We have >> six. >> Do you know Christine Miller? I don't I wonder if she's gonna present her own case today. >> I don't see her. >> I don't see her. >> That's a huge project.
>> Yeah. >> Needs work. >> I went down and looked at it today. >> Oh, it needs work. >> Oh my god. And but one thing that's not really is the side and the side of you is You're going to do all this work and put in new windows.
>> She's doing the roof. She's doing the windows. >> I mean, what she's doing, she's doing >> it. >> This is the call to order. the city of Kate May his Historic Preservation Commission meeting of June 15th. It is 602.
In compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act of 1975, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided. If any member has reason to believe that this meeting is being held in violation of this act, they should state so at this time.
Hearing none, if folks could join us for the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the rep for it stands nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
>> Could we have a roll call vote or roll call please? >> Mr. Becker >> here. >> Mr. Ta >> here. >> Mr. Carol >> here. >> Miss Bagno. Miss Wilson Strick. Mr. Mr. Stevenson >> here. >> Miss Decker >> here. Mr. Hamaran
>> here. >> Mr. Curts. >> So, all of us received an email from our secretary that enclosed the minutes from our meeting on May 18th, assuming everybody has had a chance to review those meeting minutes. I would like to entertain a motion to approve those minutes. >> I'll move to adopt the minutes of the
May 18th meeting. >> I'll second. >> So, moved by Mr. Ta, seconded by Mr. Carol. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta,
>> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. Additionally, in that same email, we received from our secretary an invoice for services for our council, Chris Gillan Schwarz Law LLC, which all of us have
reviews. I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the payment of that bill, please. I'll make I'll make that. I'll second it. >> So moved by Mr. Hammer and seconded by Miss Decker. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes.
>> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. Ratifying resolutions. Like to start with Hampton uh at 645 Lafayette Street. This was resolution 202619.
We received a revised version of that resolution via email today. And before we go through all these resolutions and approve them, I would like to propose one small additional revision to that resolution. And that is instead of
specifying just bamboo for the second floor decking, specifically state that it be outdoor bamboo decking, either fused or strand woven bamboo. The reason for that is because indoor bamboo will not function well, but that type of
outdoor bamboo decking actually has uh extreme durability and stability even more so than any wood product. So, just like to if we approve that resolution, add that language. Okay. Next is Shell Cottage 908
LLC. That's resolution 202620. Congress Hall LLC 251 Beach Avenue resolution 202621 Ian Kone 1045 Washington Street resolution 202622 Okconor 1226 Lafayette Street resolution
202623 USS Jacob Jones Memorial Foundation in the city of Cape May that is resolution 2026 24 and Addison Incorporated Laair Beachfront Resort 1317 Beach Avenue
conceptual approval. Do I hear a motion? >> So you're going to ask for a motion to adopt those resolutions. I'll make that motion subject to the corrections that you just made. >> Thank you. >> And I'll second it. >> So moved by Mr. Tessa, seconded by Mr. Carol. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes.
>> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammerand, >> yes. >> Mr. recuse myself from on 1045 Washington Street. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes, except I also must recuse myself
from Ian Cone at 10:45 Washington Street due to proximity. And secondly, recuse myself as part of the project team for USS Jacob Jones Memorial Foundation. Okay. Applications approved and denied in review. We have a list here. like to
entertain a motion for ratifying those approvals from review. >> Motion. >> That was very economical. Seconded. >> Great. So move by Mr. Stevenson, seconded by Mr. Tessa. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson,
>> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. I al refuse myself from 1014 Washington Street, proximity. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. Mr. Becker. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, before we open the meeting up to uh new applications for this evening, you may recall that well, it's been I guess a year and a half ago when we convened an alignment workshop between all of us and we spent some time
actually most of the day articulating what is the real core purpose of our work here at HPC. And in order to set the energy and tone in the room, I'd like to ask if you could please Mr. Stevenson to read that purpose statement. >> To serve as a catalyst for guiding and
valuing Cape May's historical, cultural, and natural resources in a way that it inspires and unites our community to steward these resources for the benefit of all so that present and future generations continue to express the
unique quality of life we share in this place we love. Thank you. Okay, opening up to our first application. Huntington House LLC, 107 Grant Street. If you could please state your name, your address, and your role
in the project. Uh Curtis Bashaw, 10 Jackson Street. I'm one of the principles. >> Oh, I'm sorry. if you could. Thank you. >> Robert Shapansky, project manager for Huntington House LLC.
>> Okay, great. >> I have a fresh packet I'll call exhibit one that has large colored renderings and a few minor tweaks. >> Please distribute them and then the floor is yours. >> Mr. Chapensky, if I could have an extra
one for our secretary. >> Oh, great. Thank you. Thank you. >> Is this exhibit augmenting our packet or replacing it completely? >> Everything except the application. >> Okay. Oh, that's not as clear.
>> Great. Well, before I turn it over to Bob, I just want to give a little context and history. Uh this is a wonderful old late 19th century building uh built at the time of the summer station, the second train station that
came into Cape May at that part. Uh it was nicer than a boarding house. Uh when I was a young man working in Cape May, it was used for staff and it was quite a fun place called the Huntington House. There used to be a buffet in the dining
room. Many of us remember it. Uh then it went through a really amazing transformation in 96. Uh somebody renovated it into the hotel Alcott. That was its original name. And
uh we acquired it uh during the COVID pandemic and have used it for many years. Uh we haven't used the restaurant, but we have used the guest rooms for staff housing. In the ensuing time, we've uh acquired other staff housing that we think is
adequate and we want to re uh open the hotel as it was originally intended. Uh in looking at the project, we made some the hotel has 140 seat restaurant license and 31 guest rooms.
Uh we looked at it and felt that there were opportunities to maybe uh descale the food and beverage dramatically. Uh there's a lot of great restaurants in Cape May and it does not have a liquor license uh and increase the guest room
size thereby enabling us to open up the courtyard and add some other amenities. So, the plans that we're presenting are just uh really keeping the existing building pretty much intact. It's a U-shaped structure
and currently has just two metal fire escapes coming out the end of the two wings. And we want to address that life safety issue by adding two proper egress stairs, an elevator for accessibility, and end up with 39 rooms. Obviously, we
have to go talk to the zoning board about that. So, we're here really for conceptual approval today on the things uh as it relates to the facade. Uh, and I'm going to turn it over to Bob. So, as Curtis mentioned, we're seeking conceptual approval for renovations and
improvements um that include improved accessibility, safety egress compliance, seasonal front porch enclosure with dividers, a third floor rear balcony, and a restored rear courtyard with a pool. Uh
the intent of of the project is to improve our guests amenities, accessibility, and the architectural balance while maintaining the historic character of the building. All proposed improvements have been developed with the sensitivity to the historic significance of this key contributing
structure. So we can start with rendering one is on the front of your packet there. Uh this is the front facade. We are asking to increase the enclosed porch on the first floor by one bay.
It's currently a 12 bay wide building and the facade. It has seven open bays and five closed bays. It'll have six and six if this was accepted. We don't think
that the additional enclosure dramatically changes the facade. It's one additional bay to allow for a different room configuration on the first floor. On the second floor, we're asking for seasonal portion closures similar to
what you may have seen at the Virginia Hotel. Um, these would be enclosed wooden panels with plexiglass that are removed seasonally bound by dates if you wish, but that is to allow guests to
enjoy the hotel front balcony uh in the shoulder seasons when the hotel could use more elbow room. In addition to the porch enclosures, we were were showing on the rendition four horizontally louvered dividers on the
front porch to create separation and privacy for the guest room suite that don't currently exist. Let's show them these. If you go further into your packet, you'll see this rendering.
Uh it's not a rendering, it's an old photograph, but you'll see that there were louvered enclosures on the front of this porch. We believe that they were used as sleeping porches uh when the hotel was originally constructed. In the
other rendering, you'll see vertical dividers along the porch line, implying some sort of enclosure. Our goal is to create privacy on the porch between the
rooms, hence the uh horizontal dividers made of louver, reminiscent of those in that first rendering. And then in the wintertime, uh should occupancy warrant it, we want the ability to put up those seasonal
plexi glass enclosures to take the edge off the winds and give people an opportunity to go outside. >> Where would they be? They would be there's a rendering of that >> 502. >> Page 502.
>> Page 502. This is the type of thing that would go up after Columbus Day and come down around Easter. So, just a point of clarification, the A102 that you submitted this evening
that shows the I'll call it seasonally enclosed porches supersedes the A102 that you had submitted with your application where you were actually extending the room. >> Yes. >> Okay, great. So,
>> we we we don't want a permanent enclosure. We feel like we can use the seasonal ones more appropriately. >> Okay. >> Great. Thank you. >> So, that's kind of the only changes to the
facade. If we go to the second rendering, which is the third and fourth page we have, That's the rear of the day. So, we'll start at the rear. We will have or are proposing to add a
third floor balcony in wood to mimic the first I mean the second floor balcony that already exists. Uh the second floor balcony has doors that can provide access from the guest rooms. We want to copy that and try and add it to
the third floor. In addition, there we're adding an elevator to the property and there will be an elevator bulkhead that's visible from the rear. This is in line with the rear wall. It sticks up about 5t on the
rear. It's a foot taller than the ridge at the center of the building and it's likely not visible from the street in most locations. Elevator shaft is going to be built inside of the service corridor stairway. now that we're replacing with the
elevator. Um flat roof covered with wood clabber to try and blend in and be as low as possible. Uh the elevator is detailed on the elevations of A202 along with the rear balcony.
drawing one of A202. >> Got it. >> And also on the back of that right two shows it from the side which is a street side. Is that correct? Or is this the courtyard view?
This one. That's the courtyard view. >> Okay. Sorry. It's I'm always a little discombobulated when I get plans at the very last minute. >> The last rendering is the rear courtyard again, but standing at the building
looking out of the courtyard. Currently, a large kitchen and storage building exists here that will be replaced with the original courtyard. scale and an ingground pool. On each edge of the
U-shaped building, we're going to add three stories of stairs on both sides for proper egress from the property. These were held tight to the building. In addition to the stairwell, the roofs will have access to conceal all the
mechanical equipment that will be providing cooling and heating for the guest room. So, so nothing is visible from either street except for the elevator shaft. >> The elevator bulkhead is above the roof roof line. Yes. >> Can I ask a question? Is it just because
that's the way they make elevator shafts? You couldn't get it you couldn't get it a foot or two lower? I mean, is >> they need to have the equipment above the shaft and it it there's a lot of codes that relate to elevators and the sizing of them.
Um, we're not sure it's going to be visible. To see it above the ridge line, you would have to be pretty far back >> and high, >> almost a horizontal view. >> You might see it from the fourth floor of Summer Station if you were looking out your window as it
>> doesn't concern me too much. >> All right. Thank you. >> So, I'm sure you have lots of questions. I do have full size drawings here to try and help show things that may not be clear on your plans, but essentially
um you know the slight modifications to the front facade minimize any any difference in the existing building while respecting the historic significance. The second floor seasonal enclosure is similar to other prior
woodframe screening that's shown in Mr. poachers postcard book. Um these minimum exterior changes to the facade already exist on the hotel with the additional um porch enclosure bay.
Uh the third floor balcony will be built to look like and and enhance the rear of the building of the second floor. uh improved or otherwise crowded rear courtyard will be restored and of course all trim, woodwork and
detailing will be in like kind of wood to truly restore the building. So I think um so am I am I missing the cut sheets for the stuff that you're referring to as woodwood wood wood in your material? That should be in the
application packet for the materials checklist. >> Just missed it. >> Yeah, it's in the it's in the original application. >> I I saw I saw a checklist, but >> and I'm sorry. You're saying you're saying that the cut sheets were in in the packet.
>> There may not be cut sheets, only the selections. So when we do this, right, and and and and what you've specified here is a lot of wood, which is exactly what you should be doing, but but but help us to help us do this. Um, and you're only here for conceptual, and when you come back for final, it would
be very helpful if you could cross reference the particular item that's manufactured to a cut sheet that we could then just flip from the material sheet to the cut sheet. >> Okay? >> Right. That would that would be helpful and then I wouldn't have to ask you these questions. I think we're here for final though.
>> No, >> on the application it says final. >> No, they're going >> it says that but but according to the applicant they've got to correct there's a mistake on the application. >> So we're just checking a different box on it. >> Okay.
So much for materials. So any other general questions before we go around the room? >> Shall we start with you, Mr. Hammer? Yeah, I I just have a couple. Um uh just first the f the u the enclosure of the one bay on the first floor. Um I looked
at the property report, you know, it it actually the picture actually shows the enclosures in the property report. So I don't think the addition of one bay is materially going to change the the likelihood that its key contributing status would be jeopardized. Um I I'm
not sure yet. I have to still think this through, but what the uh the commentary on the uh second floor with this group came to see us at the small group meeting and I don't remember that as being a seasonal at the time. We initially wanted to try to enclose the
porch like twothirds of it >> leave leave a walk out but it became for the option of renting rooms in the first quarter >> to put the heating and cooling there
plus the the porch has a steep slope so it became a step issue and it seemed too complicated uh most of the you know really from April through November. We leave the porch open at the Virginia and we only
enclose it for a few months a year. So it was and and you guys were a little nervous about those enclosures anyway. So for us it was we took your feedback, looked at the numbers and decided that we could make it work with something that had already been approved in town
in other applications. >> And the only other comment I would make then is um I I echoed a comment about the cut sheets. Usually what we would ask for is is cut sheets of the individual products that are being used that show the material of construction, size, etc. Uh the other is to the extent
you're replacing windows or doors and things like that, a schedule that shows each window that's being tampered with in some way, whatever you want to call it, replaced, repaired. um that that has to show the number of lights, the pattern, um the trim sizes, uh the
material construction, um all that kind of thing. And I know you've been highly sensitive about sticking with historically appropriate materials. The cut sheet for the property report, for instance, references four over four windows and six panel doors. So again,
the expectation would be you'd emulate that in in any replacement that you put in. Um so those those are the kind of things that we you know we tend to look for and until we see those we really don't have something to to act upon other than conceptually.
>> Well we wanted to do conceptual so we could go to the zoning board and check out makes total sense other changes to the use and then we'll come back at final and we'll show you any windows that are being replaced and what the proposal would be etc.
Thank you. Um I think this is um a much improved plan for a key contributing wood very historic hotel. I didn't know you were the applicant. I think that's wonderful news. Uh I went best past
again today. Um I really appreciate the historic photo with the louvers. I think it's really interesting. Um, I support your back courtyard. Uh, I think that's going to really augment the the hotel
and and make it popular again, which is of course we would like. I'm wondering why you need the extra enclosed bay on the first floor. How critical is that to your plan? There's um guest rooms on that floor and
the guest rooms are really small and it enables us to give each of those guest rooms a year round living space. Uh the guest room itself really can only hold a bed. So that the other
five bays that are already enclosed make up half of one of those units. So, it it's pretty important to the the layout. >> Um, I don't think people will really notice
the change. Um, and the other windows have been there quite a long time. So, I don't know if that was in enclosed in the 2000 application. I think they were there before. >> So, they will those windows will exist in your in your rooms in the hotel
rooms. Yes, they will. Okay. Um, I guess then the rest of And I think the louvers are kind of a good idea. They look like premium. They're going to be your premium rooms, those six rooms. Um, so this is the rendition of how the
panels are going to look. >> Yeah. There would be um just single pane of plexiglass in a wood frame that would be put in uh in the late fall and would come down in the spring. So, this appears that the panels
hang on the outside. >> They go behind >> they they're going to hang behind the railing. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> We wanted to show the full detail of the panel. The the railing is invisible. Might not show up well there, but they'll be behind the railing and
columns. >> Can I Okay. I think it's a good plan. I I don't really object to the addition. >> One little detail on this rendering. >> Mhm. On the second floor porch, you'll notice a horizontal >> Yes.
>> line that is just a a metal pipe to create safety >> above the height of the existing railing. >> And that happened at Congress Hall as well. >> Yes, it did. >> I happen to be there today with my family
imagining the balconies enclosed because I I didn't see this plan. Um, I think it's I I think it's a pretty good plan. I like it. Especially if you're going to take those panels down. I guess my last question is the paint on the building. Do you do you
plan to change the paint scheme on the building? >> We painted it white again a couple years ago with the green trim. I'm a little nostalgic about that. from the 60s. Uh they had it I don't know what color
they had. It was like a light rose, but >> that's right. It was light rose. I remember >> it used to be green and white when it was the Huntington house. And so that's why we painted it those colors and we would plan to keep it that way. >> Yeah, I like it. Um so you're not going to have any food. So, what we're doing,
what we will ask the zoning board is to reduce the seat count from 140 seats that are currently on the Merc license to about 40. And what we're planning to do is put just a small little coffee
shop just to have a little food amenity for the guests, like a little cafe. >> We don't want to run a big dinner product there. I mean, when the Alcott ran as the Alcott, they did a lot of weddings there. We have other places for
that. So, uh, we wanted to give the guests the ability to get a sandwich or an egg sandwich in the morning or a yogurt parfait, but uh, so we're asking the zoning board about that when we go to see them. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. I'd like to I'm glad that this, uh, grand old lady is really coming back into public use. I used to hate to ride by and not see it open. I think it's a very thoughtful design. The only question I would have is the uh elevator at the top of the building. Is there
some way that it could be given some different treatment that may not seem as modern to help it blend in with the rest of the building? >> Yeah, we drew it as small and minimal as possible trying to conceal it. You know, if if it would if you want a Koopa on
top, we can always crown it. >> Believe it or not, we don't want to force it. >> Would that Koopa be visible from the street? >> There already is a Koopla on the building, believe it or not. Um, you have to look really hard to see it. You can't really see it, but it's at
it's back here. If you go to A502 and look at drawing one of A502, the one where we showed the glass panels uh unintentionally in front of the railing on the second floor. If you look
up on the left hand side, you can see the Koopa right over here. So, there's a little Koopa there. Now, uh, the elevator shaft, you can see it just above the ridge line. But again, this is a a section view.
