WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=3JiHSmYXGtg

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: 3JiHSmYXGtg):
- 00:00:00: Meeting Commences: Roll Call, Agenda, and Announcements
- 00:03:18: Public Comment: Historic Signage, Community Engagement, and Women's Club
- 00:07:46: Case H25-0444: Scott Dvetta Residence - Rooftop Deck
- 00:28:49: Public Comment Closed, Staff Report, and Commission Discussion
- 00:31:50: COA Approval for Rooftop Deck and Next Case
- 00:32:24: Case H-25-0036: O'Connell - 84 Kohl's Street
- 00:40:07: Architect Jensen Basil Presents 84 Kohl's Street Project
- 00:56:48: Commissioners Question Architect and Discuss Design
- 01:09:36: Planner Carolyn Worstell Testifies - 84 Kohl's Street
- 01:17:18: Commission Discussion and Public Comment Reopened
- 01:26:33: Meeting Recess and Case Carried to June 15th
- 01:27:21: Case H25-0297: 26 Bright Street - New Construction
- 01:33:18: Architect Shukla Presents 26 Bright Street Project
- 01:51:53: Renderings, Brick Samples and Discussion About Facade Design
- 02:07:59: Planner Worstell Discusses Zoning and Height Variance
- 02:13:13: Further Staff Review and Carry to June 15th
- 02:13:46: Cases H-24-0171 and H-24-0172: 577 Bergen Subdivision
- 02:18:19: Architect Ahmed Presents Existing Conditions and Renovations
- 02:33:08: Presentation of New Construction Project After Subdivision
- 02:47:19: Commission Discusses Scale, Context, and the Design Aesthetic
- 02:58:49: Meeting Adjournment


Part: 1

1
00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:16.640
date of this meeting has been provided to the city clerk in accordance with NJSAA 104-12 um to be posted on the bulletin board in city hall and on the city's website. I

2
00:00:16.640 --> 00:00:37.920
have proof of this notice and evidence which we can mark as B1. Okay, we'll move to a roll call vote. Commissioner Sandamp >> here. >> Commissioner Gunther >> here. >> Commissioner Sakong is absent.

3
00:00:37.920 --> 00:00:53.360
Commissioner Blazak >> here. >> Commissioner Gucciardo is absent. Commissioner Gordon >> present. >> Commissioner Edgecom >> present. >> Commissioner Kay >> here. >> Commissioner Kobach >> here. >> Vice Chair Gre uh Vice Chair Cronin >> present. and chair Griga

4
00:00:53.360 --> 00:01:08.799
>> here. Okay, >> there are nine votes uh nine members of the commission in attendance. Five affirmative votes are needed for a certificate of appropriateness. Um, next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from April 13th. Does anyone have any questions, concerns, comments?

5
00:01:08.799 --> 00:01:26.560
If not, staff recommends a motion to approve. >> Motion second. >> Motion. >> And Tony. Okay. Commissioner Gunther. Hi, >> Commissioner Blazak. >> I >> Commissioner Gordon, >> I >> Commissioner Edcom,

6
00:01:26.560 --> 00:01:41.520
>> I >> Commissioner Kay, >> I >> Commissioner Sankamp, >> I >> Commissioner Callback, >> yay. >> Hi, >> Vice Chair Cronin. >> I >> and Chair Greger. >> I There are nine votes in favor, none against. The minutes from April 13th are

7
00:01:41.520 --> 00:01:56.000
approved. Um, all copies of correspondence and application materials are linked on tonight's agenda through the case number. Um, we have one announcement this evening. Case 11B, which is 384

8
00:01:56.000 --> 00:02:12.560
Commun B-24-0808, has withdrawn their application. So, we will not be hearing that this evening. Um, they intend to come back without the demolition aspect of that project. So, we do not intend to see that back again.

9
00:02:12.560 --> 00:02:30.000
Um, we have no old business on tonight's agenda, which just leads us with new business. Uh, chair, if you'd like to call the first case. >> Now, now calling case H25-0444. Applicant Paul Vega, architect on behalf

10
00:02:30.000 --> 00:02:46.959
of Lindsay and Chris Scott Dvetta. The address uh 273 8th Street, Apartment 1. uh block and lot 1006 uh sorry 106/18

11
00:02:46.959 --> 00:03:01.680
uh zone Hamilton Park Historic District for the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a roof deck partially visible from the public right of way and renovations at an altered contributing transitional Italianit

12
00:03:01.680 --> 00:03:18.159
rowhouse constructed circa 1875 in the in the Hamilton Park Historic District. Yes. Um, however, as we call that first case, I neglected um for open public comment >> in there. Um, so if there are any

13
00:03:18.159 --> 00:03:35.280
members of the public who would like to speak, Charlene, um, staff will Paul, I'm just going to ask I'm sorry, you can keep that there, Charlene. There's a different mic that we use for open public comment. Um, just in general, there are five

14
00:03:35.280 --> 00:03:57.400
minutes for open public comment. All questions must be addressed through the chair. We will answer any questions if there are any after. Um and Charlene, we just have to swear you in. >> Surely you swear or testimony? >> Yes.

15
00:03:58.000 --> 00:04:14.640
>> Charlene Burke. C H A R L E N E B U R K E 56 Duncan Avenue. Thank you. Um firstly, about a year ago I was here and I spoke about historic

16
00:04:14.640 --> 00:04:32.639
signage for our historic districts. So let me just bring you up to date. I did apply to the to the Jersey City open space for the West Bergen Historic District and we were awarded monies $100,000 to identify our historic

17
00:04:32.639 --> 00:04:48.320
district with street signage. So, I'm hoping that this year we will see that and it will be the first of many of our historic districts. The second thing I would like to say is that I'm also here

18
00:04:48.320 --> 00:05:03.840
as the president of the Westside Community Alliance because there is um one of the um projects on your agenda tonight on Gford Avenue and Bergen, the old Bergen school

19
00:05:03.840 --> 00:05:21.440
that I went to and graduated from when I was in high school long ago. and um that was never brought to the community. And I would like to say that whenever these are projects particularly of this nature where there's a insertion or a

20
00:05:21.440 --> 00:05:37.039
subdivision, it really should be brought to the community. I think before it reaches any of these boards, um we should be informed because we cannot get people out if they don't know what the projects are about. Honestly, it's

21
00:05:37.039 --> 00:05:52.639
especially with historic districts, it's very complicated to people. They don't understand all the rules, but it can be explained in a meeting prior to here. So, I would like for that to be for the historic preservation office to

22
00:05:52.639 --> 00:06:07.600
recommend it when there's a active group like we are who brought forth the historic district and continually try to improve it to in fact engage us. And then the last thing I would like to bring to all of your attention is the

23
00:06:07.600 --> 00:06:24.720
Jersey City Women's Club is being sold by St. Dominic's and we're advocating the WISA is advocating for its purchase as a community center for since it's turnkey for that purpose

24
00:06:24.720 --> 00:06:40.880
as opposed to any other purpose. And um so what I would like to do, I have had many community members walk through it, including many of our council people uh hoping yet to get the mayor as well as some of the other decision makers. But I

25
00:06:40.880 --> 00:06:57.840
would like to extend an invite to all of you. That's why I gave you my card. If you would email me and say you would like to go to the women's club and see it in its intact form and it is a beautiful building inside that you come

26
00:06:57.840 --> 00:07:13.039
and see this building. So I'm extending that invite to all of you to do that. So please reach out to me. We've been having multiple times that it's been open. So, we may have it open on Friday

27
00:07:13.039 --> 00:07:30.000
of like 4:00 at the end of this week. So, that might be something that if you have time, you could come and um so I I did all three, right? Yes, that's all I have. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Charlene. >> Thank you.

28
00:07:30.000 --> 00:07:46.199
>> Okay. >> All right. Um is there a motion to close public comment? >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Okay. Thanks. All right. Sorry about the confusion, Paul. Um,

29
00:07:46.319 --> 00:08:10.240
>> you would raise your right hand. >> Truth and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. State your name. >> Name is Paul Vega. P A U L V E G A. >> Thank you. >> Before we begin the application,

30
00:08:10.240 --> 00:08:26.479
Baggie. Um, I don't know if you wanted to respond to Miss Burke's question or comment about having matters of historic significance brought to their local communities before the application comes to the commission. >> I will make sure that I will take extra

31
00:08:26.479 --> 00:08:43.760
efforts to make sure that all of the um new construction projects or projects that are of a substantial nature are referred to her community organization. We we do our best. But I will make sure I everything is sent in the future. >> And ultimately we can only recommend that the applicant speak to the

32
00:08:43.760 --> 00:09:03.040
community. We can't compel them to do that. >> That is correct. There is no um it would be considered exceeding the MLUL to require someone to appear before the community. >> Okay. Thank you. Please proceed. >> Thank you, >> Paul. Um Bridget, you were able to swear

33
00:09:03.040 --> 00:09:20.240
him in. Okay, great. Um, since you have not presented in front of this board before, if you would just quickly give our chair your qualifications, including if you are have a current license in the state of New Jersey. Um, >> yes. Um, I have a current license in the state of New Jersey and also in the state of New York. I've been uh licensed

34
00:09:20.240 --> 00:09:38.880
for about 40 years and working initially in traditional architecture roles then having left and worked for large real estate developers for a major hotel company W hotels and subsequently started the office again doing um hotels

35
00:09:38.880 --> 00:09:54.160
and single family residential. >> Great. Our office is in Edgewater >> and um I've not appeared before a board in Jersey City, but we've done several projects here and our last board appearance was in um we hawken.

36
00:09:54.160 --> 00:10:07.839
>> Great. Thank you. Staff recommends that the chair accept qualifications of Mr. Vega as an expert in the field of architecture. >> Okay, accept. >> Thanks. All right, you may begin your presentation. >> Thank you. Um the presentation is for or

37
00:10:07.839 --> 00:10:24.880
the proposal is to conduct a or to to um sorry to disellop a rooftop terrace on the roof of a four-story um rowhouse in the Hamilton Park District as as you're all aware. In

38
00:10:24.880 --> 00:10:40.640
addition to that, there's a master bedroom on the fourth floor just below the roof which is to be renovated as well. And two floors below um the kitchen and living room and dining room are also to be developed. Um the first

39
00:10:40.640 --> 00:10:55.680
page of the documents just shows you know basic information some zoning information and uh code information um >> information >> code uh building code. Um if we go to the next page, um this page obviously shows on the

40
00:10:55.680 --> 00:11:13.839
upper left photos of the existing um facade, the 8th Street facade, which is just to be cleaned and the construction documents will denote the um proper methods of cleaning a historic facade. Um and no other work is proposed on that

41
00:11:13.839 --> 00:11:28.480
street facade. The adjacent uh image is the same. And then on the rear, the bottom left photo shows the rear. And in the rear, we're proposing at the second floor level, which is the kitchen, to

42
00:11:28.480 --> 00:11:45.760
remove two windows and the center brick uh masonry wall to create a larger opening onto the existing deck. And in the rear, excuse me, the plaster finish would be refinished and and

43
00:11:45.760 --> 00:12:02.399
really cleaned up. But other than that there would be no work um on that rear facade. Um adjacent to that on the right we have the two site plans an existing and then the one on the far right which shows the proposed green uh rooftop

44
00:12:02.399 --> 00:12:17.760
terrace which is basically set back 10 foot one inch from the street facade and 10 foot one inch from the rear facade. Um which the uh the setback required by code I believe was 10. So, we're just a bit shy of that. And then the center

45
00:12:17.760 --> 00:12:40.240
would be a raised um roof terrace. And the finish is intended to be grass. So, we have some finishes, but we can show them at the end perhaps or I can show them now. >> Show them. >> Typically, we just um drop them off with one commissioner and we'll pass them

46
00:12:40.240 --> 00:13:06.320
around. Excuse me. And then on that roof in order to gain access, we've created on the west side that little sliding rooftop um enclosure, little bulkhead that comes out about four and a half feet. that's

47
00:13:06.320 --> 00:13:22.320
denoted in the sections, but it's a sliding rooftop in order to minimize the height vis and visibility from the street. And then the last sketch on the bottom left is in the neighborhood van, I'm

48
00:13:22.320 --> 00:13:38.920
sorry, Hamilton Park is in the center. There are several residences with um approved um roof terraces there. Um and I think that's it. Then the next page please.

49
00:13:45.120 --> 00:14:00.320
This one takes a bit, but this page indicates the materials visually and some of the components that we are unable to get samples of obviously. The upper left is the shop drawing for the type of metal door. It's a steel door

50
00:14:00.320 --> 00:14:16.880
with three muttons. It's about 9 ft wide, 8 foot tall. Um, so there's an image of the doors style and then a a shop drawing um from the manufacturer. Adjacent to that is the stucco finish

51
00:14:16.880 --> 00:14:34.240
and color. So we have the actual sample in the little box, the black vertical um metal siding which would surround the little bulkhead enclosure. A spec for the grass of the roof. um a detail of the

52
00:14:34.240 --> 00:14:51.279
um window head or the door head in the back as it is inserted into the the masonry the new masonry opening and then the plaster wrapping. So there's no trim, there's no detailing around the window as it exists now. Uh then we go to the bottom left that shows the

53
00:14:51.279 --> 00:15:07.440
manufacturer's drawings of the sliding roof window and the picture is not our project but our um the end result if approved would look like that except the enclosure would be black instead of white. The windows on the sliding panel

54
00:15:07.440 --> 00:15:25.839
would also match that in color. Um the last one is a required drawing for the city I think it was a city block site plan. Next, please. Here we have the sight sections. The upper section is taken from Seventh

55
00:15:25.839 --> 00:15:43.040
Street. Um, the person standing is at the curb and there is an adjacent garage directly across or behind our our property line. So, as you can see, the view to the residence is obscured. Um the bottom image shows the eighth

56
00:15:43.040 --> 00:15:57.759
street or the building section 8th street and then the first person at the curb line would not see the proposed bulkhead. As you move into the park, you're at about 89 ft is where you would

57
00:15:57.759 --> 00:16:14.720
start to see the the railing that's um perpendicular or sorry parallel to 8th Street. And then if you go to the far side of the park to ninth um which are the distance is shown there but obviously you would start to see it because of that distance through the

58
00:16:14.720 --> 00:16:40.360
trees. >> Could we um could this be made full screen? >> Uh yes. Can you make it please? >> Yeah. Just zoom into the >> F11. Could you hit F11 on the keyboard?

59
00:16:45.759 --> 00:17:07.000
>> It's not giving a full >> doesn't want to. >> Yeah, they're not in uh Acrobat. So, I don't think F11 in this case was great though. >> Yeah, you can zoom in and just zoom into the top one. That's much better.

60
00:17:12.640 --> 00:17:30.320
>> Too much. >> We also use blue beam and it also does the same for us. So, you're good. >> Zoom in a little bit more if you want. Just a tiny a little more.

61
00:17:30.320 --> 00:17:46.960
Yes, I think that's good. >> Behind us, >> right? So, you'll see on on the left is seventh street a person. Then you that's the top of the garage and then obviously nothing is visible onto the building directly behind the property line

62
00:17:46.960 --> 00:18:04.720
um on 7th. And then the other side which is obviously more visible you see right the person standing at the curb 6 feet you don't see anything if you move into the park 89 point I

63
00:18:04.720 --> 00:18:21.039
think it's 5 in or 815 then you start then that's the first glimpse you would get of the railing and that little bit of the bulkhead and then across the park you see the dimension right there 540 ft you see

64
00:18:21.039 --> 00:18:47.039
um the bulkhead and the railing across the park. And then a little more zoom or is that clear? >> It's good. >> Perfect. Next. Please keep zooming. You can keep it at that

65
00:18:47.039 --> 00:19:02.799
scale and just scroll. Right. So these are existing conditions. The ground floor and the first floor the parlor floor are one unit and which are being un undisturbed not

66
00:19:02.799 --> 00:19:19.120
to be this not to be um adjusted or modified in any way. The front of the ground floor is the existing mechanical. So all the like electrical meters and etc are there. The third plan on the right is the second floor which is the

67
00:19:19.120 --> 00:19:36.559
first floor of the unit that we are working on. So that shows the existing. You come up the stairs. There's a kitchen with an island and in the back room there's a kitchen and a dining table. And then you see the window and the door leading to the existing deck

68
00:19:36.559 --> 00:19:53.039
which again is not being adjusted. Um next please. On the left we have the third floor which has two bedrooms, children's bedrooms um unbeing untouched except for the restroom. The bathroom is being renovated. Uh basically in the same

69
00:19:53.039 --> 00:20:08.880
position where the fixtures are just um new finishes and new fixtures. Um the floors will probably be sanded and resealed but the existing floors are intended to remain. Then the middle image shows master bedroom existing

70
00:20:08.880 --> 00:20:26.640
which will basically be removed everything in there for the most part. And then the last image shows the roof and the roof notice notably has an existing rooftop unit um there and that was obviously to to remain and

71
00:20:26.640 --> 00:20:44.240
it also has a couple of skylights and that's it. Next, please. Section of the existing building. We can see on the right we have, excuse me, 8th Street steps going up and you see the unit one, the residents of two lower

72
00:20:44.240 --> 00:21:00.240
units not to be disturbed and then the three upper which is where the scope of work is intended. Then next please. Um these are the demolition plans which I explained it. I think we could skip

73
00:21:00.240 --> 00:21:15.919
the next two because they're just basic drawings. And then that one we can skip as well because everything is being demolished on that floor. And then now we see the proposal. So in the center is the second floor. So when one ascends

74
00:21:15.919 --> 00:21:31.679
arrives at that floor, there's now a dining table and built-in miller work piece on the wall. And in the back is the kitchen where we have the stove, cooktop, refrigerator on the on the right side, center island. And here you see the door uh the window pardon me

75
00:21:31.679 --> 00:21:48.320
which is demo de de demolished and increased to about 8t or 9 ft within the existing opening. And then second floor just the rest the bathroom is being redone. And then if you go to the master floor above

76
00:21:48.320 --> 00:22:06.720
and um you can see that you come up the stair and then you enter basically what is a large dressing room full of mill work, some sliding panels into the master bedroom. Then there's a sliding door into the bathroom in the rear. So new tub, shower, and vanity

77
00:22:06.720 --> 00:22:23.919
um with the fixtures in almost in the identical location just upgraded and redone. And then the plan in the center shows you a blow up of the grass area where the rooftop unit is a new circular skylight in the back. And then the and

78
00:22:23.919 --> 00:22:39.679
the stair that goes down, which would be a new stair. And then the one on the right, the last drawing is roof plan showing you the glass enclosure basically at the top and then shows some fire rated um mill work because it adjacent building. So, we'll re have to

79
00:22:39.679 --> 00:22:55.280
redo that once the roof is replaced. Um, next, please. Electrical. I don't know if that's really that critical. We could skip those, too. Floor finishes, finishes, etc. I think we can skip those because that's all

80
00:22:55.280 --> 00:23:15.360
interior. And then the facade. Takes a while. This is the A Street facade. The image that is visible is the existing um actually I would think very accurate because we had LAR um prepare the

81
00:23:15.360 --> 00:23:32.159
documents for the building. The owner was very interested in making sure it was exact. So it's a true representation. And then on the right it shows the bulkhead and the railing. If you want to just zoom in on that please any at the top. No no at the roof.

