 C one through three.

So moved.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Thank you.

Okay, the next application for summary this evening is N4 for one cottage street.

Do we have anyone here from um for public comment on this application?

So I will request a motion to approve the application of one cottage street, plat 25 lot 64 as presented, citing Newport standards 17 tech eight oh tech 060, a one, two, three, four, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I and on that um chair um oh yes.

Specify that it would be an all wood material, no composite.

Yes, that's correct.

So with that, um, with a condition to just cite on the record um with those same standards that the material would be all wood.

Um again, just to recite those 17 tech 80 tech 060, a one, two, three, four, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

And lastly, for summary was N6, six Mary Jane Lane.

Do we have anyone for public comment on that application?

So I request a motion to approve the application of six Mary Jane Lane, plat 44 lot 105 as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 tag 80 060 B1 and 2.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay, so we had no applications this evening for abbreviated summary.

So we will move into our full agenda.

Um, and I will ask our vice chair to read the first application.

Thank you, madam chair.

This is the application of city of Newport.

It's a continuing application for 365 same street for permission to remove the existing glass wall and vestibule to replace it with new glass wall and create new vestibule by infilling the arches with storefront glass.

Brick floor will be removed and relay to create level floor within the vestibule as well as an ADA compliant ramp with handrails and replace the existing exterior signage on the northeast and south side of the building with new signs.

Three new temporary banners are proposed to be installed on the east facing side.

Okay.

Okay, welcome back.

We'll get you sworn in.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

So help you, God.

I do.

And if you could state your name uh for the record, please.

Rebecca Bertrand.

Okay.

Uh my name is Rebecca Bertrand.

I'm the executive director of the Newport Historical Society here as the tenant of the city of Newport.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this revised proposal for the brick market, which is where the Museum of Newport history is.

The revisions to this application address three distinct elements of the building's front elevation.

First, it's a replacement of the existing storefront glass, which was vandalized and many times and requires replacement.

Second, it's the relocation of the front door from its current central position to the far right bay.

That's if you're facing the building.

Third, a construction of an ADA compliant walkway under the existing portico at a 5% slope, using the existing brick pavers, which are already in place at the entrance, which have become very uneven over time.

These brick pavers were during uh were put in place during the last major restoration of the building by the Newport Historical Society during the very historic time period of 1992.

Together, these changes will provide accessible entry into the new Museum of Newport history or the Newport Historical Society as a tenant, as I mentioned of the city.

Creating a dignified code compliant entrance for all visitors is a central mission to our project to make a renovated state of the art museum for Newporters, tourists, and school children alike.

We see about 35 to 40,000 visitors at the museum every year, alongside our architect Thad Samasco from S V Design.

We want to emphasize that this proposal has been designed and redesigned to meet the Secretary of Interior standards.

No conjectural features are being introduced.

The ramp, uh this uh walkway will be reconstructed uh without any railing or using materials, and we're using materials that are only already present on site.

And finally, every element of this work is fully reversible.

Most importantly, none of these revisions are going to be visible from the street.

The building's most important historic character and significance will remain unchanged.

We respectfully ask for the commission's approval and are happy to answer any questions that it might have.

Okay.

I will open it up for questions and comments.

Um thank you for coming back with a uh option that looks like uh address most of our uh comments in the past meetings.

Uh respect any applicant that does that and appreciate it.

Um the only thing that I saw that uh I thought maybe a little bit of an issue is there seems to be within the arches, there's a height difference between the the new set brick and the sidewalk because of existing conditions, etc.

And I'm wondering if maybe that should be uh just sloped concrete in that limited space, just so it's not a tripping hazard for people coming and going.

Uh that was my only comment.

I'll just ask maybe to clarify if I'm looking at the drawing, it does say a four and a half inch step, maybe.

Yes, uh, that's some house class V design.

Okay, I'm just gonna have to get you sworn in.

Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

So help you, God.

Yes, I do.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um the way it's working is we're hoping there is a four and a half inch step, which we think is a you know appropriate, not a trip hazard kind of step.

And we've we've got it so the walkway slopes from the left and then goes level across the arch.

So you see a nice level line, and then it slopes up again, and that's level at the door.

So it really is going to be super clean.

Uh and um yeah, we're not in filling the arches, there's no ramp, there's no railing, so it's just a very clean, clean look that we'll have accessibility uh to the building now.

We we thought about the slope, but we thought four and a half inches are too much to handle, and we thought it was actually better to have a visible for it.

I am no means the city attorney nor an attorney, and you know, I wish you well with it.

Just in our liability world, it people this is going to be now a public area, people coming and going.

Uh, and you can choose to treat it as you will.

But that was my uh view on the drawings.

Appreciate your point of view.

Okay.

I I can support it as a drone.

Okay, Mr.

Madsen.

Uh yeah, I think you had me on a wall when you took out the uh glass infills, so I'm good with it.

Yeah.

Okay.

It'll be a fine job.

Good job.

Okay, thank you for the revisions.

Uh I had a similar concern with the step up, but um, other than that, I support the changes.

Okay, and I concur with my fellow commissioners.

I think the revised plans as presented took to consideration all of the feedback that had been provided and does yield um a very successful outcome.

So if there's no further comments from the commission, um anything else from the applicant?

Yep.

No, okay.

So with that, I will request a motion to approve the application of zero thame street, plat 24 lot 001, um, as presented this evening, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 060 A1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next one.

Yep.

C2.

This is the application of reflections, LLC 11 Ocean AV.

Flat 41 lot 353.

It's a non-contributing structure for permission to replace the rotted stucco with wood siding.

Okay, welcome back.

We'll get you sworn in again.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

So help you, God.

I do.

And state your name for the record, please.

Spencer Alexander.

Okay, Mr.

Alexander.

Uh, can I provide you some exhibits?

Uh of course.

Are these are different exhibits than we saw last time?

Okay.

So Jill, just procedurally, am I going in sequence of we're up to D.

Do I start a D or do I start over again for again?

Okay.

Okay.

Uh so the first exhibit is about stucco and why stucco is not the right material for this comment.

Yeah.

Um thank you, sir.

And then the third is just pictures that you already have again.

Thank you.

Okay, sorry, Mr.

Alexander.

The second is a rendering.

Renderings of the property.

Okay.

And the third exhibit.

It's just the pictures again of the current building and the deteriorated step up.

Um then the other one is just a word about the stuff that was not good.

Okay, so to the commission, um, while we are distributing those, I'm going to request a motion to accept exhibit A, which is education on stucco relative to the property, exhibit B renderings of the property and exhibit C photos of the property for 11 Ocean app, plat 41 lot 353.

So move second.

All those in favor, aye, all those opposed.

And just for the commission, just to remind everyone, um, at our last meeting, we had split the application.

So the only thing we are considering this evening is the new wood siding.

We had previously approved new stairs, windows, doors, and the green roof.

So again, just looking at wood siding this evening.

Sorry.

So I wanted to do a little more comments about stucco and why.

So stucco was an inexpensive material done in the 80s when this building was made.

Stucco is highly porous, which is why the building is rotted the way it has.

So as stucco comes in, you can see from the photos, the water comes through the stucco, rots the building, rots the structure of the building.

We don't know the extent of the damage that the stucco has done to this building as it stands right now.

Um so part of the application as talking to the owner that they're wondering when they do look at the stucco and it does start to get replaced, if it's damaged to the entire building, it might not even be able to be saved at this point.

I think the damage could be completely rotted through everything.

So the idea is I want to save the form of the building.

I think the building form is what is the contributing factor, not the stucco.

So creating the wood facade around it creates a way to save the wood form and the form of the building, which is what is contributing to this structure.

Um so I wanted to provide you a rendering what this look like, how it maintains the form, maintains the shape, maintains the integrity of what makes this building special while allowing this building to adapt and change to work for maintenance and growth and still be enjoyed and used.

I think uh the having stucco on this building is a very high cost of maintenance that we continue to cause problems, especially where the building sits in ocean drive, and having a material that is matching the historic matching the material of the community and also allowing this building to be enjoyed for many years and continue for it to exist.

It's very important.

Um Mr.

Alexander, did you by any chance bring the wood sample back with you?

Because we had a couple of commissioners that did not see that last time.

So I just want to pass that back around.

Okay.

All right, and um any further comments or so the wood sample is flat.

There's no, it's not clapboard, it's on a group.

So the form stays exactly the same.

And overall, the shape of the building really is maintained, which is what is the contributing factor in my mind, not the facade material.