To see that from the street, you'd have to be I mean, maybe from the prominade, you might see it up the angle of the street, but I it's not easy to see it as a pedestrian. >> The hotel does. Yes. >> Well, you can't really see even that
Koopa from the sidewalk >> and the elevator shaft is below the Koopa on the rendering, right? >> Yes, it is. >> We just show it in collabor with a flat roof. If you have feedback that we're open-minded, but I think it'll go away
for almost every person that's looking at the building. That was my only point. I think it's a nice design. >> So, um, let me dispose of the easy part first. The, uh, all all of the improvements in the U at the back are
tremendous change, which to me, since you've repurposed the building and decided to add the amenities, um, everything in the U looks like it's really well done. So, so that part and it's and it's not something I worry about going up Grant Street or anything
like like that. You know, I was I was prepared to have problems with the second floor enclosure. Um, but you know, it's really funny because because I I was and and and then I then I saw this and and you know, our design standards let you make a case if you can
find photographic evidence of uh of of that which you were trying to do. But now that you've drawn me back to the louvers, I I don't know what to say. I can't object to the things that aren't there anymore. So sometimes there's a lot of difference between first submit and what
you do tonight. The louvers to me, it seem are are are quite reasonable and and serve a good purpose and don't detract from the facade of the of the building. and and and it'll give people a chance to to go out there without getting blown away by the by the winds
that we the intense winds that we seem to be picking up all the time. So, so much for the second floor. Um I'm a little concerned about the first floor extra enclosure. Well, I I don't like it. I don't think that on on balance it
detracts significantly enough from I think it detracts from the symmetry of the building, but I don't think it detracts enough to jeopardize the key status of of the building. You know, every everyone every time we do this and and you see little things that chip away
here, chip away there, you get get concerned. So, I I wouldn't die in the trenches over it, although I don't I'd like to keep the enclosure the way it is. >> Tom, >> thanks, Jim. Uh Jim and I had the same reaction when we saw those first plans,
and I was arming myself to come in and say you could cut down the number of rooms on the second floor and give the room space without have that kind of permanent closure. But I'm particularly happy and I'm really pleased with how you've done it. Uh, louvered shutters
are famous from the deep south. You know that a lot of the old plantation houses used shutters uh mainly before uh airflow, sunlight, and all that. So, I think that's a great way to solve that
problem. And I know you'll be very good about getting the glass down in the winter in the summertime because people are really going to want that. So, I'm quite pleased with it. Um, I didn't see anything for exterior lighting and I would assume that all those rooms on the
second floor, first floor would probably have a little light for themselves. So, I think for cut sheets, too, uh, you're going to have to add that to it. It wasn't checked off either on your checklist. >> Yeah, we would just have on the second floor porch step lights that would be
very low to the ground that would light >> the porch floor, but not actually put a light fixture. Um the first floor ones will certainly provide cut sheets when we >> if we get through the zoning board. >> Yeah.
>> The good news is you get a second chance when you come back with a final. So you can add those cut sheets and anything else that that is consistent with the comments. >> No, I wish you all the best with the project. And again, I'm I'm happy to see this coming back into transient people,
which is the biggest form of income that supports so many other things in town like Eastland Theater Company and things like that. Uh so the the more overnight people we get rather than whole house rentals and
things like that, uh is it's so good for the economy. Thank you. >> Thanks, Tom. >> Thank you. >> A little plug there, Tom. I like that. >> Are they here? I they could be. >> Not not that you're going to do anything about it. >> No. Um I I really echo what everyone
else said here. Um I I think that this is it's a great project. I love the idea of the courtyard in the back, the renderings of that. It just makes sense. Um I had a comment about the lighting as well. So when you come back as far as the cut sheets, but I'm almost 99% sure
there is a small little planter area in the front. >> Yes. It's about >> Mhm. It's >> 18 inches wide, >> right? And I'm hoping that there'll be beautiful landscaping there and when you come back, >> it doesn't look bad right now. You should drive by. But yes, we'll have nice landscaping there. More evergreen than it is now.
>> Than it is now, right? Um >> but really, um the bay really doesn't bother me because it was not so much symmetrical to begin with. Um and I I that that doesn't bother me at all.
So, and those are my comments. Mr. Chair, >> John, can I ask one more question, >> please? >> Um, just I'd like to know a little bit about the construction of the panels if they're since they're temporary. I I think again when we talked last, my recollection this this was a proposal
for permanent enclosures. So, I'm just curious how you're going to handle the put up and removal and how how difficult that is. So, it's a wood frame panel with a piece of plexiglass that's inserted in into a rabbited channel. Um,
they're painted wood. We use mahogany. >> Um, >> and how do you how do you mount them into the building itself? >> Usually, we install a floor rail and a head rail that receives the porch panels. >> So, the panel goes up into the upper track and then sits down in the lower
track. So there's virtually no fasteners, you know, except for attaching those head the rails to the floor and ceiling. >> And those are just inside the the railings. >> Correct. Yeah. We usually keep them inside the posts far enough to avoid cutting any of the post feet or, you know, things of that nature off of the
columns. >> Okay. My recollection is we've approved something like that before. >> That's what I was going to ask. >> Well, if you I would tell you to go by the Virginia or the Star, but they're down now because it's summertime. Virginia Star was the last. >> And are you are you propos because that
was the most recent one that this board had was the star in are you is this basically the same concept as the star end? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And would you be proposing we had a time frame in that is is same time frame same >> construction.
Okay. >> With with the I'm sorry, John. One more thing. with the exposure that you have and the and the wind that comes off the ocean, you just want to be sure you're well fastened. We've had we've had some increase in the average wind speeds over the last several years and it's >> last night.
>> It's it's getting to be it's going to be a really serious matter. So, be sure you're well braced with those things. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. And I recall with Star Villa, we I know our only concern was that, you know, during the summer season whether there would be any remnants of that that
would be visible of the >> Yes. >> track that holds it in place. And I think we addressed it. >> We did. Yeah. It was a one piece head rail and and floor mount. It's completely removed. You know, we cocked the six or seven holes. >> Same plan. >> Yep.
>> Just a few additional comments and one question. the the railing in the third floor balcony in the back will be the same jigsaw pattern as the others. Assume that was the case. You know, there's another uh very nice shift from your last the set that we got. So, let me clarify that the set that was given
in the application, we can put this in the garbage can. >> Yes. >> So, we're totally replacing what you gave us, right? Okay. >> In that other plan on the on the right side elevation, there were three small square windows that were shifted that weren't in alignment with the second and third floor windows. to fix that.
They're now all in alignment. But there's one issue though that happened because of that on drawing A101, the first floor plan. It looks like one of those windows, the the one furthermost towards the street is actually being interrupted by a the back wall of the shower. So, does that mean that that's
not really a window? >> Let's get to the plan. Which P A1? >> Yeah, look at A101. And the elevation I'm referring to is one on A201. So it would be the leftmost new window on 1 A201 and it would be the on the first
floor plan 1 A101 of the three new windows the one that's closest to the street is looks like there's a the back wall of the shower is interrupting that window. Does that mean it's not really a window >> on the southern elevation
>> the beach? Yeah. >> Yeah. So that would be uh suite would be the shower in suite 108. >> Yeah. >> Well, in this instance, >> maybe >> we use real windows and we put a frosted
glass either solid panel on the shower enclosure or we use metal shower enclosure frame kits that we put inside the shower. Generally, we don't blank off windows alto together, but you can see this window. >> Well, I think those >> I I would agree that you could do that.
The problem is that that doesn't work if the wall is hitting directly into the glazing. So, I think there's an easy solution to this because what you've done is you've actually aligned those first floor windows with the second and third floor. You could simply bump that wall. It would create a little eccentricity in the bedroom, but you
could bump that wall up just enough so the wall hits the frame as opposed to the glazing portion of the window. So again, it makes an eccentric bedroom suite, but not by much. Right. >> Understood. >> Yeah. And in fact,
>> another thing you could >> Is there an elevation of that south facade? >> Yeah. It's A1 or one on A201. So you can see what what you've done is in the last plan, you had those three windows shifted to the left. Now they're perfectly in alignment with the second and third floor windows. So that's a
great move. Big improvement from your last submission. problem is that there's a there's a conflict in the show the back shower wall in suite 108. But I think that's easily fixable. There's a couple things you could do. You could actually put the um
the chase wall on the opposite side of the shower. Flip the shower. >> Well, we'll fix it. Yeah. I would just just want to make sure that that's a real window and and isn't, >> you know, an opaque >> Well, it doesn't much matter what's behind it, does it? As long as it's a
real window. >> Long as it's a real window. Well, but right now it can't be because that wall that partition is slamming right into the glazing portion of the window. >> Yeah. So, that that would just be one thing that I would I would strongly um object to if you if you can't
revise that. Other than that, um you know what one of the issues here when you guys give us these drawings, most of us spend hours looking at these before we come to the meetings. So, I invested like three hours looking at these drawings and now
I'm trying to catch up because now I'm looking at all new stuff. >> I apologize. I I did ask the um secretary if I should bring them in earlier and maybe I wasn't clear with the >> scale or the amount of changes that were in the plans, but I knew that I had a
whole new set. Yes. >> So, that's the bad news. The good news is that almost everything is an improvement. So, I'm glad you did it. Um, we will not waste your time next. Okay. >> I mean, it just it just makes it so much easier for us if if we get something
that we do study and we don't have to come here and spend five minutes trying to >> catch up. Yeah. So, I I I don't want to waste any more time on this, but I do have one other comment and that is since the comment about the additional enclosed bay on the first floor has been
brought up. There is a symmetry to this building that is very subtle and it is that that gable that's up on the third floor. There's there's a double arched window right smack in the middle on the on the third floor. There's a double window right in the middle on the second floor. And what happens now that you've
taken and enclosed that sixth bay or seventh bay. One, two, three, the sixth bay. is that now that partition is right smack in the middle of the building, which means you can't have a window there anymore, which you fixed by moving the window. And so what what I I think
that it's subtle enough that we can accept it because what you've done is you've taken that window that was centered and shifted it over. So it's taking the same exact window and just shifting it over enough so that it's full expression is is remains on the facade. Right. Okay. So you made up for
that. It's It's subtle enough that I don't think anybody will see it. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> And we're also trying to get bathrooms that are large enough for people to use. >> Exactly. Got it. Okay. Um other than that, I think that I would like to entertain a motion um for conceptual
approval with with the following comments. And this would be I'll make the motion actually that we do need cut sheets for all materials and lighting fixtures. that we need a bit more detail of the seasonal enclosure panels, not unlike what you've submitted in the past, so we can see exactly how they're
constructed and will be capable of removal as opposed to permanently bolted in place. Third, formalized dates of the panel removals, a commitment to which dates you would have them there or not. And let's see, I think that's it. Oh,
there was one other one. Somebody >> window and door schedule >> window window window and door details. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> Window window window doors trim um panes you know what whether it was four over four etc to emulate the what's on the property report and currently in place. >> So Mr. Chapensky the description of that
is actually on our materials checklist when it speaks directly about replacing windows in a contributing structure. gives you pretty significant detail on what we're asking for so we can make sure that what you're proposing and installing matches what was there.
>> Yeah. And like and like the cut sheets that have details a schedule of window replacement where we could actually key it to to the building would be again helpful. >> John, >> yes. I would like to see photographs um of the
the existing coupula and speak up. >> You know, if somehow you can give us a photograph of the building from far enough away that we can see the coupa and where the elevator shaft would be on the roof. I think that would be really helpful because we all expressed a
little concern about that seeing it that it's flat. You know, it might be visible. I mean, I know you've stated that it's not visible, but it would be >> I think we'll we'll go down Grant Street to the U north on the west side and go
as far as we can and see what we can get. We can also go up that road behind the beach shack. What's the name of that? >> Um the triangle Heritage >> Heritage Triangle that road. >> Uh so we'll we'll do that.
>> Okay. Thank I mean I mean it would be a street level view. We don't need to have a drone. >> I don't have to use a lift or >> you don't have to use a drone or anything else to to go up. I mean our streetscape concept is people walking on the streets. >> Right. Okay. >> So one last thing. Thank you very much
for bringing those historical photos because I scoured the internet and found >> the one from uh because they weren't in the original packet and I found this one from uh uh 1920 postcard when uh by the way room and board was 9 to $15 a day.
Think we can do that again? >> Yeah, I think 15 would get you. Yeah, that' be pretty good, right? I was have a motion on the table. And just another point, the other reason to have all that, the cut sheets and the materials is really for the field inspector when he goes out to make sure that what's
being done matches what was approved. >> Correct. So, >> and the final would also have to have a landscaping um provision of the of the landscaping we talked about. >> Correct. >> Okay, good. Got that one. >> Landscaping >> landscaping plan.
>> Okay. I have a follow-up question on there's a couple elements of this, but the the one we have the louver dividers on the second porch. Is the are the seasonal panels going to be only on the
second porch or on the second porch and the first floor or am I getting that confused? >> Only the second floor. >> Okay. So that the area >> now that you mention it, I guess we should ask. But no, we we were asking for the second floor. >> Okay. So the seasonal enclosures are only going to apply to the second floor
with the louvered dividers, right? And then the first floor that's just going to remain open >> with the exception of the additional enclosed >> with the bay that's going to be >> enclosed for the guest room. >> Got it. Okay, >> that was my only clarification. I'm good. >> Thank you.
>> So we have a motion on the table for conceptual approval with those four or five bullet points. Do I hear a second? >> I'll second the motion. >> So moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. TA. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker,
>> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. >> Oh. Uh, >> well,
it's it's it's a little late, but >> it's a little late. Go ahead. Uh is is is there anyone here who wishes to comment from the public on this application? >> Seeing seeing I'm glad seeing no one uh that would be wise for us.
>> Great. Thank you. >> All right. Moving on to uh the next application, please. Thank you. Elmer at 520 Elmmyra Street. You could please join us at the front table. And if you could please state your name, your address, and your role in the
project, please. >> Oh, I press the button. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Andrew Mormilly with Major League Lawn Care. I'm the contractor on the project. >> And have you been authorized by the owner to speak on their behalf? And do we have >> We have written authorization. >> Thank you.
>> The floor is yours. So I will I'm seeking approval to uh update the existing landscaping which is currently a um stone driveway with a
mixture of a stone and paver backyard. Um, those will be changed into a permeable PA. And there is currently a wooden step in the backyard that would be transitioned
to match the existing brick steps that's on the back side and front of the existing house. On all those steps, there will be a metal railing that is um Trex Select,
which is an aluminum black railing. That'll be on all three of the steps. Um on those steps would be a brick veneer. And there's currently a shower enclosure that will be moved a little bit to allow
it to be a little bit larger than it currently is because there is a window and that would be made out of all pressuret treated wood. Okay. Um, I'm going to presume that this is fairly straightforward and rather than going around the room. If anybody
has any questions or comments for this applicant, please jump right in. >> Have one question and it's on this rendering here on the side. Are the bricks really going to be vertical as opposed to horizontal? >> I think we have a software issue here.
>> Yeah. Is that or is it just something from the >> So that is that is what is currently there actually. So they do have the brick going that way. >> Really? >> Yeah. I don't think it ever came in front of us, but >> Well, if Go ahead.
>> I believe I believe there are current photos. Um that is on page >> I thought we were replacing it. Thought it was >> There's a sign in the way. >> Okay. Um
replacing backyard wooden step >> with brick veneer. >> Um, so on the in the backyard there's currently wooden steps, >> right? Okay. So that's the wooden steps. >> So that would get replaced to match the brick veneer steps. >> Oh. Uh-huh.
>> The one the one thing I just could not abide is verticality of the of the brick veneer. Whatever you do to this stairway, you cannot have those bricks standing up like like they're pictured here. >> Yeah, I'm seeing. Yeah, because that's
what's currently there. Um, that wouldn't be an addition. >> I'm I'm amazed. >> Um, >> on the front steps. >> Correct. On the front steps. this picture. >> It doesn't look >> is Are they sideways? >> Yeah, >> it looks like it's sideways.
>> Okay. >> Or they're horizontal, right? >> It looks like they're horizontal. >> Yeah. So, >> okay. Yeah. So, >> I I just I apologize for that. >> I just thought it was a software >> right. >> Okay. Great. >> So, so nobody has bricks whether they're full course or veneer arranged
vertically like that on the side of stuff. >> Yeah. it it's it's like the stuff you draw when you're a kid and the chair goes way on the side of the roof. >> Any other questions or comments for this applicant? >> Uh Mr. Chairman, yes. Uh
much of this is in the back of the house and it is a non-contributing building, but to just help out with matching and blending with the things inside uh around you, I would love to see a wood railing system on the front bed bricks
uh white to match the trim on the house. It would really help it blend in with the in the community. >> Okay. Uh when you say white, so like a wood with a white >> wood out running down uh you know, so you have a
a handrail and uh and and a top rail and following our uh critique on, you know, the size of the railings and things and spacing on them. like it would it would just help that whole house blend in a lot better on the street than a than a
uh a very lightweight um u aluminum railing on it. >> Okay. >> That would be my my suggestion to help it blend in with the community as a non-contributing but >> and and I'm I'm going to assume you have no further applications to make to
anyone else, right? Because this application's unchecked and I'm going to assume it's a final application. Um so on this I do um for uh I do need a zoning approval for lot coverage. >> Okay. So >> for the permeable pavers.
>> So that actually is good news for us. That means that we could consider this a conceptual submission tonight. Okay. >> And you could come back to us with the final submission with the railings that are being asked for for the front porch. Would that be acceptable to you? >> Okay.
>> Mhm. >> Is that a yes? >> Yes. >> Oh, great. Could he come back Tuesday meetings for that? >> So >> just for that >> we could we could do that. Um it it's in that gray area of what qualifies as a as
a minor application >> because it is actually new construction. >> So I'm hesitant to do that. >> Okay. >> I I'd like to see a final application in front of all of us. >> Correct. So, if you folks Thank you, Kevin. If if you folks would all agree
or or decide that we could review the railing in review and not require our applicant to come back for a final submission, >> I think we can approve it accordingly. >> How How do we move proposal for railings on the front? >> There isn't.
>> Oh, you're ask you're asking for that >> for Yes. >> I I I agree with Tom. I concur with Dom. That would greatly improve the front facade of the building. >> Get get me get me please. From a conceptual to a final by by >> in review. Yeah. I don't
>> He still needs to go before zoning. So it's still going to have to be a conceptual approval. We can't give you a final approval until you get zoning. >> I would prefer that it comes back. >> I would too actually. >> Okay. So so so we we'll work on a conceptual approval tonight >> and and that conceptual approval will
include the change in the railing or suggested change. what you've agreed to, which is use. >> That's the picture I'm looking at. >> Yeah. >> To change that to white. >> Yeah. >> And I would certainly suggest you continue it down the steps too for a handrail. >> Correct. >> Yes. So, I think what's what's being
asked for is that the railings be made of wood >> portion. >> Just the front, I think. >> Just the front. >> Just the front. Okay. Not the back. Just the front. And comply or comport with or are designed in accord with our standards for portrailings. That Are you familiar with this book? >> Yes.
>> Yeah. So you can download this from our website as a PDF file or you could purchase a hard copy from Amazon. >> Okay. >> But the the railing details that we look for are described here pretty clearly. >> And if you have any questions about that, you could come before us on Tuesday morning and ask us about it.