82
00:23:32.159 --> 00:23:48.000
Right. So you'll see obviously it's an elevation you're seeing it fullon but you see the the bulkhead there the black aluminum or the black metal siding and then the open guard rail and then beyond is the approximate location of the

83
00:23:48.000 --> 00:24:35.919
rooftop unit. Right. But again that is set back 10 foot one I believe from the face of the building. The next please. It's not that seamless. The next one is should be the rear.

84
00:24:35.919 --> 00:24:55.200
Right. >> Here we go. Oh, beautiful. So, on the left we have the existing rear facade which um has a deck. It has a circular stair on that second floor, kitchen floor of the of the unit we're working on. On the right side is the proposal with

85
00:24:55.200 --> 00:25:11.919
the new door. So it's three doors. The operable one is on the east side um onto the existing deck. We not showing the railing obviously for clarity, but um the existing rail is to remain. And then when you go to the top, you'll see the rooftop unit and then the railing and

86
00:25:11.919 --> 00:25:29.360
the bulkhead as it returns as well. Right. So it's mirror image to the to the front facade. Do you want to zoom in on that a little bit or? No, not really. Yeah. Okay. Um, next, please. We're

87
00:25:29.360 --> 00:25:46.080
almost there. So, here's a section of the top two floors and the uh proposed stair. You'll see the sliding glass door in the center where that gentleman is standing. That slides back. It's it's on a electrified system uh tied to the weather and everything.

88
00:25:46.080 --> 00:25:59.840
So, there will be no issues with water coming in. And I think the key here is the darker arrow diagonally going up is the street line from the opposite side of 8th Street where you can see that it doesn't really you do not see the the

89
00:25:59.840 --> 00:26:17.200
the bulkhead from that location. Um next please. Then just cross-section showing the front showing the back. Um just more information next please.

90
00:26:17.200 --> 00:26:35.200
And then we have structural drawings which I don't think you really need to look through. Um but that's our presentation and the design proposed. >> Do any commissioners have any questions? >> Is can we see the sighteline diagram

91
00:26:35.200 --> 00:26:51.760
again or do you have a photograph showing what's visible from uh 7th Street? >> I do not have a photograph. I apologize. uh you do have a paper copy which might be maybe a little bit easier to see.

92
00:26:51.760 --> 00:27:24.080
>> I just want to clarify if the changes at the rear facade will be visible or not. Um, just Paul, we're gonna Paul, if you're going to be presenting anything to the commission, I do I had I need to do it from the >> podium and into the microphone. I know

93
00:27:24.080 --> 00:27:40.880
we're all looking at the same plans, but >> actually go to that one. It's fine. You stay there. So, the black highlighted um property is obviously our building. If you go directly south to Seventh Street, that little building that she's pointing to, that is a one-story garage that's

94
00:27:40.880 --> 00:27:56.080
obscuring the view directly from there. So that little building, correct, that's shown there. We measure that, field measured that it's an existing one-story garage, but unfortunately I don't have a photo. I do have it on my computer, but

95
00:27:56.080 --> 00:28:14.240
not here. And then the rest of the block obviously has some residences three two three story buildings I think the one on the corner is three stories I believe so that's the section line you can see where it's taken directly for that for

96
00:28:14.240 --> 00:28:33.279
that drawing >> so did you personally go to seventh street and see that there's no visibility of the back of the building >> yes yes we went back there and we did as I said we did take some pictures I unfortunately have them, but I can

97
00:28:33.279 --> 00:28:49.600
submit them if if needed. But we did walk the property once we understood fully the the requirements of the the um the ordinance that it's not visible from the back even though it's not as important quote unquote as the front, but we did look at it and uh you cannot see it.

98
00:28:49.600 --> 00:29:09.039
>> Okay. Yeah, I think photos would be helpful, but we have the sighteline drawing in your testimony under oath. >> Any other questions? Okay, hearing none, we can move to open public comment. If there are any members of the public present who would like to speak regarding this application, please

99
00:29:09.039 --> 00:29:24.960
approach the public comment. Mike mic staff sees none and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. >> Motion second. >> Who was the first? >> Cora. >> Okay, >> sure. All in favor? >> I I

100
00:29:24.960 --> 00:29:41.200
>> Okay, we'll move into staff comments on this. Um, you all have a copy of the staff report. This is a pretty straightforward roof deck application. Um, as was presented, you can This is minimally visible from all the way on 9inth Street and through the park. Um,

101
00:29:41.200 --> 00:29:57.440
we've had roof deck applications like this in the past, albeit on the other side of the park um, and have approved them understanding that visibility at that point is really not an adverse effect. It's not going to cause any harm to any of the historic resources.

102
00:29:57.440 --> 00:30:15.279
Um, so we do recommend that staff app uh the commission approve this project um with the conditions in the staff report. Um, all of the conditions in the staff report are our standard conditions for roof decks. >> And Maggie, you've all you also agreed that the combined window openings at the

103
00:30:15.279 --> 00:30:30.559
rear facade are not visible from anywhere on Seventh Street. >> Yeah, I did a lap of this Friday morning and I could not see um any meaningful part of the rear facade here and I did it with my glasses on too. So, um, >> and I want to say too, I don't remember

104
00:30:30.559 --> 00:30:46.559
all the specifics of some of the other roof decks we got on, but this is also an interesting bulkhead and that it's not like a full size stair bulkhead. So, it's smaller and shorter than than normally we see, which is usually like at least seven, if not eight or nine feet tall.

105
00:30:46.559 --> 00:31:02.880
>> So, this helps cut down the visibility of this this system. >> Right. This is actually the first time, at least in my experience, I've seen a bulkhead designed like this. I'm excited to see how it plays out. Um I think it could be a really good option for applicants, especially um uh people are having trouble sourcing

106
00:31:02.880 --> 00:31:18.240
sky doors lately. So this could be a nice alternative to that. So any other questions from commissioners? If not, staff recommends a motion for approval with the conditions in the staff report. >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second it.

107
00:31:18.240 --> 00:31:34.720
>> Okay. >> Before we take a roll call vote, do you guys accept the conditions in the staff report? >> Yes. Great. >> You're acceptable. >> All right. Um, Commissioner Blazak, >> I. >> Commissioner Gordon, >> I. >> Commissioner Edgecom, >> I. >> Commissioner Kay,

108
00:31:34.720 --> 00:31:50.080
>> I. >> Commissioner Colbeach, >> I. >> Commissioner Sankamp, >> I. >> Commissioner Gunther, >> I. >> Commissioner Guiardo is absent. Commissioner Sakong is absent. Vice Chair Cronin >> I. >> And Chair Gria. >> I. >> All right. There are nine votes in favor, none against, and no abstensions.

109
00:31:50.080 --> 00:32:05.039
The COA with uh conditions is approved. >> Beautiful. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. >> Have a great evening. Hopefully not too long. >> Examples are over here. >> Okay. >> Um before we call the next case, I will note that Commissioner Sakong has

110
00:32:05.039 --> 00:32:24.640
arrived and it's 7:21. Um >> and then this does mean for the record commissioner call back as our uh second alternate you will participate in the hearing, but we will not be recording your vote.

111
00:32:24.640 --> 00:32:43.919
Okay, Corey, if you want to call the next case. >> Okay, calling up case H-25-0036. Uh, applicant Eugene O' Connell on behalf of Reika Patel, owner, address 84 Kohl's Street,

112
00:32:43.919 --> 00:32:58.720
block 1213, lot 2.01, 01 zone. Uh the zone is the Haramus Cove Historic District. Uh sorry, Haramus Cove Historic District for the certificate of appropriateness

113
00:32:58.720 --> 00:33:15.320
for the proposed construction of a new four-story 2unit residential building and associated work site in the Haramus Cove Historic District. Recommendation to the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment.

114
00:33:17.519 --> 00:33:32.720
Thank you chairman and commissioners for the opportunity. Um I represent Rick Patel who is in the audience tonight and uh thank you for this opportunity. U before I call my witnesses uh Jensen Vasil and Carolyn Westell. I have a

115
00:33:32.720 --> 00:33:51.039
short opening statement and a couple of items to be marked. Uh the first item is the zoning chart for an approval for development on this project that was made by this commission in uh 2020.

116
00:33:51.039 --> 00:34:10.000
>> I guess we'll block that exhibit A. >> Yes. Here I can take them. Jean, >> it's multiple copies for the commissioners, correct? Okay, I'll I >> So you want to >> I can pass them. >> Okay, thank you. All right, Bridget. This can be A1

117
00:34:10.000 --> 00:34:46.159
and we can put previous approval zoning chart >> and then exhibit B is the zoning chart for this presentation tonight. >> Okay, that can be A2. And then uh A3 would be the uh historic

118
00:34:46.159 --> 00:35:16.720
preservation commission certificate of appropriateness for the project that was approved in 2020. >> Okay. And we can do this one can be uh A3 H20-038 approval. Okay. So, good evening, commissioners.

119
00:35:16.720 --> 00:35:32.240
The property in question at 84 Cole Street is really somewhat of an outlier among the other properties in the area of the city and trying to develop property on this undersized lot is kind of like trying to fit a round peg in a

120
00:35:32.240 --> 00:35:48.480
square hole. There are reasons that these lots have been vacant for over 46 years. In fact, one of the lots has been vacant for 66 years. just shows that how difficult it is to develop a pro a project on this

121
00:35:48.480 --> 00:36:05.520
parcel. The size of this lot and the flood elevation make it impossible to design a livable space when you consider the flood elevation and that the first floor can only be used for storage. I reviewed the staff report submitted for this project and believe that the

122
00:36:05.520 --> 00:36:22.400
commissioners would be prejudiced against the application. So I want to discuss it upfront. The report mentions a prior approval in this vacant lot, but doesn't go into what that approval was. The approval was heard October 3rd, 2019

123
00:36:22.400 --> 00:36:39.520
under H19-191. The approval was for a building similar in height and bulk as the building we are proposing today. In fact, that building required six bulk variances while our building only requires three.

124
00:36:39.520 --> 00:36:56.480
building coverage, building height, and rear yard setback. Our building, despite the increase in flood elevation from 9 to 11 ft, is shorter than the building approved in 2020. The 2020 approval received the

125
00:36:56.480 --> 00:37:11.680
certificate of appropriation appropriateness wherein the HPC staff found the application to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic preservation stating while the building is significantly taller than

126
00:37:11.680 --> 00:37:26.640
the adjacent properties. The applicant has taken care to design the building to visually follow the roof sight lines of the block, emphasizing the historic rhythm. Additionally, the proposed iron spotted

127
00:37:26.640 --> 00:37:41.760
brick and unpainted wood windows are a modern interpretation of historically appropriate materials. The front door opening, while larger than the adjust adjacent openings, follows the overall pattern and rhythm of the block. Staff

128
00:37:41.760 --> 00:37:57.200
would normally object to a roof top element that is visible from the public right away, but acknowledges that due to the nature of the undersized lot, it is not possible for the addition to be constructed in a manner that would be visible would not be sorry, not be

129
00:37:57.200 --> 00:38:12.640
visible. My client is a jury city resident and when she purchased this property, she was aware of the prior approval of this historic preservation commission. It is important to note the commission approved the prior application by

130
00:38:12.640 --> 00:38:30.480
unanimous 70 vote. In granting approval, the commission specifically validated the building's contract contextual harmony, noting its interpretation of historically appropriate materials and its adherence to the sight lines of the block.

131
00:38:30.480 --> 00:38:46.079
Reading the staff report for our project, you would feel that the applicant applicant made no effort to incorporate the recommendations from the senior historic preservation specialist Michael Azimov. The opposite is true.

132
00:38:46.079 --> 00:39:03.680
Our team has worked for over a year in a rigorous and collaborative review process. Through multiple rounds of revisions and back and forth consultations, we have significantly refined the project's aesthetic and technical impact. Materiality, we

133
00:39:03.680 --> 00:39:19.119
revised brick and siding colors to achieve a more nuanced relationship with the surrounding historic fabric. Finish. We recalciated the sizes of the windows and the doors to better reflect the historic rhythm and scale of the horses

134
00:39:19.119 --> 00:39:35.599
Cove streetscape. Most importantly, despite the flood elevation requirements increasing from 9 ft to 11 feet, we have successfully reduced the overall building height from 43'6 in to 43t 3.5 in.

135
00:39:35.599 --> 00:39:52.079
We have successfully removed the variance for lot coverage and reduced the building coverage from 73.1% to 72.2%. It is important to note that this is a reconstruct is not a reconstruction but new construction so that the standards

136
00:39:52.079 --> 00:40:07.760
of new construction historic district applies. Examples 58 Cole Street, 221 Warren Street, and 26 Bright Street. Doors and windows do not have to replicate what existed in 1930. In conclusion, my experts, architect

137
00:40:07.760 --> 00:40:29.520
Jensen Vassel, professional planner Carolyn Wellel will address all these issues. Thank you for your time. >> Do I set it up here? >> Yes, you can set up there. >> The >> Yeah, >> the cable's right there. It's hanging on the table.

138
00:40:29.520 --> 00:41:09.280
>> Yeah, no problem. >> While Jensen is getting set up, uh staff will note for the record that Mr. Mr. Razel has previously presented in front of this board and has been previously qualified as an expert in the field of architecture many times before. All right, Jensen, and we'll just swear

139
00:41:09.280 --> 00:41:47.359
you in when you are ready. Basil. >> My name is Basil. I'm the project. >> Can you just make sure the green light is on? >> There we go. >> Thank you. >> Um, start again. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jensen Basil.

140
00:41:47.359 --> 00:42:01.839
I'm the architect for the project at 84 Cole Street. Um, as Mr. as Mr. Okonnell introduced, uh, the project is for a, um, a new building on a vacant lot, um, that had

141
00:42:01.839 --> 00:42:17.920
with a previous approval. The, um, the new building is on a 30 foot by 50 foot 30 foot wide by 50 50 foot deep lot on the east side of Cole Street between Fifth and Sixth Streets. Um the lot has

142
00:42:17.920 --> 00:42:33.760
been uh has been vacant uh for uh for many years. Um we are seeking to uh to build a four-story brick building with two units. Um a lot coverage of proposed

143
00:42:33.760 --> 00:42:48.240
of just over 72%. Uh which equates to 1,083 square ft per floor and the lot area uh is 1500 square ft. The uh lot is unders sized for for area

144
00:42:48.240 --> 00:43:06.880
and depth and um we're seeking building variances for the building coverage height and um and the rear yard. On the first sheet uh sheet uh HPC1 you can see the um the zoning table

145
00:43:06.880 --> 00:43:23.280
which outlines um the same with the variances listed um C variances um as Mr. Okonnell uh uh introduced the uh we did work quite hard to get the building height um down the flood

146
00:43:23.280 --> 00:43:38.079
elevation um at the time of the previous approval was nine and the first floor was at 10 elevation 10 so one one foot of freeboard above the elevation um currently it stands at 11 with 1 foot of

147
00:43:38.079 --> 00:43:54.720
freeboard being at 12 um and also their um original original building height was measured from grade in the front at 6.5 instead of at the middle of the top cur at the top the average top curb at the middle of the lot which is technically

148
00:43:54.720 --> 00:44:12.319
5.1. So um with all of these uh almost three and a half or three feet plus that were uh taken away or u or um against the building. We were able to still come in under. We did that through um

149
00:44:12.319 --> 00:44:28.400
shrinking the the building heights, the the floor to floor heights. And but one of the one of the the biggest factors is just that the the first floor elevation ends up being um about midway up the first floor of the two adjacent buildings. So that's just a factor of

150
00:44:28.400 --> 00:44:45.359
where design flood elevation um ends up being. So on sheet HBC1, you can see in that we're in the Harris Cove district. Um we are one building in one lot in from the corner of Fifth and Kohl's on the east side.