It's also a non-contributing building.

So I'm I'm sorry, I wasn't here last week, but the uh so the sole reason for this is because the stucco that's been there for 48 years is deteriorating.

So you want to change the entire exterior out.

Yeah, the stucco is completely rotted away.

There's all through it and it's uh falling apart at this point.

Uh it's a beating from the salt water and being on ocean drive.

Right.

So I would say that I'm persuaded by that argument that stucco probably is not the best material with that environment.

And that um the application of the shoe shoogy bond wood, um tug and groove siding will retain the form and shape and the integrity of the building.

I mean I really see it as a minor difference.

Um the materiality of it.

I mean, should he decide to put brown stucco on it?

You wouldn't know the difference, right?

So as far as as far as I'm concerned, this is this is in the actuality, an upgrade to the property.

And I think he's right.

I think it does uh contribute to the longevity of the building, and it would be a shame if the building is deteriorating to the point where it has to come down, right?

And uh I believe that I just reiterate that I am persuaded by that argument.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I will say it's not the most attractive house today.

I guess I guess I'd agree with my fellow counselor that it would look better.

Okay, Mr.

Bala.

Um could we revisit uh was the stucco in the contributing uh language nominating papers?

Okay.

But we made note that this building is noted by its stucco siding.

And it's one of the few stucco buildings in Newport, correct?

Yeah.

Um I don't disagree with uh my commission's uh comments nor your um plans.

However, I do maintain that you're changing the building.

This building looks like it's something that was just put up.

And while you're maintaining the form, you're introducing contemporary materials that also play into newer construction around it, and it tends to read as a new building opposed to a building that is of this age.

If you are making a compelling case against stucco, that is something that we should be looking at individually, and I'm not sure I could be on board with your argument, but I think if you're willing to re-clad the exterior of the building, then maybe I would be suggesting doing it in something a little more monolithic than horizontal siding, which would then read as the existing building opposed to something else.

So I guess that's my problem with this application.

I don't uh disagree with any of your findings.

However, I think if you're going to suggest removing stucco because of its inappropriate, you have to make that argument and get uh voted first.

And secondly, I don't think you've chosen the right material for this building to carry on its presence as it stands, not as something else.

Can I respond?

So uh one response to the new versus old.

I think if you look at like a car restoration, there's many different versions of car restoration.

You can do a resto mod, which maintains the people form of beautiful car, but it's updated to today's standards.

Um, I think the house, the stucco and wood siding were around at the same time.

So I would say that wood siding has been much older in historic context than it.

I think just because anything we do that we change the house to stucco again, it's still gonna look like a new home because it's a new material.

I don't think that the house changes form based on the material.

I think the form is what makes this house beautiful.

The the other part to your comment.

Sorry, I lost my train of thought.

The um the what was the second part of your comments?

Okay.

Um, I think the clyboard uh sidings the only other material I can think of, which I think you would all hate is a large fiber cement panel that's gonna give you that look of a large monolithic, which and I can't clad this in concrete again, and there's no way you're gonna let me do a fiber cement panel on this, which is so this seems like the most appropriate response to maintain the form, keep the house beautiful and allow it to grow continuously to be here for another 50 years.

Go ahead.

Uh okay, I will comment.

Um I I don't support the wood siding at this time.

It is named in our anatomy nominating papers as a stuccoed building.

It reads as you look at it as a 1970s international mid-century modern, whatever you want to call it.

I think the stucco is part of its identity, personally, and I think putting wood siding brings it from 1978 to 2018 or so, you know, 2021 century.

And so therefore I think it loses its identity and being a very unique building in Newport.

I I just feel we are um we're changing the house too significantly and bringing it into a completely different era.

It's unrecognizable, it's no longer going to be identified by the nominating papers.

And um, and again, it it's very unique, especially from this era in this in this city.

So unfortunately, I I can't support the stucco.

And I'll add in there that the research I've done on stucco, it shows that it is actually strong in coastal areas if properly maintained.

Of course, if water gets behind the walls and it's showing evidence of that, there needs to be proper maintenance in order to reseal it.

But for the most part, it has no seams.

It should be very durable in in this kind of climate.

So I can't get behind that.

But it's only durable in certain climates.

It increase thaw climates.

The constant water that gets into it creates cracks in what's just happening in a northeast climate.

It's very durable in warm climates, but in our climate, it doesn't work.

Um the other part for the non-contributing, it's non-contributing.

So I'm not understanding the paper part of the conversation because it's not actually a contributing structure.

So whether a property is contributing or non-contributing, it's still described in the papers.

In the staff report, right?

But not in the actual papers itself.

No, the building is listed as a non-contributing building.

It's not listed as a defining feature, but it the description in the nominating papers list it as a stuccoed one and two-story staggered T Plan flat roof house.

So the stucco is in that.

So I do agree with the fellow commissioners that if it would lose its identity as it's been described in those nominating papers if we were to change the material.

It may not be not it may be non-contributing, but it's still in a historic district.

Yes.

So it's got to conform to the historic district.

And that's being there for 48 years and described in the nominating papers makes it such.

I understand.

Thank you.

Um, so I will we'll so I'll continue with that.

Um coming back to our standard for non-contributing structures, um, B2 preserving character defining features.

Um our preservation planner very clearly calls this out.

The removal of the stucco facade would significantly alter distinctive features and finishes of the non-contributing structure consideration should be taken to retain the stucco exterior and replace or repair in kind, excuse me, um, replacing kind of repair.

So I've I am continuing to be of the opinion, as I was at the last meeting, um, that the alteration proposed this evening on the building um would not comply with our standard B2.

He is gonna put an application a demo the project if I can't get the siding to save the house.

You know, that there's a version of this house not existing at all if we can't figure out how to get past changing, so the character dividing feature of the stucco might be the part that makes the whole house disappear.

Well, a demolition would come before I mean and just I think it's important.

A demolition would come before this commission as well to be approved.

So I understand.

I'm just I'm trying to save how save the form of the house.

I think the house is beautiful.

I just don't think the stucco is the defining factor.

And I think the house with the water that's coming in, the moisture that's coming in, the house is constantly inundated with water because of the way it was designed, but your house is rotting away.

You're gonna end up losing the whole structure.

But we do have homes that are stucco in the point neighborhood as well as not on Bellevue, right?

And seem doing fine to me.

Right.

So they're everywhere.

New construction, a lot of hotels use stucco.

Um, you know, in building science, buildings take maintenance and buildings also need protection from elements.

Uh you've got a very close ground plane here.

You probably got cracks existing and you know, warm building materials that are contributing to the failure of not only the stucco, but the whole building.

So there are methods to improve the construction regardless of the exterior material.

Okay, so I'm just going to um sort of gauging the panel here.

Um, Miss Richter, um I supported this application last month.

I continue to support it.

I find the um adherence to the form to be very significant.

I also um mindful that as a commission, is it our role to compel homeowners to have a substance on their home that we know has some problems, right?

We can debate about how big those problems are.

But there is a reason why there's only a handful of stucco homes in Newport.

And of those that do exist, a lot of them don't look really great.

So I supported it before I continue to support it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Ms.

Beltremont.

Um, so last month I was against this proposal, but I am persuaded by um your words today about the form being a primary uh distinguishing feature.

I also think the stucco is of course a part of this, but um, I guess if we're hearing that, you know, a demolition is is the next step.

I think this would be very sad to lose this building.

It's a very, you know, you can't miss it when you're going on ocean drive, and you know, may not be our personal favorites uh in terms of design, but I think it's very um uh well known.

And um I so I will support um the application um in fear, which is not a good way to operate, of course, but um I think to maintain um the form is is a very important thing.

I don't think you have to operate in fear.

I think you can operate the way you think.

Yeah.

No, I'm saying I was persuaded, so I didn't mean to okay.

I just don't need to say you're fearful of demolition if he's you know threatening that as the next step.

No, no, I didn't hear it as a threat.

So I I'm sorry if it came across that way.

I did.

I did.

Um, Mr.

Matton, any change of view from what you've heard?

Yeah, I guess my change of view would be that you know, in reading back through the nominating papers and where it does state that it, you know, with the structure, and I think stucco does fit on that type of of design.

Uh we do have stucco in other parts of the city, and and to uh Commissioner Bowers, you know, suggestion, there's a lot of ways to take care of it.

You know, maybe you don't have the right maintenance crew or something, or maybe there's water getting in and you haven't found the leak yet.