>> Okay? >> So you could bring a sketch and we could talk about it and and pretty much say, "Yep, looks like this would be acceptable before you come back for your final review." Does that make sense? >> Okay, >> great. So I think we have a conceptual Oh, go ahead, Kevin. Couple of quick
items. One, one is um are is there a plan for lighting or landscaping? Uh for >> uh the u job scope does not include any lighting. >> Okay. So there's no there's nothing changing or adding to that that >> No, not in that portion. No. >> Okay. And landscaping other than the
pavers? >> Uh as of right now, no. >> Okay. On the application on the front page, it says installing black aluminum railings on all exterior brick steps three. So, I'm assuming that included the front. >> So, yes, that included the front one and
the existing one in the back and the new one in the back, >> right? Okay. >> So, just changing that. >> So, now we're just changing the front one. >> Just the front. >> Just the front. Okay. >> Yes. >> Any other comments from the commissioners? >> Well, I think when it comes back, you're going to want the dimensions of the railings, >> right? And the ballisters and
everything. >> So, typically what we're looking for are inch and 3/4 in square vertical ballusters, >> okay? with no more than a 3-in space between them with a bottom rail and a top rail that have some substance to them and you can see depictions of those
in our standards that might be helpful to you. Okay, before we uh entertain a motion, are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this application? Hearing none, I would like to move for
conceptual approval with two conditions. One is that the bricks run horizontally and the second is to add a conforming wood railing to the front steps. >> Okay. >> Both sides. >> Both sides. >> Both sides. Yep. >> Okay. Yes.
>> Do I hear a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. So, moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. Carol. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carroll? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stevenson? >> Yes. >> Miss Decker? >> Yes. >> Mr. Hammer? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ta? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Becker? >> Yes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> So, we'll see you again after you go to zoning. All right. >> Great. Thank you. Next applicant, please. Cape Anita LLC 918 Stockton.
This is converting a triplex to a two family dwelling and adding a deck and an HVAC system. Good evening, Mr. Scarpa. If you could please state your name, your address, and your role on the project. >> Yes. Hello. My name is Joe Scarp. I'm a project architect for the Highland Group
out of Claremont, uh, New Jersey. And you are here with authorization from the owner. Is that correct? >> And yes, written authorization from the owner for Cape Anonita. Great. The floor is yours. >> Thank you. Okay. The project being spoke upon is for 918
Stockton Avenue in the uh residential seasonal district zone. Uh at last month's recent HBAC HPC meeting, we st we started a dialogue concerning this project and the application was tabled.
There were several points discussed that required some modification and clarity. I would be happy to represent uh the application if it is preferred. Um but I would like to go over those points and hopefully this presentation supplemented by the application
resubmission and material cut sheets will help clarify those issues. Does anybody have any problems? I >> I think that's quite appropriate. >> Thank you. >> All right. These are from my notes items as follows. A differential marker
was required to be added to create a visual separation between the new and existing building. That was added and I think it believes it helps out the project a lot because it finals off that hip roof. Cut sheets were revised to indicate the use of wood trim, decking, clapper,
siding, doors, windows, columns, and railings. All all wood at this point. Cut sheets were revised to indicate the windows are exterior prime wood with simulated divided lights present on the
exterior of the windows. Existing brick chimney unfortunately was stucked over. I have I have I can hand these out if you'd like on it. Um and due to the difficulty of removing
this stucco while keeping the existing brick intact, we intend on keeping the stuckco finished that exists on both the chimneys. Since our last visit, our client has obtained the services of a landscape architect, Tom Tom Wiler, who has not
only developed a landscaping plan, but provided cut sheets for the paving materials and landscaping light fixtures. the exposed rafter tails. Um we elaborated and now show on detail that we're that we are keeping exposed
rafter tails and adding them to the new addition. All repaired on the existing will repair as required on the existing shutters have been revised as operable louver type window shutters with iron hardware similar to the Victori
Victorian styles found in the historic district. Railing details were elaborated on and provided with cut sheets with um the profiles of 3-in max spacing. The stairs have now maintained the current straight approach to the
position with additional steps to grade given the new elevation height. A large rear sliding door was added to the rear of the home beneath the new decks. Parking clearances beneath the home in conjunction with proper drainage
was difficult to achieve after further analysis. The door was added to the rear to allow access for storage beneath the elevated home. The uh elev elevator door was relocated to the side of the home for proper clearance access.
Lighting was added to the submitt for review and comment. Um and there was a last issue that was the screening of the generator and HVAC condensers were discussed but indicated that would be on the roof screened out of the visual sight lines.
In addition to these items, the board requested that we confirm with the local zoning officer if any variances were required. The site plan and a number of items were presented to the zoning officer of which were discussed and determined to be within the zoning ordinance requirements. I can elaborate
on discussion on our discussion if the board would like more detail. Um I guess now I'll just ask the board for comments, questions or any recommendations that you have. >> Just one question about the sliding doors. Those are solid wood. Is that correct? >> Solid wood. Yes.
>> Thank you. on on page HBC 2011 uh on the proposed front I guess that is um you have shutters on the third floor second floor and is there any reason why they're not on the first to provide more
balance or >> I felt that those those doors act those actually windows are quite particular to this project they're actually pretty interesting they're actually large double hungs that actually even go up and go into the wall itself very particular, very interesting, very neat to this home as well.
>> Um, I felt that it was I don't use the word overkill, but I felt the proportion of now having shutters, I felt that there was enough protection under those things and adding those shutters would be just they'd be large and more cumbersome. I have a couple of questions. In the um
in the front elevations, you can see there on the um existing there are actually two chimneys and on the proposed there's only one. So are you planning to remove a chimney? >> No, I actually don't I don't know why that's being >> it also >> it shows up does it show up on the other
one? >> It doesn't show up on the uh east elevation either. >> Well, what happens is is we have we have a um whole elevator that's access. Obviously, we could we could leave it for aesthetic uses, but it would be it'd be a good time to remove it if if it was
possible. >> Generally speaking, if the if there's a chimney that's part of the historic structure of the house, we look to retain it, even if it's just the piece above the roof, so that it it preserves the the um historic picture of the house.
>> Sure. Absolutely. We can keep it Kevin. I'm good. Thanks. >> Um, >> I think I said last time I thought I like this plan. I I thought it looked like a an addition that was appropriate. I don't like the lighting. This is a
craftsman style light. And this is a Gothic Victorian house. You have added the little element in the gable. >> Mhm. >> Um, and you know, there's going to be six of these lights on the front porch. So, it's it's quite a significant >> uh lighting fixture. And I just wonder
if you might be able to find something that looks a little more Victorian than this. >> I could I might have to research some other things >> or simpler just >> I that's what I think I was trying to do is I was trying to look for a simpler light because most of your Victorian lights are pretty elaborate. So I wanted
to go with something that's why it tend to go to a like a craftsman style. But if you want >> 16 in high so it's a significant light fixture. Yes, this >> these are going to be six really significant light fixtures. Um, and
maybe Tom can can offer something else or John. Other than that, I I I think it's a nice plan. I like it. Thank you, >> Mr. Stevenson. Have you more questions? >> No, the only thing I would have done was how h how much higher are you lifting a
building than it is now? >> It is a little bit more than one foot. and one foot >> to get to this the state mandate. Yep. Correct. >> That's it. >> Um the um I I thank you for your reconciliation of the cut sheets and the
material sheets. It looks like you've covered everything very thoroughly with respect to getting the details down to what you're producing and what it comes from. So that is that's that's very good to see. and and everything I see. Um, and there's so many of them, but it seems like you're you're complying with
all the required um materials. Um, your your uh addition in back is is um to me very elaborate, but it's also in the back. So, so it's not really interfering with the facade which you've made changes. I think your your discussion of
reconciliation from the earlier discussions is very satisfying to me. Okay. I'm okay right now. >> And pretty much the same thing with me. I know I uh brought up the concern with the stairs and it looks like you have
enough of a landing at the base of the stairs before you actually hit the sidewalk. Um that >> is absolutely I think and also the landscape landscape architect is is coming up with a nice solution for the bottom of that step which I think blends in well with the >> No, it looks good and I'm glad that you
didn't change the orientation of it. um the addition on the back. Um it's nice that it's on the back. Uh you did a nice job on that and also answering all the questions of the commission. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I I have a couple of other questions then if you don't mind. One is um uh I
you know I did notice that the current house as it exists does not have any shutters at all and um the proposed does. So those are for purposes of protecting the window. They're working shutters. They they are working shutters with uh iron hardware. >> Okay. >> And yes, while they don't have it on
now, I think there is signs of it having shutters. >> You you've detailed the hardware on it. It's clearly working stuff. >> Yes, clearly working stuff. >> Tom did mention on the last I asked Tom about that last time and Tom did confirm that there probably were shutters on this house. Is that correct, Tom?
>> Yes. >> Well, this do I remember this? These are timber lanes. >> Yes, correct. I believe they're actually was it tomorrow they're giving a presentation on those those shutters as well I believe. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So it's it's >> so No, I mean you you've really done a nice job taking our comments from what
resulted in us giving you that input and then working it into this >> final presentation. >> My only wish is that I would have done it the first time around. That's >> you know actually you get three strikes in baseball. So you're doing pretty well. >> Okay. >> John, just to get back to Judy's point about the lights. Um they are definitely
craftsman era uh about uh 20 30 years later than what we would have had. But you know I've been looking around town trying to find any old sidemounted uh lights and they're really
not around. If they were on the porch it was generally something hanging down from the overhead. So the thing some of the things that are coming out now are like taking a street light appearance and making a bracket out of it and are a little bit of an overkill. Uh which I
think is not any more appropriate than these little craftsman lights. >> Yeah. The problem with them though, Tom, is they've gotten to be very exaggerated. They're very very long now and and I've seen them on a lot of our homes and they're really not appropriate for Victorian light. Like I mean if it
was a lot smaller I wouldn't feel that way. >> No Judy some of the manufacturers make them in small, medium and large. >> I know. >> Yes, they do. They actually that one actually does and I wouldn't be even open to I mean in thinking about it and I can I can do some research and and reach out to him of having um lighting
that is concealed. So it's not so much something you look at someone that applies a light but you don't see it >> per se. The porch is a large porch. You'd like to use the porch. I notice if you go down in that that street and you look at each light, somebody tries to throw on a I'm sorry to say it's a
Victorian style light that may not have been contributing and it just it just looks like again like it's some something like that. Um >> yeah, >> I mean >> they could definitely be I could
definitely they come in actually two sizes smaller than that. >> I would be more to that. Could be a condition of approval. >> Yeah, this could be this this could be something we could review in committee and I would suggest the same thing for the ceiling mounted fixture because it's that same craftsman look.
>> Absolutely. Same same >> same Kler manufacturer. >> Any other questions, comments? >> Yeah, just two others to mention. One is um the railings and it's really what drew my attention was the um the back of the the west elevation of this just to
make sure you you remember is I think it was John presented earlier. Usually spindles have a 3-inch gap no more than a three-inch gap between the spindles. Correct. I didn't know if I didn't see it anywhere in the um architect's notes whether that was the case or not. Just
that's that's what our standard is is no more than three inch spacing between spindles and the front door configuration is different in the proposed from the existing. Is the existing a historic door? Do you know if that was the part of the original? I do not know if it was part of the original.
It is a halflight door. I mean, unless I look at it say I mean, >> yeah, just curious if it's if it's a if it's part of the original or or it's a at least historic door, then the first question is can it be saved? Um, you know, and just reused in some way. Um,
>> you know, you usually the doors can be dipped and then restained, things like that. I mean, that would be the preference just to to continue to use the historic material that was in place at the time. If not, um, then I understand going to a to a different door.
>> Yeah, I guess we could we could we could look to see how the shape of the door and see if it's something that could be sustained, >> saved in some way. Okay, I'm good. >> Okay. So, first of all, thank you for being so comprehensive in your
presentation about what it was that we reviewed last time that you have revised. Very well presented. Um, I only have two very quick comments and I think one of them is probably just a drafting error on HPC 202 which is the proposed
elevation. That wonderful separation that you have between the addition and the existing structure is called out as a hardy trim. >> Um, >> no it is not. That is definitely an error. Please let the board knows that I would like that stricken from the
drawings. So, >> we're going to depend on your materials cut sheets which do not show anything but wood. Um, and the only other thing that that just to be clear, because when our inspector goes out into the field to verify that what you've submitted is actually being installed, >> the cut sheets that you have for the
window show three different kinds of divided lights, >> somehow on this cut sheet, when you come back to us in review, give us in a revised application supplement that specifically the SDLs, this the simulated divided lights because some of these are snap-in grills
or infill grills. So, we just want to make sure that that >> Yeah, >> because if you're not specifying those then >> Yeah, I thought my I thought the fact that I I supplied a cut sheet on it to show the >> If you did, I I missed it. >> This one exterior wood windows
continued. It actually shows the >> all the all the simulate divided lights on the outside. This would be I'm sorry, page 15. >> Got it. >> Of the cut sheets. >> Cut sheets. >> Very next page actually. Yep. Exterior wood windows.
>> Actually, it doesn't show the simulated divided lights. All you really need to do is circle on page 14 that you're using the simulated divided license. Just put a cross out through the infill or snap in grills. That's all. >> Okay. So, um before we entertain a
motion, are there any comments from the public on this project? Hearing none. Um I have four notes with regard to granting final approval for this four conditions. One is no hardy trim. Second
is keep the chimneys. Third is revise the lighting fixtures with a resubmitt for the porch ceiling and wall sconces. And uh railing details I think we need to see. And lastly just the verification that they are simulated divided lights.
So I'm sorry that's five things. Okay, >> we can approve this conditionally, but if you bring those supplemental components to us in review committee on Tuesday, we can approve them accordingly. >> That's fine. >> Are you okay with that? >> I'm absolutely okay with that.
>> You're okay with that? >> Yep. Perfect. >> All right. Great. So, I would I would make that motion with those five comments. If someone would like to second it, >> I'll second it. >> So, moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Miss Decker. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol,
>> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. >> Thank you again, Mr. Scarpa. >> Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
>> Okay, moving on. Um, our next submission is Miller at 535 Bank Street. Can you please come up before us and make your presentation? Uh, while they're coming up, I must say that
this applicant has been before us three weeks in a row, maybe four times. Four times. Three. Three in a row, but four times total. Um, you're right. You're right. >> It has truly been a uh a collaborative process up until this point in our
Tuesday morning review meetings and we thank you for that. >> Oh, we have new stuff. >> Oh, that's right. Yep. We had asked them to supplement. >> So there's only one new drawing, correct? >> Or not.
>> Is the data sheet and stuff changed? There's different stuff changed because >> Oh, because of the square footage. >> Okay. If you could just point out what's different and what's not, that would be great. But let me ask you this. In the same way as we experienced earlier tonight, does this full package
completely replace the prior package? So we can >> Yeah, because we thought we just replace a couple pages. It would be confusing. So we rather just do that whole page. >> Okay. So we can all discard the prior submission. There's only been a few changes. >> Put this. >> Okay. If you could please state your name, your address, and your role in the project.
>> My name is Paul Massing. I'm My address 1015 Bellware Road ETA. Do you need that information? We have it on the application. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um >> please speak into the microphone a little closer though. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Thank you.
>> Um I'm here about 535 Bank Street. Um right now the house is inhabitable. >> Excuse me. Can we just have the other introduction please? >> And you >> Yes. >> Sorry, Mr. Massing. Your role in the project is
>> I'm a contractor. Got it. and we're trying to go through this uh to purchase this to restore this house and restore this property. >> Allison Wallace, 739 Keline Road, Villanova, and I hope to be a buyer of 535 Bank. >> Okay.
>> Is Is this house under contract? >> No. >> We have verbal >> verbal but not written. >> Chris, >> um >> so you have no interest in Is there >> and maybe maybe I didn't see it in here, but is is there some confirmation with the the property owner that
>> there's a written that she's consenting to our presenting? >> We have a written >> I'm sorry. >> It may just be my ears, but I would ask you to >> I'm sorry. Yep. Sure. We have a we have a signed letter from Christine Miller that gives us permission to present. >> Okay. I just want
>> Lauren has it. It was asked for. >> Yeah, >> you have that, Lauren. >> I do have that. >> I don't want to slow things down. I I >> Yeah, no, that's understood. >> Just want to make sure where it was. >> Yep, Lauren has it. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Okay, the floor is yours. >> Yeah. And just so we had we needed to come here to know what can be done with
the property before we could purchase it. So that she agreed to let us come here and ask permit, you know, ask for some approvals before we move forward. Um, the house is in uninhabitable right
now. Uh, has a minimal one-size bathroom. Um, we plan on to move it to meet zoning. I plan on raising the house to meet flood. I want to uh raise the grade with
a two-ft retaining wall and um make the grade from the wall to the house uh go up another foot. So because it is at 7, uh I would want it to probably be at 11 because I think by the time the project's done, that's where
the state mandate will be. Um I want I don't want that massing of the bottom. That's why I want to put a retaining wall on the grade. Um, I want to remove the additions on the There's a couple additions on the back of the house. I'd like to remove the additions and put a new addition on the
back of the house. I'd also like to put a garage in the back of the house which will be attached from a breezeway. Um, so I could have bedrooms on top of the garage >> just because the house is so small. Um,
I just wanted to make it uh functionable. So, um, I'd also like to enlarge the front porch. It's now enclosed. I'd like an open air front porch and I would like it's 6 feet six. I'd like it to be like
8 foot in depth so it's a usable front porch and open air. Um, I'd also like the garage for off- streetet parking and driveway. So, there is there's uh there might have been some off streetet parking at one time, but
there's nothing right now. So, it's all overgrown. Um, on the plans, I I just want to say there is an existing chimney that's on the house. I it goes through the center of the house. It's not used or anything else, but I would still like to put that
chimney portion back on the top of the house. I'm sorry it's not in the drawings. I asked for it. >> So, in other words, the chimney will stay. Is that correct? >> That exterior portion of the chimney would stay. >> Exterior. Got it. >> Okay. Thank you.
Um, one other clarification just to for everyone to understand, you're actually lifting this house and moving it so it can >> because it's uh the eaves are 8 in over the property line right now. So I would want to make the whole property conform. >> Uh, so you know, I wouldn't be asking
for any variances from zoning. >> So So you've checked conceptual. I think a couple of things are are worth noting just um from the extensive >> discussions we've had at the at the um review committee. One is um
>> uh that he is actually restoring the front porch to an open porch. That's the historic accuracy of the building. It it didn't it was sometime enclosed after the after it it was well constructed. Um and reversing the entry steps is likely
to be correct historically as well. um the stairs were removed from one side of the building to the other and I think that's likely restoring it to its original correct form. >> So Kevin, are you saying I I missed part of that? You you're saying that that that's acceptable to you? I I just think
that that's worth noting to the group that that it the porch is is currently enclosed and it that was >> most likely a later addition to the built to the building at some point in the past but after you know after the point of um historical accuracy it was
it was added after that. And the second is they moved the they're proposing to move the front steps over to the other side of the front porch which also is likely historically accurate. Those are two things we noted in the uh in the review committee,
>> right? Because the porch is currently fully enclosed and totally opening up and expanding it. Yes. >> Right. >> Great. >> Any other questions or comments, Kevin? >> Uh just that at some point when this goes to final approval, um I think we'll want to make sure we see a window
schedule which shows um which windows are being replaced, which are being repaired or what have you. um all the different trim details, sizes, things like that. Um the number of window lights that that they're all simulated divided lights or full divided lights.