151
00:44:45.359 --> 00:45:03.359
On the second sheet uh sheet HPC2 we have on the left the existing site plan which is uh just the vacant lot but it does show the encroachments of the two adjacent buildings. There are some um remaining uh chimneys um and

152
00:45:03.359 --> 00:45:18.000
protrusions from the next door neighboring buildings that um don't allow us to even use the full full width of the lot. the lot. Um we have to come in a little bit to accommodate and um the lot is relatively relatively flat

153
00:45:18.000 --> 00:45:35.280
from front to back, but it is um it is bound almost entirely on the um on the north side with a building on the rear um on the rear or the the um the east side. And then also um on the south side

154
00:45:35.280 --> 00:45:54.079
um it's about 70% of its depth um has a building adjacent to it. So I'll show you some pictures that will that'll illustrate that a little more clearly. Um our building is on the right uh number four the proposed site plan. We

155
00:45:54.079 --> 00:46:12.160
utilized the um we cited the building um in line with the other with the adjacent buildings. um 72% coverage um extends just a little bit uh beyond the neighboring building to the south of us. Um it we do have a 10-ft

156
00:46:12.160 --> 00:46:28.560
rear yard uh with grass and a little bit of paving and a stoop and in the front of the building we have just enough to have two stoops that end up at the um at the first foil elevation. In fact, we had to make make up the last step right

157
00:46:28.560 --> 00:46:45.359
at the front of the building facade because um because of the how much we had to come up. So, we reused the existing fence line um started the stoop right at the beginning right at the the fence lines that align with the neighbors. And we have a a masonry stoop

158
00:46:45.359 --> 00:46:59.520
that ends up going up with a door uh on each side, entrances for each unit. And in the middle there's a garden area um a planted area which would be um which would have uh shrubs and whatnot

159
00:46:59.520 --> 00:47:17.200
and also um on a a small buffer strip on both sides um of the stoop between the neighbors. So, um, also there just just to mention while I'm on it that there is a setback shown between the neighboring building to the south and to the north there's

160
00:47:17.200 --> 00:47:34.720
little slivers that are filled with um pearavevel which is just an ability to to get the site to drain um in an area between in an irregular shaped area where we can't build against the uh directly against the sidewall. On the next sheet HPC3

161
00:47:34.720 --> 00:47:51.200
shows the existing conditions. Um first the the aerial photo um looking down with the the lot. Um just helpful to note that um two houses um further to the to the south have a fourth story that are far

162
00:47:51.200 --> 00:48:06.400
set back from the uh from the front from the front of the um the facade. And then on the number six, the photo of the vacant lot, you can see the two um chimneys coming into the coming into the

163
00:48:06.400 --> 00:48:23.839
building um from the from the building to the south. You can also see how closed in it is with the buildings to the to the east. So um you you're right against the two buildings coming in from um from Fifth Street. Um, number five, we're maintaining that

164
00:48:23.839 --> 00:48:39.760
same fence line on on photo five. And then finally, seven is from across the street. Just gives you a little bit more context inside of that. The building on the corner is undergoing might be going under undergoing renovations. Um, but it's not, as far as I know, it's not uh

165
00:48:39.760 --> 00:48:54.319
changing any not there's no addition proposed. the following sheet HPC4. Uh the first plan is that just this there's a small cellar partial cellar that's will be used for the sprinkler

166
00:48:54.319 --> 00:49:10.160
system um accessible uh through the stair the common stair the one of the stair halls on the on the uh the lefth hand unit on the number two is the first floor plan. So there's a choice in this building to um to either split the

167
00:49:10.160 --> 00:49:27.119
building the previous application had split the building in half front and back for units front and back. Um with buildings in a small floor plate there's the the most advantageous layout really is to have the one entire unit on one

168
00:49:27.119 --> 00:49:42.960
floor versus having two smaller slivers where the the the stair commands a bigger portion of the floor plan. So it's more um if you have a 15t not even you you wouldn't even have a 15t lot here if you if you bifurcated it but um

169
00:49:42.960 --> 00:49:58.640
by the time you came in you only have 12 ft and then you take three of that out for the stair um along the length on every floor it takes up a significant amount of the floor plan. I know this I've done a I just did a very similar project on Fifth Street and the stair is

170
00:49:58.640 --> 00:50:13.839
a a commanding presence and very difficult to get around. Uh makes for an for a very odd layout. um especially if there's not as much depth as the other project had. The um so on the first floor is the is the lower unit or the

171
00:50:13.839 --> 00:50:31.359
lower floor for the for unit one. Um kitchen in the back far right, dining room, open living room to the front and uh the stoop and a a small terrace in the backyard. Number four is the second floor plan uh which has two bedrooms and

172
00:50:31.359 --> 00:50:48.000
a three bedrooms technically. the uh three bedrooms in it and uh and two baths and a laundry space. And then the third floor on number three is a u the living floor, living kitchen, dining for the for unit two. And then finally the

173
00:50:48.000 --> 00:51:03.359
three bedrooms and two baths on the top floor. Um we're matching the similar railing style with the the metal obelisk along the street frontage. That's detail number seven. And on the roof plan, uh

174
00:51:03.359 --> 00:51:19.119
number six, we have um a roof deck with a sky door proposed and uh two HVAC units that would be screened. So, two heat pump units that are at the back of the deck uh furthest away from the street, not visible from the public

175
00:51:19.119 --> 00:51:35.520
rightway. It's also important to mention that the uh fourth floor is set back uh 3 foot eight inches from the front facade um to just to reduce the the presence of the um of the building on the at the street at the street level

176
00:51:35.520 --> 00:51:51.440
for the pedestrians. On the following page, uh HBC 5 on the left is the um front proposed building facade. So, um brick facade with a um a

177
00:51:51.440 --> 00:52:08.000
stone water table, cement stucco at the at the base at the bottom level and then uh a cornice at the top of the third floor, a paint uh uh composite cornice and then finally the top floor is set back from that which has board and

178
00:52:08.000 --> 00:52:23.839
batten siding. Um all of it would have would be proposed to have casement windows um aluminum clad and the size the size and width and frequency consistent with the block frontage.

179
00:52:23.839 --> 00:52:39.440
On the rear of the building we have um Hardy panel siding in a medium gray color and uh casement windows. The uh just to mention to the brick the brick is a red brick. We chose um we've modified the brick with staff a little

180
00:52:39.440 --> 00:52:58.720
bit just to make it as uh warm and consistent with the neighborhood as possible. Uh on the following page HBC6 the um the sides which are exposed. So there are sides between the two buildings you can see the adjacent neighbors. Um we are returning the brick on the two sides so

181
00:52:58.720 --> 00:53:13.760
that the so that whatever is exposed it looks the front facade wraps around um the brick wraps on the sides and then um there would be panel siding on the on the uh the the remaining portion that's exposed.

182
00:53:13.760 --> 00:53:30.800
Uh detail 7 is the is the proposed section shows that sprinkler sprinkler room um at the kind of the partial cellar and then unit one taking up the first and second floor and unit two being the third and fourth.

183
00:53:30.800 --> 00:53:47.520
Uh there's just on the sighteline diagram uh showing the sighteline diagram from across the street at Cole Street not showing that the that the roof deck wouldn't the roof deck is not visible from across the street and also there was there's a revision cloud uh

184
00:53:47.520 --> 00:54:04.559
which had the uh bulkhead at one po point but now has the um the sky door. HBC7 is um details uh relating to the uh the roof deck railings. Um just standard

185
00:54:04.559 --> 00:54:20.720
aluminum railings. Um the masonry stoops at the front with uh with at the front being the matching the the rail the predominant railing type um along the front garden. And then at the rear um a

186
00:54:20.720 --> 00:54:37.040
similar metal the metal railing to the to the rear to the rear um first floor unit. and then a street tree in the front and a heavier cornice at the third floor which is uh where we'd like want

187
00:54:37.040 --> 00:54:55.559
to draw draw the pedestrians's eye um to try to be as contextual as possible and then at the at the top of the of the the fourth floor there's no cornice so it minimizes the impact of or the accentuation of the top floor

188
00:54:56.079 --> 00:55:11.680
uh HPC8 is the window details for the for the front. Uh again, aluminum clad windows. Um and on the and the the door is a aluminum clad entry door with a solid panel down below.

189
00:55:11.680 --> 00:55:26.480
And finally, uh not finally on HBC9 is the rear rear window details. Um the same uh this is these are clad fiberglass clad ultrix clad windows on the back.

190
00:55:26.480 --> 00:55:43.040
And then finally, HBC 10, the uh sky door details and um the streetscape. So, let's just spend a minute on the on the two streetscapes.

191
00:55:43.040 --> 00:56:00.240
Um you can see where the where the base flood elevation here is is about midway through the two neighboring buildings. So under current conditions, that's where that's where that that's as as low as we could as low as we could start

192
00:56:00.240 --> 00:56:16.640
that building. Um it also makes aligning uh which is in the staff report u substantially challenging. Um, we can replicate, you know, size and and sort of and frequency and configuration, but um, aligning

193
00:56:16.640 --> 00:56:32.240
windows and sills would either mean raising the building up um, entering it or or just having a a a bottom floor that was um, completely open with no habitable space so that you could enter in the bottom. It would be

194
00:56:32.240 --> 00:56:48.799
storage and then uh but it would be limited to the it would be limited to the um the the three floors of habitable space. So that concludes my presentation and I'm happy

195
00:56:48.799 --> 00:57:04.720
to answer any questions that the uh board may have. >> Yeah, I have I have a couple questions. Um, I do think this is a really interesting way to deal with the problem of a four-story building here. So, I I appreciate the the setback at that top

196
00:57:04.720 --> 00:57:22.960
floor. I think that really is an interesting way to deal with that um issue of the rest of the buildings being a floor shorter. Um, you were talking about something with the stairs earlier. Is that the reason why the two uh stoops

197
00:57:22.960 --> 00:57:39.599
can't be in the same location? Cuz the other buildings on the block all have their entrances on the north side except for the southern if we're kind of looking at this kind of as two buildings almost. You have those two entrances. And I I think that's one way that this

198
00:57:39.599 --> 00:57:55.920
would also help if that you could flip that. But I think you were talking about the stairs presenting an issue and I think that was part of the reason why you can't flip that entry. Okay. Have you thought about um if there's any way you can get window openings in the

199
00:57:55.920 --> 00:58:13.280
what I guess is the seller space or um the the area down there where where we're kind of have the caststone water table and the the um what's kind of reading as the basement area. Even if it's I What is that space back there? there's just storage space or

200
00:58:13.280 --> 00:58:30.640
>> it's crawl space except for the cell the the partial seller which is only for the sprinkler. >> Um we have not investigated that. We would be happy to if that were we would be happy to do that cuz we we really don't like having that blank wall. >> The planter presented an opportunity to

201
00:58:30.640 --> 00:58:46.880
put shrubs against it and and really take away um just the austerity of it. But it does it is presents a a a problem considering there's no habitable space below it. >> Yeah, I think that's another way that this could better be better tied into the block is if there's there's

202
00:58:46.880 --> 00:59:01.200
something there that that even if it's not a window or something that recalls a window opening or some sort of blind window even I think that would help tie it into um tie it into the rest of the block. Um,

203
00:59:01.200 --> 00:59:18.319
for the setback top story, um, the one thing that that bothers me about it just a little bit is it seems like there's a lot of space between the top of the windows and and the cornice. And I see it says like eight I guess the floor to ceiling heights are all the

204
00:59:18.319 --> 00:59:34.880
same, correct? But is there is there a way that you can kind of cut down on the the apparent height on that a little bit? I see that, you know, there's a roof and then the power pit does seem like a small space, but I'm wondering if there's a way that you can you can cut

205
00:59:34.880 --> 00:59:51.599
down on what what looks like just a little bit of a lot of a blank space up there above those window openings. >> I we could look at raising the windows, the sill heights on those top floor windows um further up towards the ceiling. That would definitely help shrink the the space between the uh the

206
00:59:51.599 --> 01:00:07.839
the head of the window and the and the there's a par it's called a parapit, but it's really only a foot between the between the roof and the uh the that curb. >> Okay. Um I'll leave it to anyone else. I might have some more, but see if any commissioners have any questions for now.

207
01:00:07.839 --> 01:00:28.400
>> Can you just show us the full building sections again? >> Sure. Is there a section that shows sort of like the cornice detail you were showing you had an enlarge detail for that? Do you have a section that encompasses all of those details or is it more of a

208
01:00:28.400 --> 01:00:46.240
schematic section? >> Um, so we have this is the this is that the detail of that cornice the outline. Um, there's a larger detail on

209
01:00:46.240 --> 01:01:07.960
the actual detail on this sheet. >> So, that's a detail of the third floor cornis. >> Yeah, it's a it's a flat panel with a cove and then um a fascia board and then sort of another step for the um the at the at the edge.

210
01:01:09.359 --> 01:01:23.520
>> Okay. So the top floor it just goes to the roof and then the the railing is in addition. There's no extra parapet up there. >> That's correct. So the at the top floor of the of the at the fourth floor there

211
01:01:23.520 --> 01:01:41.359
is just a fascia board. That is it. Um there's just the fascia board that's here. Nothing that protrudes out. >> Yeah, I agree. There's something about the way that this is on the top floor. It just looks so much taller than the

212
01:01:41.359 --> 01:01:57.760
other floors. I can't I can't quite wrap my head around why it looks so tall other than possibly the window placement, but or the scale, but it just reads as incredibly tall. I know this is also an elevation, which is not a true representation of how you'll experience

213
01:01:57.760 --> 01:02:14.640
it. Are there any axonometrics or renderings for this? I do not >> because I think that would be very helpful to see and especially any comparative studies between what was previously approved and this um just because a lot of us on this commission

214
01:02:14.640 --> 01:02:30.319
were not here in 2020. So I have very little familiarity with what was already approved. >> I would also just advise the commission to focus on this application and not any other approvals that were were issued which are actually expired now as well.

215
01:02:30.319 --> 01:02:49.040
Actually, Jensen, that we're on this one. I see. So, the windows at the second floor are 56 and then it's 46 at the third floor. What are the sizes of the windows on this floor? >> They're they're 56. They're >> So, it returns to that.

216
01:02:49.040 --> 01:03:23.119
>> Correct. Yeah. Can you speak to the sizes of the top two bedrooms um facing the street that determines the depth of the setback? Uh sure. The so they're it's they're one is 10 feet

217
01:03:23.119 --> 01:03:40.559
and the other is 143 um on the left and the right by 11 they're 11 ft and change to the and the width of the of the left and 1011 on the right was

218
01:03:40.559 --> 01:03:57.760
so um how did you determine that the depth of that setback the three um well it's this is the I mean the that bedroom is really the controlling well that in the and even the back bedroom because everything is this tied together if this

219
01:03:57.760 --> 01:04:14.559
moves back further um you've got you'd have a single sink basically move everything back this bathroom is not getting any thinner this hallway is not getting any less wide so moving if you move this back you basically have to crush the um the bathroom and this

220
01:04:14.559 --> 01:04:32.480
bedroom in the back in order to make these, you know, to move the whole assembly back. >> I'll just note that in the absence of um renderings that really show the uh visual impact of that top floor from

221
01:04:32.480 --> 01:04:49.039
the street. Um apart from the front on, you know, projected elevation. Um those I mean those bedrooms including that the that lower left one

222
01:04:49.039 --> 01:05:05.920
seem pretty generous and and the I I understand your point about not wanting to go to a single sync versus a double sync but weighed against the again the the visual impact. Um I would question whether or not 38 is or what did you say the depth was?

223
01:05:05.920 --> 01:05:21.920
>> It's 38. >> Yeah. I would I to me I I I can't help but question if that is really the best we can do. Um even in just you know a couple more feet would I think go a long way to

224
01:05:21.920 --> 01:05:38.079
uh to help this application. >> I would also um I mean it's should just be noted that the the cornice too there's a the cornice projection projects 18 in as well. So that helps to the the 3'8 is from the property line but the cornice itself projects as well.

225
01:05:38.079 --> 01:05:53.599
>> So >> understood. >> Um and one one other question I I did notice that the parapit on the front elevation um the height of the parapet differs from the height of the parapit on the back elevation. The back I think it says 1 foot6 and the front you said is a foot or so.