But you know, I think it's something that uh needs to remain, and I think the structure needs to be arranged.

And I did take that as a threat that if we don't approve it, that you're gonna tear down the building.

So it's not bullshit.

It's really more that I'm gonna I'm trying I'm not trying to threaten you at all.

Wish you did.

No, it wasn't.

I I'm trying to save the building.

I I love this building.

I think this I've grown up here.

I think the building is incredible.

I think that the form of the building is what's important.

I think the building is really stunning, and I think then come back with a better design to Mr.

Bollow's point.

Uh so what material would you like it to be then?

Because if it can't be stucco and you're not gonna approve fiber cement, you're not gonna prove wood siding.

I'm gonna put a concrete box around it.

What are you looking at?

Maybe it's wood siding in a vertical approach versus a horizontal approach.

What I would recommend is you if you're willing to go back to the drawing board, maybe we set up a design review.

We're calling Jill for a month trying to talk to her.

Yeah.

And maybe that's the forum to come to look at other options and kind of throw some ideas around.

I I just wanted to speak up a little bit because uh to me, yeah, I'm in support of it, right?

And and and most of my support comes from a practical nature of preservation.

At some level, knowing that this is a wood-framed house, it had a stucco applied.

That's not the ideal material to be put on a wood frame house.

If this was a CMU house, if it was a concrete house that had a stucco finish on it, then I would be a completely opposed to changing that.

But I I grew up here, I've spent a lot of time in that neighborhood.

Uh, and I've seen the house slowly fall apart over the years, and I know how it was constructed.

In fact, I've worked on the house before.

And so I I know how it's put together, and I know there's a real practical nature to uh what he's suggesting here.

And I do believe that uh, you know, if reapplying stucco was something um that would be sort of appropriate, then that's what this architect would be doing right now.

And I think he's struggling with he would like to do it, but there are practical and there are materials out there, right?

And he's suggested a few of those that I don't think the committee would approve of.

I don't think the committee would approve of any vertical siding.

I mean, to get that clean sort of seamless appearance, you know, that's gonna be hard to do with any other material than stucco.

But I also recognize that unlike a lot of the other houses in Newport that are stucco, this is right on the ocean and it's subject to daily, you know, you know, if you want to call it abuse from the elements.

And so um that's why I'm in support of it.

So I will continue to support it.

Okay.

Just gonna ask our preservation planner for any further insight based on what's been presented from the applicant.

Sure.

So I know that we discussed in in our meeting that um there could be perhaps a mix of materials, so stucco and a um a wood siding.

Um additionally, I do want to call out the um the standards for non-contributing houses.

Um so preserve character defining features, which is B2.

Um, we are to um implore the the applicant to retain character defining features, but they are not required to so there is some leeway with non-contributing structures.

Um so I will leave that up to the commission and to the applicant, which way they would like to explore that.

Um I do stand behind my staff report, but I also think that there is practical solution out there um that would be right for this building.

And I trust the the architects.

My specialty is historic preservation, not architecture and building techniques, and so um I would trust their assessment.

And and to uh address the demo part, because I really didn't want to come up with that.

It's really a cost problem.

If I have to take the walls off completely down and redo CU walls, the cost of repairing the entire structure is not going to match the cost of build new.

And I don't want to lose the building.

But the cost of making something force it to be a certain way is going to outweigh saving it.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments?

I will say, based on um input from my fellow commissioner, um that I do respect the idea that the foundation of the building may not be well suited to the stucco exterior, which Mr.

Goddard has called out.

Um I do think that every commissioner here wants to preserve the structure.

It is very unique in the Ocean Drive district.

Um with that and also the updated feedback, I would be persuaded to change my view this evening and support the project as presented.

If there's no other feedback or questions from the commission, I would suggest that we move it to a vote.

Yep.

Okay.

So with that, I will request a motion to approve the application of 11 Ocean AB, Plat 41, lot 353 as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 TAC 060 B1 and 2.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Aye.

I would cite D2.

I also cite D2.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Application C3 is for Thomas Wall of 77 K Street by 22 Lot 099 contributing for permission to convert the existing garage to a two-story accessory dwelling unit.

Okay, so just to state for the record, um, Commissioner Goddard has recused himself from the application, and Commissioner Ben Willett will be sitting in.

I will get you sworn in this evening.

Raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

So help you, God.

Yes.

And if you could state your name for the record.

Sure.

John D'Souza, North County Group.

Okay.

Just want to make sure I have your last name spelled correctly, D E S O U S A.

Yes.

Got it.

Okay.

Um and just to confirm we have him as an authorized uh representative.

Are you you're the engineer, correct?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Just wanted to make sure.

Okay.

Um, so I don't believe we heard anything on this application at the last meeting.

Um, so if you could, and there's been some late additions that have been uploaded that the commission has not had the opportunity to see this evening.

So if you could walk us through the latest submittal of plans so that the commission is familiar.

So we had gone out and we ended up doing a preliminary assessment of the uh interior walls was structure and also the roof for the structure as well.

The current structure has a slate roof that's out there and it's constructed basically of a blue two by four.

It's uh uh hip roof that's out there and with two by four.

It is starting to sag.

Um the bondboard uh siding that was uh viewed at that time underneath the slate roof uh appears wet.

It actually is very vulnerable in quite a few spots.

So the stability of the roof is almost non-existent at this point.

Uh further, we went through and we looked at the uh walls, all the studied walls.

We noted that uh a few of the walls, the sill plates were actually embedded onto uh the ground area where the ground actually was higher than these uh the sill plates.

Uh those portions of the walls would have to get removed.

New sole plates would have to be brought in.

We would have to probably put a course of CMU on the back side of the wood exterior structure just to uh raise the slope plates off of the uh the ground that's out there.

So my client was looking to possibly convert the garage into an ADU.

Uh originally he was looking to do a two-floor ADU with some sort of uh uh porch uh covered entry at the time.

Um there's some back and forth that went between my office and your planner.

And I I believe we ended up uh uh revising our plans to uh keep it as a single story uh in kind structure with uh hip roof reutilizing.

We're gonna be you reutilizing the slate roof that's out there.

We're gonna have to remove all the slate, put it all back when the roof gets reconstructed.

Uh we're gonna have to redo some reconstruction of the exterior walls to also uh accommodate the structural umrancements that we have to perform.

Um in doing that, we're looking to add the windows.

I know on the uh what's shown up there, I believe is a four over one.

So we would actually switch that to match the existing structure, which would I believe is a six over one on the windows uh for the house.

My client would prefer the two-story, but um we know that that is probably uh not a feasible, but you would be uh willing to entertain converting the garage to a single ADU.

Uh it's got, I believe, CETA shingles shakes out there would be reutilizing uh cedar shank uh uh shakes with uh paint the exterior uh as close to the color that uh currently exists.

Uh the wood trim, it would be all wood trim, that'd be going up as well.

So that would be in like kind as close as a uh out of possible.

So it's the exact same footprint.

Yes.

Yeah.

Do we have any elevations that show the current garage to what we see here?

Are you you do not?

Okay.

We we hadn't got that far yet because we're still putting together our uh structural reports.

Okay.

So we we're just uh hopefully coming in here in front of the commission to get you input, see if um this is something that you would allow us uh to continue on and uh hopefully stabilize the structure so the won't collapse.

Okay.

I'm happy to open it up for comments myself.

Um, respective to the original plans that we had seen, which was a double story with a deck.

I think there was general feedback from the commission that it completely changed the character of the building.

Um I would just call out that this building is a hundred years old as of this year.

Um, so not insignificant in terms of its age.

Um I support the materials that are being proposed in kind in terms of a slate roof, cedar shingles, wood trim.

Um, I respect the update to the windows to a six over one to match what's there currently.

Where I struggle is the new structure is completely unrecognizable as having once been a garage.

Typically, if we had structures like this, there would be a way to potentially infill, let's say what was a garage door in a way that's still architecturally pleasing to give the sense that there was a structure that was used for utility before versus um a domestic um habitat.

So everything else about what you've presented this evening, I would be in favor of, but yet the architectural design for me still is too far a departure from the notion that it is a 100-year-old garage.

So I support the ADU and adapting the building.

Um, but I would like to see some of that original character retained.

So the other thing we can do is if if the commission uh wishes that, we we could do infill on the garage doors and adapt a new entry door into so it looks like a garage door, but in essence it would be uh an exterior entry door.

So it would look like a garage from the outside still.