Um so that that I think is just u something we'll need when you go to final approval. >> Miss Decker. >> Well, like the rest of the commission, I've never seen this before, so I'm not familiar with this at all. Um,
it is a nice little house. I'm I'm confused by the wings that are sticking out on the side. Traditionally, a house would go straight back. I don't understand why it's not going straight back, just attached to the garage.
So, I'm a little confused about this look, which completely changes the look of this house. that's contributing. Um it's not a typical cross gable plan for this is not typically how additions were done.
Um you know I'm not in the working group but I think I probably would have liked to have seen I would have worked on this a little more maybe. I I don't I I think this breezeway concept is a little odd. Um,
so I think it's not appropriate. Sorry. But >> so your your comments about how what would be your responses be? >> I and you know it's nice that you're opening the front porch. You're proposing to make it bigger. I I just
don't think I have enough visual material. >> It's only 16 by 20. >> It's tiny. I And I get it. I mean I I I think an addition is appropriate. You're moving it. You're elevating it. It It looks like it's in terrible condition. I
think it's it's great. It's a nice little house. And I just can't envision this these wings in the back. I don't know why it couldn't go straight back and be attached to the garage. >> Well, I mean, otherwise it wouldn't be wouldn't be made as large as as it is.
Jake, I'm sorry to jump you. You want to you want to comment? >> Okay. Well, again, I'm referring to our standards on page 54 regarding height, massing, proportion, and scale. >> Addition should always be subordinate and not compete visually with the original building, which I think that
this elevation certainly does. >> I mean, it's a a cute little cottage and I don't know what this is, but it's it's looming over it and it's overpowering the original structure. And even we have it there's a even there's an illustration on page 55 where it shows
you an existing building and a big addition on the back. It's in our standards. It's in black and white and I agree with uh Miss Decker as well. I just while on the subject of the addition which is an HPC concern I just
want to flag something here because it may relate to what type of approval you could even get tonight. I'm looking at your zoning schedule that you sent through here and I understand the the concept here is that you want to kind of pick this up and maybe eliminate some non-conformities and fit it within
>> strictly within a you know a bulk setback and and comply with all those things because if you don't have to go to the board for that that's great right you're always trying to look to avoid those however I'm looking at so our F I don't see that F is listed on here but it is one of the requirements for this
type of thing and It's 040. So if I'm looking at your lot area at 5950 times40 is >> I thought it was point45 >> for
>> single family detached dwelling which is what this is right >> yes in which zone >> in our in all throughout section 52 52552 regarding floor area ratios is single family detached dwellings. Right.
>> So that's a point40 requirement. I'm not the zoning officer. >> I'm just flagging. >> I did show them that. So >> yeah, >> I'm just >> because it may relate to the kind of the bulk that the board is talking about. >> Y >> So that's just something >> we may want to clarify with the zoning
officer just to make sure that what you're trying to advance here is fits within that as well. >> So if you could explain that That second floor over the garage is what put you over, right? >> Yes. >> So, can you talk about that a little bit?
>> Yeah. I just feel Go ahead. >> I feel that uh needs so many bedrooms to make uh it worthwhile for Miss Wallace to buy this. So, if she can't put her family in it, then uh it's already
they're not uh big bedrooms to begin with. They're nine by 10 bedrooms or whatever. they're very small. So, um, she has children and the childrens have significant others and that, you know, she couldn't have those people come to her house. So, she can't spend this kind
of volume of money. I know this is not part of the HPC about money, but if you're going to invest a million dollars plus, you know, buy the property and then invest another million dollars to do this and not be able to use it or not be able to have her family here, then why would she do this? And that's a real
consideration for anybody looking to buy. My my reason in bringing that up is not to say that's a terrible idea or whatever it is. It's more just to flag it as if if you need if what you want to do requires that relief, >> really, we're only in the position to provide a conceptual approval anyway.
>> But if your goal is to fit whatever you can within the confines of zoning so you don't have to make that trip to the board, that's fine. That's your choice. But really that dividing line for us is whether we consider this a conceptual or a final. So that's why I flag. >> Yeah. >> And just to note >> and we're really looking for a conceptual. So that's really
>> Yeah. And just to note if when you do the calculations the the maximum F is 40%. You're at 41.26. So there's some wiggle room there that you might be able to get within that limit. But that's a zoning issue. It's not an HPC issue. But it does address the massing issue
>> to some extent. Okay. Well, I think I'm going to help them out in that respect. Um, but it's not very helpful what I'm going to say. Um, first of all, it's a it's a great idea to take this house, put it where it's where where it makes sense, elevate it as you have, uh,
and and all of those things make perfectly good sense. What doesn't make sense is and and I'm sympathetic because this is such a small house >> and and and so you're you're trying to make it big enough for it to be usable, but unfortunately it's also a
contributing property and and this addition is disproportionately large relative to the house even though the house is small and and I think that's been brought up before. We we have design standards and those standards
tell me that the addition that's being put on here is simply too large relative to the size of the house and and and I wouldn't be able to support this just because the size. I'm sympathetic to the to the argument and the problem, but but it the house is not one where you can
put on a giant edition and still have it be a contributing property. One of our our concerns, of course, is when we do this stuff and the next survey comes out that the house doesn't lose its contributing status. And that's what I'm afraid would happen with this addition.
I won't even get to the garage and back or the breezeway. The the addition is just dis disproportionately large as far as I'm concerned. I'm in agreement with all that's been said, but I have to say, uh, you're a brave person to come in here without
asking for a demolition permit. Uh, only in Cape May, where we love our architecture so much, do we fight to save a wonderful little cottage front that is buried with all kinds of growth junk, has not been probably lived in in
a long, long time. I'd like to give you all the support we possibly can. And I think if maybe you on the as you look at the building, if the right side had a little more yard and you continued that building line down and maybe bulked it
out a little bit more uh was a sideyard on the other side uh to get it in. Um, you are putting uh, you know, what is it the five bathrooms, five bedrooms inside and wanting to put bedrooms over the
garage too. That that's that's a very very large addition. >> Yeah, I just I I disagree with that what that thought is. There's five bedrooms total >> and the addition is um like 24 by 20 or something, you know,
and >> when they're cut out, >> how would I say? And and I'm just saying >> standing by >> at the end of the day, the house is like 21 or 2200 square feet. It's not a big house. It's not, you know, it's just the cottage is so small and it's hard to make it work. That's all. So,
>> uh, I I would be very much inclined to help in any way that we possibly can to to save it because if somebody like you doesn't come along, uh, you know, the neighbors are going to be talking about the animals living in there, uh, demanding that it be torn down.
Might be animals in it already. >> It's in pretty bad shape as it already is. And I've seen pictures of it. It was actually in worse shape than what it is now. Well, I'm more friend than enemy, >> right? >> And I would definitely agree with that. You are more friend than enemy, but I
agree with pretty much everything that was said here, looking at our standards. Um, I I appreciate that you are looking at moving this, rehabbing this. Um, you know, there there might be another better way to redesign this a little bit
further back maybe, you know, and not have it as as large. Um, and the wings coming out on the side. Um, but yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, uh, for me personally,
like the house is 16t wide. I mean, >> I I don't think I can really do anything to make this work for the kind of money that's being put in. So, uh, and that's that's more the situation is like
uh and if pretty much the street floods, that area is in bad bad shape. It has to come up. >> Has to be raised. >> Um, if I'm going to raise it up and move it, uh, It should like if you're going to do all that, you should take it off the
property line, all that stuff. There's already issues and if I'm going to do that project, it's going to be moved to the middle, you know, and I'm not even moving to the middle. I'm moving it so it makes zoning conforming >> and then have very little I can't even put the garage over too much to the right because I don't have I only have
so much land. So, >> uh, so there's a lot of things that affect this. Definitely are a lot of nuances to this to the site and to the >> to the cottage itself. >> So that >> there there are definitely nuances, you know, based on the site where the where the >> Yeah. And I was really trying to make it
so it still looked like it had the cottage still in the front, >> right? >> So it still looked historical, had fair distinction. That's why it sticks out from the side of the building. I was trying to follow as much as I could and that's why I had so many meetings. So >> yeah,
>> uh trying to make this work, but at the end of the day, if you're going to spend all that money and rehab this property and it not be worth the value of the rehab portion, you know, it's not really >> No, I I don't I don't think there's any
step that you have taken in moving it, doing what you're going to do to it that that we would object to. It's unfortunate that it starts off so small. Yeah, >> there are no exceptions to the design standard which say that an addition can be much larger than the original
structure >> even well that's what I was saying we were talking about square footage and I stayed within the square footage of the original house and I didn't double that square foot you know that kind of thing >> it's supposed to be subordinated which mean it's supposed to be subordinated >> the original structure
>> and and that's the problem I mean there's just nothing wrong with what you've done except except that it violates our rules Okay. I'm sorry. That's >> I said if you went straight back and connected it to the garage, maybe you had a side hall with the bedrooms coming
off the hall. Drop the roof maybe a little bit. >> Yes. If it looked smaller, maybe that would go >> I mean, it is a really awkward plan on the second floor. You've got two bedrooms that you're walking through. >> Yeah. And and I don't think any kids are going to be happy with you walking
through. I have kids through the bedrooms. >> But, you know, again, I I agree with everything that was said. Um, unfortunately for us that an addition must be subordinate to the to the main structure as tiny as it is. Um, but I
think we'd all be more amendable to something that went straight back >> and followed the gable roof, >> but then it' be lower also, right? Correct. >> It only has to be a foot lower. Just just >> it doesn't have to be lower. Just as
long as the ridge doesn't understand above. >> Exactly. As long as the ridge doesn't extend above the existing ridge and then the sides of the house could have the divider we talked about with the other applicant. >> Yeah. But the ceilings already low as they are. You know, you lowered another foot. You know what? I'm going to six
foot six ceilings. I mean, we'll make code. >> I mean, I agree with Tom. I I love the little house and I I think um >> so this was >> wondering if there's another if there's another way to do this. I mean John is
it possible to put a hyphen and put a >> well that's >> a whole new structure in the back >> so >> and use this just as as I don't know like the master you know with living space underneath. >> Yeah. The evolution of this really came
from there was one and when I say huge it's not huge the addition itself is less than 20 by 24. This is a this is not a a big structure. It only appears to be because of what exists. So originally when they came
before us, it was a a 20 by 24 that had the ridge running the same direction as the existing ridge, but it overpowered even more the existing house because it was so much wider. And to make that happen, you actually had to change the
the slope of the roof, which also looked really awkward. >> So the idea here was, well, how can you minimize the effect of that mass? So by taking off those two little back corners and changing the ridge to be perpendicular to the existing ridge significantly reduce the perceived mass
of the house. But I think what you're saying Judy is if you that if you could take this and slide it back and have like a little reveal between >> hyphen a little reveal between the existing mass. So almost it's like two
houses that had >> a little here. Let's do this. piece in between in >> or reveals >> it would actually I think
significantly reduce even more the mass of the house relative to what exists. And I also am going to ask all of you guys if this breezeway and second floor garage wasn't there
>> and we approach this in that kind of a configuration. Would it be more acceptable to you? >> Yeah. Include the >> it's one contin. So,
>> here's the strategy that the applicant chose to take. They didn't really want to do this in the first phase. They really only wanted to do the addition with some future garage and some connection to the garage.
We said, you know, if you're going to propose the full scope of this, probably should do it now because if you come back and do it later, it's going to be even more challenging. So my question would be, is there anything that would prohibit you from not building the
breezeway and just building a separate detached garage? There was some parameter that you were worried about in that regard and I can't recall what it was. >> Yeah, because you can't have living space over top of it. >> That's why no bedroom. I mean, you don't have to finish the interior. You could
do that later. I mean, if it was one roof line and Right. You could >> Oh, you mean Yeah. put it on. you could make it into a two, you know, you could get the plan approved and just make it into a two-phase project for yourself. >> So, really what's happening here is the
potential new owner is testing whether or not it's viable for her to purchase this home >> in terms of it being able to accommodate on this site what it is that she needs for her family. I would say that solution is more
appropriate than this because you're you're you know whatever you decide to do with this cottageized house in the front of your plan. Um the hyphen definitely distinguishes the back house from the front house.
>> But that's what we're do. We thought we were doing that with the clapboard and changing from the cedar shape to clapboard and that width of the house, you know. >> So that that was an interim move that we made together. >> Yes. Yes, because we never considered the hyphen mainly because all we were trying to do is reduce the mass of the addition.
>> It would and the other reason is that it would require a significant reconfiguration of the interior programmatic spaces to make them function better and the the stair would have to be relocated. In fact, the stair probably goes in the hyphen that would be probably the most appropriate place
for it, >> right? And and it would it would also then allow for a reconfiguration of a corridor so that you don't have these postage stamp bedrooms. >> Exactly. >> Right. >> How do we worry about like the massing again? Would that still only be the width of the building?
>> Not necessarily. You could I think you could pull this off. >> Um but it would require essentially So here here's the dilemma. >> We're not your designers. I mean you have a designer who with whom you're working, right? And it it it really
would require a reconfiguration of the program spaces in order for that to work. And that as much as I'd love to sit down and sketch that for you, it's not me with that. >> Yeah. >> But I'm concerned about like can
like it's all about u accommodating her family like having so many bedrooms, so many >> So that's the question. and having a garage. I mean, like, so that's there are some of the things, you know, that affect, you know, the >> So, are five five bedrooms mandatory for you? >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, what this may be leading you to consider is whether or not this is a property that's appropriate for you to purchase or not. >> Absolutely understood. >> But I, you know, as I mentioned to you, I grew up in Old City and historic preservation has been kind of in my life and I think it would be a wonderful
little cottage to preserve for us and for future generations. But as it is right now, >> right, >> I I have trouble seeing how you're going to get there. But but I do think that is the point. Well, no, that's actually that made a good point. And and even
though I was starting off by looking at just the gross numbers, I'm I'm willing to be closer to being subordinate than overwhelming. Then then I could I could be flexible of that, too. But but again, I I don't really know without seeing a redesign. I I know I can't I can't
support this. >> I I know that when we were looking at this in multiple iterations in in the um review committee, I think I think we all were initially concerned about the size of the addition visav the the front. I mean that was that just jumped out at
you right away, you know. >> So then the question became one of well is there a configuration that would work, you know, that that could work in this? I remember one of the things that we had actually talked about was, you know, this has four feet of extension on each side. Well, what if you put it all on one side and not the other? And you
could theoretically even do like a wraparound porch to connect to it. We have a building up the street here that that you know does that effectively and >> an L >> and make it into an L-shape, you know, and and you know, bring the the front porch around to connect to that back
that new addition. I think the one thing that we, you know, one thing we were always trying to consider in the review committee was, you know, any of any change that you make along that line, do you jeopardize the contributing status? Do you do you change the front facade so
materially that it, you know, there's no way that somebody's not going to look at that and go, "Nah, that's not the historic building anymore." Um, so that's why and plus the fact that, you know, we're not the designers. We're not allowed to do that, you know. So, but that was, you know, that was one option >> entirely appropriate for the review
committee and that's why we're here today. >> That's why we do it. That you know, we we you know, we offer some suggestions, but we we don't try to do the designs ourselves. I agree. >> And you know, I think that I mean, we didn't even talk about a u you know, a transition kind of a thing like that
because it wasn't suggested us. It's not our business to suggest back. But that if if you're open to that, I mean, then my answer would be come back and visit us again and we'll, you know, we can talk about it. >> We're just under somewhat a you know, a time >> time time crunches with >> So here's another question.
>> If we I'm just going back to the F restraint. >> If we take 40% of the 5950 square foot square footage of the site, that would leave you with an addition or a total habitable square footage of 2380. And what you're proposing is 2579. So it' be
200 square feet less than what you're proposing. >> Well, but if the breezeway goes away, that's probably about 50 of that square feet >> at least. >> Yeah. And now if we take a look at a much more I would say um efficient way
of laying out the spaces. My guess is it's not going to be a really large set of spaces but 200 square feet to buy back out of this actually 150 if we get rid of the breezeway probably is doable. >> It's just going to be it's going to take
a good designer to do that. That's all. I can certainly support the direction that we're talking about here. You have this beautiful little restored cottage right in the front landscaping around it. Everybody's going to say what a cute cute little place and it's going to take away from there is something rather
large behind it. Maybe with a different appearance, maybe with a different type of siding. You know, not trying to make it blend totally with this little house. It's just a a big backyard which has something else in it. and and that gives
us we we've saved a little bit building the streetscape and uh you know th this is not actually uh the grandest area of town. You you're looking right across the street at the Bank Street parking. Uh this certainly would help an awful
lot to do everything we can to save this side of >> course but but still we have a contributing building. We can't lose that status. >> Another way to think about it is instead of this could be that. >> Well, that's what I meant. So it doesn't have to be across
>> right >> same width >> same width so you're not >> correct >> just the reason for attaching the garage which is probably the biggest bedroom will be attached to the actual structure
>> and that hallway would kind of disappear from the street view you know if it's just a hallway the house is what 16 feet wide 16 man. >> Yeah. So I mean >> a short one. >> Yeah. I mean it's not that it's not
doable. It's a matter of, you know, putting a large sum of money to buy it and then a large sum of money to into it um to make it viable and then to have not a nice room to go and enjoy your family and that kind of stuff, you know.
So, have a narrow, you know, 15 feet is very narrow when you start putting walls up and and low ceilings. And that's the other issue, you know, the right be So, um, we have a few options. It's
pretty clear that the votes that I heard people express would not allow a conceptual approval this evening. We could also choose to table this or would you prefer us to
make a motion and vote on it? If you if you choose to table it, one of the things that you could do is take some of these comments, maybe have a follow-up meeting with the re review committee or just propose a revised concept at an upcoming meeting. Tabling
it will keep you in quue. So >> I think we'll table it for now and think about it, but you know, like she said, maybe it's just not the property, you know, so you know, there's >> because that's that's a value judgment you have to make bas based on your
ability to think what other alternatives might be. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I I agree. I mean, >> but this I mean to to keep you in quue is probably better than to boot you out and have you come back. >> Yeah. I just don't know that I have
enough time like with the I have a I have an agreement that runs out of time and I don't have time to come back. So that's kind of thing. I would have to ask for more time and then also spend a lot more money to be unknown. And I feel
like if the property can only be >> 16 16 feet wide or less and that makes it hard for me to make it work because I had a hard time with the stairwell everything else like that at 16 foot wide making it uh comfortable rooms, you
know. So, and that's a whole thing. So, um, when you start adding stairways and hallways and stuff, 16 feet is pretty narrow. If you had, don't get me wrong, I worked in West Philly my whole life and restoring houses and most of the houses were only 18 to 20 feet. But, you
know, when I know a father, I used to call them father, son, holy ghost houses, you know, was your living room, your dining room, your kitchen, you know what I mean? And then you went up the steps and you had a hallway and your bedrooms. I did a hundred of them easy. So, that I restored. So, I know what's there and I know what the factor is of a
16 foot. >> I mean, if you're not married to the idea of being in Kate May City, I live up um up county and it's lovely up there. I mean, Goan's lovely. There's plenty of other places to live look for houses. I'm five miles from the beach. I
just drive out. >> I qualify to be here because of my qualifications on this commission. Are >> you saying there are plenty of places in the county without an HPC? >> Yes, that too. That too. No, that we love the character of the town and all that stuff. I'm working in West Kay all the time. I'm restoring
>> historic houses all the time. I'm I'm all good with that and I like that you keep the town this way and I like that there's committee like this. I just, you know, I had some conceptuals that uh to be perfectly honest, this had a personal thing to me. It was uh my uncle's I
guess my my uncle's one my grandfather and my uncle some of the closest friends were the Waltons and they lived in this house. >> So I have a tie from back to this house of the one was a caretaker of the church that was down the street was not the same and all this stuff. So I know the
history and all that stuff and that's why I know about the house and that's why I came here and that's why Christine would sell it to me. So that was the whole thing. She was trying to restore it. So and I was trying to make it so it was doable. That's all.