226
01:05:53.599 --> 01:06:08.880
>> Yes, correct. >> Um >> um I don't know if you have that detail. Could could it could that be further minimized to just a couple inches? Yes. You know, flashing. >> Correct. >> So that I feel like we can gain some

227
01:06:08.880 --> 01:06:26.720
depth and I feel like we could gain >> couple more inches on the height and I think we can improve the visual sort of forehead of that penthouse with the with the composition of the of the windows. All of which seem like small moves, but

228
01:06:26.720 --> 01:06:44.160
>> all of which I think in total might might be helpful. >> Okay. Interesting. >> The other comment I had is um looking at the side elevation, I I do appreciate wrapping the brick around. I think that's important, but it almost seems

229
01:06:44.160 --> 01:07:02.079
like such a small area and I don't know what our view is going to be from the street um of that. It it just seems like such a small area that I almost wonder if it should be if it should be extended some or maybe

230
01:07:02.079 --> 01:07:18.720
just extended at the same level as as that top floor while the what what is essentially the penthouse remains the the Hardy panel above it. I just don't know how we're going to see that and interpret that from the street. So that that might be somewhere where like a rendering kind of showing that view

231
01:07:18.720 --> 01:07:33.839
helps us understand that. And >> the rendering might probably help. If I can just um I'll explain that the because we're set back from the neighboring buildings, you will see it because there's going to be a gap between the build theirs and ours. So you'll see um at least a foot uh a foot

232
01:07:33.839 --> 01:07:48.480
and a half on the right and probably you know 4 inches on the I'm you know from here it looks like 4 in on the on the left. So you will see that kind of carry all the way down. It wouldn't just be that one exposed patch which would be very hard to see from any angle. I agree

233
01:07:48.480 --> 01:08:07.359
that it might make more might read uh you might get more of a sense of the context with the rendering. >> And the only other thought I had um and maybe it's good we're all talking about design things and not I mean we should talk about the massing. I mean, I I

234
01:08:07.359 --> 01:08:23.600
really don't have an issue with the proposed massing or or the height. And I think but I think we do need probably some renderings to help us kind of better understand the impact on the block. Um, that being said, I think one other one other thing about the facade is

235
01:08:23.600 --> 01:08:41.199
um the windows on the the parlor floor, the first floor. I almost wonder if those should be a little bit taller than the windows at at the like another six inches might also help differentiate that and and we

236
01:08:41.199 --> 01:08:56.080
bringing more into keeping with the tradition of having first floor or parlor floor windows be be the tallest. Um so that's maybe another way to to look at the the uh facade and tweak that. And kind of like Austin said, these are all kind of small changes but

237
01:08:56.080 --> 01:09:12.400
I think would make for a better project. And one other thing too is maybe some sort of sidelight or transom um adjacent to the entry doors as well. So that at least the size of the entry door um

238
01:09:12.400 --> 01:09:35.880
opening is the size of the stoop instead of having that brick on on either side of it to have it be a little bit wider wider than the windows above. Um I think those are those are my comments. >> That's fair. Any further questions?

239
01:09:36.960 --> 01:09:56.560
>> Would you like to move on to your next witness? I know Carolyn's here. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, yeah, my next is Carolyn Worell, but thank you for all those great comments. They're appreciated. Uh staff, before Carolyn begins, staff

240
01:09:56.560 --> 01:10:12.640
notes that Caroline has previously been qualified as an expert in planning in front of this board before. >> Good evening. >> You swear to the testimony you're about to proceed. >> I do.

241
01:10:12.640 --> 01:10:30.000
>> Uh Carolyn Worstelle, C A R O L Y N Worst W O R S T E L L. Uh good evening board. I'm happy to be here. Um, and so I'm I'm really here to sort of talk about some of the planning aspects of it and really talk about I think as mentioned maybe not so much the

242
01:10:30.000 --> 01:10:46.000
details but talking about the the bulk of the building and the scale of the building and how that relates to um the historic design standards that are necess are for um new buildings in historic districts. Um so again I you know I think I wanted to preface this

243
01:10:46.000 --> 01:11:03.280
and and talk about the site. You know this site has been vacant a long time. you know, it's been vacant since uh like 1960s, 1980s, you know, so these buildings have been um down for more than 40 years. So, very few if anyone remembers what the buildings that were on this site looked like. And it's been

244
01:11:03.280 --> 01:11:18.800
uh in this condition and, you know, vacant and that sort of, you know, gape tooth for a very long time. And I think that really gets to the fact, as we mentioned, it's a small lot. There are, you know, challenges with developing on small lots. And then we've got new

245
01:11:18.800 --> 01:11:35.440
challenges which you may not have had in the past and that comes down to a lot of what's going on with what's going on um with the flood hazard rules. So, you know, I think what we want to sort of remember is that we can't recreate the past here. You know, we cannot rebuild

246
01:11:35.440 --> 01:11:51.040
the building that was there. Um, and you guys oftentimes deal with a lot of buildings where the building is there and so flood hazard is not as much of an issue because if the building hasn't been knocked down, you're not doing more than 50%, you know, improvements. It's not a major improvement. Um, the rules

247
01:11:51.040 --> 01:12:05.600
don't apply. Um, but they apply here because this is a new building. So, we're kind of in a in a situation where um you're trying to find that context. Um, but you're also running up against rules at the state level that you cannot

248
01:12:05.600 --> 01:12:22.239
get out of that say that you cannot have any livable space within the flood plane. Um, so I think that that's really what kind is at the heart of this uh particular design. Um, is that we're trying to find a way to build a building on the site that that provides that

249
01:12:22.239 --> 01:12:38.239
context but still is meeting the current regulations that say what you can build. Um, you know, and I think we also need to remember that, you know, not all historic districts are, you know, they're not cookie cutter. That that's

250
01:12:38.239 --> 01:12:54.080
not how historically people designed. You know, you might have gotten a section of row houses, but oftentimes those row houses were interspersed with one or two homes that were different that were built by someone separately or somebody knocked something down and built something differently. So, you know, I think that's too part of a

251
01:12:54.080 --> 01:13:11.120
historic context of a street is that, you know, not all the buildings were the same. they weren't cookie cutter. Um, so I think really when we we look at what are the uh standards for a new building, you know, they say, you know, you don't need to replicate what was there. Um,

252
01:13:11.120 --> 01:13:27.760
but you want to reflect uh contemporary design standards. Um, so the issues again uh issue was with a flood hazard sort of that design standards. Um, but you want to look at something that's compatible. um you know he hate here

253
01:13:27.760 --> 01:13:44.960
again we have to raise that first floor out of the um flood hazard area. Um but we are still somehow um trying to uh come in less than a height that was previously approved for this site. Um so trying to really make some smaller floors, make some of those um design

254
01:13:44.960 --> 01:13:59.840
constraints work um so that we can come in with a slightly shorter building. Um the other one is not just height but also the width of the building. you know, this is a little wider, but the way it's been designed, it looks like two row homes next to each other, you know, so it's continuing that pattern of

255
01:13:59.840 --> 01:14:16.480
the narrow, you know, 15 foot row homes that are characteristic of the block. Um, talk about a compatible rhythm and repetition. You know, again, for the windows, the the repetition is the two by two, you know, so each home has the two two windows and they're up, you

256
01:14:16.480 --> 01:14:32.640
know, two windows on the two stories. So again, trying to keep some of that repetition with the way that the windows um continue that that uh rhythm and repetition. Um using the historically appropriate materials of the brick um you know, while still introducing the more modern materials and modern design

257
01:14:32.640 --> 01:14:48.480
in that upper story to sort of try and create that separation between maybe the three more historic threetory context and the more you know that that other story. um and and trying to find, you know, things again where the scales and proportions

258
01:14:48.480 --> 01:15:04.719
of the the windows and the doors, they don't all match. You know, we we were just talking about how, you know, the all the the the windows aren't the exact same size. Uh but that's historically appropriate, right? Um because that's historically the the um separation between the scale and the importance of

259
01:15:04.719 --> 01:15:19.920
different floors would be reflected in the windows. So I I think that you know again this this building tries to take a lot of those historic um characteristics that you would find and try to uh marry them into a building that again is trying to to reflect um some of the more

260
01:15:19.920 --> 01:15:35.679
modern design constraints. Um you know so I I again I really think that that this building does try to to meet and does meet those standards for a new building here. Um you know and and sometimes when when uh as a planner I

261
01:15:35.679 --> 01:15:50.719
look at you know what happens you know I we have to go for variances for this and when we look at that you know we say what happens if variances aren't granted right what happens if if things are so overly prescriptive that you don't have those opportunities to create these

262
01:15:50.719 --> 01:16:07.440
these um um uh away ability to to step away from the the requirement. And what you happen is, you know, if if we had if you had to design this so that it was, you know, trying to exactly recreate what was

263
01:16:07.440 --> 01:16:23.199
there, you end up with a lot of space that isn't usable. Um, and people aren't going to build space that isn't usable. And so, you know, we end up with the same condition, which is a vacant lot. Um, you know, so it's really difficult, like I said, to to design something for the very small site with a lot of the

264
01:16:23.199 --> 01:16:39.120
constraints here. So, um I think it's really trying to find um how do we how do we um find a building that is uh uh meets uh the requirements and the restrictions of this site while also trying to find

265
01:16:39.120 --> 01:16:54.560
something that is contextually appropriate in this historic district. And so I think that um the building as designed with the the input from city staff and then this input from this evening I think really tries to to meet those and meets those standards uh for

266
01:16:54.560 --> 01:17:18.000
new construction. Um so that's my testimony unless anyone has any questions. Any questions? I don't have a question, but just a comment. One thing that I heard in the testimony, which I hadn't considered during the presentation up till that

267
01:17:18.000 --> 01:17:34.880
point was that um this is kind of a mirrored facade, which is to give the illusion that this is a twin attached rowhouse to reduce the visual impact of the bulk. So, not putting it out to the applicant or to staff or any of my

268
01:17:34.880 --> 01:17:51.280
fellow commissioners if it might be prudent or advisable to somehow enhance that illusion by scoring the center of the building or creating some kind of a visual boundary to deepen that illusion and help reduce the visual impact. It's

269
01:17:51.280 --> 01:18:06.320
food for thought. >> It's funny, we we actually were just talking about that earlier, so I I think it's we're on the same length length with that. Um yeah, thank you. I was actually at that same exact moment

270
01:18:06.320 --> 01:18:23.679
I had the same thought and it also occurs to me that the implication of that is that the the fourth floor doesn't all the only part of the face of the fourth floor that needs to project out as far as it does is that one

271
01:18:23.679 --> 01:18:41.040
bedroom and that the other bedroom actually being much larger could set back further something to study. I don't I don't think we should be designing, you know, um for you, but um I I would be curious to see what what the impact of that might be.

272
01:18:41.040 --> 01:18:57.840
>> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Well, that's our presentation, but if I'm reading the tea leaves, uh I think we like to have the opportunity to carry the proposal and come back and answer all the issues that you raised tonight,

273
01:18:57.840 --> 01:19:14.800
which I think are legitimate and appreciate Mike's hard work on this and uh that would be our our uh preference. I I think I would like to hear from staff if we could so that we could see if there's anything else that we could

274
01:19:14.800 --> 01:19:30.320
elicit or hash out before you go back and try to take our comments for revisions. >> Uh yeah, if we want to maybe we'll open for public comment just so we could do it. We'll open it again next time, but uh and then we could I'll

275
01:19:30.320 --> 01:19:46.640
I'll put some comments on the record and then we can uh if Eugene wishes to carry, he can carry to uh June 15th is the next meeting. Um >> but do we have a motion to open public comment? >> Motion to open public comment. >> I'll second.

276
01:19:46.640 --> 01:20:01.440
>> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Are there any members of the public that wish to speak regarding this application? Okay. Staff sees no members of the public and recommends a motion to close public comment. >> Motion to close. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I.

277
01:20:01.440 --> 01:20:17.360
>> Okay. Um, so, yep. So, I've been working with the applicant for a little while now on this application. Um, a lot of the comments that I have provided to them, I think, have been covered largely by uh the commission. I

278
01:20:17.360 --> 01:20:34.400
know one of the things that I I had recommended to them since the beginning uh was the positioning of those doorways, aligning them. This way it does further give that illusion that you have two independent structures that are joined rather than one large structure

279
01:20:34.400 --> 01:20:50.560
that's mirrored. Um I think that that breaks the illusion of the rest of the street as those adjacent uh structures all have the uh entryways on that left side. Um, as far as the bulk goes, uh,

280
01:20:50.560 --> 01:21:06.320
currently as I'm viewing it, I struggle to, uh, see how it fits cleanly into the ordinance as it's currently written. Um, the ordinance speaks for new construction, uh, you know, the site and setting as well as the building height

281
01:21:06.320 --> 01:21:22.000
and, um, the scale of the buildings. Uh, and I I feel that as it currently has been presented, uh, the building is quite out of scale with the adjacent properties being three stories. I recognize that there is base flood

282
01:21:22.000 --> 01:21:39.360
elevation. Um, in the rest of Jersey City, there is a a condition that allows you to account for some of that base flood elevation, but the historic district was specifically left out of that condition. Um so we do not have uh you know kind of a nice clean way of

283
01:21:39.360 --> 01:21:55.120
dealing with this. They are requesting a height variance to go above 40 feet. Um and with the adjacent structures being so small being three stories um this will be significantly visible not only uh

284
01:21:55.120 --> 01:22:13.360
from Cole Street but also as you turn the corner and continue down the street. Uh I believe that's Fifth Street. um you will see it over those adjacent structures as well because all of those remain at 3 ft for a majority of Fifth Street. Um and so

285
01:22:13.360 --> 01:22:28.719
the applicant initially came in I believe the initial height was in closer to 50 ft and it has been reduced significantly um as I've stated to the applicant since

286
01:22:28.719 --> 01:22:44.960
the application was applied for. Um the bulk and massing are are something that I I struggle to support uh in this scenario. Um they do have a double wide lot and it it is

287
01:22:44.960 --> 01:23:00.400
uh just a big development on a very small parcel with adjacent properties that are historically significant that are very small. Um I think the commission provided a lot of really great ways to try to minimize that. I'll

288
01:23:00.400 --> 01:23:17.120
also echo uh possibly making instead of horizontal panel on the upper floor, maybe um some vertical uh instead of vertical, horizontal, sorry. Uh to try to minimize that that lengthening of that upper floor could also be uh

289
01:23:17.120 --> 01:23:32.719
something that would help. Um I don't know if the applicant has explored maybe the roof at all to make uh it again less visibly intrusive. Um the all suggestions that that have been provided

290
01:23:32.719 --> 01:23:48.719
that I think could help uh minimize the height and visual impact of the building. >> Now those are all visual mitigating factors but at the end of the day I mean can you put lipstick on this pig and take it to the dance or or like do you

291
01:23:48.719 --> 01:24:04.800
feel that that would be sufficient to mitigate your concerns about the height or is it ultimately just too tall? >> So I I think that right I have my professional opinion. I think that any mitigation that's possible or feasible should be explored. Um ultimately it is

292
01:24:04.800 --> 01:24:20.800
up to you guys as the commission to vote on the application. Uh I can't I can't give it a staff level approval. Um so I think that um for me I would my professional opinion would be to minimize the height as much

293
01:24:20.800 --> 01:24:36.320
as possible. Um, I I recognize that we're not going to have a three-story building here next to the adjacent three-story buildings. I think that that would be unreasonable. Uh, and it's not what I would be recommending. I do think that the height

294
01:24:36.320 --> 01:24:51.280
could be minimized further. >> And and you've talked about the height specifically. I mean, when you're talking about the bulk and massing, is it really just the height you're concerned about? >> Uh, yes, predominantly. Again, the the rear guard set back is never going to be

295
01:24:51.280 --> 01:25:08.639
conforming. And um it's I I I do believe it's only like a fur or two beyond what the adjacent structures are. Uh the adjacent structure to the north is 100% lock coverage. Um so as far as a rear yard setback, it's not something that I'm particularly concerned about. Uh it

296
01:25:08.639 --> 01:25:27.760
is predominantly the height with those adjacent structures. >> Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. >> Of course. Um, and just one other one other thing I have um just to put on the record. I'm still I still agree certainly agree that if the the stoop um would be able to

297
01:25:27.760 --> 01:25:43.280
switch the location and like when I look at the proposed floor plan I I'm not quite getting why it can't be. So perhaps when when um they come back they can talk about why it's not possible cuz

298
01:25:43.280 --> 01:26:00.080
I looking at that floor plan on um HPC4 I see space there and I mean it looks like it just you just go into the living room. Maybe that's not accurate and there's going to be a wall there. I don't know. But I I just I just like to

299
01:26:00.080 --> 01:26:16.080
further explain why they can't be why that can't be flipped. Um, and I think the other the maybe the one other thing to look at is also the floor to ceiling height in that top floor as well and see if that even a few inches, but these other tweaks we're talking about I think

300
01:26:16.080 --> 01:26:33.280
would add up to some big changes. You know, something like 18 in can be a lot and help us really get this closer to the adjacent building. So, >> okay. Again, appreciate all the comments and we'll see you on June 15th.

301
01:26:33.280 --> 01:26:49.040
>> All right. Can we make a motion to carry the application to the June 15th meeting? >> Motion to carry. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Great. >> All right. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, we're going to take a 10-minute

302
01:26:49.040 --> 01:27:03.760
break, >> so we can come back. It is 8:16 now. We will come back and be ready for the next case at 8:26. >> Okay. >> Okay. It is 8:28. if we want to call the meeting back to order.

303
01:27:03.760 --> 01:27:21.520
>> Uh calling the meeting back to order at 8:28 >> and we can call the next case. >> All right. And that will be case number H25-0297 applicant Benjamin Wine on behalf of 26

304
01:27:21.520 --> 01:27:38.239
Bright Street Corporation owner. The address is 26 Bright Street, block 14106, lot 38, zone uh is the Vanvor Park Historic District for the certificate of

305
01:27:38.239 --> 01:27:54.159
appropriateness for the proposed construction of a new four-story, 4unit residential building and associated site work in the Vanvor Park Historic District. Recommendation to the Jersey City Planning Board.

