City Historic preservation commission it's Monday February 10th 2025 the time is 6:34 p.m. please be advised that in accordance with the open public meetings act the notice of the time date and place of this regularly scheduled
meeting of the Jersey City Historic preservation has been sent to the Bergen Record and lsbo on Thursday February 6th uh 2025 the same notice has been sent to the city clerk for posting on the bulletin board outside the clerk's office in City Hall and on the Jersey
City website I have proof of this notice uh here in evidence if we can mark this as B1 and we will move on to a roll call attendance commissioner uzo present commissioner GGA is absent uh commissioner samp here
commissioner Gunther here commissioner sakong is absent commissioner blazak is absent commissioner Cronin here uh Vice chair gucciardo is absent
and chair Gordon present we have uh five members of the commission present this evening five affirmative votes are needed are required for a certificate of appropriateness um next up on the agenda is the approval of minutes um we have
two sets of minutes from the past few months so we have first uh the December 16th 20124 minutes um are there any questions or corrections to these minutes since there are no Corrections or changes staff recommends making a
motion to approve the minutes as submitted motion second so we have okay I'll take a roll call vote um commissioner amuzo I uh commissioner gria is absent commissioner San Camp hi
commissioner Gunther hi commissioner song is absent uh commissioner blazak is absent commissioner Corin I Vice chair gucciardo is absent uh chair Gordon I we have five in favor no against no
extensions uh the meetting uh meeting minutes from December 16th pass um same thing we also have meeting minutes from January 13th 2025 uh any corrections or changes since there are no Corrections or changes staff recommends making a
motion to approve the minutes as submitted motion second I'm the second somebody make a motion I'll be this I'll be the motion sand camp first last time I'll second thank
you so we have sand camp and Cronin commissioner uzo hi commissioner G gria is absent commissioner Sam Camp hi commissioner Gunther hi commissioner sakong is absent commissioner blazak is
absent commissioner Cronin I uh Vice chair gucciardo is absent and chair Gordon I we have five in favor zero against zero abstentions uh the minutes from January 13th are approved uh for
correspondence all correspondents um and all application material materials are linked through the application agend um numbers on the agenda next up we have staff uh we have announcements staff has no announcements at this
time okay moving on if there are any members of the public who would like to speak regarding matters of historic preservation that are not listed on tonight's agenda please approach the public comment mic again this is for matters that are not on tonight's agenda staff sees no members of the
public wishing to speak and recommends a motion to open and close public comment motion second all in favor I Robert feel like though all right so we'll move we don't usually swear it's okay we don't have licenses
so we don't have to swear ourselves in all good no problem moving to Old business I'll First Call Case h-23 d23 the applicant is Benjamin wine Esquire on behalf of Jersey City 3 deals
LLC owner the address is 2624 John F Kennedy Boulevard this is in the West Bergen East Lincoln Park historic district the application is for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a new four-story six
unit residential building and Associated sitework this is a recommendation to the Jersey City Zoning Board of adjustment and was previously carried from the January 10th 2025 regular HBC meeting good evening chair Commissioners for the record Benjamin wi of prime Tel
and melli on behalf of the applicant um as the chair just indicated and as we have been before you uh for two separate meetings at this point the property in question is located at block two one I'm sorry 14906 lot 20 and that's 2624 JFK
Boulevard um we've been through the proposal uh several times already before this board what started as a 7unit project initially in with the with City Planning uh became a six-unit project uh that's the application that was ultimately filed and through the Genesis
of meeting with the public as well as City Planning and Miss O'Neal the project before you this evening which again is no different than what you've seen the last two opportunities before you is for a 4unit project that would be four stories with the idea of ma matching the general height scheme along
that Frontage I'm not going to belabor the point I know I've been through my opening uh quite a number of times but ultimately what I'd like to present to you this evening is our project architect to walk through the revisions that we've made based on the comments that we received last month from this commission um we believe and we hope
that you'll agree that the comments have been Incorporated to your satisfaction uh some of them a little bit more drastic than others as you'll see some color changes um some material changes which were I would call the more drastic and then a couple of you know perhaps more mundane or routine comments to be
addressed within the scope this evening after that I would have our professional planner come up and speak generally to the planning scheme of the neighborhood as well as her involvement with the project uh there are variances obviously that is something more for the zoning board to take a look at as we proceed to
