CAPE MAY — The Historic Preservation Commission tabled an application submitted by the Lokal Hotel regarding its porch and parking area because of eight issues that need to be revised and resubmitted.
During a meeting Dec. 15, the issues were identified as retaining the concrete block foundation; retaining the asphalt roof shingles; retaining the railings; retaining the horizontal fencing, except in the back where vertical fencing is proposed; the breeze block wall; HVAC lattice screen; and a new stair configuration.
Lokal Hotel co-owner Chade Ludeman and PS&S architectural historian Kyle Toth presented the HPC with planned changes to the building, including the front stairs and the breeze block wall.
HPC Chairman John Boecker said they appeared before the review committee Oct. 30 to discuss their application proposal.
“We were encouraged to come back recently and present now that you have some new guidelines with what we propose to change to the building that’s been around since about 2018,” Ludeman said.
Ongoing litigation
The Lokal Stockton LLC is currently in litigation against the city of Cape May and the HPC over a final Certificate of Occupancy.
Boecker said he wanted solicitor Chris Gillin-Schwartz to chime in about the submittal.
“We do have to address the elephant in the room: I was actually in Trenton arguing this appeal last Thursday,” Gillin-Schwartz said. “Let’s just get it out and I’ll reiterate what I said to your council last week.”
He added that the applicant is free to make another application to review the items and come up with a comprehensive solution.
“You can submit for three items, but that doesn’t require the HPC to put on blinders to the rest of the building,” Gillin-Schwartz said. “I suggest we talk about those items and see if we can come up with something.”
Gillin-Schwartz said he did not realize that the application would be on the agenda this week.
“I’m going to go over those items for the board’s edification, and I would invite you to comment,” Gillin-Schwartz said. “I will reiterate that the fact we’re in litigation is unfortunate and I would just strictly limit our review and discussion to whether these are appropriate or not and not think about the litigation context and how the board comes out on that is up to the board.”
The reference points Gillin-Schwartz listed included: the foundation was supposed to be brick and there is no brick currently; the roofing was approved to be standing seam metal roof and the roof is now asphalt fiberglass shingles; the applicant agreed to redesign the railing in chippendale style; the applicant agreed to retain the original front stair bridge design; the wood fencing was approved to follow HPC design standards of vertical and it was installed horizontally; the breeze block wall; the parking area approved for pavers as proposed; and the HPC design standards require HVAC equipment to be covered with wooden lattice screens.
Toth and Ludeman said the lattice screen is up there and has been addressed.
“I think what we’re hearing is that the applicant is proposing, basically that the building be permitted to be in its current condition with these proposed modifications,” Gillin-Schwartz.
Ludeman said that was the case. Boecker asked about the status of the litigation, and Gillin-Schwartz said it was still pending.
Gillin-Schwartz said that if the applicant were proposing finality for the building, he suggested they consider finality in the pending litigation.
“If this is approved, I would like to see [the litigation] go away because the city prevailed in that and you’re appealing it. But that’s a discussion you can have with your attorney as it pertains to this,” Gillin-Schwartz said. “All of those things are on the table for this approval, but as I indicated, I wouldn’t prevent you from coming in here making a proposal.”
Vice Chairman Jim Testa said he wanted to see a specific application with the additional modifications discussed during the meeting.
“I don’t see an application in front of us that has those things in it, so I have a lot of difficultly dealing with it conceptually without having all that,” he said. “I think these things ought to be in an application so that we can fairly evaluate the details and not just on the basis of the discussion of six or seven points.”
Toth said in their initial consultation, they had a similar conversation and were told the items they needed to address were the outstanding ones including the front stair and the breeze block wall.
“Ultimately the end goal is to retain the other pieces,” Toth added.
Gillin-Schwartz said the conversation was thrust upon them tonight. Testa said he felt it was a way to lead into further discussion of these topics when the details are put into the application.
“In all fairness to you, Mr. Toth, I put you on the hot seat to come up with these responses to that on the fly,” Gillin-Schwartz said. “You did a pretty good job, but it’s also giving you the opportunity to make your pitch to the board about the entirety of those.”
Toth said he appreciated the opportunity and asked how to move forward.
Boecker said that to avoid having to submit a whole new application, they could table this proposal and allow the Lokal to resubmit the application with all eight items.