306
01:27:54.159 --> 01:28:09.120
Good evening, chairman, commissioners. For the record, Benjamin Weine of Prime2 and Miselli on behalf of the applicant 26 Bright Street Corporation. Uh, as the chairman just indicated, the application before you this evening is for a positive recommendation to the planning

307
01:28:09.120 --> 01:28:25.280
board for our proposed development of a vacant site located at 26 Bright Street, block 14106, lot 38, with a new four-story, 4-unit residential building. Uh this is kind of a we're excited to present it to you to be honest with you because this is a a unique opportunity

308
01:28:25.280 --> 01:28:41.520
to uh to really infill a site in a historic district that has to a large degree a very cohesive aesthetic and we're able to continue that and we hope you'll agree. The one thing it does not have a cohesive uh nature though are the building heights. And we are a vacant lot sandwiched right between a

309
01:28:41.520 --> 01:28:58.400
five-story building and a three-story building that was approved for a fourthstory addition. And this is, like I said, it's a vacant site. And given that we are located actually within zone 3 of the Bright Street redevelopment plan as well, everything about our application is conforming to those standards with one exception. And I'll

310
01:28:58.400 --> 01:29:13.679
get to that momentarily. But this particular zone, including the historic zone within that plan, calls for four stories, four units, and all of the setbacks and coverages that we're proposing. What it doesn't do, however, is take into account what you heard with

311
01:29:13.679 --> 01:29:30.000
the last application was that uh the fact that we're in a flood zone. And so we had an opportunity to come to you and say instead of going before the planning board with a very minor height deviation, which is ultimately what we're proposing, we looked at if we were

312
01:29:30.000 --> 01:29:46.880
to build this more what I would say more to the intent of a four-story building, truly 40 feet, we would actually be significantly taller of the four stories, 40 feet. And so despite the fact that we are I believe and our architect will correct me if I'm wrong approximately 7 feet into the flood

313
01:29:46.880 --> 01:30:01.840
plane and so we need to start our residential floor at approximately 7 ft. We still managed to present a project where we're actually only 3'11 above what the height is permitted in the zone. And we did that by tweaking the floor to floor heights and uh and ultimately coming up with a project that

314
01:30:01.840 --> 01:30:18.639
we believe is most appropriate for this site in order to maintain that fourstory aesthetic which again sandwiches right between a fivetory and another threetory with a fourthstory rear edition on it. Um and so we think that it's it's really the best and most appropriate way to use

315
01:30:18.639 --> 01:30:34.800
the site while also continuing the aesthetic, continuing some of the window lines. And like I said at the beginning of my presentation, we're excited to present it to you because this really was a wellthoughtout project from our end. And what you're going to see here this evening is something that we've worked internally on for over a year at

316
01:30:34.800 --> 01:30:50.000
this point and with uh with HPC staff for probably at this point also the better part of of eight months or so. So I want to thank them for their time and thank you this evening for hearing our application. With that, I have two witnesses I intend to call. Our project architect, Prial Shukla, who will take

317
01:30:50.000 --> 01:31:06.320
you through the plans that you already Priel Shukla who will take you through the uh plans that you see on your screen already this evening and then we'll follow it up with our professional planner Carolyn Worstelle who will speak to the general scheme um the

318
01:31:06.320 --> 01:31:22.719
neighborhood and the context of the development that we're proposing here. So unless you have any questions of me I'm happy to proceed with Miss Shukla. >> Seeing none. >> Okay. We do just need to swear you in and qualify you.

319
01:31:22.719 --> 01:31:40.080
>> Sure. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth? >> Yes. >> And state spelling. >> Prithal Shukla. P R I T A L Shukla. S H

320
01:31:40.080 --> 01:31:57.840
U K L A. Okay. Okay, Miss M. Shukla, if you could just give the board a very brief explanation of your qualifications, including if you're licensed in New Jersey. >> Sure. Good evening, everyone. My name is Prial Shukla. I am a licensed architect in the state of New York and New Jersey.

321
01:31:57.840 --> 01:32:12.159
Um, I'm also principal architect and founder of PS architecture and design firm located in Caucus, New Jersey. I hold a master's degree of architecture from Pratt Institute in New York.

322
01:32:12.159 --> 01:32:31.040
graduated in 2011. Um since then I have uh 15 years of professional work experience uh working with several residential development infill uh design and development projects, renovations, additions within New York and New Jersey

323
01:32:31.040 --> 01:32:45.760
uh metropolitan area including some active projects currently in Jersey City. Um I um have also testified in front of other planning and zoning boards uh within New Jersey such as

324
01:32:45.760 --> 01:33:03.199
Hoboken, uh Union City, Clifton, uh V Hawin. I um I'm well aware of um the Jersey City historic design standards and I'm hoping I can present tonight the

325
01:33:03.199 --> 01:33:18.000
project. >> Thank you. Staff recommends that chair accept Mr. qualifications as an expert in the field of architecture. >> Yeah. >> Thank Thank you. >> You can begin your presentation. >> So, why don't you walk us through uh what we're proposing here this evening?

326
01:33:18.000 --> 01:33:36.080
>> Sure. So, before I um explain the drawings and design in intent of this project, I would like to bring uh attention to three main uh key aspects of this project. The first being

327
01:33:36.080 --> 01:33:51.360
the project fills a long vacant gap in an otherwise continuous contributing street wall on Bright Street. Second, the building the way it is designed is sympathetic to the

328
01:33:51.360 --> 01:34:07.840
historic block in scale, massing, materials and fenestration with all rooftop elements concealed from the public right of way. And third, the front facade employs traditional brick

329
01:34:07.840 --> 01:34:23.600
masonry, cast stone sill and lintils, a pre-cast stone cornice with brick corbelling detailing and a wood entry door all responsive to the Italian8ate vernacular architecture of the surrounding

330
01:34:23.600 --> 01:34:39.199
buildings. Um I will now walk the commission through the drawings and proposed design. So on the first sheet which is Z 100 um on the left side you see the zoning

331
01:34:39.199 --> 01:34:55.600
table. Um so in terms the the project is 2500 square ft lot located in R3 residential infill zoning district within Van Worst

332
01:34:55.600 --> 01:35:13.920
Park Historic District. We are proposing a fourstory 4 unit building with approximate 6,983 square ft uh total building area excluding partial seller. All bulk parameters comply with

333
01:35:13.920 --> 01:35:30.719
one exception. The lot coverage at 73% against 80% max is compliant. The density at four units within 4.30 units allowed is compliant. The proposed

334
01:35:30.719 --> 01:35:47.120
rare yard as 30 ft is compliant. The front yard matching prevailing setback is compliant. The proposed building height at 43t 11 in against the 40t

335
01:35:47.120 --> 01:36:04.080
baseline is the single height variance. we are requiring driven entirely by the flood elevation requirement. On the right side you are seeing existing block plan indicating the red

336
01:36:04.080 --> 01:36:19.360
portion where the vacant site exists. On the on the west side you see an existing five-story building and on the east side is an existing three-story building. Uh

337
01:36:19.360 --> 01:36:36.520
so if you see the proposed block plan, we have recently made an update to indicate the rare extension of the adjacent building including uh a fourstory partial bulkhead addition.

338
01:36:41.120 --> 01:36:56.560
on sheet G 100 which is the proposed site plan. You can see we the front yard uh or the front facade of the building matches uh the adjacent building facads.

339
01:36:56.560 --> 01:37:14.960
Um uh there is a zero ft sideyard proposed except for the east uh side light well due to the legal ventilation requirements and a 30 foot rare yard is proposed as a private

340
01:37:14.960 --> 01:37:30.320
landscaped yard. All utilities um all all the new utilities proposed will be underground and in compliance with JCMUA and PSCG standards. The green

341
01:37:30.320 --> 01:37:51.840
area ratio achieves 0.45 versus 0.25 required. Um I would also like to note uh the building entry and the front uh stoop entry steps towards the west of the

342
01:37:51.840 --> 01:38:09.840
building. Uh they align with the adjacent building uh fence area. So the main entry is proposed on the west west side with stoop stairs approximately 4t 11 in above the

343
01:38:09.840 --> 01:38:24.960
existing grade to meet the design flood elevation. um a front planter bed. As you can see here, the front planter bed is proposed with lower railing aligning with the

344
01:38:24.960 --> 01:38:42.760
adjacent building low fence area. Also, at the same time, it conceals the seller stairs going down uh which are and the cellar is used only for utility and uh sprinkler room.

345
01:38:43.360 --> 01:38:59.119
Um the next sheet is the site landscaping and lighting plan. So um one new street tree with a 5 ftx 10 ft tree pit is proposed with a tree

346
01:38:59.119 --> 01:39:15.440
guard uh 18 in tall in compliance with Jersey City forestry standards. The lighting consists of the front facade wall sconce at the entry area as well as the second means of egress

347
01:39:15.440 --> 01:39:33.600
um and the rear facade where the patio um area is to access the rear yard. There are some uh down lights proposed along the roof bulkhead area. Um, and the intention for the light fixtures is

348
01:39:33.600 --> 01:39:50.920
to be downcast residential in scale with no glare from the public right of way. And we've provided both the light fixtures here, the walls, scon as well as the um down light.

349
01:39:51.199 --> 01:40:09.440
Um I will now walk you through the floor plans. A 100 through A102 are the proposed floor plans. As you can see the partial cellar floor is only 20 uh 21 ft from the facade. Rest of the

350
01:40:09.440 --> 01:40:26.560
space is an excavated crawl space. Uh the cellar is proposed mainly for sprinkler room um and bicycle storage, gas meter, water meter and uh trash removal

351
01:40:26.560 --> 01:40:47.040
trash uh refuge area. Um I would I would like to note because the site lies in this uh flood zone AE the seller will be wet floodproofed with flood vents already indicated on the floor plan and the seller is restricted

352
01:40:47.040 --> 01:41:03.920
for storage and utility use only. The first floor elevation is set approximately 5 ft above the grade to meet the design uh flood elevation standards. In terms of the first floor through

353
01:41:03.920 --> 01:41:21.280
fourth floor, there are four apartments. Uh first floor has a two-bedroom apartment. Second floor has a three-bedroom apartment and third and fourth floor have two duplex apartments. Uh each is

354
01:41:21.280 --> 01:41:36.080
two bedroomedroom and two uh threebedroom duplex apartments. the uh each unit 3 and unit 4 which are within third and fourth floor they have a private roof deck access

355
01:41:36.080 --> 01:41:53.119
um with a with a private deck on uh for each of the unit. Um I will now uh spend some time explaining the design of the front facade. Um so the south elevation which

356
01:41:53.119 --> 01:42:08.719
is the front facade facing the bride street is the only public uh facing facade. The design draws directly from contributing Italian8ate and vernacular brick rowhouse concept on this block

357
01:42:08.719 --> 01:42:25.679
consisting of following features. The brick facade uh the the the f front brick facade is proposed as red smooth brick with brown concave lime motor joints consistent with the historic uh

358
01:42:25.679 --> 01:42:41.440
masonry facade on Bright Street. Um an on-site mockup panel will be prepared for staff and commission to review prior to full uh installation of the facade. Windows are punched openings which are

359
01:42:41.440 --> 01:42:58.080
set back one full brick width from the facade providing the shadow line of historic masonry. The cast stone uh sill and lentils in dark brown with a with a a base cast

360
01:42:58.080 --> 01:43:15.600
stone showing the water table line. A pre-cast stone cornness um with double sold soldier course brick band terminates the facade with caststone coping above. Enlarged details

361
01:43:15.600 --> 01:43:32.080
are provided on sheet 404. Um as far as penetration fenistrations are concerned uh we are proposing Marvin essential fiberglass double hung windows with simulated divided lights in a two over

362
01:43:32.080 --> 01:43:49.760
two pattern uh with dark brown color windows. Four windows per floor. Each are 3 feet 6 in wide by 6 feet tall with consistent punch openings rhythm through second and

363
01:43:49.760 --> 01:44:06.239
fourth floor. The FL first floor deviates only to accommodate the rare means of egress uh corridor gate and the recessed entry door.

364
01:44:06.239 --> 01:44:23.520
At grade level, a pre-cast stone stoop with stone treads. Black painted iron railing with cast new round base tulip post. Pre-fabricated wood door entry with sidelight and a transform carrying

365
01:44:23.520 --> 01:44:38.719
vinyl address numbering. Um are the features at the grade. The brick wraps around the recessed entry with caststone lintil above matching the window lintils.

366
01:44:38.719 --> 01:44:54.000
I will now move on the right side which is the proposed right uh rare elevation which is the north elevation. This is not visible from the public right of way. It is fully enclosed by the

367
01:44:54.000 --> 01:45:09.679
adjacent contributing buildings and the rare yards of properties fronting Barrow Street. The rare facade is treated as a contemporary facade in stucco with Marvin aluminum clad doublehung windows

368
01:45:09.679 --> 01:45:27.080
and sliding doors at balcony with black metal railing. The rare is designed to be honest about its contemporary nature while preserving the dignity of historic bright street facade.

369
01:45:29.440 --> 01:45:46.880
Um I will now explain the side elevations on sheet A20 and 202. Since the building is lot line, it has attached building on both the sides. One

370
01:45:46.880 --> 01:46:00.960
side you have the five-story building and the other side you have the threestory building with an approved fourthstory bulkhead. Um the facade the side facads are

371
01:46:00.960 --> 01:46:16.639
proposed to have um stucco finish to match with the rear facade. The front uh facade brick is proposed to wrap around uh to 12 in.

372
01:46:16.639 --> 01:46:36.080
Sheet A203 shows the existing streetscape with a vacant lot indicated in red. disrupting the otherwise continuous wall of threetory and fourstory row houses

373
01:46:36.080 --> 01:46:53.760
between Barrow and Grove Street. Sheet 204 shows the proposed condition with our proposed fourstory building completing the missing tooth in the street wall aligning with the prevailing

374
01:46:53.760 --> 01:47:13.600
setback and relating to the neighbors cornice line and fourstory rhythm of the block. Sheet A300 is the proposed building section with the sight line diagram

375
01:47:13.600 --> 01:47:31.840
indicating the sideline study from the public right of way confirming that the roof bulkhead is not visible from Bright Street. Um rest of the sheets I have enlarged

376
01:47:31.840 --> 01:47:48.000
wall sections. Uh detail of the entry area. Uh the entry stoop stair details. Uh entrance area with the wood prefab door, wood prefab sidelight, a transome

377
01:47:48.000 --> 01:48:08.880
and vinyl lettering uh for the building number with a cast um header. matching with the window headers. Sheet A400 are some of the enlarged details uh for the brick cornness

378
01:48:08.880 --> 01:48:24.800
elevation and section. The low iron fence railing matching with the adjacent property. Um the window double typical front and rear window sections confirming one

379
01:48:24.800 --> 01:48:49.800
width of a brick recess and HVAC unit enclosure detail with acoustical panels. Sheet 500 shows a typical material pallet. Um, and I have some material samples.

380
01:48:50.880 --> 01:49:06.639
I can pass it from here. >> Okay. This way. >> And for the record, we should mark these as a one. Sure. >> So, I am showing the base um a is uh the

381
01:49:06.639 --> 01:49:24.000
base cast in dark brown color. the red brick facade with brown concave mortar. Um the stucco uh color with monty white for the rear

382
01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:41.440
and the side facads. A aluminum double hung uh fiberglass windows uh brown in color. Uh typical uh door hardware for the entry door and egress doors. um prefab

383
01:49:41.440 --> 01:49:58.639
entry door with the side light and railings. Sheet A501 shows the overall context indicating the vacant lot and as you can see on the west side you have the

384
01:49:58.639 --> 01:50:15.600
fivestory building. On the east side, you have the three-story building with a bulkhead um fourstory edition recently approved for 24 Bride Street. And um finally, we

385
01:50:15.600 --> 01:50:31.920
have the photographs of the adjacent contributing building east and west side of our site along a photo realalistic rendering of a completed building in context. The rendering shows

386
01:50:31.920 --> 01:50:49.520
a building that is unmistak unmistakably new but quietly and respectfully fills a long gap. Reading in scale and material with its neighbors and allowing the contributing

387
01:50:49.520 --> 01:51:04.800
buildings flanking it to remain the dominant historic voices on the block. In summary, the proposed building at 26 Bright fills a long vacant lot in a contributing street wall of Van Worst

388
01:51:04.800 --> 01:51:22.560
Park Historic District. Matches the prevailing front setback cornice line and fourstory rhythm of the block. employs traditional masonry materials, cast sill and lentils, recessed punch windows, a pre-cast stone cornness with

389
01:51:22.560 --> 01:51:38.560
brick corbelling and a wood entry door, all detailed to historic precedent. It also conceals all rooftop elements from the public right of way and respects the secretary of interior

390
01:51:38.560 --> 01:51:53.440
standards for new construction in historic districts based on the design's compatibility with the district and its careful response to the historic streetscape. We respectfully request approval of certificate of

391
01:51:53.440 --> 01:52:10.400
appropriateness. I'm happy to answer any questions if the commission or staff members have. >> Thank you, Prito. >> You're welcome. >> Are there any questions from commissioners? >> Was the um spacing because you have

392
01:52:10.400 --> 01:52:27.920
different spacing between the windows? I It is symmetrical um but it's not uniform. Is that dictated by the layout of the units inside? >> Yes. So we've gone back and forth with

393
01:52:27.920 --> 01:52:45.920
the window spacings. Initially the building was designed to have second, third, fourth floors um aligned uniformly spaced. We had the renderings done. Um but when we had an internal

394
01:52:45.920 --> 01:53:04.960
staff meeting, it was suggested uh this entry door which is the second means of egress. Um we had to leave at least 12 in there so that the brick can turn around. Um and that actually dictated

395
01:53:04.960 --> 01:53:22.239
that pushed the first floor windows. Um and due to the second means of egress gate as well as how the front ent how wide the front entry door with the sidlight is and there is a sprinkler

396
01:53:22.239 --> 01:53:37.840
connection. If you see the plan um on the first floor there is a sprinkler connection that has to be above the design floor elevation. So

397
01:53:37.840 --> 01:53:53.760
the windows actually the upstairs window are flexible. They can be adjusted but the intention was to somehow align the first floor also with the upper floor windows.