>> Lose this this house that, you know, is seriously obviously needs to have some serious rehabbing to it. So I I guess what I would say is, you know, given the option was, you know, brought out today with the the two building concept, I think, uh, I would say, you know, come back to us and maybe you can get,
>> but the building's still really narrow. I mean, I can't make it wider. is. So, the thing is I can't even put a garage like you can't even park a car in it. >> Again, you can you can't get a garage. >> You can make those those determinations. Um, and what we can do is just give you the time and opportunity to to to do
that, which is to say tableabling it allows you to consider coming back >> or or not. I mean, just that's all we can do tonight, I think. >> Yeah, I understand that. >> Yeah. >> No, I understand completely. >> But, >> so, Miss Miller, do you have any comments, questions that No. Okay.
>> I just don't want to be spinning my wheels. I, you know, I already spent, you know, a bunch of time here involved in this. And if that's not really what you want, that's understandable. If I could do something that if I figure something out to do in 16'6, like I feel like I can't even park a car, you know,
a normal garage is 20 foot deep. So, I mean, >> why am I doing this? You know what I mean? So, I'm doing something that doesn't work for you guys. >> Before you all wheel yourself away, what would you like us to do? Would you like to table? You can table it and then we'll see. No, I always can
>> just not come back. >> I'll make I'll make a motion to table the application with the applicant agreeing to wave the 45day decision making rule. >> You understand that? >> Yep. Okay. Thank you. I second the motion. >> So moved by Mr. Ta, seconded by Mr. Carol. Roll call vote, please.
>> Mr. Carol. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stevenson. >> Yes. I just wanted to comment that my original objection was just based on this original submission, but what we've talked about now I'm open to, you know, those options for you folks. And there was one other omission that I noticed in
the application. There's no rear elevations on the initial one and on the supplements today. >> Yeah, we were just asked to do two for now for >> Yeah. So, you know, we would require them as well. >> Yeah. But but the real decision is it can't be wider than 166.
>> Well, I'm not necessarily You're now you're now talking about a hyphen. So you're not talking about a cross gable. You had a cross gable plan. Now you're talking about gable gable. So I think I think I think it would work a little better behind the >> What you want to do is is work up the
argument of subordination. If you convince us that the addition is subordinate and and as I say, I don't think that's a measurement of exact square feet. It may be a measure of depth, width, placement to a side. I mean >> all those things.
>> Yeah. I I I I think that the the the second piece of the hyphen 24 is probably too much, but 20 probably is doable. Yeah. >> 20 24. >> Yeah. The other direction. >> Yeah.
>> I think that Kevin al also to gave >> Kevin gave a very good solution, too. I think we're going off in an L and having a connecting porch off to the side. >> Does that impact? >> That's Kevin's piece of design for tonight. But if it's
>> separate >> right and and I and I think the further back you go the less significant >> it is. So so so so subordination may mean it's not good if it's way up here but it's acceptable if it's further
back. >> Yeah. there. >> There are stringent design parameters, but I think that it's absolutely doable as a design. It's just going to take a really diligent process of design iterative
idea generation to figure it out. It's not going to be something you can just throw together. It's going to it's going to take a while. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Take a break. >> Oh, >> okay. >> Um I think we were halfway through a
vote, right, Lauren? >> Yes. So, what we have what we have on the table is a a motion by Mr. Ta, seconded by Mr. Carol, I believe. >> Yes. >> To table this project. >> Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson,
>> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. >> Okay. Uh, >> stacking. >> Our next applicant, please. Welchman LLC at 11:22 Washington Street. Due to
proximity, I must recuse myself from this discussion and turn it over to our vice chair, Mr. Ta. >> All right, the applicant uh seated, please uh state your name and uh your role in the project. Let us let us have
that first. >> Fred Cenus, managing member of Walshman LLC and contractor of the project. Okay, if you would present the application, please.
>> Proposition is to put uh driveway to the right of the house. Uh we have approximately uh 38 ft to the right. Uh the left side of the house where the uh
parking is supposed to be. I can't even fit my truck. um backing out onto Washington is very precarious. Um the proposition is to have parking come in so there's a way to turn
around and go forward out onto Washington. Um adding a blue stone patio in the rear of the property and uh a pool in the rear of the property. Uh the parking would be um
uh screened with uh landscaping uh as drawn on the drawing. >> Okay. Anything else you'd like to add before we go around? And >> there's proposition of a property line fence also to the right. the left
already has uh um a cedar property line fence um to the left of the property. Uh we're uh working with the new owner of that property um to put something
between the two homes. >> Can I ask what the extent of that fence is? It's >> Is this already >> So there is a photo that we provided of saw the two fences in the >> So, the one is uh a no climb fence for
the pool area, >> right? >> And then the other is uh we um uh we custom build um uh we have a a cedar mill right up in uh Atlanta County provide provides us with >> Yeah. >> Um
>> uh >> but that is a excuse me that is a cut sheet of what you propo what you're proposing, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Because we're going to have some comments about that. >> Okay. Right. >> Um let's let's start with you. >> Okay. So, just clarification with the
fence then. You're looking at the non-climbable fence around the pole and it looks like it might be a Let me look at the second drawing. Just a couple Yeah, a couple of feet around the pole
on uh on all four sides. >> Correct. And then the the property line fence, the six foot, the location of that is going to go from the front uh leftand side corner >> uh right hand side. >> Right hand side. Okay. So by the where
the drive aisle is coming in, >> correct? >> Okay. And how far back is that going to go? >> Uh we keep calling it the shoulder to the back shoulder and uh um across the back of uh the neighbor's property. So the
>> so past the pavers in the driveway. >> Correct. >> Okay. And then >> to the to the to the back shoulder of the property and then the property really opens up. >> Yep. >> So it'll it'll be an L behind uh next to and behind the neighbor.
>> So it's it will it take that take that uh angle? >> Correct. >> Okay. So it'll go all the way back to that angle. Will it go all the way back to the very back part of the property? >> Well, that's all wooded. >> Okay. um between uh us and the fisa estate. >> Okay.
>> So, it's just going to die and end at the at that break, >> right? >> Okay. >> And again, we're we're in conversation. I mean, he's the one >> requesting me to not requesting me to do it, but working with me to do that just because >> he has smaller grandchildren. So,
>> So, your neighbors requesting you to do? >> No, just >> we're trying to be neighborly about it, right? Even though I'm not going to be the neighbor. I mean, still I try working with the neighbors, >> right? >> And um just talking about that that fence,
the one that's around the the pool, I don't have a problem with. I >> that's very appropriate for the for the house. Um I'm just, you know, concerned with that natural cedar fence um along the property line. That's why I wanted to see >> We're open for suggestions. I mean, we
custom build it, so I mean, we can >> I think you're I think you're going to get some. >> Okay. I mean, >> um, >> we we've done extensive work on the house and I mean, >> yes, you have. And it really does look beautiful >> to the point that I mean, my son's CNCed
all the scroll work and I mean, we can do anything with wood. >> Now, the the work that has been done, and I live right down the street from here, far enough away that I don't have to step down, but um, the work that has been done is is really uh, beautiful. >> Thank you. Um, but that's all the
questions that I have right now as far as >> And it is a 16 foot wide house. >> It's maybe a little too much information, >> Tom. >> Oh, you can see it, Judy, on the on the one. Uh, >> I'm very familiar >> on the front. You can't tell, you know,
because I'm looking at it as she was talking. typical Victorian plan for sitting down. >> It tends to go straight back like this. It looks beautiful. >> If you look at in our standards in the section on fences, you'll notice that everything is uh vertical. It's not
horizontal. Horizontal is much more uh like farmards and things like that where and city fences tend to be vertical and there well lots of ways it can be done and lots of materials. >> Okay. I'll have I'll have my sons draw something up and resubmit.
>> And and of course it should be four feet high until the back of the house. And then if you want a sixoot fence, uh you are allowed to have that >> to the front of to the front of the house. >> No, to the back of the house. >> The back of the house. The back end of
the house is then considered your backyard. And if you want privacy and things like that, >> the back back is is a six foot. >> You can go six feet. but along the side of the house or into the front yard. Okay. >> I can't go over a 4ft fence, >> but you'll see there's lots of good
designs there and I'm I'm comfortable with everything else I'm seeing. >> Okay. Um the pool is that going where there's four trees right now? >> No. >> Which is like kind of next to the garage or like looking at it from the street?
>> No. Um if we're looking at it from the street, there's uh a split maple behind that split maple. Uh there's two more um pines to the right more on the property line. >> Yeah, >> it's closer to the garage.
>> Okay. So that the pool is not going where they're going. >> No. Okay. >> No, there's no removal of trees. >> All right. I would just otherwise you >> were going to advise you you needed to see the shade tree commission. You're uh one additional uh point regarding the swimming pool is that what kind of lighting will be associated with the
swimming pool and if you know we'd like to see a lighting plan and preferably dark sky initiative. >> Okay. >> It's not overflowing to a neighbor's property. >> Okay. Yeah. Uh so there would be interior pool lights. I'll I'll work with the pool designer on that.
>> Thank you. Um >> so so so so the way this works is if we grant final approval to this application as it's submitted we also can attach conditions to those final approval and generally those conditions satisfied by you um
>> bringing the final product to our review committee and having them sign off on those conditions so they've been fulfilled. >> Okay. But I just wanted that the pool is far enough back that it really isn't a problem from the street in my opinion. >> Right. But you're but you're requesting a lighting plan.
>> Yes. Oh, definitely. Yeah. But still, I mean, yeah. I mean, it could affect neighbors, >> Miss Decker. >> Um, yeah. I mean, my concern was with the trees and you said you're going to retain the trees. >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. The the parking does not go
anywhere near It's kind of a bad perception. Uh, that tree is probably another 30 ft past where we're proposing the parking. the maple that we see, this what I call the split maple. >> My compliments on the restoration of the house. It looks spectacular. I've had my
eye on that house a long time hoping someone was going to fall in love for >> not letting me see pink outside my windows. >> So, we often I have the same concerns with the fence. We often approve fences in this configuration >> with the lattice on the top with
vertical panels and they are high fences. They just they they don't have the horizontal look. >> Okay. >> It's just not a historic look. They do occur sometimes as you could see in the one application. I don't know how that fence got approved, but we didn't approve it.
>> Uh so yeah, just a different configuration for that fence. Thank you, >> Kevin. Your say. >> Okay, just one one quick thing starting on architectural site. There are two locations for the show. Which one is correct?
>> Uh, one's axed out. Um, and Mr. Britain corrected me on that that it's not permitted to be on uh the accessory building. >> No. And then it's moved to the the uh the rear and again that would be behind that
uh landscape screening from parking. >> Now the same thing we would prefer that that was >> vertical instead of that's easy. >> Second item is the system.
>> Correct. >> Yeah. Uh so um on the one drawing my son has sketched out he doesn't have sketched out the the lattice around the side. >> We're going to require we're going to require you to do that. So
>> that's fine. >> That would be one of the conditions. >> Okay. So we've we've had our say here. Um and this this may be probably um a unanimous comment. the the the horizontal fencing is not period appropriate. I have written you've
probably got that probably got that message already. Um and and there I mean there's just lots of ways to achieve privacy with a vertical arrangement and and we're not >> the the the important part is that it not look like um something growing out
of a split rail fence or you know some sort of barnyard thing. Uh so there there are a number of the things and and we would just ask you to make it an appropriate vertical arrangement and that will probably wind up being also a condition. So anything else that we want to bring up Kevin? >> One more question. This just comes from
the review actually. Um if you look at the last report there's a window that's on the second floor. First shows
>> you'll notice there's a window. >> Absolutely not. I I still have the window. So, my sons document everything and to the point that I even have a list of the debris that we pulled off the property all the way down to the cast
iron tub. It was all the way in the back of the property. Um, I still have that in my garage. It's 1980s. >> So, so, so we've established that the window is not >> and that and that window was not in our
when >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. and and that window was not in our window schedule. >> Okay. So So that that finishes up the window situation for sure. Um Okay. So I I think we're in a situation now where um uh we're we're presumably at uh gone
through all the comments and and we're ready to vote on >> just make one more comment and I'm just kind of logistically where the poll is and where the fence is in relation to the pool. I think you only have three foot all the way around that area and you have patio to the left-hand side.
I'm just I can't you know chairs and things like that or l I don't know if you're going to be able to put anything in that area. I'm just >> there's not enough room. >> I mean maybe we extend the fence to the
garage. >> I'm just thinking to extend the fence garage. Yeah, we're we're approving this and that's what they're going to see when they go out. And I'm just thinking you you're not going to have enough room to to really do much of anything around that pool outside of put a a small chair like this.
>> So you you would say >> I would say extend it to the to the garage area >> and use the garage as part of the pool enclosure. >> Part of the Yeah. Part of the enclosure. Just a thought. >> Mhm. >> Where because you have really some dead space there as far as a patio that you
won't use. Does that make sense? >> Okay. Um, so uh can can we um begin to uh go here to a vote? This is a final approval application and I would uh
entertain a motion here for final approval. But that final approval would be also um accompanied by various conditions and the conditions including a lighting plan um a fence appropriate period appropriate fence that we've discussed
vertical arrangement. Um uh we have want to make sure that uh your machinery is properly screened with lattice. That lattice ought to be painted >> wood painted lattice. >> Okay. And u I'm not sure I can articulated the fourth condition, the
extension of the >> patio >> of the patio. The fence >> fence fence the fence to the >> to the to the garage >> to the garage. >> That's if you want to do it. I'm just making a suggestion. >> There's plenty of land there. >> There is. And there's patio that won't be able to be used. So condition or not condition,
>> it's up to it's up to the applicant. >> Yeah, >> it's acceptable to you as condition. Okay. >> So we'll we'll put that into the final approval. >> Buying less fence. >> Okay. So we have uh we have those as as conditions. Entertain a motion for that, please. >> Uh >> the vertical the the shower enclosure
also would be vertical. >> Vertical. I have to drive them down. >> It's been moved on the plan, isn't it? Okay. >> No, the uh the u configuration of it go vertical would be I'm sorry. vert vertical configuration. >> You said the fence, you just didn't say the shower enclosure. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Fence and shower enclosure. Okay. >> Thank you. >> And pull screen. >> Ready to go. >> Motion. >> Motion made. Seconded. >> I made the motion. >> Okay. So, Mr. Carol, >> Mr. Har. >> Okay. First made and seconded. Can we
have a roll call vote on that, please? >> Mr. Carroll? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stevenson? >> Yes. >> Miss Decker? >> Yes. >> Mr. Hammer? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ta? >> Yes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> This point our chair will resume the
chair. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Good evening. >> Mr. Chair, I need to recuse myself for the next applicant. >> Okay. >> And since it's my anniversary, can I go home or or do you have something to
after the meeting that you happen to have a quorum for. >> Did Did you bring a note? >> No, but I got the champagne in the refrigerator. >> So, Mr. Carol, you are excused. >> Thank you. >> And I haven't seen her all day. >> And I and I I'm going to have to inform the chair that based on a relationship
with Eastland Theater Company, I'm going to have to accuse myself also on this application. >> I don't know if you have a quorum. >> We do. >> You do. Four. >> We still have four of us. >> Okay. Okay. And I'm I'm going to just step down being on the city council.
>> City council. Okay. All right. So, could we have our next applicant, please? >> Thank you, Tom. >> Thank you, Tom. Happy anniversary. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> 58. How's that? >> Wow. >> Impressive.