“I think what you’re hearing, generally speaking, is that there’s not much here that would not be found appropriate,” Boecker said. “There’s some questions about the fence, and the argument for the breeze wall got me convinced.”
Boecker added it was clear everyone was seeking reconciliation, and Toth agreed.
“The city has been successful in that and that’s taken a long time and a lot of effort,” Gillin-Schwartz said. “I would suggest you make a proposal to resolve that in connection with this. I’m not asking for a response, but just indicating that’s probably going to make the discussion a lot easier next time around and I think there’s an opportunity to do that.”
Background information
Toth provided the HPC with new information on the project, including it being assessed as a contributing property in 2009. Using a digital archive at the Hagley Museum in Delaware, they dated the Lokal building to 1925-1926.
“It was a pretty simple U-plan building, [with] two front porches that were actually two stories, and they were only accessed from the interior,” Toth said. “There was one center entrance into the building from the front and then it was a multi-unit property from its construction.”
He added that at one point, there was a full-width front porch, which was later expanded to the more recent iteration seen in the 2009 contributing survey.
“That porch is a later fabrication to the building, but that is the porch that was used in designing the updates that we see now,” Toth said. “The main issue as per the meeting we previously had was regarding the full-width stair on the current front porch.”
The proposed plan is to significantly reduce the width to a single central bay, bring the side railings into that, and install a matching rail along the first floor of the porch. This change would make the porch consistent with the neighboring properties, according to Toth.
“Now the other question that came up in this previous meeting was about the breeze block wall around the pool and parking area and whether or not that’s considered appropriate for the building in the period,” he said. “We did some more looking into breeze block, which is architecturally historic.”
Toth said concrete block became a popular building material in the 1890s when it began being mass-produced. He added it is seen a lot in Cape May, especially in East Cape May.
“Around the same time as the construction of the building, there were some pretty major designers, Frank Lloyd Wright being a leader, but it was happening globally,” Toth said.
“They started to use concrete block in a decorate sense, they would perforate it and come up with elaborate patterns for it.”
Additionally, Toth said it was not out of the realm of possibility that concrete block was being used decoratively around the time the Lokal building was built. Ludeman said that was why they used the concrete block.
Boecker clarified that the application was specifically requesting new paving materials for the parking lot, in addition to the front stair reconstruction.
“I don’t think the HPC [had issue] with the clam shell parking lot but the planning department does not like it and has voted against us to have that,” Toth said. “So we’re changing back to pavers for them.”
Commission feedback
Boecker said the HPC requires approval of the pavers’ material. He added that since the breeze block has already been installed, he wanted to go around the room to see how HPC members felt about the parking and stair issues and reassess.
Commissioner William “Yogi” Kurtz said the rendering was more suitable for the street than what currently exists and that pavers are nicer than clamshells.
“I remember the commotion about having the clam shells and the planning board specifically said when cars back out they are kicking these clam shells up onto the sidewalk,” commissioner Tom Carroll said. “Then half the people are [walking] barefoot and it’s not a good idea. We were certainly in agreement with the ruling.”
Testa said the pavers were fine and the stairway’s central location is an improvement. Commissioner Jake Stevenson said the changes were great and the design fits better.
“Thank you very much for coming back and improving your design. I know this has been a long-term project for you and it looks substantially better and more appropriate for Cape May,” commissioner Judy Decker said.
She asked if the owners were attached to the building’s black stain, suggesting that gray would be more appropriate.
Toth said the stain was diluted so it would weather faster.
“I was never a fan of the stairs, so this feels much more aesthetically pleasing,” commissioner Bea Pessagno said. “I like the pavers, and as Judy said, I’d like them to be more on the soft side. Maybe gray as opposed to black.”
Commissioner Kevin Hammeran said he had no problems with the proposed pavers.
“I think going back to the stairs is actually bringing it back to something that is much more close to the contributing status of the building,” Hammeran said. “I applaud that and it’s a great piece of history that you gave us, that’s really helpful.”
Hammeran added that the applicant repaired much of the damage to the building.
“[It’s] not what the very original building looked like, but you’re getting closer and closer back to that,” he said. “I think this is a good project.”
Boecker said he concurred with his colleagues that the applicant did a fine job of both the porch step reconfiguration and the pavers.
Decker added that they needed to provide a property report with a resubmission. Carroll added that the board also needs further drawing details for the railing design.
By RACHEL SHUBIN/Special to the Star and Wave