398
01:53:53.760 --> 01:54:13.840
>> Okay. Can I can we see the front facade one more time? >> Yes. >> I'm I I don't not sure I'm understanding it. It's not the first floor is not aligned with the other floors. >> Yeah, it's right now it's little closely

399
01:54:13.840 --> 01:54:31.280
aligned. Initially, it was like way off. >> Okay. I mean, I I understand why the first floor does can't be the same, but um personally, I would probably like to see uniform spacing. >> Okay.

400
01:54:31.280 --> 01:54:46.400
>> It just makes me a little dizzy to look at it otherwise. No, I agree. On the second, third, and fourth floors, if the spacing between the windows were uniform, that would be preferable. It seems it seems clear that something is happening at the first floor that will

401
01:54:46.400 --> 01:55:01.280
might not make that possible, and it'll have to be its own thing. Um, but the the different the 2'2 and the 1t2 and the 2 foot2, I just don't think it makes sense. It almost looks like a mistake except that it's too much space. So, I

402
01:55:01.280 --> 01:55:17.920
know that it's not, but I think equal spacing between the windows would be preferable. >> Sure. >> Um, and I suspect a fellow commissioner would weigh in on this, but the something about that door doesn't look the main entrance doesn't look quite

403
01:55:17.920 --> 01:55:34.719
right. Maybe it's because it's got the four is that a simulated divided light on the the door, that main panel. >> Um, something about it just doesn't sit right for me. Um, is there something that would be more appropriate? Like

404
01:55:34.719 --> 01:55:52.440
maybe a single pane would look better. >> So, is it this one? >> The the main entrance door, the where it's divided into four panels. >> Uhhuh. >> Um, it doesn't look like what I'm accustomed to seeing.

405
01:55:55.840 --> 01:56:11.760
I don't know. Does is it does it pass muster for everyone else? >> I see what you mean. I mean, I think with with the other uh with all the windows being two over two and that being a four, it's just it seems like it should maybe just be the same as the two over two windows at least.

406
01:56:11.760 --> 01:56:26.880
>> Sure. >> It feels a little busy to me perhaps. >> Or a single >> vertical. Yeah. One vertical glass lights to the lower half of the door as well. seems like it's not quite one or the

407
01:56:26.880 --> 01:56:50.080
other. >> You can do right. >> Yes. >> My last comment I it may have to do with the rendering, but um the um cornice the I think it was double soldier course. >> Yes.

408
01:56:50.080 --> 01:57:21.360
>> I'm I'm not sure if the rendering is doing it justice. Oh, okay. There we go. Well, my my comment was going to be I think the double soldier course is maybe a little odd to see. I don't know if you

409
01:57:21.360 --> 01:57:36.880
have any precedent or examples of like a double soldier course, but maybe a simple singular soldier course would be better or maybe something that differentiates the cornice. It gives a little more um depth as well. I think

410
01:57:36.880 --> 01:57:52.639
would would be good. I I think it's just needs a little more something up at the top there to kind of cap off the building. And I I think it's maybe a little odd that you have um the lentils that are cast

411
01:57:52.639 --> 01:58:09.199
stone, I believe, and the sills and then there's nowhere else that there's brick corbling on the building up to the cornice. Like I think often I'd expect there to be corbling elsewhere on the building and then it just kind of goes to this cornice that's corballed brick. Mhm.

412
01:58:09.199 --> 01:58:26.560
>> So I'm thinking, you know, with the cast stone sills and littles and then and then it goes to this brick corbling. Just seems a little odd to me. And I think we have done some brick corballed cornises, but it just seems like kind of odd that the buildings that just kind of

413
01:58:26.560 --> 01:58:42.480
like thrown on there at the top without any other brick corbling on the building. >> Well, I could pick up on that. I do want to say I really appreciated the um your description of the windows being recessed, the the white of the brick. Um

414
01:58:42.480 --> 01:58:58.960
especially since that is the case on on 24 Bright Street as well. Um I do think your rendering doesn't show that. Your rendering shows the jams of windows proud of the brick. >> Yeah. So, I think your attention to the to the brick is um is great and I would be interested in seeing the development

415
01:58:58.960 --> 01:59:15.440
of that brick cornness with a little bit more shadow and and um feeling like it's a little it's not quite so out of nowhere. The other the other thing about the brick and particularly of the adjacent building of 24 Bright Street is that the the brick coursing is actually

416
01:59:15.440 --> 01:59:30.719
not how you rendered it. If you actually look at a photograph of it, you know, it has the traditional sort of common bond where every seven or eight courses it's a header course. And I think just playing just having that additional kind of coursing type variation lends um the

417
01:59:30.719 --> 01:59:46.560
brick material again just another level of texture level another level of richness. So, I think if you could bring the your sensitivity to that brick white to the overall composition and and um

418
01:59:46.560 --> 02:00:03.679
use of the brick throughout the facade. Um I think that would really help. Um I I would also say that I'm looking at your your cast stone samples. >> Yes. >> And there seems to be much less contrast between the brick color and the cast colors that you've picked

419
02:00:03.679 --> 02:00:20.639
>> than what you're representing in the rendering. My own personal preference and I'd be happy to debate it um is I would prefer a little bit more contrast. Um typically we would see um you know the headers headers and and sills. Yeah. More like

420
02:00:20.639 --> 02:00:37.199
that darker. >> Yeah. >> Um >> or you know or go the other way you know maybe it's all soldier courses of I don't know but it's it feels this feels slightly unintentional. Um, and just finally, um, I just want to

421
02:00:37.199 --> 02:00:52.719
return to this question of the first story, um, window. Um, does why does the I mean, I understand that sprinkler closet needing to be on that floor, but why does it need to extend to the facade wall?

422
02:00:52.719 --> 02:01:10.000
>> Because uh, the the the brown line is where the design flood elevation is. The sprinkler connection has to happen above the design flood elevation and that's where the first floor starts. So

423
02:01:10.000 --> 02:01:26.159
>> couldn't couldn't that So is there a pipe that we're not seeing or >> it's a pipe that is not included in the rendering. >> It seems to me that if you can manage to sneak that connection in below the sill

424
02:01:26.159 --> 02:01:43.520
of the window >> Mhm. um >> been higher up than it is. You're saying? >> No. >> Yeah. >> I guess I guess what I'm saying is is somewhere between the top of the water table below. Yeah. There >> and sneak it in um at the floor or just

425
02:01:43.520 --> 02:02:01.840
you know or I don't know how, but if you could if you could push back that sprinkler closet enough so that you could bring the window to a line to the upper stories, I'm sure it'll look funny in plan. >> Yeah. Um, I guess we can't I'm not going to really comment. I mean, you know, it

426
02:02:01.840 --> 02:02:17.599
it's your job. You figure it out. But it seems to me that there there is a feasible way to push those windows to align with the with the windows above um with with a little creativity. Um, so yeah, I I would just I I'll I'll

427
02:02:17.599 --> 02:02:39.920
um I'll stop there. So on on the sheet um I think it's the same one you have the one I'm looking at A500 the brick that you have is um where is I just lost it oh yeah the modular red

428
02:02:39.920 --> 02:02:59.520
smooth veneer with framing is that is that what what was the sample that was given to us >> this doesn't this doesn't look red >> that's what is >> more uh brownish ish. >> This is that

429
02:02:59.520 --> 02:03:22.000
>> it's a it's a different manufacturer. >> Gotcha. >> It's not building. >> Yeah. >> So that that is what's proposed then is is that or what's in the drawing? >> What's on the drawing? >> Okay. So that's >> so the the cast stone is what um

430
02:03:22.000 --> 02:03:36.880
>> Okay. And >> the samples. So this is a modular redstone brick and what do veneer with framing? What exactly does that mean? >> So uh the brick facade would have framing inside. Um

431
02:03:36.880 --> 02:03:56.480
so if you see it's the framing here. So is it is it uh on top of CMU or is that >> No, it's it's the solid brick with framing inside because the brick is only outside. The interior is going to have a

432
02:03:56.480 --> 02:04:13.840
smooth facade. I mean smooth smooth surface >> and what kind as in like >> as a two 2x 2x4 2x6 framing >> um so that we can get a depth of uh

433
02:04:13.840 --> 02:04:28.880
window uh because we want to step the brick I mean step the windows with a with a one full brick uh wide and create a shadow line and that's where the windows would

434
02:04:28.880 --> 02:04:47.520
be on the 2x6 framing. >> Okay. And >> it's a rain screen, right? It's a It's a typical brick rain screen. >> Yes. >> So, what you're saying is you're using a full brick, correct? >> Not a veneer brick like that. A full brick. >> A full brick >> on on a wood frame. >> Correct.

435
02:04:47.520 --> 02:05:05.199
>> Okay. Thank you. And and just one other question. Um like in the rendering on A600 um the way it's rendered shows the brick I think continuing back on that side elevation but in the side elevation I think the

436
02:05:05.199 --> 02:05:21.040
the brick wraps but not maybe as far as it's shown in the rendering. >> Yes. >> So I I think and I think it would be important to have it wrap as far as you can see it. I think usually we often ask for like 10 feet or so. So I would I would say that at least that side

437
02:05:21.040 --> 02:05:37.280
elevation should extend back at least 10 feet or so. >> You would propose 12 in? >> Yes. >> Yeah. I think usually we ask for 10 ft so that we can see anything that anything that we can see will will be brick.

438
02:05:37.280 --> 02:05:56.480
>> Mhm. >> And the la and the last my last comment um actually did have two two question. one is I think I think the rear elevation I I'd like to see more spacing and I know it's not visible from anywhere but

439
02:05:56.480 --> 02:06:13.520
I do think that the having windows further away from those those doors would be better to have it have not have such a large expansive stucco >> on the sides um to maybe push that window out closer

440
02:06:13.520 --> 02:06:29.119
to the edge maybe a little more reflecting and what's going on in the front of the building. And then this is a question maybe if you can't answer it's also a question we see a lot of these egress passageways. What what drives that >> building code?

441
02:06:29.119 --> 02:06:43.840
>> Building code. Is it the number of units? >> Yes, it's the number of units and number of stories >> and number of stories. >> So more than two units um needs a second means of egress from rare yard. >> So that's why you didn't see it on Cole Street.

442
02:06:43.840 --> 02:06:59.599
>> Yeah. And it's one of those things and it was in the new building 2023 I think when they updated all of the fire stuff in the building code. In my mind, this is going to be like a very obvious marker for when a building was built downtown. >> It's also when you see detached buildings, you don't need it because the

443
02:06:59.599 --> 02:07:20.719
side just as long as you have 3 ft just becomes the passage. But when you have attached buildings, this is what we're dealing with. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions, comments? >> I just want to add on to the Robert's

444
02:07:20.719 --> 02:07:36.159
comment about the cornice. I feel like it's lacking something. And when I first saw the rendering, the thing for me that was lacking was sort of it didn't really have a terminating feel because the buildings to either side have these sort of very dark and more heavy looking

445
02:07:36.159 --> 02:07:52.920
cornuses. So, >> um maybe it's a solution with more depth or different brick work, but maybe also it could consider the cast stone um just so that it feels more like a traditional cornice but in a modern way. >> Sure.

446
02:08:06.800 --> 02:08:23.280
Okay. If any other comments. Okay. I think it would probably be best if we carried this application. >> Yeah, I agree. If it's okay, just because I have Carolyn here, I would like to have her present with respect to again obviously the context and the the variance that we're seeking.

447
02:08:23.280 --> 02:08:40.079
>> I think that's fine. Um, for the record again, Caroline has previously presented in front of this board and has been qualified as an expert in the field of planning. >> Good evening. Uh again, uh so uh again I'm here really talking more about

448
02:08:40.079 --> 02:08:54.560
the bulk of the building and and some of the the the planning um aspects of it that relate to the bulk of it. Um and we're again seeing this situation where we have a vacant lot that is in the flood zone and so that has really been

449
02:08:54.560 --> 02:09:09.679
driving a lot of the design and a lot of the height issues uh for this building. Um where again we're we're asking and we will be going to to the the board to the to the zoning board right planning board

450
02:09:09.679 --> 02:09:25.920
for this one um for that additional uh couple of feet of height and again it really is driven by this need that we have to get the building up out of the flood zone and and to be elevated. Um, I will say this one there is a little bit

451
02:09:25.920 --> 02:09:40.719
more context that does allow and and allow this this one to be a little more um um I would say that the context is a little easier in this case uh because the

452
02:09:40.719 --> 02:09:56.800
buildings next to us has already those elevated um uh stoop. Uh so we really can sort of match that. Um, but whereas that building has probably a basement or a cellar that is occupied and is used,

453
02:09:56.800 --> 02:10:12.239
our building really doesn't. We we have a seller just for storage and then, you know, the the vast majority of it is a crawl space. So, um, again, we're we're seeing really that fourth story, that fourth residential floor is is elevated up out of the flood plane. Uh, which leads to the fact that, you know, it's

454
02:10:12.239 --> 02:10:29.280
taller than its adjacent um buildings. Um but again we're we're in between the uh I guess it's five >> it is five stories the five story building um on the one side and then the sort of three and a half on the other and so we do sort of create that stepped

455
02:10:29.280 --> 02:10:45.440
character um you know and then overall the block itself you do see is is not consistent so there is sort of up and down so we really do see a lot of the context here um to support that additional height um and again we we've tried really hard with this building to to provide that context So you know the

456
02:10:45.440 --> 02:11:02.400
the um the water table has tried to be consistent between this building and the adjacent building. So again creating that continu um consistency and continuity. Um trying to make sure that the windows match the best that they can in terms of you know the the levels at which they're at. Um and then again

457
02:11:02.400 --> 02:11:17.360
trying to find you know some more rhythm the similar rhythm. Um so I do think that this again meets those standards for the new construction um within the the historical um design guidelines. Um again we're not replicating a historic older building that was here but again

458
02:11:17.360 --> 02:11:33.199
trying to work within the context. Um it is con you know compatible with the height uh you know providing that step between the the two con the two uh heights on either side. Um you know again the width is consistent in terms of you know this is a it's a 25 foot

459
02:11:33.199 --> 02:11:48.320
wide lot. Um so it is consistent in in that. Um and then again, you know, the the various design um materials and and and the way that the building has been put together is again trying to meet that historic design context and the

460
02:11:48.320 --> 02:12:06.960
historic design styles. So again, I think it it meets all of those standards. >> Thank you, Carolyn. >> Okay, any questions for Carolyn? Great. Thanks. All right. So, the next HPC meeting is June 15th. Do

461
02:12:06.960 --> 02:12:23.040
you guys want to carry to that or to a date uncertain? >> Um, that works. The June 14th or 15th. >> Uh, that's a great question. I said it before. I don't want to say 15th. >> I could have sworn you said 14th to the last guys. >> If we're having an HPC meeting on a Monday, uh, Sunday, something very bad.

462
02:12:23.040 --> 02:12:38.239
>> All right, that works for me. I guess just before uh before we do that, the only thing I would ask is obviously, you know, in add and I wrote down all the comments and we intend to address them and hopefully come back and make everyone feel that they've been addressed. But in terms of the variance that we're seeking obviously for that additional feed, I guess I just want to

463
02:12:38.239 --> 02:12:54.000
make sure that the board understands it so that I don't have to have Carolyn come back and speak to the relief aspect. Again, >> I I didn't hear anyone object to the height of the building. I heard the argument of the step down kind of aesthetic. I personally find that

464
02:12:54.000 --> 02:13:10.760
persuasive and I think that we've really focused our review on just tweaking and clarifying some of the design elements to >> get the building where it needs to be, but it's it's not that far off as far as I'm concerned. >> Okay. Thank you.

465
02:13:13.199 --> 02:13:29.040
>> All right. Uh with that said, does anyone want to make a motion to carry this application to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 15th? >> Motion. >> Second. All in favor? >> I I >> Thanks. >> Thank you everyone. See you then. >> All right, Corey, if you would like to

466
02:13:29.040 --> 02:13:46.880
call the next case. >> Yep. That's going to be case number H-24-0171. Applicant Steven Joseph on behalf of 6 Gford LLC owner. The address is 577

467
02:13:46.880 --> 02:14:03.920
Bergen Avenue, also known as 6 Gford Avenue. The block is 17801, lot 36, zone R3, West Bergen, East Lincoln Park Historic District. Certificate of appropriateness for the

468
02:14:03.920 --> 02:14:21.360
proposed subdivision of lot 36 into two lots and the rehabilitation of the existing altered contributing two and 1/2story 4 bay colonial revival style brick dwelling built circa 1915

469
02:14:21.360 --> 02:14:37.119
in the West Bergen East Lincoln Park Historic District. Recommendation to the Jersey City Planning Board. >> Good evening. Uh, hate to do this to you, but I I'd like to also ask that you call the next case as well. Um, I think it makes sense to kind of present these

470
02:14:37.119 --> 02:14:54.159
in context. And um, just seeing what time it is, I I don't think anyone expects us to finish tonight. So, just kind of >> Can we do that with the subdivision? Um, I I think if we're not going to vote on anything tonight, we can show the context of everything that's happening

471
02:14:54.159 --> 02:15:10.480
so it's on the record for both applications and then come back at the next meeting and then then move forward with the subdivision. >> I defer to you as how you want to present your presentation, but I do think that you need to focus on each application when you're deciding upon

472
02:15:10.480 --> 02:15:28.159
that application. >> Cool. All right, then Corey, you want to read the next one? >> Okay. Case number H--24-0172. Applicant Steven Joseph on behalf of 6 Gford LLC owner. Address 577 Bergen

473
02:15:28.159 --> 02:15:43.280
Avenue 6 Gford Avenue. Block 17801, lot 36, zone R3, West Bergen, East Lincoln Park Historic District. certificate of appropriateness for the

474
02:15:43.280 --> 02:15:59.360
proposed construction of a new fourstory four-unit residential building and associated site and site work in the West Bergen East Lincoln Park home historic district recommendation to the Jersey City Planning Board.