>> Okay. Our next applicant is Eastland Theater Company, City of Kate May, 717 Franklin Street. Please come join us and introduce yourselves with your name, your address, and your role in the project, please.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Uh, my name is Steve Morris and I am a board member of the Eastland Theater Company. Um, while I'm an attorney by trade and that's why I have this nice suit on you here before you here this evening, I'm here as a volunteer member of the board and uh with Miss Woodcock who will be doing the
lion share of the presentation. As I understand that she has worked with uh the board and the review committee for a number of different incarnations before we came before you here this evening. So with that, I' I'd ask Miss Woodcock to put any credential she needs on the record and I I would turn it over from there. >> My name is Janice Woodcock. I'm with
Woodcock Design uh and I am the architect for the Eastland Theater Company. Uh and uh yes indeed we have been working with um the city and the theater in in concert uh to come to before you tonight. Uh I did have uh
some slides. The reason I wanted to show slides was that I wanted you to understand how deeply um how do I put this? Uh this is such an important building. It's an important uh history
that is going on here and there are lots of design issues related to putting a new building in Cape May that is what I hope it is is visionary because it's a it's a new building. It's made out of wood like the church. I'm I'm putting an
addition on a very plain building and yet the whole city and the setting with it within which it stands is Victorian. So I I wanted you to know that in approaching what to do in that circumstance, very plain building, a
wood building, a very old wood building, the idea of what we want to do here is a is a new technology. It's it's mass timber. It is wood as well. And um I'm skipping the slides because I can see um
that you all um not only study ahead of time. You don't need me to show you the project necessarily. Although I there were a few ideas in there that I wanted you to know about and I'm going to verbally present them so that I can be quicker. I just want to read something
out of the um the uh interior secretary of interior standards. There is no formula or prescription for designing a new addition that meets these standards. A new addition to an historic building that meets the standards can be any architectural
style. It can be traditional, it can be contemporary or it can be a simplified version of the historic building. However, there must be a balance between the different differentiate I can't pronounce it between how different the building is
and compatibility in order to maintain historic character and the identity of the building being enlarged. So the crux of the problem here is that I have a 2600 square f foot building with a large volume that has a beautiful interior
that we want to use only for theater and I have a building program that's 4,000 ft. So in trying to fit it on the site, we've done lots of different ways to fit it on the site. We came to the conclusion that the best thing to do was to put it next to the historic building
and create the hyphen. New vocabulary word today. I didn't know you had a name for it. This hyphen allows the historic building to be exposed in both major directions without any interruption. And from the front, the the silhouette of
the building is preserved. And then next to it, the the form of the building is intended to to continue the rhythm of the street to create a porch, which that's a precedent in Kate May. Cape May not only has porches at grade, it often
has porches above to present a a gable shape to the street, which is consistent with a lot of the gables in the in the area and to um present a welcoming structure that is not residential. Even though the forms are residential, the
idea is that this needs to be a visible entry for the theater so that the theater can succeed. when you walk by the building, you know you're walking by something really special. So, those were the criteria that uh I used to develop the design for this and some of the um
the goals. And again, I have to go back to saying this is a very important project for the city in a really special place. So, I welcome your discussion and and reaction to the design. Um, there were some things
in here that talk about the three scales that you look at a building and I want to just mention them and if you want to see the slides that would be fine. The the three scales are the macro scale where you keep your building and the form of it in appropriate shapes in
relation to the church. The second are the materials. So when you're coming in closer, you start to see the materials on a building and you can see the features of the building that relate it to its context. And in that that position for us has been to make our
sighting cedar. So it goes with the roof of the church and it goes with the the idea of Kate May and it's not out there, right? It's not ultra modern. And then on the um on the roof, we wanted to do a
metal roof. Uh we don't have to do a metal roof, but the idea there is the neighbor to the left. That house has a metal roof at the porch and we didn't want to copy the historic building, put a cedar roof on it, so that's why the roof is metal. And then going in closer,
um things like railings and windows and trim are important. And our current design is intentionally plain. And that goes back to the original design problem that we were discussing or I meant I meant to explain to you and that is we
are in a Victorian city, a little mini city I should say and we have a very plain building that we're trying to relate to and so our reaction to that is to also be plain and to be more in um
more of this this of the church but special in other ways. not to be overly ornate is our our our uh position. So, the railings we have are intended to be very um plain, but you can see through
them. And the um the layout of the building and the layers are intended to allow someone to go into the building, turn back around and and peer through beautiful landscape. That's the idea. Uh and also be visible as a living room for the street. The street is is an up and
cominging street. We were looking at the pictures of this only a few years ago and we want to be an infill project that continues this upward trend. Anything else? >> That's it. >> Okay. So
there are only four of us here tonight because of all their recusals and uh so Kevin how about if we start with you please the standards are very clear that every person must be able to distinguish from the original building and I I think
that you've got a combination of characteristics from the the build from the theater building as well as to the building. I I think we accomplished what
committee I'm actually very much in support of this. I think it works well. Initially, I I have to say I my first reaction to that should look more like or something, you know, it's got that
look to it. You know, it should look like that. And the original was I'm okay with this. I think this actually does work well. I thought at one point tooank this actually does a really nice job
forward thinking. So I guess >> okay I'm I have a lot of questions so I hope you're going to be patient with me. Um we recently >> Yeah. We recently approved uh a temporary structure to the rear of the church. Uh so can you please tell us
what happened to that proposal? >> Oh that has is >> Could you speak up a little? I'm sorry. uh that trailer is going in and the intent of that is to allow the theater to actually support union actors because the theater as it stands without
>> I understand all that. Yes. Is is the is the intention to remove that and replace it with this? >> Yes. >> Okay. That was my question. >> Um we talked about hyphens. Uh I support hyphens. I also think um that
an addition can be contemporary. So I don't have a problem with that. However, I do feel that the when you read about additions it I don't feel that this is subordinate to the church. We don't have a whole streetscape view. I would like to see
that with the house next door that you mentioned >> that's in here but and so if I can show you that. >> Okay. Um I just I'm not seeing enough of the of the this is a key contributing building. I guess another question is my
understanding is that the theater company is a lease of the city. So this is the city's going to own this. Is the city going to pay for this? You're going to pay for this addition. The theater is going.
>> Okay. But hypothetically in 10 years you could decide to move out of Kate May and now the city is owning this building and we have to figure out an adaptive reuse for it that isn't a theater. I'm really glad you asked that. May I answer that question? I mean is that a question? >> Yeah. I mean I I just I wonder how much
you've reviewed this with the with the city because I worked for the city. I had Lawrence job for four years and we worked a long time to get that parking lot which we really needed. So that parking is sort of critical to this area of the city. So I'm wondering about
losing the parking. Now you don't have the parking and the fact that this we're now going to own this building and you know you're a lease. So I kind of have a problem with the whole project. Honestly, I was in support of the temporary trailer in the back. I'd like
to see how that would work out for a couple years before I I take a look at something like this. Do you have a long-term lease with the city? 25-year lease. You do? You have a 25-y year lease. >> I'm not going to comment on the length of the lease, but I would love it if Chris could.
>> Yeah. I mean, you understand my concerns, right, Chris? >> We absolutely. Um, we we do have I guess I'll just rip the band-aid off. We do have some fundamental sort of just structural issues with this that I think
we need to flush out. Um, the lease is 25 years. Um and there is an option for additional 25 years. So it's a pretty long-term lease consistent with various other nonprofits
that the city has these types of leases with. But um and this is an interesting concept certainly. Um but it is on a sort of a a concept that was perhaps not envisioned by the lease itself. There
was a a bumpout conceived in that lease, but it's for the rear. So, I'm not saying this is like unworkable or something, and I think the city totally envisioned having this type of discussion about what could be, >> but it is in my view,
I mean, in an area that is clearly excluded from the lease at this point. So, we kind of have to deal with that in some way. Um, >> well, not yet. I'm not done with my comments. I'm sorry. But there will be
time for public comments. >> Well, and I ask that Susan be recognized as a the president of the board be an an applicant. >> Okay. Voice. Yeah. >> Yeah. Come on up then. >> So, I mean to continue. I don't want to I don't want to labor that point. Um,
but it's just a concern. >> I just want to say that we were excuse me, we did work with the city. We worked with the city manager and our council liaison uh deputy mayor you know Mory McDade and the parking is not eliminated. It's simply moved to the back where the trailer would be. The she
has plans showing that where the the parking is intact and we have been working with the city and HPC along with these matters. >> Miss Tishler, I'm I'm not suggesting that you didn't talk to the city or anything like that. >> No, but I just wanted to make it clear that it's not that we weren't working. >> All right. I've never seen this before,
so yeah, you'll have to just bear with me. So, and if I could just finish my thought after interrupting you. >> Go ahead, >> Judy. >> Just so I just so I can get out of the way of this. All right. I >> Yeah, >> there are some new concepts in here. I'm not saying they're unworkable, but they
do need to be sort of addressed in the context of the lease. That's my comment. >> With that, I'll leave the expert discussion to the expert. >> And I have one more thing to say. It's not a theater. addition. In other words, if we were to go bankrupt tomorrow a or
the day after we built it, it it benefits the city because it's a it makes even more the meeting rooms. It's designed to to accommodate community activities, not just ours. So, I just want because we've been thinking that we know that we're in partners with the
city. We don't want to make something that's exclusive to us. >> No. And we want to support you. We definitely want to support you. I mean, this is >> I I don't want you to think that we've just decided one day to, you know, >> put a two theaters on on one parking lot. >> I don't I don't think anybody's
suggesting that. It's just everybody at this table is seeing this for the first, including me. I didn't see this before. Um, and that's fine. I'm just pointing out, we're all pointing out, I have to point out the legal consideration of we we have to look at the context of the lease. Now is not the time to do that,
but I'm just previewing that as an issue for further discussion and I don't want to interrupt the discussion about the design because that should that should continue. >> Okay. >> May I ask may I ask a question just based on what I remember from the view committee. The the concept here is is
that it's it's a well first of all that the current trailer is is sort of a makeshift keep things operational so you could do your current season as I remember you needed that just for dressing rooms and things like that. The concept here I think is a is a long-term
v vision for the theater using the existing building as a theater only. all the administrative functions and reception and everything else comes over into this building. And the intent was that you would not consider building the building until you had raised enough
money to at least pay for a major part of it if >> and then there's that >> all of it. Is that correct? >> Yes, absolutely. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, I'll continue. Um, our standards on page 55 say that height, massing, proportion, and scale should be
subordinate to the existing building and streetscape. Harmonious with the roof line of the existing building. And then number seven, the original historic building remains the primary focus. Um, if this was a house design, I would
think it was great, but it's an addition. So, I like the hyphen. The hyphen makes this um removable. I would like to see it step back from the church farther than it is because the steps on this building just completely obliterate
the historic look of the church. Um and this was a long project for the city, this church, and we're happy to have the lease. Um I don't I think it's a nice design. I would like to see it scaled back a little bit and pushed back so
it's it's not you know, right in line with the front facade of the church. I would also like to see the color of the siding um match the church. I think also the size so it looks like an
addition and not like a completely separate building. Um I think the deck is lovely. Um like I said, I I think it's a nice design. And I just wish it was scaled back a little bit and it was pushed back. So I'm I'm I'm concerned with the scale
and the placement more than anything else. Thank you. Thank you very much. >> I'd just like to say that, you know, one of the things that makes Cape May special is that we are a haven for the arts. And I mean, this is a great new
addition to our community. Um, the existing church really doesn't look like a theater at all. And the city really allowed a lot of, I guess I could say like artistic license and what you've done with the interior and the exterior,
but it doesn't say theater. Looking at at this new building here, I I really quite frankly don't even think it looks like an addition. I mean, it looks like a separate building. It looks like a community theater, which I think is perfectly appropriate for when someone
comes down the street. Oh, there's the theater. I mean, it says, "This is the theater. Come in." Uh, I I like the fact that the um you have the red bricks coming right in because the new bricks on Franklin Street, it ties right in with it. Um,
and now one question too regard will there be a marquee on the front? I know it >> there's a tiny one. >> Okay. Is it is it on the rendering or >> Yes. Okay. Okay. But anyway, I didn't see it, but I just wondering why you didn't have one. I mean, all in all, as I said, I I don't really
think it looks like an addition. It looks like a completely separate building with all the air space around it provided by hyphen. And I think it's a good plan. Well, there is an image that I find incredibly convincing
is this one. And the reason I find it incredibly convincing is almost exactly for the same reason that Mr. Stevenson just said. It does not look like an addition. And the way the Secretary of Interior standards defines additions as well as
our own standards defines additions has a huge amount of I'll call it ambiguous gray territory. Leaving it up to interpretation of what is considered compatible and what isn't. Our standards divide it up into three
specific issues. One is site placement. The other is height massing proportions and scale. And the third is architectural characteristics. And I actually find the sighting of this notwithstanding what there may be lease
issues brilliant. And the reason I find it brilliant is because the parking lot that's next door to this theater creates in essence a missing tooth in the block.
And that missing tooth, given that this whole series of structures starting really maybe around the corner at the Harriet Tubin Museum has been referred to often as sort of museum row. So much
so that it has been completely repaved with brick pavers and upgraded as a very unique streetscape in the city. The idea that the
we'll call it adjacent structure to the theater is in fact a theater I think is really quite wonderful in that the opakeness of the church relative to the transparency of the addition in and
of itself is theater. And the idea that that street could now on many occasions either theatrical productions or community usage, even if at some point the theater loses its lease or at some point it's
used for some sort of community other function. The idea that that street, whatever that public function might be, can be activated by people rather than staticized, I just made up a word, made static by parked metal cars makes to me
all the difference in the world of creating a contiguous street that I think is the intention from on Franklin from at least Lafayette to Washington.
The idea that this is not a Disneyland faux Victorian structure I also find really really pleasing. That differentiation is where that whole gray area lies. And it's really going to be a matter of
discussion as to whether or not the degree to which this differentiation is appropriate or not is going to likely come down to opinion because that's the amount of ambiguity and gray space
that's actually not only permitted but in some ways for additions encouraged in our standards and as you read the Secretary of Interior standards. John, I'd like to point out that all city-owned properties have to be be reviewed by the state historic preservation office. So, this will be
reviewed also by the state. >> Yes. So there there are a number of ways that I think this site can be handled
that might mitigate some of the concerns that I can see already being raised in where do we fall in that gray area of ambiguity closer to compatibility or further away from compatibility.
So, a couple of things. We've gone through a number of iterations discussing this with the review committee and you've made significant moves already to reduce its scale. Um, one question I would have is
this this the idea of a of a deck that is has people on it and activated is to me wonderful. the one of the things that in a way takes away from that for me is the massiveness of the stair.
>> Right. So I'm wondering whether or not some combination of reducing the scale of that stair as well as and I know there's some constraints with regard to still needing to provide parking in the back whether or not this could actually
be pushed back just a bit further so there's almost a garden in front. >> Right? So that leads to the question is programmatically what's driving the square footage volutric requirements of this project and if there is any wiggle room to
reduce that. So my question really that all of that was a preamble to is how firm are you with regard to the programmatic requirements as presented? >> It's not that I'm um stubborn. It's that
the we have it's when you put all of the spaces in there, we have made a lot of effort to compact them as much as possible while still fulfilling multiple demands on this little building which include making sure that the parking spaces are accessible. So I have that
whole hallway through there >> from the back to the front. Uh, and then I I think that the lobby right now is is at at its um when you look at the proportion of it for it to be big enough to hold a hundred people and dial them
in, it's getting on the small side. The only thing I can think of would be to try to not have a green room, but we have to have men's and women's for I'm sorry for code um for uh not it's not building code. It's the it's the union
that oversees the actors and that's one of the reasons for the addition like a fundamental reason for the addition. >> So I guess >> that doesn't mean well you're not going to try. >> Well that makes perfect sense. Um with maybe one exception and that is the
event space on the second floor. Mhm. >> So is that a required programmatic area in order to maintain your equity viability? >> No.
>> So that is additional space that's not necessarily part of that specific program requirement for equity. >> That's true. >> Right. Okay. However, well, let me ask you as a form of a question instead of making a comment.
Um, why is it there? Then >> the theater has camps and they don't have a place to rehearse outside of the theater itself. >> So, it allows simultaneous um programming. Secondly, the building has to be useful
when the theater is gone. If this is simply a lobby and dressing rooms on one floor, then when the building is given back to the city, it will be just a lobby. So that means that there you wouldn't be able to have an event. You
wouldn't be able to have a wedding. A lot all the things that this this particular design does accommodate. >> That makes sense to me. >> Did we see the slides? I'd love to show them, but to waste I didn't want to.
>> I just wanted to add one little comment to one little design element and it's very minor that I think really helps make this work as looking like a separate building and it's on the the hyphen. It's on the Franklin Street facade where the hanging plants are
hanging down and it looks like it's a trellis or some sort of >> wall >> like almost like a trellis type thing where it looks like it's a sideyard as opposed to part of the structure by having that. >> Yeah. And I believe the intention is
also for that to be a green roof. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Y it's really Yep. John >> in many ways the the the In this case, this is I've been holding this as an umbilical
connection as opposed to a hyphen even though it is >> because it almost disappears. >> Yeah. >> And the intention I think was to make it disappear as much as possible. Is that accurate? >> The connection. I mean, yeah. >> John, can I make a comment too? Um, you know, I think I think part of this too
is rather rather than quizzing them on the use of each individual space. Um, I think the the concept of the building given that the theater really occupies the with seating occupies the entire church. In a sense, everything else has
to function in this building. And rather than, you know, picking at each individual piece of it, you know, to me, the deck is a place where you can take a donor and have a, you know, a chance to talk and, you know, and, you know, en enjoy the the outside. Um, I think the,
you know, community theater like this is going to depend on um donor relations and things like that. And so, you know, I think that the more there's space for personal interaction, which the frankly the church does not permit, um, I think is a is a great thing. And, you know,
that I I kind of like that idea of pushing it back a little bit, maybe narrowing the staircase and creating that garden effect because there isn't a lot there. I mean, across the street is the big pad for the fire department, you know, and there's not much in front of the school to to be talked about. There's a parking lot in front of Sturdy
Bank. So, this would be the only little green spot in the whole streetscape. I think that's a nice little touch, but I I also wouldn't want to do that at the expense of that patio. And I think, you know, this is your welcome center for your guests coming to the theater. It's,
you know, the place where you welcome schools and and, you know, actors and others. I I just I guess I just there's a lot in this design packed into this design that the more you know honestly that I thought about it the more I liked it. It really became
you know a very friendly space if you will. >> Well actually Miss Woodcock made that case I think quite well that that event space which is really the only we'll call it non programmatic required space really offers a whole other level of flexibility but that's not our purview
to judge. The only reason I'm asking about it is is there an opportunity to reduce the square footage in order to give some more breathing room to the street. >> Yeah. And >> that's the only reason I'm asking that question. >> I would make the case that if you can't push it back a little bit, it's not
worth taking it away. >> It it is on the property line um or at least I think there's close to the back property line as it is. >> See, this is even more convincing than >> Yeah. >> the drawing you showed me, >> right? Because in the same way that it's
an opaque and transparent, it's dark and it's light. This is this is this is where the activity is being generated between acts before after and any any sort of community gathering that could occur and I don't know whether that's
even allowable in your lease. So the whole lease thing is a whole other discussion. but as an activated space in the city for people to gather as a community space on the street in the center of town in a historical place that's a museum district with that kind
of illumination at nighttime. It's like wow. >> Do I'm I'm thinking about the staircase which is a major problem for me. I mean could it could it narrow towards the top? Could there be two staircases instead of one?
I mean can you show some of the other slides because this one is No, the ones where you had the whole streetscape. Okay, that one. And then there was another one with the house included >> next door. >> Oh, here we go. >> That one. >> Yeah. >> So, the proportions of the stairs on
that, are they actually accurate to the church's stairs or not? >> Yes, >> they are. >> Yes, we we have >> because it doesn't look as massive there to me as it does individually. You know, there I I see I like this streetscape. I think it looks appropriate. Um, as I
said, I mean, I know that, um, the National Trust supports contemporary editions with hyphens like this all the time. >> Um, it's it's an interesting idea. >> And this is timber frame, correct? >> Mass timber.
>> Yeah, that's wild. I I think >> So, does anybody have any issue with regard to the height of the crosscape? >> No. >> Okay, good. >> The church has a tower. Yep. >> It's just, you know, the only the only
pro only sticky thing I had was um the setback and the stairs, but right here um I think as long as the proportions are accurate on there, I think it looks fine. >> Yeah, I think that the angle on the gable's complimentary to the roof of the
church as well. That's why I'm asking >> is the >> um I just wondered if the neighbors were here. That's a twin house next door, right? >> It is. >> I know those people really love their house. It would be nice to know what they would, you know, eventually at some
point if they could be included in the discussion. >> Um >> they've been on Christmas tours. >> Yeah, they have. So, here's a really really weird thought, and I I'm not I'm really hesitant to bring this up.