So that's uh that's just my opinion.

I open it up for other commissioners to provide feedback, but look kind of cool too.

Uh I had very similar thoughts, just trying to pay some homage to what it was.

Um, I was curious if you had any historical photos, particularly of this structure.

I'm assuming it didn't have roll-up garage doors at the you know, at its build date.

No.

And so I wouldn't necessarily suggest leaving those garage doors as your exterior, but we would actually infill that with wood so they look like garage doors, but they're actually walls.

Okay.

Like something like a carriage door.

Oh, almost like a uh uh at the carriage door.

Okay.

Yeah, like yeah, like carriage doors.

Yes.

That's probably what it was in 1926.

Oh, um, I'm I'm sure that's what it was.

Or a bar door or something like that.

Right.

Yeah, I I have very similar feelings to the chair.

I think that if you could revise the design slightly to incorporate some of those original features, I you have my wholehearted support on this.

Mr.

Bala.

Yeah, I would agree.

Uh it would be nice to see a new set of drawings reflecting what you're going to do.

Uh are you planning on putting a slab?

Is there a slab there now?

Yeah, so there's a slab on the inside right now, but uh the uh water's coming in through the front and through the uh uh the sole plates on the sides.

So we'd probably have to uh bring in and create a new slab so we're up higher than the existing elevations around it.

So you'll be elevating the building six inches or some it's probably gonna end up being about nine to ten inches.

Yeah, yeah.

Um yeah, so I think you should reflect that in your drawing and um and it would be good to see.

But I think you're on the right track opposed to the previous application.

Any other I have a question about the window plan.

Uh is there any new windows being installed, or it's just replacement with in the same locations.

So they'll probably end up being some new windows because of the egress uh requirements for uh uh new bedrooms in the uh ADU.

Yeah, I just like to see that reflected as well.

And I and I think I would echo that if those windows that are on, are they gonna be reused and restored in any way?

So obviously you're gonna have some new, but those that exist, even if they're replaced.

Yeah, so we're gonna try to keep what we can and what we can't, we'll have to get uh restored.

Because I know on the structure, a couple of the windows have has a lot of rot on them.

So those would have to come out in uh the wall restudded and whatnot from there.

So with that, I'm gonna recommend we would need a window evaluation, a window registry to document all the windows.

Thankfully, it's a small little structure, so you don't have a huge inventory to do.

Um, to come back with that and with revised plans.

Certainly, if there's any questions, I think you've received good feedback from the commission this evening, but the preservation planner can also weigh in on some of that.

Um and so with that, I would request that we continue the application to August to come back and review those plans if you've gotten enough feedback this evening.

I sure have.

Okay.

I would also say if we could photograph all sides of the building so we can see what was there.

Yeah.

No, or we'll end up doing a nice uh 3D rendering so you can see all uh four points as well.

Okay, and I I mean elevations are great.

Render sometimes can be a little bit augmented.

So the commission definitely prefers to see architectural elevations.

Um, and if there's an opportunity, I do agree this is a hundred-year-old building, as I said.

If there are any historic photos that are available, um again, coming back to preserving what the doors might have looked like originally, that would also be helpful.

Um so with that, I'm gonna request a motion to continue the application of 77 K Street Plat 22 lot 99 to the rec next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, August 11th, 2026.

So move second.

All those in favor, aye, aye, all those opposed.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, our first new application.

You ready, Chair?

Yeah, this is the application of Ann Ferraro, 96 Second Street, plat 9, lot 127.

It's a contributing property, and they want permission to replace the plaster front porch ceiling with a wood B board.

Okay, welcome.

Can I get you sworn in this evening?

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

So help you God.

And if you could just state and spell your name into the microphone, please.

My name is Ann with an E.

Last name is Ferraro, F is in Frank, E-R-R-A-R-O.

Okay, and I'm just gonna ask you to speak a little bit more closely into the microphone.

It's a little hard to hear you up here.

Okay.

Okay, and Ferraro, F is in Frank, E R A R O.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, so we actually had reviewed your application in our pre-meeting.

We had um a couple of questions in particular around um some of the detailing if uh that would come with the change of materials.

So if you want to just summarize and then I'll open it up to those commissioners that had asked those questions.

Okay, first and foremost, thank you for the opportunity to um listen to my request for replacing the current plaster ceiling, which is um as you can see, there's a hole in the ceiling, it's been falling, which creates not only a safety hazard, but um there's also moisture not going into the ceiling, which compromises the rest of the ceiling.

Um I'm requesting and was advised that to replace that with plaster.

It would be very, very difficult, and there would be no guarantee that that plaster new plaster ceiling would survive.

Um and was recommended that I replace it with speedboard planking, similar to all the houses around in our neighborhood on um second or second street.

Okay.

And I actually did take more photographs.

I took a survey of all the houses around.

And we are actually the exception of the rule.

No one else has plastered.

Okay.

And do we happen to have some of those extra photos?

I um I downloaded them.

I mean, okay.

So let's see if we'll just have Ms.

Chen pull those up.

I think while we're pulling those up, um, one of the questions came around some trim detail that would be needed to finish the detailing, Mr.

Bala.

Yeah, um, I think it would be beneficial for you to bring a sample of the beadboard you're planning on using.

B board comes in a lot of different sizes and materials as well as the current ceiling now hits the walls and it's a clean edge and bead board.

You will undoubtedly be adding something else, another piece in there to make the transition.

If you could look, could you go back to that one?

Because this that picture had had what you're talking about right there.

Yeah, a little cove molding at the yeah, right.

I I understand.

Yeah.

So if you could identify what you plan on putting there uh for that piece, because that will be part of the work.

Um I think uh the uh the commission would be able to give you uh uh opinion to whether or not this is acceptable, and you could potentially work the details out with the planner.

Is there any particular wood that you typically recommend?

Normally it's it's wood opposed to uh a non-wood item.

Uh and maybe you look at your neighbor's beadboard to see what is sympathetic in the spacing of the beadboard because it comes in very narrow, wide, et cetera.

It comes in a four by eight sheet, it's the wrong stuff.

So you want the little planks, right?

Individual planks, or sometimes there's two together.

Okay.

All right.

I I have been in touch with a contractor who's done other ceilings in the neighborhood.

So he'll probably be able to identify it.

Right.

Good.

Okay.

Yeah.

Would the commission be open to um representing a sample to Jill and letting Jill make the decision?

I think that's the way to move forward.

Yeah, that's what I was gonna recommend.

Yep.

Everybody.

Yep.

Okay.

So with that, we would um take your application to a vote this evening, and then you'd be able to work with the preservation planner.

If that sounds good to you.

That would be great.

Okay.

So with that, I'm going to request a motion to approve the application of um 96 2nd Street, plat nine lot 127, as presented with the condition um that the applicant will define the B-board profile material and finish molding with input from the preservation planner.

Citing Newport Standards 17 TACT 80 060, a one, two, four, five, and seven.

So move second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Enjoy your porch.

You're gonna paint it blue.

Okay.

Now we have the application of Fury properties, LLC of one cottage street.

No, no, we skip the offense.

Oh, and three.

It's the application of Robert Damiano and Linda Perry Pereira of six Tompkins Court, lot 25, lot 35, a non-contributing structure for permission to convert an existing two-car garage into a primary suite and add a 15 by 19 foot six-inch garage at the front of the home.

Good evening, madam chair, members of the commission, Jay Russell Jackson, Scott.

On behalf of the applicants.

Um I have with me uh the project architect Tyler Zagren.

Um just in general, I think the it's a relatively simple project, which was accurately described by um your secretary.

Uh the existing structure was built in 2016.

It's a relatively new structure.

Obviously, it's not a contributing structure.

And it was built by the original owner essentially as a sail loft, if you will.

I think the intent was to do some storage and have some living space.

But not long after he built this structure, it was uh sold to the current owners, your applicants, um Mr.

Demiano and Miss Perry Riera.

And so the objective here is to um make some more productive use of the large two-stall garage on the first level to allow the creation of a primary um suite on the first level, and then um as part of that to build a one-stall garage in front of the existing structure.

Um the one-stall garage would be a few feet away from the public right away.

But if you look at the streetscape uh and the abutting properties, it's consistent with what you see in that small little pocket um neighborhood uh in terms of Tompkins Court and Fillmore Street, many of the structures are right up on the public right away.

Um so Mr.

Zagorin can walk through, I think, in in greater detail the design that's being proposed for the single-stall garage, as well as the materials being proposed.