475
02:15:59.360 --> 02:16:14.880
>> Great. Thank you so much. So, good evening Stephen Joseph for the applicant. Um, what's going on here is procedurally there's there's three things really happening. There's a subdivision. That subdivision creates two new lots. On the the application that the subdivision is attached to, we

476
02:16:14.880 --> 02:16:30.880
have an existing building that's being um renovated and converted into a multif family dwelling. Then the next natural question is what's happening with the rest of the lot, the the empty land that's being subdivided off. And on that parcel, we're constructing a fourstory

477
02:16:30.880 --> 02:16:46.800
uh four-story multif family dwelling. So, what I I think we're going to do this evening is we're going to we're going to walk you through the subdivision. We're going to walk you through uh generally the restoration of the building. Then, we want to show you what we're proposing for the new

478
02:16:46.800 --> 02:17:05.200
construction piece of it and hopefully get some feedback. So, we when we come back next time, we can incorporate some of those comments. So, let's get uh Ahmed sworn in. Sorry, but can I ask a clarifying question to staff and council? When we

479
02:17:05.200 --> 02:17:22.319
provide feedback, should we group our comments per uh application or does it matter >> in this case? If they're just comments back, I don't necessarily think it matters. I think the important So, for what it's worth, the concern here is

480
02:17:22.319 --> 02:17:38.639
that right, as Stephen said, you have the one building, it's one lot right now. you have the rehab of it and the subdivision, right? We don't want to get ahead of ourselves by saying, "Oh, all of the new construction looks good and then there'd be a problem with the proposed subdivision, right?" So, in this case, I think it's okay if you're

481
02:17:38.639 --> 02:17:54.319
giving comments kind of interchangeably between the two and the distinction will come when we're voting. >> Thank you. >> I think the challenge will be you can't use the proposed work to judge the appropriateness of the existing work, right? Does that make sense?

482
02:17:54.319 --> 02:18:11.639
>> Yeah. And I don't think that's I don't think we're worried about that. I think if anything it would be that the other way around, right? I I think naturally the question would be what are you proposing on the vacant land for for the other part of the subdivision?

483
02:18:19.280 --> 02:18:36.559
>> I do. >> Sure. It's Ahmed Amara. A H M E D last name E M A R A. >> Staff notes that Mr. Amar has previously presented in front of this board and has been previously qualified as an expert in the field of architecture.

484
02:18:36.559 --> 02:18:53.599
>> Uh good evening. U so as Steven was saying, there's uh one lot right now with one existing building on it, which is what's being shown on the screen right now. I'm going to zoom in just so we can all see that this is the corner of Gford A and Bergen Avenue. The build

485
02:18:53.599 --> 02:19:15.200
existing building is right here and the darker line is the entire property. This the proposed subdivision is this line right here which says and I'm gonna just this is the proposed subdivision line

486
02:19:15.200 --> 02:19:36.399
which splits this one lot into two separate lots. Now, um, I'll move on to the to the existing building unless anybody has a question on the subdivision. It's pretty straightforward. It's the It's again, just to be clear, it's the L shape here

487
02:19:36.399 --> 02:19:52.080
and this line here that's been added separates the separates them into two lots. >> This might be part of what you're going to show, but do do you have photos of of the existing conditions of that part of the lot that's going to be subdivided off? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, of course. Um, so I'll I'll start with the

488
02:19:52.080 --> 02:20:06.240
>> I I have a question about the subdivision. >> Sure. >> Um, if this were to be recommended for subdivision, >> yes, >> excuse me. Um, will the remaining corner lot be

489
02:20:06.240 --> 02:20:22.319
>> conforming with zoning or will it is there are there variances required once this is subdivided? >> There there are no variances associate associated with the subdivision itself. Um the building has variance for parking

490
02:20:22.319 --> 02:20:36.880
associated with >> right I'm asking about the the corner lot that's there and that will be remaining even if it's smaller. So the larger of the lots will be conforming. We're not taking it out of conformance if the subdivision goes through. Correct. Okay. >> Yeah.

491
02:20:36.880 --> 02:20:54.479
>> And this is lot 36. >> So I'm going to just zoom in on this information just to be very clear. Yes, the the required is 2,000 ft² and the subdivided lot would be 7,290

492
02:20:54.479 --> 02:21:15.200
ft². Um, and then the existing lot, that's the corner lot, would be 3, uh, 346. So, we would still be above the minimum lot areas. Um, so yes, everything would be conforming. Um this is the 577 Bergen Avenue, Jersey

493
02:21:15.200 --> 02:21:32.319
City, which is the rehabilitation of the existing building. Right here is the existing building uh which is the corner again of Gford and um uh Bergen Avenue. Uh it's a three-story building with a basement. The area along um Bergen A has

494
02:21:32.319 --> 02:21:52.399
a one-story building with an existing roof deck right now. The existing cellar right now is being used for uh storage um and mechanical areas such as the um uh water heaters. There's not really any use of the

495
02:21:52.399 --> 02:22:08.319
building right now cuz it's been vacant for quite some time over 3 years. Uh but and it's in in the condition on the outside is as seen in the picture that hasn't really changed much but the inside um is is just basically been um you know unmaintained u so that would

496
02:22:08.319 --> 02:22:24.160
need a lot of uh work on the inside. The existing uh floor plan is right here for the basement and the demo. The demo of the existing basement is very limited to a few um walls and doors as such as here and then removing of the existing

497
02:22:24.160 --> 02:22:39.920
utility um water heaters and um and coolers. The proposed seller has the trash area in the garbage area right here has storage for the proposed seven

498
02:22:39.920 --> 02:22:59.600
units in the building and the bike storage along with the electrical and fire alarm rooms in the front left area. All the water heaters are now being placed here and again seven water heaters for the seven units that are being proposed. The first floor uh again first floor is

499
02:22:59.600 --> 02:23:14.640
um the existing first floor is being demolished on the inside most of the walls with the exception of a couple of existing walls. The outside remains the same unchanged with the exception of the rear wall here. There is a um a ramp

500
02:23:14.640 --> 02:23:33.040
that's existing that's been removed. Um and then a window here that's going to close and I'll show that in the elevations in a second. proposed first floor is again uh reusing the existing walls, existing perimeter um exterior walls. Nothing is changing

501
02:23:33.040 --> 02:23:49.359
there. There are I'm going to zoom in just to make this very clear. There are two units um on the ground floor that are studio. I'm sorry, two onebedrooms on the ground floor and a studio. The one uh unit 101 is entered from uh the

502
02:23:49.359 --> 02:24:06.160
staircase. Right here we have the living and dining on this side and the bedroom on this side with a a bathroom in the back. The corner unit is a onebedroom. This is unit 103 with all the facilities towards the back and then the front has the bedroom and

503
02:24:06.160 --> 02:24:26.080
the living space. The studio has an entrance directly from the hallway from the rear and from the lobby that's coming from the front which is on Gerard Dav. The second floor uh once again the exterior remains the same. There's no demo to the exterior of the building.

504
02:24:26.080 --> 02:24:43.359
The interior of the building is uh largely a gut uh uh demolition with the exception of some of the bearing walls that remains that remain in place. And then the proposed second floor um and again just zooming in to make sure uh

505
02:24:43.359 --> 02:24:59.520
are the two units which um again it's a similar layout to what's below. Uh a onebedroom with the corner living uh area and the bedroom in the front. And the second unit is a twobedroom. The two bedrooms are in the back. one of them

506
02:24:59.520 --> 02:25:17.439
being a uh a master bedroom and the living area and the kitchen area in the front facing Gford. So in terms of the changes to the building um so far again it's all interior the exterior remains the same and I'll talk about the elevations uh once we get there. The

507
02:25:17.439 --> 02:25:34.080
third floor or the attic floor I shouldn't say is being largely demol demolished to be open and then reconfigured with the proposed units into a studio and a onebedroom. And the studio and the bedroom you can see them being laid out

508
02:25:34.080 --> 02:25:50.560
here. This is a larger unit than uh the other units below. So this is about 993 square ft with a large living space in the front. uh an office den space and then a master bedroom and then the studio is laid out in the back.

509
02:25:50.560 --> 02:26:10.960
Any questions on the floor plans? So, this is the existing condition of the facade right now. Um the brick, as you've seen, was in good condition. It just needs um some repointing and cleaning. Um, but the roofs uh do need

510
02:26:10.960 --> 02:26:26.800
to be replaced and some of the windows are in a very bad condition that needs to be replaced as well. Um, and I'll go to these conditions here with pictures of every condition. So, in the front, we are replacing the windows with

511
02:26:26.800 --> 02:26:44.560
windows that fit in the same um rough opening. No changes to the opening, no changes to the brick detailing around the the window, the around the windows, existing windows. The um uh the uh window the brick here is labeled to be cleaned and repointed as as needed. The

512
02:26:44.560 --> 02:27:00.160
entrance will be this is going to be the biggest change here which is the entrance has to be um we're replacing the cladding for the doors replacing the cladding around the door here. The stained glass is uh remaining

513
02:27:00.160 --> 02:27:20.000
uh and the uh steps are being replaced. I want to show these images as we just to see the door condition right now. The windows, these are the windows that we're talking about that needs to be replaced. And

514
02:27:20.000 --> 02:27:36.399
then the entrance um the materials around the entrance here are also being um replaced. And then I'm this is the condition of the stair in the back with the door. This is the entrance of the building from the back. This is these

515
02:27:36.399 --> 02:27:56.000
are all the um uh metal grates that have to be replaced also in the back. The door and the entrance again close up. This is the onetory um part of the building that's facing Bergen A with the roof deck on top of it and it's also a

516
02:27:56.000 --> 02:28:12.160
landing for the egress stairs. Um I'm sorry to interrupt your presentation, but um so this was built in n around 1915 is this or am I looking at the wrong thing? >> The the prop the existing building.

517
02:28:12.160 --> 02:28:28.240
>> Yes. >> I have to confirm. Yes. >> 1950. >> Do we have any historic photos? >> We don't have a 1938 tax card photo for this property. >> No. >> And the applicant, you don't have any kind of materials. Okay. That was all I

518
02:28:28.240 --> 02:28:46.000
wanted to clarify. >> Yes. Okay. No problem. I will continue. So this is the existing side of the building. I was just showing the one story in the image before with the existing stair coming down to the u

519
02:28:46.000 --> 02:29:05.760
uh deck. And then this is the staircase on Bergen Avenue uh as an eager stair from the third floor from the attic floor. This again remains largely the same. We're not changing much here. I want to just point out here something very specific. This here because we we spoke

520
02:29:05.760 --> 02:29:20.800
to staff about this and I want to make sure that this is mentioned. This is a large opening in the back right now. And that opening here is going to remain and it's going to be cleaned and repaired

521
02:29:20.800 --> 02:29:36.160
cuz this is an opening that becomes now part of the rear entrance of the building. And I can probably just go back to the plan again. I mentioned it in plan but I know it needs to be seen in elevation. Also, this is the opening right here. So is the ramp coming up.

522
02:29:36.160 --> 02:29:57.280
This is more of a vestibule. This is an opening right here between these two lines. It's an existing opening. That opening is right now in very bad condition. That has to be just repaired, cleaned, and then it's going to stay an opening as is. And I believe we have pictures of those

523
02:29:57.280 --> 02:30:21.600
two. I'm just going to right here, this area. So, this ramp is being replaced with a concrete ramp. These are the other two facads, the uh the the west elevation and the east elevation. These are existing

524
02:30:21.600 --> 02:30:41.439
elevations. Again, this is the one facing uh Bergenav and this is the one facing the subdivided lot. It's mostly once again it's mostly all cleaning of the brick and replacing of the windows. no major changes are happening to the facade or openings or

525
02:30:41.439 --> 02:30:57.040
anything like that. The the exterior of the building is we're trying to maintain it as much as possible. So, if we have to replace something, we're replacing it. We're cleaning it and repointing the brick as needed. >> Sorry, just while you're on just while you're on that slide, can you

526
02:30:57.040 --> 02:31:13.600
>> zoom in on the photos that show the painted portion? Is that just painted brick work or is that an infill of some kind like that used to be a porch? You're talking I'm sorry. You're talking about this part or show? >> Yeah, the painted mural. Is that just brick work? >> No, it's just brick behind it that's painted on it. Yeah.

527
02:31:13.600 --> 02:31:33.760
>> Thanks. Of >> course. Um, these are the windows that we are replacing it with. These are wind wood windows that would take place of the existing windows. Right now, I'm going to just quickly show sections just to talk back again about the

528
02:31:33.760 --> 02:31:50.800
seller. And then we have the three floors with the existing uh spaces uh on the attic being replaced with units. These are the brick details that are existing today. Uh we're showing these for basically just to clarify that

529
02:31:50.800 --> 02:32:09.200
nothing is being changed, but it the window that's being replaced is going to stay in place, is going to use the same rough opening, use the same row lock and the same soldier course on top. And that's uh pretty much the uh you

530
02:32:09.200 --> 02:32:24.399
know the extent of this approach to this rehab uh uh of the of the existing building on site. Um unless you have any other questions, I'm going to go to the proposed uh portion of the project. >> I just have a quick question for staff.

531
02:32:24.399 --> 02:32:41.520
Um, just on this scope of work on this existing building, what are we what are we actually voting on besides the subdivision? Is any of this or is all this work staff level? >> Yeah, if this was a separate application, this would be a staff level approval, but because it's with the

532
02:32:41.520 --> 02:32:58.960
subdivision, it all has to come here. But yeah, it just just depended on how the applicant wanted to do it, so they decided to do it all together. And yeah, >> Michael, I have a question about that then. >> Of course. Are the light fixtures that are all around the first floor of the building part of a staff level approval?

533
02:32:58.960 --> 02:33:15.520
>> The proposed light fixtures on the the front and the rear. >> There's light fixtures apparently. It looks like light fixtures proposed like around the building at the first floor. These little squares. >> Yes. >> Is that something that we need to be talking about? >> Those those would not be a staff level

534
02:33:15.520 --> 02:33:34.960
approval. >> Okay. I didn't think so. Thanks. And those also show on the civil plans. Now too, the six gford project is the subdivided lot. So the differentiation is the corner lot is 577 Bergenav and the newly

535
02:33:34.960 --> 02:33:50.399
created lot through the subdivision is six GFR. Um and six Gford is a conforming um lot with I'm just going to go quickly through this. The lot area required is 2,000. The proposed is 3346.

536
02:33:50.399 --> 02:34:06.080
So there's no change there. The lot the lot width 20 is required. 25 is proposed. The lot depth uh there's no requirement and 1371 is existing and that's what's being proposed. The

537
02:34:06.080 --> 02:34:23.840
density maximum is four for the lot and what's proposed are four units. um sideyard. We So we have one sideyard that's against the existing building and another yard sideyard against the neighbor. Um and that one is 3 feet 1.4

538
02:34:23.840 --> 02:34:40.160
3.14 ft proposed while three is required and lot coverage of 80% is um permitted and 63.2 is proposed while uh previously it was 87.8. Um there is a fence around the rear of

539
02:34:40.160 --> 02:34:56.520
the property which I'll I'll talk about right now. And there's no parking spaces required and none is proposed. Um and the landscaping in the front yard 60% of the yard is uh required to be landscaped and 65.7 is proposed.

540
02:35:00.160 --> 02:35:16.399
I'm going to go to the architecture set. Um I was just showing the civil before. So, uh this is the property right here that we are mentioning because there was a question about that before and I have another picture of that too. But this is the area right here where the proposed

541
02:35:16.399 --> 02:35:35.439
building would be and I'm going to go through the site plan. So the site plan we have this jog in the property line on the left side here of the of the building and the prop building basically follows that jog. This is the setback here that we

542
02:35:35.439 --> 02:35:53.120
mentioned as 3.14 and this is the egress path from the rear yard to the front. Um I'm just going to make sure that this is clear. The property line on the right side is being built up to so there is zero setback on the right side here

543
02:35:53.120 --> 02:36:08.560
towards the existing building which is here. I'm just going to zoom in on this part. So the existing three-story building is here and the building is being built up to the property line here and on the left side there's a 3-foot setback being left or 3.14 ft set back

544
02:36:08.560 --> 02:36:26.560
being left for egress requirements and also for the existing windows on the uh adjacent building. Uh there is a seller proposed for the building. The seller is mainly for storage and uh utilities. uh the ground floor. This is the main entrance of the

545
02:36:26.560 --> 02:36:41.120
building. Right here, you enter into a vestibule. After that, you come into the staircase of the building where you can enter into the first unit. The first unit is a three uh bedroom unit on the ground floor with a large living space in the

546
02:36:41.120 --> 02:37:01.359
front facing the the street. As you go up the stairs, the second unit is on the second floor. Again, three bedroomedroom living and dining and kitchen space is in the front. The third floor is split into two units. Uh from the staircase, you can enter to

547
02:37:01.359 --> 02:37:17.600
the back or to the front. In the front, you walk into this unit which has its living and dining kitchen space on the ground floor with an internal stair within the uh unit to go up to the fourth floor. From the rear, it's the same thing. So, there are duplexes. So,

548
02:37:17.600 --> 02:37:34.080
we have two duplexes, one in the front, one in the back. And as you go up from within, you go to the fourth floor. The fourth floor has two units as has the front and back again with three bedrooms for each. The same um uh st internal stair take you up

549
02:37:34.080 --> 02:37:53.760
all the way to the bulkhead where two private patios are being proposed on the roof deck of the building. This is the uh sections of the building. The height is in conformity. We're at 41 ft while 42 is permitted. And this is another section of the

550
02:37:53.760 --> 02:38:10.080
building showing the bulkhead that I just mentioned. And the um in the front is one part of the uh the unit 4 deck and the rear is a unit three deck. This is a block elevation of the street.