So, I'm taking a big leap here. Maybe the issue isn't the stair. Maybe it's the configuration of the stair. If that whole deck was thought of more as a kind of
dare I say public piaza that the whole width of it stepped down to the street >> eliminating the need for a railing. It becomes all one contiguous flowing space that reinforces this phenomenal transparency which is
actually an a a technical architectural term with regard to the connection between inside and outside. that connects that public space in the street world to the public space in the community world. >> John, you're going to lose all that
beautiful green trees and everything in the front. >> You can still do that, right? >> It's not I'm not saying that the whole thing is hardscaped. I'm saying that the whole thing is sort of terrace plant. Oh, that would that's >> really make it a a a garden kind of
combination garden piaza slash change of grade space >> and which could even be made even stronger if again it could get pushed back a little bit because that's the only thing I can find in our standards that is is maybe an argument against
>> its current configuration when it says addition should ideally be located in the rear of a building minimize their impact and reduce visibility from the public rightway. Okay, >> let me continue. Additions to the side of a building >> should be located next to the rear and
set back a significant distance from the facade. Well, in many ways, reducing visibility from the public rightway is exactly antithetical to the the whole programmed idea of this building. However,
in order to meet that particular part of our standards, pushing it back and giving it more space between the street and the facade, therefore accentuating the facade of the church being foremost and in front. >> Yes, >> I would find that even a stronger case
for your project >> to work on. I think you first of all they're changing the entrance to the whole structure right that's coming in the new building not church when you're putting on a
production not coming up to that new building church >> never the public comes in the addition >> well unless you have two different things happening right you could have an
event in a civic space and you could have like a little jazz concert in the church. >> That's true. >> Right. >> So you might at some point want to have two different So I in my mind I'm not thinking that that church entrance is never used. It's just use less.
>> I agree with that. But but I still think that >> correct. So to me forunately never envisioned something like this >> you know you need that
com >> absolutely not >> so >> I would I I'm I'm holding it visually as if that change of elevation, that whole grade change is is it's all one big space. It's not
confined to a stair. In other words, the easiest way to think of it is that this easiest way to think of it is that the whole width of the building is is a stair. But that would be way >> it gets unfortunately it's not a garden anymore. >> John. >> Yeah. >> But John, I just wanted to say like
you're looking at this this rendering here. >> Yeah. and how it looks like it's right on the street. Then when you see this rendering with the trees, >> which we have newly planted trees all along Franklin Street, it kind of sets it back without moving anything. Um,
>> I think setting it back even more. >> Yeah, the trees are definitely >> But they're on the one rendering and not on the other. >> It's just a massive right >> straight. Could the stair flare out if not that that would be nicer? That's to that's up to the designer to to put
>> just something better for the stairs. >> I I just wanted to say I thought that we put the stairs in the way they were so that it looked like a neighborhood entrance and didn't look so much like a theater. >> I thought that was the intent. >> So it's a it's it's it I'm actually
that's why I'm I'm really hesitant to say what I'm saying because it's actually taking the opposite approach. >> Exactly. This that's why I want to be real clear. >> Yeah. Okay. and and and in in many ways the whole it's why those two images to
me are so convincing. It's the contrast between the opakqueness and the transparency. The opakeness of the church and the transparency of the entrance. >> So your suggestion I just want makes it distinctive as opposed to melding in. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. except blending in with regard to height, massing, proportion, scale, and materials. >> Okay. >> Everybody could use the ramp. >> That's not going to work for the public.
>> No, >> I mean, I I just think you'll you'll come up with something. >> Yeah. And we have handicapped issues. >> Uh let me go through them. Um going back we did not. >> Okay. So layers
color pattern vegetation in the front porches second level porches vegetation gables. So that's what we get. And then here we are stuck two different ways of doing an addition.
One on the left, make it the same. One on the right, make it different. We're in the middle. We're very much in the middle. >> I wonder if that was approved by a historic board. >> No, >> maybe not. But we did do a workshop. >> Did >> we did do it was a museum building somewhere. I forget where it was.
>> It was in Oregon, I believe. >> And it was this beautiful green addition >> to a very traditional building. And it really worked. >> It did work. >> They didn't have a hyphen, John, remember? No, it was actually so yeah, that was a whole different situation. So I think what I'm also proposing is this
is a very unique situation and um I think it deserves an expansion of our thinking because it's such a unique condition in the city and a unique function in the city that how can we not
only honor that pay homage to it and at the same time meet our standards. So, it's going to require us all to be pretty creative in our thinking. >> It is exciting to have um a contemporary
addition to the hyphen because I think it's something that the national trusts um favors. I think the state favors it too. It'll be interesting to see what the state does. >> You know, it's really going >> I know we've done it before on Beachf too. There was a a large addition where
they used a hyphen and it was approved. >> Oh, it looks very set up there. So, I just did want to mention the porch. I I I think we could work on the terracing idea without having to compromise the program because this building is set back without a doubt. >> But, okay.
>> No, I I I if it doesn't look like it in 3D, then maybe we have some work to do >> there. It certainly looks set. >> Well, so it's just the line of the deck is is >> Yeah. And the fact that we have to be the same level as the church because >> Yeah. >> There's no way to put a ramp between
them. So, it's just another design parameter, right? And if you find that maybe you need another couple of feet to make whatever work, right? >> I just need a couple parking spaces. >> Well, well, yeah. So, here's the city's
parking. Here's the existing um site plan. You can see that parking in the back is for the housing authority and the this the parking on the left is the public parking. And we just basically put it in the back. We put the public parking in the back and the the
accessible parking space is right on the you you can get get out of your car and come into the back of the church where the elevator is. So it it's very handy. >> So there is one question there though. It appears as if the parking is not within the property lines. >> Correct.
>> So I don't know how that affects the lease agreement or any of those requirements. >> But uh we did know that um it's all public. It's own that land is owned by the parking or the p the housing authority. >> Housing authority. >> Okay. So we're in many ways now we're
moving outside of our area of purview. Right. So if I could could I ask us to come back to what is our responsibility at historic preservation commission and
entertain some sort of motion >> regarding this project. I'd like to finish the slides. >> Oh, I thought I I thought you were done. I'm sorry. >> We worked really hard on this and they're very they're lovely. >> Okay. Just the plans. The light color are are the green room. So, you can see
how when you put the building on the side, the circulation works so much better than it would would be if you were coming from the back. >> They can. Yeah. They the the performers can slip in the back without being seen, >> right? You know what about as as far as
rounding the corners or doing something with the square corners on the front porch? >> Possible. >> Again, it would give you a little more green and >> differentiate a little more from the church. >> There's no rounds on this on your plan.
Everything is very >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. That doesn't really go into the addition, but Mark David is here and you might want to speak to all I'm saying. >> So, actually, it'll still be used. >> Oh, yeah.
>> It will absolutely be used >> here. We were just talking about where we got the material materials from. I summarized that. Um, but you can see that the there's a lot of horizontal sighting and so we we are having horizontal lined sighting.
>> Yeah. I just was talking about the reveal. The reveal looked different than the church on your proposal. >> Yeah. Well, we we ended up saying why not just do cedar, but the material of the siding if if that were a issue, it
would not we could we could do sighting that makes that matches both neighbors. >> And the railings are proposed to me metal. >> What's that? >> The railings. >> The railings. Yes. Um we we were trying
to differentiate ourselves on that. >> That's kind of a problem. I have an idea for you. >> No, no, I I have an idea for you. >> Really? >> Yeah. >> I mean, you know, we are supposed to use the same materials and we do require wood railings. So, this is the this this
one we could do. Uh that here's where I'm hoping we don't go, which is all the trim on the corners of the of the new building. We want to get rid of it, but the railings, the wood railings without the trim would be I think okay.
I don't think that after having sat sat through the earlier presentations, my pickets are too far apart. >> Okay. >> You think you may want to hold for our chairman to take a peek at this too? >> Sean, we're just talking about the railings because with a key building, we really do have to stick with with the
wood railings. >> Yeah. So it's by definition this is an addition. >> It is. >> Therefore you are correct. Although so that that's the tricky thing.
The secretary of interiors would say even it wasn't attached to the church it would be an addition. Right? It says it construction of a new structure attached to an existing structure or a secondary structure located adjacent to an existing structure. So no matter how we slice
this, it's an addition. Which therefore means to meet our standards, they probably do need to be wood >> for materials. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I mean, >> there they are. >> There they are. >> Stained wood. It doesn't have painted
white or anything. I mean, if it's something aesthetic that you want to match your decking or something, that's fine. We've done that before. >> Well, uh, we we did put a wide top on the railing because that's something that was next door. And also, it would
be nice if you're standing there to >> put your glass on it. >> Yeah, that's what was important. >> I would I would love to experiment with reducing the amount of railings needed. >> Okay. on on the first floor. Oh,
>> right. That's what I meant about this whole kind of boy. It' even be kind of if that whole pave landscape paved area could actually even extend out into the street as like a certain times of the
year. You close the street and there's a whole event happening in this museum center of the city, right? Like truly a piaza kind of space, an urban gathering space. We don't have one.
>> Not sure if Franklin Street is a place, but it's a great idea. >> Yeah, >> maybe it might not be the place. >> Convention Hall would be great. >> Well, well, yeah. Is this Did we see all of them now? >> Yeah. Yes. >> Very nice. Beautiful slice. Thank you very much. Really nice presentation.
>> Thank you. >> That's really helpful. So this is the proportion of the steps. >> Correct. >> That's correct. So they they don't look so massive. >> Where's my my money shot? The money shot.
>> Yeah. This is this is a large. >> So this is this this is also quite wonderful. >> Right. >> So this this is this is more towards the imagery you were seeking of it being more like a a a neighborhood porch.
>> Yes. And I thought it was what you were seeking too, but I could have been mistaken. >> Yeah. Well, I I think both are viable options. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Remember that, you know, I've never seen it before. These these guys
have seen it, right? So, you know, it was kind of a lot >> Sure. jarring, but now that I've seen the whole presentation, yeah, there's the wood railings. I like the way the steps when graduate up, you have a little platform. That's
always nice for people. It's very inviting. >> Yes. If you didn't want to do any more work, this would be fine. >> And I really like the upstairs space with the deck. I just think that's extremely inviting. >> All right, so folks, um, thank you.
Welcome. There's a really beautiful, beautiful presentation, extremely con comprehensive, easy to understand, and visually quite appealing. So, um I think that we are charged with
making a motion for conceptual approval regardless of any lease issues. So, I would like to move that we grant conceptual approval as presented
>> with with wooden railings to meet our standards and >> didn't get any materials or anything. we didn't and that so conceptual approval doesn't necessarily need to get into that level of detail >> but I think that um anything that's >> have to be
>> compatible with the with the key contributing bill >> yeah so would would anybody like to amend the um motion that I just made with any specifics given this discussion we've had
materials. >> Yeah, >> and that's a requirement of our application anyway. So, >> I guess we would have to a landscaping plan and things like that, you know, lighting. >> Okay. >> Yeah, usual.
>> You want me to make the motion? Okay, I'll make a motion >> to grant final approval. Um, >> conceptual >> conceptual approval. Sorry. Um, >> and not in the motion, but you know, just considering some of our comments,
if you want to set it back a little more or you know, whatever you decide to do with that front space. I mean, I'm pretty happy with it. It looks like the stairs are actually in proportion. >> So, yeah, I'll make the motion for conceptual. Second. So moved by Miss
Decker. Seconded by Mr. Stevenson. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Miss Decker. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hammer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
>> Okay. Um, >> you know, we did it again. We didn't ask for public comments, but there's no >> I can I can promise you that there was really nobody in the public. >> There's nobody in the P. So, um, that closes our applications portion of the meeting and
general discussion issues. Couple things. Um, first of all, since Janice is un unavailable to be with us this evening, Mr. Stevenson, do you have an update on uh from the awards committee? >> Yeah, we we kind of did a little
debriefing on the event and um and also we did receive some additional comments from Kevin regarding it. >> Calm down. Um, one one of the things that we suggested was where last year I
mean this year we had the posters on the wall and a lot of people really didn't get to see them and it really talked about the individual properties. So I think it was Lorraine suggested that we would do a video for each property that we would show before the award. >> Wow.
So now it gets >> so as um you know Zach is mentioning the specific um categories they would be able to see the project >> and know the Yes. >> And and and and Jake, you you and I and Lorraine got those posters so level.
>> I know. Will that work? >> And they were so level and and you know the eye just >> but the the actually the idea behind those posters was to educate the public when the when the app when the winner took that I did see one hanging in front
of their house. And I went to another one that they were modifying. They said, "Oh, it's too big, but I can actually take the house off because it's in front of the house." So that I didn't think about. So there were a couple of things that we can change. I I I would say that the the posters to me were very well
done and they I wouldn't eliminate them. If you want to do a video and explain things, that's that's one thing, but the posters were really something people came in and looked at and could talk over them. The video is kind of there and gone and there and gone. I mean, I it's it's tough to eliminate them
because because for quite a while we were by them and looking at them and people some people were talking about it. Yeah, it might be that a complimentary short video could do something. >> Yeah, I know. And of course, it brings a whole new dimension into it, you know,
with more life. Um, but we um we also discussed how unfortunately at the end of the event, the photo op u you know, we had food for whatund and some people and there were only about 14 people back where the food was put out. So, there was a you know, a lot of food kind of
went to waste there. And so I think that next year we'd have just have to do a little more to say, "Hey folks, please stick around for the refreshments." >> Um that but that point is very well made and I think whoever is directing it should be very clear about whether we're
all going out for a photo op or coming back in. And there was more for us, Jim. Right. >> And and there was confusion and everybody not everybody a lot of people decided, well, okay, I did the photo op thing. I'm done. >> Yeah. and and and it really it kind of
broke things up. I wouldn't say shattered, but it but it broke things up in an uneasy way at the end, which was not a not a good way to end an event that was as well done as this one was. >> But I mean, I guess maybe if we given to folks a little more, they could have
done a photo op and then came back in. >> I I think we should stay inside for any photos in the future. Um but then we also discussed the venue itself and we felt that the chaont was perfect venue for us as you know like potentially down
the line whether it be the uh the physic estate or the or congress hall and then we also talked about well we could maybe have it in convention hall but the problem there is you can't have the the liquor associated with the event so we feel that we should really stay out of a
municipal building and go with one of our local historic properties. >> Well, the Cha Font, they contributed >> the the venue. They >> venue. >> True. >> Yes, they did contribute the venue. They were generous >> and the food was great. I mean, every it was really a nice venue >> from the food and the
>> sales. Yes. >> So, they they contributed the food as well, correct? >> No, they did not. >> Oh, they did not. Okay. >> But we we paid nothing for the venue. >> The venue? We did not. They they donated that >> and they helped us out, you know, 1,000% getting everything done. The loan was great. Um, we also talked about how how
you've turned out and discussed potentially making an annual event, possibly alternating between smaller events with stewardship and leadership awards and larger events with the five uh building awards >> and and and I I think there's something to that. No, you know, when you wait
three years and all it kind of loses momentum and if our our intent is to get the community involved, it should be more frequent and more out there for folks. Um, most of the people took their banners
home. We're also now we're talking about having a database as oo and that's going to be Jud. You're going to make that >> or >> to be determined. >> Yeah.
>> I I don't have a um Outlook compatible computer nor do I intend to one or do I intend to get one? >> But I'm learning to operate it better. So yes, I mean I am keeping track of
things. Um for instance, one of the applicants tonight will need a new property report, >> the one on Washington Street, >> that was clearly outdated. So I will add that to the database. So yeah, for the time being, I'm I'm the person that seems to be in charge of of the property
database. And then Janice and I will work on updating the awards database which will be different probably every year at the end of the year we'll pull the resolutions out going forward. this awards we ended in what 2024
what was the last year we used >> I think it was >> yeah I think you're yeah >> right >> so now we'll have >> didn't include 25 >> no >> so we're going to need at least two years of applications if we want to try to fill five award categories and we
still might not be able to fill five >> we can always come up with for a while we're definitely gonna be able to come up with >> my my mic's not on. We'll be able to come up with stewardship and leadership. We have a backlog and and I think we can go every year with those for a while,
but I think we need at least two years of applications to make a a fulfilling group of nominees for the other five. In order to move forward with this too, we also suggested that when someone's coming in with an application for us,
let them know if you really want to be considered for future awards that you're going to have to provide more historical documentation on your building >> like Chris did. >> Yes, >> we like to encourage that. >> Would actually help us too would streamline our process. Well, the idea of having an annual event, even if it
was just limited to stewardship and leadership, is just another way to engage the community and and really >> well, we were in agreement that we could do that every year for a while. It would be a smaller event. >> Um, >> you know, it could be a smaller venue,
but I think a historic venue is appropriate for for our awards. >> Great. >> For sure. But we'd also so we'd have a database of uh all the award winners where people could go on there and look and look at the properties as well online. Um other than that we just
talked about some things like notification of um people who were nominees not necessarily who received an award and uh you know we've been going back and forth on it and the chairman came in uh with a little last minute
meeting today to help us oh get through that. we were kind of like a deadlock, but um you know we not to get into the details, but we have a nicer program to move forward as far as notifying nominees and telling people who you know what what they're getting.
>> So great job you guys. Anybody else have any comments about the sort preservation awards? The only curious about the size of the venue in general given um that sha font is relatively well way smaller
than let's say the um oh what is it called like convention hall um if this event or if this like award ceremony grows um populationwise how would we amend that? Well, I mean,
one thing I didn't bring up was that, you know, we had worried when we were setting up the place whether the seating plan would work and, you know, we didn't put a lot of people at tables. We had them sitting in chairs and it really worked well. And if you did look like to on both corners of that long room before
where the food was served and where you come in, there was an additional space where we would probably fit >> you you you had about 20% extra room that you could have fit people in. >> Would grow within those kind of numbers. I think it's doable. Yeah. >> Um, so we'll just have to monitor >> like we wouldn't expect that to happen
within the next so many years. >> We're not I mean we're not a we're not a town of such dynamic growth that the number of people are going to come are going to be double what we had. But but I mean I mean there's if we had some way of knowing in advance how many people
were expected that might >> we did there was an RSVP. I had a I had a rough idea about 100 people showed up who didn't >> and that that was okay. >> Yeah. No, no, I'm not I'm not trying to put it down. I'm saying it was just in your view what did we learn that would
>> that we need to pay attention >> when it will grow next year because people are going to talk about it. >> I I agree with the the presentation >> that that's something that we learned. um maybe um the the the the letters going out. I
think we need to, you know, be, you know, kind of really clear on um uh you know, hey, we really want to highlight the builders. We really want to highlight um the architects because when I was getting texts back and I said,
okay, well, it's only the two of you, you know, are are you going to bring your builder? Are you going to bring your architect? Um, oh, we can do that. Yes, you can. So, um, I think that that that's the thing that I really enjoyed. I heard comments back from a one builder
um, another person who does a lot of woodworking, you know, hey, I worked on almost every one of those projects and it was really exciting to see you guys, you know, elevating like, yeah, this is the reason we do all of this. Um so I
you know I think that we need to really emphasize those parts of you know the celebration. >> Don't forget this is a standing commission Mr. Chairman. >> So we meet monthly you know. >> Good. So this this so for example the letter we sent out this year we could be clearer about all we said was and your
team. >> Yes. You be more explicit about who your team is. >> Yes. >> That'd be great. Mhm. >> Also, thanks to our fearless team leader Janice >> for her leadership in this >> our committee. >> Yeah. >> Beautiful. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. John, >> just make one comment about the quality of the plaque. >> It was outstanding. It it was I mean it you designed it, I think, right? So, you did the design. It was just aside from the fact that it really was you could
use it for a bullet shield, it was it was beautifully done and I I would urge us to keep keep that. >> And talking about the plaque, I think be when we have applicants coming in here for the HPC, we have 12 of them left. I ordered additional ones knowing that we were
going to have future um awards. I think we should put one somewhere in this room to let people know, hey, there are plaques, you know, on structures around the city. This application is one that might be
>> Yeah. >> worthy of, you know, an award like that. >> It's a great symbol and just >> totally >> there's a lot of space in the front hall or or right there. I I don't I think it needs to be in this room. >> Okay. I >> kind of hard
>> I don't know totally >> John John's just looking around >> but I mean there are two empty walls in the front and people go in the tax office all the time >> kind of nice if >> kind of nice >> on a plaque >> one directly centered on each medallion
>> or something some like so they don't look temporary. >> Okay. >> Whatever you whatever you do it would be a good idea to display them. That needs to be centered maybe up. >> Yeah. Well, there were cameras there, but take a look take a look at the take a look at the hallway because I feel
like HBC is sort of, you know, that was my idea is we were going to sort of slowly take over this hallway up there. >> Oh, that's also up there, >> right? >> Yeah. >> I leave this up to your committee to >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. How's that? >> We'll get at it.