Um, and in general, I've just um sort of I would sort of set forth the argument that the new addition is relatively modest.

I think it's appropriate for the area in terms of size, scale, and massing in it, especially for a non-contributing structure, and it certainly will make uh the owner's use of this property much more practical uh and available to them going forward.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Mr.

Zagrin.

I'm sure he'll he can walk through in a little more detail and answer any questions you might have.

Okay.

We'll get you sworn in.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

So help you, God.

I do.

And state your name for the record, please.

Tyler Zagren.

I'm just gonna have you spell your last name.

Sure.

Z-A-G-R-Y-N.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks for taking the time to hear our application today.

Um, I thought it was important actually to include the floor plant project.

I know we don't necessarily have to do that because it's more exterior, but I I thought it was important to understand what's going on with this home right now.

So the plan is to predict any foreseeable mobility issues and basically not being able to reach the second floor.

And you can see the footprint of the first floor with the current two-car garage right now.

There really is no room to put a primary suite.

So the first thought was, hey, how about we just convert the two-car garage to a primary suite?

And that's great, but since this is going to be a full-time house now in the winter, or like it would be nice to still park in a garage, especially if there are mobility issues, get out, and I'm going to design the garage in such a way where the garage slab flushes up with the living area and still have pitched towards the doors.

I I've done this before.

So if there is any wheelchair or walker, it's much easier to get to the home.

So that's that was a premise on why I include the floor plans.

So when you go to the front elevation, the east elevation.

So obviously the home is symmetrical right now with the overscaled double doors right now.

And the thought process we had was what is the smallest garage we can get depth-wise?

And what we looked at the we actually measured out the car and then we measured out the area to walk around the car.

And then the two adjacent properties, right next or budding properties next to each other.

I took the average of those two, and this has to go through zoning as well, but I didn't want to be the closest to the street.

So I was like, let's push it back as far as we can, but still make a functional garage.

And it is maybe one foot wider just for storage because there's no storage, there's no sheds on this property right now.

So how the design came about is it made sense to locate it to one side of the building.

And the reason for that is we still have the left side on the front elevation for guest parking or deliveries or what have you.

And this building's unique because the front door is on the side of the house.

So that that large double-hung window I placed there, there's a walkway right there, and that's how you get to the front door.

So after we decided, all right, we're gonna scoot it to one side and still have a parking per guess or what have you.

Then I was like, well, how can we play on the existing trim details, which I like?

This is a very unique house because it's a post and beam structure with shingle, you know, caught it uh shingle style cladding.

And it it's it's really cool inside, and I love the flare.

So I was like, how do we introduce the flare to the garage?

But I couldn't bring that flare detail in its entire depth to the garage because it would just be completely out of scale.

So the idea I had was to tuck a metal roof underneath the rake board as it came down.

And this would be a shallower detail soffit, but we would still have the B board underneath, but the current house has already.

So the B-board detail will keep intact, the band detail, you can see that.

I continued that around.

So the garage doors are the same height.

And then the other thing I thought was it might be nice to create like a mansard roof and bring up the mansard high enough that you know, proportionally it works, but that sacrifices the double hung windows.

So the intention here is to convert those double hung windows on the second floor to awnings and just keep the top sash intact there.

So that's how we came about with the offside garage detail.

And I thought the larger double hung window, which I need for egress since that's the bedroom, kind of scaled off a little bit, the garage on the front elevation.

So if we peel over to the south elevation, there's a couple of window changes too that were um suggesting that we're gonna make um in the kitchen area.

We have awings on the left side here, so we're gonna drop those down to the counter just to get some more light in.

And we figured it made sense to symmetrically do it on the other side where our bedroom is.

Um, and I I copied those same size double hung windows into the garage.

So not only do the materials match the existing building, but at least we have some windows of the same dimension match as well.

Um the other thing we'd like to entertain is the um changing out the front door.

Right now, the uh the Dutch door, it's it wasn't built properly, and quite honestly on the back side of the house, which uh I apologize, I didn't include a photo is all it's a French door, it's all glass.

So we'd like to entertain the idea to swap out the front door as well, the side front door.

And if you go over to the north elevation, the um I don't know why, but there was no windows installed on the bedroom on the second floor, and this is just to get some more light in there.

So on each side of the sec of the second floor, we're proposing putting in some awning windows over there as well.

And I include a trim detail on the last page, A5, to try to show you how that metal roof is going to tuck underneath all that trim detail.

Um, in terms of materials, we're going to match the existing um white cedar, looks like a bleaching oil product.

The windows are clad gelwind sight line product.

Um the trim right now is all PVC on the entire home.

So we like to go back with that just so there's no expansion or contraction issues with different materials.

And the roof material is angore slate gray metal roof I've used before.

And I was going to propose using a gray TPO on the roof.

Usually I don't do that, usually it's um uh rubber type roof.

But I know you don't see it from the street, but I thought it might be nice that we chose a gray TPO to play off the gray angular metal roof.

Um, I believe I covered all the all the materials list on this.

We're gonna keep the flare detail, which I really like on the base of the shingles.

We'll keep that going out to the garage.

And the carriage doors, I know these have been used in Newport before are designer doors, so they're the thicker doors, and these would be um composite as well, but you know, the shingle the um carriage style doors um split in three seconds.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Potter.

Uh well, I in regards to uh size scaling mass and sort of general design.

I I think it's quite the handsome addition.

Uh generally speaking, you know, the commission doesn't really entertain garage doors facing the street.

However, those are already existing.

And you know, I have some questions on the materiality uh and some small suggestion perhaps on I think it's the north elevation.

There you go, right the bottom one there.

Just I don't know if it would be feasible to have a slight return back from the existing building to the new garage just to give it a little distinction.

You know, sure you consider the.

Yeah, why don't you bring that up?

Because I I I thought of that, and when we figured out the width of the garage we need, we paste off with my clients exactly how much room we need per car for a guest card right next door to it.

And I was like, Oh, this is tight here.

So I don't think we have enough room to jog the foundation, but there may be a possibility we could switch over to a two-wood core wall, let's say, and that way you would get a two-inch jog there.

Yeah, I mean I I I understand it, it's one long line.

It's one long line.

Yeah, I mean, it's not a deal breaker for me.

I was just a suggestion, but I mean overall, I'm in support of it.

Uh I'm not sure what the rest of the commission feels about using uh PVC, but I suppose I mean at this point, most of the house is already PVC.

Um garage doors themselves being composite, maybe an issue with some of the other commissioners as well.

Uh generally speaking, they like to see wood doors.

But uh those are my thoughts on it.

Uh in general, I'm in support of it.

Okay.

Oh, thank you for the presentation.

I'm in support of this application with the wood with the um garage doors being wood.

With wood, okay.

Okay, so painted okay.

Or stain, whatever.

Yeah, most importantly is that it's wood.

I think yeah.

We have accepted composite garage doors.

Can we go back to actually the elevation that just shows the profile of the door?

The if all the if all the trim is PVC on the home right now, if I'm thinking of a stay-in-place home, you know, as folks get older, maintenance really builds up.

And if it is a wood door, then you're gonna be out there painting it once every three years.

So that's the only concern I have with some.

Yeah, it's it's been noted on other applications, and we've accepted uh a composite in the same style.

Yeah, if we could really stick with the composite garage doors, I I'd be thankful because it it it it will be a maintenance issue.

Okay.

Any other general no?

I would say that yeah, I think you've done a great job and really brought the detail forward.

You know, I think that long wall on the other side, you can't see it much because of the other structure that's over there.

But maybe if you just for the garage part forward, you just put in a different you whether it's a clap or or a shingle or just something different on the garage piece, just to kind of break that up.

It may make a difference for you, maybe not, but it's not a deal breaker by any means.

But no, I think you've done a good job, and I think it'll it'll work out well if uh you know if zoning agrees, I guess.

Yeah, just a trim piece could do it too.

Yeah, if you guys are this this house obviously doesn't have cornerboards, because if it did have cornerboards, yeah, that'd be the answer.

Right, yeah.

But we could easily drop a five-quarter by six piece to break that line.

Yeah, $30 piece of wood.

No, I'll I'm on board with that.

Yeah, something like that, just to break it up.

That's all.

And I like the metal roof.

I think it's gonna be kind of cool.

I guess my only objection to this is the metal roof over the garage.

I I think it's a little bulky in when you look at the existing elevation of the building, it's very refined.