551
02:38:10.080 --> 02:38:31.600
This is the existing condition as is and this is the proposed condition. Uh the the facade of the building is uh right here. Let me zoom in. So we're posing um this uh simple uh brick and

552
02:38:31.600 --> 02:38:48.080
metal panel facade that uh has the spirit of the historic uh structures around it. I want to mention that the buildings right to the left of the uh I'm going to go back for just to be clear here. >> Yeah. So this is important to note that the

553
02:38:48.080 --> 02:39:03.359
>> obviously the the buildings directly adjacent to this building if you're looking at this to the left are much shorter. They're >> yes >> two two and a half one and a half story buildings. >> Those are non-contributing to the district. So so the buildings that we looked to when designing this were the

554
02:39:03.359 --> 02:39:20.319
taller buildings, the multif family apartment buildings across the street and down the >> and also down the block. Yeah. And this is important to mention and I I'll have those shown in a second. Um as we go through this, this is a uh brick facade with uh

555
02:39:20.319 --> 02:39:36.240
several different articulation. We have this size of the window is also taken from the context which I'll show in a few. And we have uh a stag bond uh brick running between the windows here. And this is set back within a larger uh

556
02:39:36.240 --> 02:39:52.240
running bond opening of brick right here. And then on top of the of the uh all the windows is a soldier course running across the whole uh facade. And then also at the sec at the first floor or the beginning of the second floor, there's another one to separate the base

557
02:39:52.240 --> 02:40:09.200
of the building from what's above with a um uh a a dark gray metal panel uh cornice on top of the building right here. The rear of the building is a one second.

558
02:40:09.200 --> 02:40:24.720
The rear building is a much simpler facade with stucco and uh siding on on the where the balconies are. And then the stuckco is simple just wraps the rear of the building right here. This is the east elevation

559
02:40:24.720 --> 02:40:40.640
with the brick wrapping the brick wrapping back I believe 10 ft. And then there's the rest of the facade is being stuckcoed along with the bulkhead. And this is the west elevation with the brick wrapping on this side is three

560
02:40:40.640 --> 02:40:56.319
feet. And then there's also stucco. And then the siding comes back and wraps uh this section. This is the area where the building jogs. So the jog is uh the jog has the continuation of the cement board uh or siding. And then there's the

561
02:40:56.319 --> 02:41:24.640
stuckco portion. I do have some close-ups of the of the facade. This is the entrance condition. And uh this is a typical of the second and the third floor above where the uh stag bond right here and

562
02:41:24.640 --> 02:41:43.680
the running bond of the windows and then the larger glass panels with the metal panel. We do have the details here. Um it's a typical u I I heard the discussion before just to clarify brick if it's not

563
02:41:43.680 --> 02:41:59.920
uh structural it's veneer whether it's face or full so it could be a full brick and still veneer and I think that's what the other architect was also talking about. I think the question specifically before was how are you holding it up and I think the answer was steel lintil that's what the detail was showing. Um

564
02:41:59.920 --> 02:42:17.120
it's the same condition here, steel lintil above the ground floor. When it goes to the ground floor, it's going to go down to a CMU foundation. Um uh above that we do have the cornice of the building which is shown right here.

565
02:42:17.120 --> 02:42:38.720
So this is the soldier course that separates the fourth floor from the parapit above. And then we have we do have this detail here for the metal cornice which cuts back mimics what stone would do but it's done in metal panel. This is a visual of the

566
02:42:38.720 --> 02:42:59.280
how the building fits on the block right here. >> So can we uh zoom in on that actually just to show the >> of course. So these these are the contributed building and then these here and also across the street and I'll show that in a second as well. And this is that condition we're talking about. This is

567
02:42:59.280 --> 02:43:30.479
the corner the one-story structure that's on side of the build existing building and this is the proposed four stories. Again this is part of the contributing buildings to the district right here. So, I'm going to start with this one cuz

568
02:43:30.479 --> 02:43:45.520
it's uh easier. So, this is the sight line diagram for the bulkhead um from across the street on Gford A looking directly at the building taken at 6 ft. And this is the same um diagram but

569
02:43:45.520 --> 02:44:07.680
looking now across Bergen Avenue above the existing building. And it just uh you see basically this part here of the bulkhead. And um there was again question about where that is exactly. And just to to be very clear this is where that building

570
02:44:07.680 --> 02:44:25.359
sits right here. We do also have renderings. These are >> so um we have to enter this. There's four of them. Um this is enter this as A1 I guess. Four pages of uh renderings

571
02:44:25.359 --> 02:44:45.359
prepared by the architect >> and we're going to mark that for H-24-172. Got it. >> So this is this is the brick facade we're talking about. This is where the 10 ft wraps on the on one side here. The other side is only 3 ft. This is the the

572
02:44:45.359 --> 02:44:59.520
windows we're talking about. And then this is the uh stag bond right here of the windows and the running bond. This is the rear of the building, the siding, and then the stuckco at the

573
02:44:59.520 --> 02:45:14.880
bottom and the side. This is looking at from top. We do have a 10-ft setback also for the roof deck so it doesn't come out to the parapit and we have a railing that separates that. This is also the uh entrance here will

574
02:45:14.880 --> 02:45:32.319
will be paved or um done with p stone pavers and the greenery here with the landscape requirement as mentioned before. And this is a night shot of that uh um brick facade with metal panel. I do have also brick samples. We do we did bring

575
02:45:32.319 --> 02:46:05.359
two because in discussions with staff we had two options and I have both options with me. I'm happy to pass them around. >> We're marking these as well. remember the name >> coming from my head. >> No, >> no, not um yeah, we could mark these as

576
02:46:05.359 --> 02:46:21.920
A2 if we marked the first one as A1 for H-24-0172 and those are the brick samples. So in discussions with staff preparing for this, we went out and I to the site a couple of times, took pictures, touched the brick around the buildings, around

577
02:46:21.920 --> 02:46:37.760
the block, and those two brick samples were the ones selected. Um I could go either way cuz it's the brick across the street and along and you know down the street are more similar to the red rock and then if you go further down

578
02:46:37.760 --> 02:46:55.920
it's the other color, the more orange one. Um, I believe Michael, you said the red rock one, I think is what you like the the one with more texture and less >> I'd have to look at them again. It was the the darker red color

579
02:46:55.920 --> 02:47:19.600
>> was the one that I was I was leaning towards. >> Yeah. >> So, does that conclude your Yeah, it does. Yes. Um, so I I mean obviously this is a it's a very visible building. I think it's a unique >> location and situation and we we tried

580
02:47:19.600 --> 02:47:35.200
to do something probably a little bit different than what you're used to seeing here. Um, keep in mind it is in a R3 zone, so it's a mid-rise zone >> um on on lots of 6,000 square feet, eight stories would be permitted. And that's kind of what you see >> surrounding the property with all the

581
02:47:35.200 --> 02:47:54.479
contributing buildings. But again the non-contributing buildings are very tiny for the in the context of the block. So I have actually a parallel set of comments for both um sides of the subdivision line.

582
02:47:54.479 --> 02:48:12.880
Um which is uh I in both um applications I would like to hear if we're since since this is in the spirit of like >> um uh comments to help you right >> kind of um bring this back. I would like to hear more from you, from

583
02:48:12.880 --> 02:48:30.080
the applicant on on the wise, like the the the theory of the case for both the um the restoration of the existing building and the the sort of the story you're trying to tell with the with the new design on the on the existing building, especially because there isn't

584
02:48:30.080 --> 02:48:46.479
a tax card photo. Um it would help us evaluate um the success of your of your proposal if you could show us like well here are some comparable buildings of the time and here's what they look like

585
02:48:46.479 --> 02:49:03.279
and here's you know here's what we think is um is is not original and therefore needs to be you know replaced and here's what we think is really important to preserve. you know, we're going to have our opinions, too, of course, but um it would just help me

586
02:49:03.279 --> 02:49:17.920
um it would just help me to have something that you can articulate. >> I understand. I understand >> um that uh that helps me evaluate it. Um and then secondly uh you know on the on the new uh design as well I I celebrate

587
02:49:17.920 --> 02:49:32.720
and and love supporting contemporary designs um uh for for new construction but the key is um is not whether or not it's mimicking old or whether it's you know contemporary looking it's whether it's

588
02:49:32.720 --> 02:49:49.359
appropriate and again along that line I would like to hear from you sort of you know this glass and metal L like why um what is what are the datims you're trying to >> uh echo um what are the forms in the surrounding even in the brook even even

589
02:49:49.359 --> 02:50:05.520
in the brick rather than saying you could go either way and this recalls that and that recalls that well show us the pictures of what buildings they recall where they are >> sure >> and tell us what you would like to you know advocate for um and and I think then we could have I think a more

590
02:50:05.520 --> 02:50:22.720
substantive um back and forth conversation on on on that I I also think um there's Um I saw a lot of strange numbers on those two sets of um front cover sheet um uh data

591
02:50:22.720 --> 02:50:39.359
um where I don't know I I I think it's I think it's not necessarily productive to go through line by line, but my eyebrows shot up on a number of those lines. I think they're worth triple-checking. Um okay, on both on both of those there there were a bunch of numbers that

592
02:50:39.359 --> 02:50:56.240
didn't make sense. Okay, sure. I would like to add especially for the new construction for a building this contemporarily designed in a historic district. Um I'm not partial to it and I would need

593
02:50:56.240 --> 02:51:14.479
as uh commissioner uh was saying uh some explanation on the theory of how it contributes to the district other than being the same height and size as the buildings across the street rather than

594
02:51:14.479 --> 02:51:30.800
not the ones next to it. I >> one uh I'm sorry, please first. >> Um I know the neighborhood well, so I'm uh commanding you for restoring the uh mansion that's there, >> existing one, right?

595
02:51:30.800 --> 02:51:46.800
>> Uh it has it has been a pretty eyesore for the last couple years just because it's not maintained. It's a lot of garbage and you know whoever is the owner is like but um I also think that the scale of the new building it's

596
02:51:46.800 --> 02:52:03.760
really out of scale and even though it the buildings next to it from the 60s I believe they're non-contributing but they are already also you know could be considered historic now they're over 50 years old

597
02:52:03.760 --> 02:52:19.120
and um something that would speak more to that scale is I think more appropriate. Um also that is a really small lot that subdivided lot and then when you build that high it just appears

598
02:52:19.120 --> 02:52:35.760
way higher and so you have the 60s building on the one side you have the 1915 contributing building on the other side and then I believe the apartment building that's across is that contributing >> on Gford. Yeah,

599
02:52:35.760 --> 02:52:52.000
>> those are contribut. >> Yeah, they're from the 1920s, I believe. >> So, I it just doesn't fit into this whole area. I mean, it is >> just out of scale and I don't think it fits. So, I don't know.

600
02:52:52.000 --> 02:53:08.160
>> I I think my fellow commissioner makes a valid point. And just recalling one of the applications we just heard earlier, I was talking about the step down from what is a relatively new contemporary building, but that that building's height and massing seemed appropriate in the context of the neighboring building.

601
02:53:08.160 --> 02:53:23.520
And I think this may be the flip side of that coin that when you're building next to a very dimminuative structure, you have to be sensitive to that and the setting. And so I am starting to think differently about it. >> Yeah, I want to ask about that. You

602
02:53:23.520 --> 02:53:39.439
mentioned the the size of the buildings across the street and in the surrounding area. Can we get some information as to how like what is the height of those buildings? How does it fit in that overall context? That'd be great. >> Yes, of course. I have one something I would like to hear more

603
02:53:39.439 --> 02:53:56.319
about is the choice to well there's it's a two-part question related um the choice to put the rear yard egress on the west side of the building instead of the east where it would have a less less impact on the

604
02:53:56.319 --> 02:54:11.439
corner building which is really the more prominent historic resource. Um and also um you know the choice to use a building typology that typically we see like in in districts with attached housing and

605
02:54:11.439 --> 02:54:28.240
choosing like also choosing to not attach it to the other attached buildings in the streetscape, right? It's now a freestanding building that looks like it's missing its, you know, normally you see them attached to other buildings. So in these two things are

606
02:54:28.240 --> 02:54:44.399
related, but I'm interested in understanding why the egress is in between the buildings instead of building up next to them. >> Yeah, I agree. And like this this is kind of that's maybe kind of articulates what I was thinking too. This is taking

607
02:54:44.399 --> 02:55:01.279
the form of a rowhouse without actually being a rowhouse. Um, I think this would be a great building downtown and I think we just need to see more more context of this block and like you you you know I think we just in like one photo on uh A903 we

608
02:55:01.279 --> 02:55:16.479
see those buildings across the street but it's kind of just like this this really they're secondary because it's the photo of the existing building. So that you want to show us the apartment buildings across the street and and in the surrounding context, but also

609
02:55:16.479 --> 02:55:31.120
remember that this those are in this corner of the district. There are a lot of those 1920s apartment buildings. Um, but they're the the typology of this district is really varied with a lot of like

610
02:55:31.120 --> 02:55:48.399
detached frame houses, which could be a a um, you know, that could be a design that you go with. But this is more of kind of like a rowhouse, but it's a detached building. So I think I think it just needs a little more context and a narrative so we can understand it. And

611
02:55:48.399 --> 02:56:05.600
the other comment I had was about the amount of stuck. You have like some some dark metal paneling and then like this really bright white stucco which kind of seems inongruous. So I I would say maybe go with more of the the metal panels and

612
02:56:05.600 --> 02:56:20.880
with the stucco. Mhm. >> Um, and lastly, just on the subdivision itself, uh, I don't think I have an issue with the subdivision either, but I am also just more curious about you talked about, um, we don't have a

613
02:56:20.880 --> 02:56:36.240
tax card on this building or a tax photo, but you know, it doesn't seem like this portion of the lot was ever like like was it ever like part of a whole of very important part of this this building that you're subdiv that

614
02:56:36.240 --> 02:56:51.359
you're rehabbing? like was it part of a landscaped area or right now it seems like it may be a parking area or was >> the proposed building what it's sitting on what that >> and how what the hit like I I don't think I have an issue with the

615
02:56:51.359 --> 02:57:11.840
subdivision but you know was this ever I don't know something that was important to the yard space of the existing building the sideyard or rear yard I guess it would be two um very minor points. Um one is um I

616
02:57:11.840 --> 02:57:28.080
think you had the brick facade wrapping around 10 ft on one side and three feet on the other. What was the reason for that? >> So the building on the other side is only 3 ft away and as you turn you the idea basically is that if I turn it even

617
02:57:28.080 --> 02:57:44.000
10 ft you'll still see the building above it. So, we only turned it in just enough so you can avoid it on perspective. But, you know, the idea of turning it in 10 feet wouldn't change what you would see above the the three-story building next to it.

618
02:57:44.000 --> 02:57:59.359
>> So, when we when we typically turn it five or 10 feet, you're doing it so that you can feel that volume continues basically. But even if I turned it 10 ft, you would still see the stuckle above it because it's higher than the buildings next to it. >> Okay.

619
02:57:59.359 --> 02:58:17.120
And um we usually um emphasize the need for downcast lighting. I saw in the rendering you had up earlier it's it's kind of birectional. Is that >> Yes, the upper ones were but we did discuss that and we would just make them down. >> Okay, great. Thanks.

620
02:58:17.120 --> 02:58:33.680
>> Not to cut anybody off. It is 10. So we do need to um wrap this up so we can get out of here. >> That's why I'm not responding right now. We we we appreciate your time and allowing us to do an abbreviated presentation here to get some of your initial feedback. It's it's we're

621
02:58:33.680 --> 02:58:49.359
grateful for the time you gave us. >> Okay. Would you guys like to carry to June or carry to a date uncertain? >> June, please. >> I have to ask. All right. Uh anyone want to make a motion to carry the application to June? >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? I.

622
02:58:49.359 --> 02:59:06.560
>> Okay. We will see you guys in June. >> That is for both applications. Yes. >> Just to clarify. All right, we're going to blow through the rest of the agenda here. Um, we do not have an update on 285 Grove Street.

623
02:59:06.560 --> 02:59:22.240
Um, does anyone want to make a motion for 11A in the demolition review to be carried to the June meeting? >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I. >> As announced earlier, for the record, 11B in the demolition review, 384 commun

624
02:59:22.240 --> 02:59:38.080
has withdrawn their application. We have no update on the tabled demo review cases. We have no resolutions to introduce or discuss or memorialize. Um we do not need an executive session and that just leaves us with adjournment. >> Motion second.

625
02:59:38.080 --> 02:59:44.319
>> All right, it is 10:01 p.m. All in favor? I I >> thank