>> Okay. John, I think the other thing was that, you know, there were a number of people who were, I guess I'll call them honorable mentions or something. I don't know that there was a second place, was there? Or >> commendations. >> Commendations. I don't remember. And the question was, you know, they came they weren't recognized really at all. Um,
>> that's what today's meeting was about. >> Yeah. And I think that was that was kind of some of the discussion was, you know, I mean, like he's my neighbor. He drove all the way down from Hadenfield thinking that, you know, there was going to be some recognition there. It wasn't. We got it together. >> That will be >> um
>> amended. >> Yeah, >> it'll be addressed. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um speaking of plaques, um I'm just going to go through a couple of the things. So, as a subset kind of of the city signage, uniform signage work that we're doing, which I'll give you an
update on. There's been a proposal to put a plaque, a bronze plaque at the entrance to town that is a historical marker. Well, the more we thought about that, we did some research. By the way, there was one that
was planned to be given to us that apparently never was. Um, so I went to the Star and Wave archives in Gate Courthouse Library and found this article on uh October 13th, 1977.
And here was kind of a a mockup of the plaque that was never given to us, but I can't read it. So with some help from the research people, we found another image that actually you can read. And this is from what would have been given to us in October of 1977. The only
reason it was a year later is because >> our article is in the case. >> Oh, it is? >> Yeah. >> Right. But is is it does it >> Sorry. So So we're we're musing over a theoretical plaque. >> Who has that plaque now? >> Well, nobody does. It was never given to us. This was just
>> that was mock That was a wooden mockup. It wasn't a bronze. Thank our our our our our resident plaque designer and and maker. >> She has designed one for us. However, the more we thought about it, we thought,
you know, with so this text is exactly the text that was on this. >> So this would be like the gateway to the historic district. >> Well, was that was the original thought and the more we thought about it with with So this is it says this distinct Kate May city national historic landmark. This distinction is the
highest honor in the country. It was bestowed on the city because it contains the largest concentration of late 19th century Victorian frame structures in the United States. That's what the feds wanted to give us. Dedicated May 11, 1976. However, it's maybe a little too much
text to read when you're driving 25 miles an hour coming into the city on Lafayette Street. So Lorraine thought I I love this idea is maybe we create that plaque to hang somewhere where the where the wooden structure is that supports the bell on the mall.
>> Yeah. Right. >> This plaque. >> Yes. >> So people can read it. >> Yep. >> However, we we make it a more abbreviated one that says, "Welcome to Kate May National Historic Landmark District 1976 >> when you s when you first enter the city." >> I sent you some images from two towns I
was in. the spring. >> Enter the city as in >> Savannah and Brunsw as opposed to enter the city as >> most historic districts have signage that says, you know, >> welcome to historic
>> national historic district. >> So, we're going >> on the on all the entrances, all the gateways, >> abandon all hope. That's what I was thinking. >> Where have I heard that before? Or or as John would say, >> level. Um, so I I think we need city
council to vote on this because there's an expense. >> Well, what I'll do is if everybody everybody's okay with that, I'd like to get I'd like to get a a price on that. And at that point, >> brilliant. Great.
>> Everybody good with this? >> I think we have >> and and the Franklin Bronze did such a beautiful job on those. Um I was going to have them >> my business. >> Maybe talking the same coloration the whole thing. >> The same. Exactly. I think you guys think >> I love it. I think it's a great idea.
Yeah. >> Okay. >> John, one other thing regarding the signage. I noticed that, you know, like Cape May Elementary just put a new sign up and then the nature trails, there are signs going into that and every sign is different, including the new one they
put at the one end of the mall. It's >> funny you should bring that up. >> So, we've had we've been working on this since February. So, we have a subcommittee of Kevin, myself, Lorraine, and Tom
Carroll, who are also a subcommittee of what's called the Uniform City Signage Task Force, which was created by resolution by city council. So, we've had four monthly meetings and here's where we are. Um, we have a draft
ordinance now that really identifies which sign, what are the signage types that need to be addressed? on sides. I don't need to go through them, but there's like nine different types. >> For those nine different types, what do these guidelines or standards need to
address? Materials, color, content, fonts, placement, sizing, configuration. So, that's what the ordinance will say. Our subcommittee is going to need to create guidelines standards that will be
in essence an appendix to the standards design standards but slightly separate because it's for city signage as opposed right so there it's kind of an attached appendix document but we're going to >> in great detail define because the whole
idea here is >> as indicated by the resolution of city council pass we're trying to create a cogent context of signage imagery here that matches the image of Cape May and to eliminate as much as possible visual
noise like redundant signage. And so you'll already see the parking park mobile signs have changed dramatically. They're being all over the place. >> There's one at each end of each block and there these little medallions. >> They're in order. >> Yeah. >> Great. >> Really beautiful. So, um it's something
we're going to have to bring forth to all of us. once our subcommittee does that work. >> I can't predict when that's going to be yet, but the idea would be that that >> set of standards along with the ordinance that's been council at the same time.
>> So, so, so what is the time, what's the time frame for the ordinance moving ahead? We have an idea. >> I wish I knew >> the ordinance is dependent on standard. See, the ordinance is ready to go, but it needs to stand. >> So, John, when we talked last um I
really need to have somebody who's going to work with me to um look at all of those different areas. Like we were looking at mall signs, we were looking at beach entrance signs um before I start designing and coming up with um like standard signs like we did
with Park Mobile. >> So, I think that's our I think that's our subcommittee. So, >> okay. So you, Kevin, Tom, and I will like have been doing. Okay. I think we have to convene some meetings to do that. Yep. >> And that's why I can't answer your question because I don't know how
quickly we can do. >> That's fine. I'm just just trying to get an idea of whether we're talking next week, next month. >> It's not a year. You know, that kind of >> I would hope by the end of the year. >> I would love by the end of the year or sooner. >> Yeah. >> Or sooner. >> Next. Um, couple more things to go
through here. A property report update >> real quick. Um, we have to wait for the city budget to find out how much was budgeted in HPC budget this year for us to do this city
funded property. So, management told us for this batch the city would cover it and then we will start applying again to the state for grants, rolling grants, which is the way we did them in the past. We had a >> gap.
So, we get notification that the budget was finalized. Do you have any idea when that's happened? >> Yeah, just call Paul and find out how much she allocated for. I I don't recall. >> So, you and I need to get together. >> Yeah. So, we have a a general idea for
property report cost. We have a finalized list of how many there are. 150 we need done. Now, there's another one. So, the sooner the better, but definitely we're definitely going to um get this RFP out before the end of the year.
>> Yeah, >> you would hope by the fall. >> Well, we're hoping to do it. We'd like to get the RFP out no later than September because that's when our the consultant that we'd really like to have do this, >> right? So, we I was hoping we'd be
rolling by this month, but um Paul just told us, you know, need to wait to find out how much >> Yeah. >> You know, how many we can cover. >> So, why don't we see if we can have that a meeting with Paul? um by before the 4th of July. So we can move this forward
and have a proposal done by mid July. >> Be great. >> Yeah. Okay. Good. So that segus directly into the map amendment because we want to have those property reports in place and >> those were done. That's what we were
discussing today. >> Correct. And that's >> all the property reports for the MAT amendment were completed with the grant. >> Are we sure? Yes. You remember there were a couple of errors. >> I I don't think there are any extra ones. We need to talk to him about that because I was very unclear about that.
My my understanding was that the last batch of property reports um was attempt of 2018 to make this map amendment. It fell through. Then um the HBC chair at the time
initiated this grant to fill in all the gaps and make sure we had all the property reports. Most of them contributing as you all know >> and that was done and it's completed. Those 187 were done. City council approved them. They were integrated into
our database of property reports which is what 1700 properties or something like that. So they've all been integrated already. That's been done. >> So you're saying you're saying that all the all the reports necessary to do the map >> Yeah.
>> are done? I see to think there may be a few others. So, we'll find that out. >> But this this property report project I'm talking about is completely different. >> Right. >> This is going forward updates that we really need desperately. We have some
>> I mean there there are some that are included that are so aged. >> Yes. >> They need to be. >> So this this was always a rolling project. >> It stopped. >> Yeah. It sort of stopped for various reasons. The state stop >> the grant
>> funding them. They will fund them again, I think, in the future, >> provided we get the funding through the National Trust down through the state. >> Um, but that's the way they were always done before. So, we want to start that process again and that would mean the grant cycles start in the fall and we
have a grant writer. So, we should be applying every year for that. So whatever ones that don't get covered by the city funding, we should include in a grant proposal in the fall. >> Good. >> So whatever, you know, we're going to
have to pick out the most outstanding ones that we can cover with the city funding and whatever city will not agree to cover. we should apply for a grant through our grant writer to the state in the normal you
know how that is with the I forget what the acronym is for state grants sort of like a whole website thing >> and I think we said that there's approximately 140 of those that we're looking for >> we have we have about 150 now so I don't know there may like maybe 50 of them
won't get covered write a grant for those 50 >> as a way to start this process again Okay. So, one of I would in addition to talking about the property reports, I'd like to sit down with you and and make
just do a double cross check on the map amendment so that we can propose a map amendment and then convene an alignment workshop for strategizing the public meeting that we'll need to have in order to
>> present that to the city before it goes to city council. Do we have a date for our next? >> We don't. And that's why I'm I'm I'm I was hoping that we would do that sometime in August >> because the idea what I'm hoping is Lorraine maybe your help here. If we're
going to present a map amendment and you by the way, if we're going to present a map amendment in a public meeting like we did last year, it seems like we should probably try and do that no later than the end of September before everybody leaves town. >> Probably to be tren Yeah. in there to
maintain as much transparency as possible. >> That's why I'm thinking if we have an alignment meeting in August that discusses and strategizes how just like we did last time and I it actually probably doesn't need to change much
from the last one other than the map itself. >> Yeah, I mean we've been through this. >> I I feel like we've been rehearsing for a while. >> I know. >> So guys, tell me maybe we don't need to do that. Talk to me. Oh, we need to have the public meeting. Absolutely. I just
mean this whole thing with, you know, what's missing with the map and well, we need to work it out with Paul. I think we're 95% there. >> Okay. So, maybe we don't. So, we put together that PowerPoint presentation for the last time we did this a year ago.
>> I don't think it's going to change over. >> The only thing that changes, I think, is the map itself. >> Map itself. So maybe we maybe we then convene an alignment workshop that focuses specifically on the next thing we want to work on is that is improvements to our standards and we have that long list
of stuff we want to start addressing. >> Yeah. >> Makes sense. >> Yeah. No, it does because because I I think the the map situation is going to be really fast. >> It's just going to be a a tuneup >> basically. You you want to be sure that the properties are >> all there matching the map because that
could be a little embarrassing, but that that'll be it was Yeah, I know. I don't want I mean, you know, being embarrassed once is one thing. Being embarrassed twice is unforgivable. >> Give us an hour. >> All right. I'll I'll put that >> and then you know, let's hammer it out like in the meeting, not we're all going
to leave and then >> it it will involve a property by property ID >> in the map. It's it's done. I want to go through every single piece by piece. >> I want to put my own eyes on it. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And then then we're sure about that. And
then the tuneup for the presentation I think is basically building off what we've done before. Just the same same stuff. >> Well, that that actually means that we probably only need one more alignment >> to cover the standards. >> Talked about the standards, >> which is a big >> Should we do that in July instead of
August? >> So, >> just because then council would have to >> you mean the map? Yeah, >> I do. An alignment meeting, right? >> No, the alignment meeting for the standards. >> Oh, I'm sorry. For the map for the map. Yes. >> That's why I'm saying that. What I think
we're saying is we probably don't need an alignment meeting for >> If we do, it's a real accelerated one. >> Yeah. >> Or it could be just a very brief conversation. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, we don't need to have So, what I'm what I'm thinking is then for the standards, if we did let's get the map thing done >> and then focus on the standards. Does
that make sense to everybody? >> Yep. We could probably jump on the standards in late September, early October. >> That'd be great. Okay, >> one last thing for me and that is just a reminder everybody that this week is the
National I'm sorry, the New Jersey Historic Preservation Conference, >> Wednesday and Thursday. >> Who's filming? I'm going >> I'm going >> I'm selling a house. >> I got a contract now with with the world. Oh, sorry. And
>> I'm just going Thursday, you know, it's not too late. >> It's not too late. >> And and we're presenting Steven Smallen and myself and one other woman from what's the other
>> Yeah, I I saw it online. I forget who. >> You know, if Yogi's going into >> I don't think so, but I'll talk. He's He has an injured foot, so I'll ask. >> All right. In any case, guys, I'm done. Yeah. >> Any any other >> I I do have I do have a point. Um and
and it's it's coming, I think, a little bit too frequently. We saw a couple illustrations of it tonight. I I cannot quickly enough, it may be my failing brain, but quickly enough process things that are given to us at the last minute.
the complete re I mean it's it's bad enough to go comparison you know here here but but when something is completely dumped on and said look what we gave you before doesn't count and now we're here with an entirely new I I feel unintelligent and I feel that it's an
imposition that really shouldn't be allowed if they if they're going to come to a meeting they're going to have to stick to the papers they've already filed with with with a minor you know a minor tweak here and there I I I really can't handle a complete substitution of all those documents.
>> It's not fair. >> Hand out an exhibit that replaces the whole application. Can you Chris? >> It kind of depends and I I agree with the concern because it's kind of like everybody reads their packets and tries to come prepared and put some diligence
into reviewing it. I think what we have seen that is helpful though and I I recall at least one architect sort of like here's the update and then there's a little cloud over what's different and sometimes that that aspect of it really
helps highlight like hey what's different about this >> if you give me something that's marked or in a way that I can see what's different you know I can deal with that but to to hand me with an entirely new >> no because it's it's antithetical or however you say to what we're trying to
do which is get as close to a final as possible and eliminate as many conditions as we can and then it's like here guess what's different about it it's a little much >> I I feel I feel like I'm not really giving it an intelligent review >> that's how I feel completely
>> I mean I'm used to ad looked at this packet I picked it up on Friday I spend the weekend I drive around and now I've got a completely different >> what are the dates that they need to have all of their paperwork in And that's and if they don't Yeah. >> Yeah. It's 10 days prior.
>> 7 days prior. So, and if it's substantial, >> that's it. >> But that that goes to to you know, what are they dropping off that's different and it's just like, oh, it's a brand new packet. It's like, hold on a second. >> If it's substantial, >> right? Yeah. >> And that is the board's discretion to
say, you know what, like what's different about this? And they say, oh, we changed this and I changed. It's like >> that's what I asked. Are these actually replacing them? And they sit next. >> Well, yeah. No, not to, you know, not to put this too heavily a burden on Lauren's neck, but I I would like us to
be just stricter about about what comes through before we get it in front of us. If if they haven't if they haven't supplied all the stuff they're supposed to supply, if they don't make a deadline, they shouldn't be here. Shouldn't be in front of us. So, so I I
would just say more more a stricter approach to the applications. I'm not trying to delay anybody, >> but if you're there's some some people, some contractors and some architects, they really make good full presentations and what they give us is complete when we see it and we've and that's that's
great. But others, it's just >> I'd rather have one page just simple list of changes that they made to review because thing that is, you know, I try to read every one of those, you know, every
>> and and Kevin, some people have actually given us a reconciliation sheet, right? So, they've they've said, you know, here are the 13 things that we were addressing and and they discussed that and that's helpful. So that might be the solution that if somebody wants to submit a supplemental set of documents
or document after the 10day deadline, it must be accompanied by a list of what's different in >> Yeah, this document >> that would that would certainly help. >> So we don't have to do a forensic redline of what they submitted. Like just give us the what's okay. What is
this and what's different about it? >> Sound like a reasonable policy. Can we enforce that? I would call it a reconciliation sheet. >> And then you know I think Chris if someone comes in and we ask is this a completely new packet and they say yes and they haven't submitted that I think
it would be appropriate for you to say you know HBC has decided that we can't we can't accept it you'll have to come back >> even ahead of that we can make that the official policy of the board so that applicants know about that in advance. It can be one of those, you know,
Miranda writes that Lauren sends out to the applicants of, you know, hey, if you're not going to be here and you don't let us know, you're not going to be heard. That kind of thing. >> That cleans it up for you, too, right at the meeting. >> Yeah. >> It doesn't give us time to to look at the packet. It's just not it's it's not
a good policy. It's not good practice. >> Well, it's it's it's personally frustrating. It leads to it leads to uninformed decisions. But we we can add that and I can suggest Lauren uh some language for the email that you sent. You know, like just like if you're going to be there or not be there, let us know
who it is. She she sends out like the standard rules before the meeting. We can add a line for this type of thing. So, I'll suggest some language to Lauren. >> Thank you. >> And then we can have that up. >> Great. >> Yeah. And this is why we pay you so much money, right?
>> I know. I know. But that was the joke. All right. Um, any other questions, comments, or discussions? Guys, it's late. Sure is, >> but I don't want to cut anybody off. >> The ballards in front of collars look great. >> Plastic. >> Are completed. >> They're plastic covered. I looked at them. Get the hell out.
>> I think they are. No, >> they're metal, aren't they? I didn't go touch them. >> I was probably four feet away going past today and I was like, "Huh, they look like plastic covers." >> Don't think so. >> I need to get out. >> Listen, as the season goes along, I avoid the area
completely. So, >> somebody should get out. >> That's a horrible >> All right, we'll go touch them. >> You want to go You want to go touch them? >> You want to go touch them? >> Motion to adjurnn, please. >> All right. Uh motion to