The windows on the second floor are very balanced to the doors, and I understand you're putting an addition there, but I'm wondering if this roof is a little bit too much.

It feels very blocky and kind of trying to be something that that it's not really intended to be.

I wonder if maybe you know, there's some type of either low slung, you know, roof that comes off as a big nose off of that elevation.

Um, but that's my that was my only uh really take.

I think the the front elevation is very refined.

By putting that roof in, you're making the windows shorter up there.

I think it's getting a little bit uh beat up.

Uh, but that's my only take on it.

Okay.

I'm taking up the rear with the comments.

Um I do agree a bit with Mr.

Bala on the the standing seam roof, especially with a lot of vertical lines already on the front facade of the house, but that's maybe just a bit more of a preference um on my end.

Uh the the shrinking of the windows, I think and this is a bit of a preference.

I think we're taking away from a little bit of the more barn-like look of the current structure of the structure the way that it is, but really those again are preference things.

The the big thing for me was the front-facing garage.

I recognize that you're dealing with a very narrow lot here.

There's no way to enter from the side and put the door on the side, is there?

No, I I thought of that too.

It it's a tight lot.

Like I can tell.

This is not a preference.

I would much rather in the backyard or if we had a driveway.

So that's why I I really made an effort to push it back as far as I could.

You know, the minimum distance you need.

I mean, if you're gonna do a garage, it has to be usable garage.

But to bring up your point about the standing sea metal roof, you can have different frequencies of the of the ribs.

So right now these are 16 inches on center.

So we could do 18, 20 if you want to see less lines, and that maybe you know reduces the the you know all the stridations of the metal roof.

There was a version I did.

I it was an asphalt roof, and it didn't look good.

So that's why I was like, you know what?

The I mean, copper would be incredible, but incredibly expensive too.

And then I was like, that might be too much.

So let's go with a painted, not a roof.

I mean, and that would be something that we could always submit to the preservation planner in terms of adjusting those seams, the width.

Yeah, like I can easily revise these, you know, a couple less seams.

I like the the board detail to break the shingles.

I'll revise that.

Um so that you're not taking up the rear all comment now.

Um and just to say that I mean, obviously, there was a street-facing garage here before that's very prominent based on this oversized door.

I think that, and I think Mr.

Madsen referenced this, that going down to the smaller profile and a very different um design of the garage doors actually brings back um or I should say reduces that street-facing view.

So I'm in support of that.

Um, I would echo the feedback from the other commissioners in terms of some sort of a parting line between that new garage and the rest of the building, however, that be done through trim, um, and potentially looking at maybe just changing the spacing on that standing seam so that it you want it to blend in and almost disappear.

I agree.

There's a lot of verticality that's happening in the front of the building, but other than that, I would be in support of the application as presented.

Thank you.

I got a quick question.

There are no gutters on this building at all.

There's not.

No, there's a there's a gravel trench around the whole thing, and it feeds over to a rain yard.

And is though gutters on the addition?

There's not.

I was just gonna say maybe a nice square copper downspout instead of a piece of trim, which is architects a light gutters, but what is the crown detail, probably I can understand that.

Okay.

So any other questions or comments or those couple of conditions to be reviewed with the preservation planner.

That sound good for good for me.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, so with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of six Tompkins Court, lot 25 lot 35, as presented with um the following conditions.

Um to add a defining point that distinguishes the new garage to the original house.

Um, revisiting the standing metal seam spacing on the new garage edition.

Um, and those details can be reviewed with the preservation planner, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80, tag 060, B1 and 2.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Aye.

I would cite B2.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Yep, right.

Gibbs.

Yes.

Okay.

We have now application of Jamie in Harmony Asha Fashky.

421 Gibbs Flat 30, lot 39.

It's a contributing structure for permission to reconstruct the existing garage or addition of a primary suite.

Reconfigure the front entry and alter the roof line.

Okay, and I'll just state for the record that Commissioner Goddard has recused himself for this application and is being um swapped in with Mr.

Willet.

With that, I will get you sworn in.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

So help you God.

I do.

And to state your name for the record, please.

Spencer McComb architect.

Okay, Mr.

McComb, welcome back.

Um, this property is technically on Gibbs.

However, it's maybe one of the most unique of a property that I've worked on.

Um trips to find it, Spencer.

I couldn't even find the house.

I didn't realize this house existed.

I've been up and down Gibbs many times.

Uh it essentially sits in the what feels like the rear yard of two uh properties that face and are on Gibbs.

Um actually was surprised that it was considered a contributing building, but so be it.

We'll uh we'll go with that.

Um the existing original footprint of the building, which kind of blue.

Uh portions of it were built.

We're thinking in 1940 era.

Um the basement looks a lot more like the 50s or even earlier or later than that, but um we'll go with 40s for now.

The garage was added.

Uh, I think the brick facade is consistent, so that means maybe the whole thing was rebricked at that point.

Um, so it's a it's a it's a unique house.

Um, it's got a hip on one side, a gable on the other.

There's just one hip in the whole property, um, but a lot of different gables that show themselves.

The windows are a variation of multiple replacement windows, a few existing windows, and then a 19 uh late 70s, early 80s edition that has early Anderson windows that face a large great room, which can see in the lower left there.

So there's a quite a bit of different styles, different windows, different window patterns, um, some solar panels that are on one side of the building.

The asphalt shingles have kind of reached the end of their life from probably the 1980s.

And so the main when you when you pull up to the house, which is obviously the only way you can do so, it's on a shared driveway uh portion, but um you're met with a large uh flush garage door that's a double bay, sort of, it's not quite wide enough for two cars, and so that was where uh you know, as we looked for an opportunity to add a master suite for this house, that was the logical spot to do it.

Um although there's a small window there in this in the picture you're looking at, uh it's not really tall enough.

The eaves kind of come down fairly low there.

So by the time you're standing, you can kind of barely walk underneath the ridge there.

So uh to add any sort of meaningful living space to this building, that seemed like the logical spot to do it.

Um there's brick on this building.

There's also about 30% of it as shingles that are along the uh side.

Uh this garage has shingles on uh two sides, uh through yeah, two sides, brick on two sides.

There's a uh as she zooms in there, there's a sort of a strange like uh six foot wide trough between the garage and the house, um, which was is hoping to work well as a an enclosed area that would work as a mudroom, which the house doesn't have currently.

So when I'm looking at it from an architectural stylistically, it's it's quite a quite a mix of different things that are going on here from different eras.

And so you know, I I kind of started looking at you know, um for contributing structures under uh seven, make new alteration additions clearly discernible.

So the thought that I came up with or we came up with was to kind of like create a little bit of its own personality when you first pull in because maybe it's the landscaping, maybe it's where it's located.

You just pull into a big unending garage door that doesn't have much articulation at all.

And so this was an opportunity to add some.

However, as I read the staff report, and just looking back on all of it, um, you know, we we had even talked about that the front entry piece, which was uh talked about in the staff report as not quite being the right um designation.

Again, I was trying to make sure it looked clearly discernible, but as we've talked um from the owner's standpoint, we're just gonna not do that at all.

So the front entry piece will just remain as it is, which is very understated with a small shed that slightly comes out over a basically a patio door for the front door, which is a little hard to find uh in itself uh when you're on the property.

But uh that was the point of doing that, but we're just gonna withdraw that completely.

Um as we walk around the building.

One of the reasons to just shingling the garage completely was one to show that it's separate.

It was clearly an addition that happened to this building.

We think in the late 70s, early 80s.

So it wasn't existing to that earliest um part of the house, nor uh was the way the rear um great room was handled either, but um to show its distinction, as well as brick is really difficult to start and stop uh and make it look even remotely articulate.

So it seemed like the best spot to change that material was at the break from the main house to what's noted as a hyphen, it's probably the right word for it.

This the connector, which is shown as a very kind of odd stepped roof line between the garage and the main house.

Uh, and we're actually making that bigger so that you can walk from the second floor out into this new uh master suite, which will sit above the garage.

So the footprint doesn't change.

Um and then when we're looking at the roof lines for this, uh the gables seem like the right you know shape for a roof line here.

Obviously, it's mostly gables throughout the house.

And uh if you'll notice the hyphen, which is now larger, is stepped down, so it doesn't meet the ridge on the main house and then steps back up when it hits the garage um mass itself.

And so then a cross gables seemed to make sense for what was going on internally, as well as just organizing the elevations.

There's two small shotgun dormers that are on the main gable, which is we took our cues from, turn that into a large one front and back, and um I think that the way the shingles in this house sort of start and stop.

This sort of ties the garage uh addition as well as that rear 80s edition, those will all be shingles.

So as we're looking at this to not be confusing or to be discernible, that would be a way as you approach the building, you could kind of have that hint of what happened between the two.

Um there was a there was a comment in Staff Report about uh changing from an Anderson 400 window to a Marvin Ultimate, and we've discussed that, and the owners are fine with doing that.

The uh great room windows that are existing in the house are Anderson windows.

Uh, so they although they're from 40 years ago, those sort of long skinny ones and the uh rectilinear ones on the sides.

So those are that's where we kind of was just keeping it with Delvis.

There's uh replacement windows in the house, there's existing windows in the house, and they they're sort of all mixed up.

Um, so we chose Anderson 400s if for some reason that helps our application, or you guys deem that appropriate, we'd be happy to introduce a third or fourth window type in this building as far as the style of them, and and move to an Anderson uh Marvin Ultimate, which would have aluminum clad um.

Let's see.

Um I did have a thought while I was sitting waiting to be heard that uh on this elevation where the existing garage, uh the existing great room, which is the ones with the strips, strip windows vertically, um, to actually set back the hyphen just a couple of feet um so that that gable could return back.

So it would create essentially a hyphen look, like the deep one that's there now, which I actually think is fairly awkward.

Um, so we'd still get the use of that space, but we'd create an architectural relief on the side of that gable so there would be a line where those where those shingles would return, and that door would then sit back in that place.

Um I think that would be uh you know uh something to address the different um yeah, exactly what he's pointing.

Okay.

So recess that back just a little bit enough to get a shadow line enough to sort of allow that rear gable to kind of complete itself instead of it being flush.

Worked out well in plan, but I think an elevation that would be something that we could do to um just make it a little better.

Um we would like to keep the um the size of the garage.

Um I think given the sort of inability to see this house from almost any location, even when you're almost standing in front of it, it's hard to it's hard to get a look at it.

Um, but it is back quite a bit and behind two other homes.

That this is a way for these homeowners to enjoy a master suite above their existing garage footprint, as well as um kind of tie the house together.

Uh and one last thing on the um the gable end that does face over the garage, if we could switch to that elevation.

And looking at that in light of this staff comments, which were very helpful actually, um that we've sort of, I think maybe introducing too many differentiations between the main house.

And so we've got some diamond hatch um shingles there.

We've got uh some dentals.

I think we'd just simplify all that and just create a shingle pattern that would be the same up in that gable and as well as remove those dentals, just so it kind of has some cohesiveness with the rest of the project.

Um again, the front entryway would be completely removed from this application as well.

So that'll take all those comments kind of off the table because we'll just keep what's there for now.

Um we would like to have this the double garage doors.

I think that is an improvement.

I think it does bring a little bit of scale.

There is divided lights throughout the house, so I think that showing up is carriage style doors for the garage gives some contextual improvement as well as um having the shape uh be what it is.

There is a um there's like an arched kind of truss that's uh on the side elevation.

I think uh I'd be up for just removing that, making that simpler as well.

I think it'll add a little interest there.

It's such a quirky house that adding something fun up there, uh I I don't think is negative, but that would be another thing that would maybe simplify uh the architectural moves that we're making.

But the but the shape and the height of it is is a lot based on just making the headroom work for that uh space.

You can see that the eaves come down to almost midway through all the windows.

So we're fighting the Eve spaces everywhere.

In fact, even the closets are pretty low.

The laundry room is just tucking things into those eaves to try to keep that mass down and not create a new roof line or a new roof angle or a bunch of dormers everywhere.

Um this seems like a way to kind of handle that.

Give give this house another um bit of life to it, and also a little bit more pleasing when you do pull into the garage, which is kind of the only way to see this house at the moment.

So that's a bunch of stuff that I'm throwing out as sort of uh responses to the staff report.

Um I think it makes it a stronger application.

I'm just glad to glad to read through those comments.

And uh, I think we've got a project here that would really um kind of fit with the clients after, and I think uh would be in keeping with the neighborhood for sure.

So is the footprint the same from the old garage to the new garage?

Sorry, I'm having the footprint the same.

Yeah, footprint's the same.

Uh however, other than sort of I see that the garage is there's a little um uh 10 foot by six foot slot behind it that we're filling in.

We're gonna use that as a as a mud room there, right?

Uh okay.

It's it's like a darker area, it doesn't really get sort of strange that they didn't connect them back in the day.

I'm not sure why not.

So, yeah, besides that infill between the the house and the garage, right?

Um that's the footprint's the same, yes.

But the square footage comparison to the garage new section to the old section now, it almost makes it appear the new stuff larger than the old.

Right.

Yeah, I'm having trouble hearing.

Maybe we're just no, man, I'm not in my nice speaker deal.

Uh yeah, it just looks as though there's a lot more square feet, obviously, because you're adding the the building out the second floor more fully, and it it makes it almost subservient to the first section, the older section.

However, I understand why, right?

Because trying to get the headroom to pass from one area to the other.

Um I don't know if that's a deal breaker, but I I think it'll it'll look better for sure.

And if you can't see it, just can't find it.

It's a unique, it's a unique house.

It is, yeah.

I walked around it looking for things that I could sort of work with, and uh every corner is a little different in the sky.

Well, it brings a lot more character to it, I think the first crotch just was more utilitarian.

It's got a we need a garage bolt one on, you know, kind of thing.

And it's puts a lot more thought into it, I think, and ultimately a better appeal.

All right.

Um, so I'll jump onto those comments.

Um I I had the same reaction in terms of the overall size and math of the addition.

Um relatively the original structure is not overly large, um, but yeah, it looks like we're more than doubling the oversight.

Yeah, I mean, in totality now that it definitely adds considerable.

I respect the idea of wanting to have that additional space upstairs.

So I'm not opposed to expanding the garage, but somehow I I'm not sure that we're quite there to where we have a successful outcome without it, just considerably.

And I it's always challenging when you can't see a property because there's a lot of properties in Newport that have you know tucked away and you but yet we still need to preserve the character of the building.

So I'm sensitive to that.

And at some point, all these other structures could go away and it could open up, and there it is.

So I I want to just make sure that for myself I'm being conscious of not dismissing the fact just because it's not visible.

So I'm reacting to size and massing.

Um, I agree with the staff comments in terms of the front door, you know.

If you're gonna pull that away, I think that maintains that character, which is quite simple.

Um, but I'd like to hear other feedback about the that second edition.

So um I think you've done a good job as usual, uh, with what you have to work with.

And I think the differentiating of the materials will help, you know, tell the story of the evolution of the project.

My only question was this east facing dormer, I believe in the bedroom.

Does it have a balcony or something on it?

Uh yeah, there's a small inset balcony that's sitting right there right there.

Okay.

Um give uh you know four feet by um it's eight feet for two small chairs that sit out there.

And do we know if that's in the zoning requirement size?

Is it under 100 square feet?

Square feet, I think.

Yeah, so yes, it's under the it's under the zone.

Just checking.

Yeah.

Uh no, I'm in favor of it.

I think you you've taken uh kind of a piece of geometry and and made some sense out of it.

And uh the materials are going to help tell the story, and hopefully the home will become very useful for the new owners.

So good job.

Thank you.

I have no further comments.

I'd like the trim detail that you're talking about potentially letting go, but I think it differentiates the new from the old.

Um, so I'm in favor of that trim detail.

I think the massing is definitely um something to to look at and just make sure that you know you're comfortable with the additional square footage that you see as you look at the front facade of the building.

But I really like the plan and I think it's extremely useful, and I don't have any changes.

Miss Moran.

Um I I think that the size and the scale compared to the original house um and the mass of this new edition or modified edition.

I do think it's really um a bit of a sh stretch.

It's really hard, I think, to consider it without really looking at the building.

I personally think this would be a great candidate for a site visit.

Um, we don't have a lot of properties from this era in town.

It is uh uh what 1930s bungalow um brick.

I think it is really unique in that way, even though it's had a lot of modifications.

Um I I think the balcony itself on that side of the house is adding to the bulk of everything.

I know that that's the way you see the water, and it probably makes the most sense in that location, but I I do think that that's adding to um the massing that you're seeing on that side of the property.

Uh I don't know if it could be moved or if there's anything that you can do to modify the size um from this perspective from the front side of the house, the size of the addition.

I I'm just afraid that once it's actually built that the house will be significantly dwarfed by the new addition.

But I do recognize that you're dealing with a number of challenges in accessing it and having the proper space that you need there.

So um I'm I am struggling with it, but I think that's mostly due to just the inability to see it, even in the photos that I've tried to find it.

It's really hard to get it from this perspective.

Um, and maybe you're gonna mostly look at it from the angle of the driveway or something, but we don't have that perspective either.

So I am just really having a hard time visualizing it.

And there's a picture of the driveway side, which is really um I think right upper right.

That's the principal elevation of this house.

So it's really hard to see it from the front door side.

Um essentially standing in the neighbor's yard to get that view.

So this is really worth seeing for how much is the roof line being raised above the garage.

Uh we're going up uh I think uh five and a half, six feet is there any way for the massing that that doesn't need to go quite as hot.

We we pushed it, try we tried to keep it as low as possible, which turned out to be pretty close to the main ridge of the house.

Um, we could look at just a little bit like a foot lower.

I'm not sure it would really come off that different looking.

Would be a lot of a lot of pain for the loss of uh use and kind of look the same.

Yeah, but you drop it down sponsor, then you go back up.

Yeah, right.

I mean, it does, you can see the right here.

Right.

Right then, anyway.

Yep, we're kind of your cat walk, whatever it is, right between the two buildings.

I was gonna ask about that.

So where it where it actually goes up there, yeah.

Just describe what's happening in there.

Yeah, the reason for that is because the garage gets bigger at that point.

So the the ridge has to go that way because it's not okay.

Understood.

So we're not seeing that break.

No, yeah, that elevation.

That little kick is actually where the garage sits.

And so that's really the hyphen meets the garage at that point, and the garage is offset from the house.

So it's it's one planar roof line that just extends up a little further.

Um you can see it in the site plan, you'll see how that thing is offset.

Yes, yeah.

So when the garage gets a little bigger there, the gable has to has to realign to make that central.

And so that's what that's what created that that small uh roof line change.

I think it'll be virtually imperceivable from anywhere on the property.

Um you can obviously see in the architectural drawings, but um that's just the reality of the the odd footprint that that we're working with.

Joe, can you scroll up a little bit to the garage there?

Yeah, right there.

Yeah, it's unnoticeable from that elevation.

It's it's definitely a room above the garage where there wasn't one before.

But that's that's what we're trying to that's what we're trying to do here.

Um I think it's the right spot for that thing versus some other addition somewhere else.

Um it's what seemed to make sense to me.

I was just trying to help with the mass of mass and concern of the commission of whether or not that roof line has to be quite as high.

But I don't know if it changes anything in my opinion.

Just thinking that helps anybody.

I I think there is uh just a slight change to it.

Um I think about a foot down would be about the most before all the rooms inside start becoming not as functional.

Uh so I I don't I don't know if that's uh worth it.

I mean, when you go back to that elevation we were just looking at, I mean, that's where you really see.

I mean, the amount of roof angles in this is crazy on that elevation.

I think it's also important to know because I you know I just noticed it now is that looking at the facade and then the addition, it seems like it's quite close, but actually there's you know, it's pretty set back.

Um, point of a lot of space, so maybe that would also help with same.

Yeah, yeah, and I think materials also you've got heavier materials for the character of the main house and lighter materials, less detail, you know.

So the addition is agreed alone, a little lighter, if you will, uh scale and scale, but I think those elements come into play to support it being successful.

So just um a couple questions to make sure I've noted.

So the only change you're making as presented is that front entry is going to remain as is.

And then on the north elevation, simplifying all the architectural trim and cedar shingle detail.

That's right.

Okay, and that's it.

Are there any other questions about windows?

He raised questions about window specifications, any other conditions.

Right?

Uh yeah, recessing the hyphen.

The west eleven.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

I think if you read that not that staff said to do that, but uh it would kind of got me thinking and that I'll like to do that.

Okay.

Are you going to recess the first floor and leave the second floor?

No, both would come in.

So that will lower the that little step roof potentially.

Um because the hyphen would get slightly smaller.

So because of that.

Yeah, so definitely probably the hyphen would come down one maybe 18 inches or so.

My guess.

Yeah, which again would differentiate the two.

So on the west elevation, we would be recessing the hyphen connector.

Okay.

Any other I know you said you were gonna be scaling down some of the trim details.

The arched trim on the balcony.

Is that something you're planning on keeping?

I like it.

I think it'd be fun to have in there.

I it's something that would really probably be more enjoyed from internal, just looking up at it.

But it could be simplified.

Um I know it's a new architectural like piece to this building.

So I uh kind of open to weaving it or keeping it.

I don't know if anyone feels strongly about it.

No, I think character to it.

Right.

I'm not sure it's generally seen on a house like this.

I think it's more of like a Victorian or you know, stick.

Yeah, Queen Anne, something like that.

But at minimum, I would personally ask that we update from PVC to like true wood.

I don't know how the rest of the commission feels about that, but since it's a contributing building, I don't believe that PVC should be used on the property.

So I've maybe a counterpoint to that is that as we were talking about colors actually after we submitted this, PVC probably wouldn't be a good product for this because we want to paint it dark.

So I'd like to ask if oral would be uh a trim piece that we can use for the new trim, not not the whole house.

Uh obviously the brick doesn't have trim on it anyway, but boral would be uh a uh longer lasting trim use in this in the new edition.

So um that we could paint dark and not have an issue.

I don't know how the commission feels about it.

I don't know anything about it.

What are you proposing to use?

It's a flyout trim product.

It's it's fully dimensional, so it's the same shape as wood, it's not a vinyl wrap or anything.

I'm not familiar with it.

It's fell in it.

D-O-R-O-R.

Well just paint.

Um well.

I think they may brand it as true trim as well.

It's been out for 10 years.

We use it quite often, especially when we're gonna paint trim dark.

Um, it's a it's a good product for that.

So about the windows.

Um you're not replacing windows in the main house.

We're not the those Andersons are in good shape.

Those Andersons are in good shape.

They're still doing all right.

Um they're vinyl clad.

They're obviously that vintage.

Um, and so uh that was a choice that was made.

There was a question by staff, and I I think the owners are okay with an aluminum clad version, which would be marvin.

Um, it's gonna look the same as what we've got here, which is a six over uh.

Yeah, I think that should be a stipulation.

Okay, it supports our guidelines.

We're we're happy to you know help out.

And that's the Marvin Ultimate, ultimate, okay.

Which is the their aluminum clad equivalent to Anderson.

Okay.

Anything else?

Okay.

Everybody else?

I don't know.

I'm just gonna summarize the list that we have while Ms.

Moran wraps up her thoughts.

Um, so just to recap, um, so front entry, as we said, will remain as is.

North elevation, uh, we're gonna simplify the architectural um trim detail and all the cedar shingle detailing.

West elevation, the hyphen connector will be recessed.

We will update PVC to painted borough oral, um, and also um update the spec from Anderson 400 to Marvin Ultimate Aluminum Clad windows.

That's right.

Did we wanna speculate the recess of the uh hyphen?

Yeah, we've got that in there, west elevation.

Yep.

Am I the only one who has an issue with the massing?

Yep.

Okay, I think at this point.

Okay.

I I do think that once you're standing there, it's not gonna look as big from this perspective.

I just feel it's very large.

But it's not something I could get my eyes on.

So I think that's just where I'm having a hard time visualizing it.

So I understand.

It's a hard building to get a look at.

Okay, so with that, I'm going to request a motion to approve the application of 421 Gibbs at plot 30 lot 039 as presented with the following conditions.

The front entry will remain as is.

That's been retracted from the application.

The north elevation, uh, there will be simplification of the architectural trim and cedar shingle details.

On the west elevation, the hyphen connector will be recessed.

Trim will be updated from PVC to painted composite or boral, and the window specification will be updated to Marvin ultimate aluminum clad windows.

Citing Newport standards 17 tact 80 tact 060, a one, two, three, four, five, and seven.

So move second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Good luck.

Sorry.

No.

Okay.

Is that a joke?

Okay.

Um, so commissioners, any new business for this evening?

No.

No, so we will um just procedurally um as of the next meeting.

Um, Jim Madsen will step into the chair role for the discussion around vice chair thereafter.

We'll be discussed with the preservation planner and determined for August.

Um, and so with that, I'll request a motion to adjourn the Tuesday, July 14th, 2026, Newport Historic District Commission meeting.

So moved.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.