that next step should the commission uh vote affirm l in favor of our application but nevertheless I would like for her to give a bit of an overview to the commission as to her findings and general planning principles associated with the application so chair Commissioners unless you have any
questions of me I'm happy to proceed with Mr Moreno okay of course is it this c yeah generally we kind of find out every time which cable it is they changed them on
us but hopefully you can just keep clicking it you don't have to click it okay can oh sorry they should be coming up okay those proed truth whole truth and
nothing about the truth I do thank you st for your name to the record uh Martin Moreno m a r t i n m o r n o I am the project manager here speaking on behalf of Tila portal architect PC behal of what architect PC The
Firm right so Martin before you get into it um I'm going to ask you to focus on the revisions that you've made based on the comments received from the commission over the last two meetings and also to identify I know you know this is you're going to present a rendering which I believe is on the
screen if you can confirm for the record that everything about this plan set with the exception of the rendering was previously submitted and that the rendering is that was finalized over the weekend and ready to present to the commission this evening well not over the weekend but since the last meeting
yes all right um so am I clear to move forward yes okay well good evening everyone I'm happy to see everyone once again my name isar Moreno as previously stated so I'm here to speak about the revisions that were done to our project at 20 you're gonna have to slow down I'm so sorry right I'm here to speak about
I'm here to speak about our the revisions made to our project at 2624 johnf Kennedy Boulevard um most of the changes that were done were to the exterior of the building including materials colors and some Landscaping uh based off of the comments that were
received at last month's meeting so one of the comments that was very much stretched from both the December and the January meeting was the use of red brick I believe it was commissioner Bran who brought that up uh
it we found that in regards to the context of the neighboring buildings that the red brick didn't work as you recall we were trying to push more of like a beige sort of like a light brown brick but we decided to explore the possibility of a red brick and by doing
so we landed on using a green um color for the siding because obviously green is a complimentary color to red and that's something that we felt worked well with the building so we decided to move forward with it so the first big changes that I will um touch touch up on
are the color changes from both the brown to the red brick as you see in the lower portion of the building following my cursor and the uh green siding that was applied to the top floors of the building um if you recall
we originally had proposed blue and white siding for the sort of bump out area the principle bump out area that you see here that was originally blue siding with the recess part of the building um being proposed as white
siding after we had spoken I think it was um um apologies I can't remember his name the uh commissioner Nong I believe it was sakong yeah sakong I'm sorry he had spoken about the use of paneling and how to how to better improve the uh the
color different the differentiation of the colors in the facade uh this sort of we decided to take that to heart and apply a more sort of like a white paneling system to the bump outs on the left and on the right because there's something that is found on neighboring buildings so if I were to just quickly
zoom in as you can see on our neighboring building directly next to us their uh bump outs on both buildings are a full white cladding it really helps differentiate from the overall
sort of grayish bluish siding of the rest of the principal building as well as these sort of like larger white trimmings also helps it the the the windows and different shapes differentiate from the um the primary color of the building we decided to incorporate that into our project as
mentioned and do both bump outs on the right and on the left with a similar sort of white paneling system and added larger uh trimmings around the windows to once again help those stand out we had also previously proposed Sandstone
for the color of the windows we decided to just make it uh White all around because the Sandstone didn't really mesh well with the uh with the larger white trimming um in addition to that once again I believe it was commissioner Bran who spoke about possibly lowering the
Hardy panel um down a little bit more just to sort of help eliminate some of that use of bricks so it's not very brick heavy at the uh lower part of the building so we took that to heart once again and we did incorporate that here and we felt that it worked well um it does really help eliminate the heavy
brick Accent on the recess part of the facade and we also added some vegetation as previous discuss to once again help limit the break from both the bottom and the top um I believe it was commissioner amuso who um went on about replacing the
columns in the front with a sort of stronger briak accent so we went ahead and we did that uh it's something that is found on the building Three Doors Down as I move over as I move on to the next elevation sheet I'll highlight that but that's kind of just pretty much the
uh the sort of quick recap of the changes that were made to the exterior um as mentioned we didn't really make much changes to the interior layouts of the of the building so I'll go ahead and move forward to the elevation sheets
uh there was multiple comments about being the eligibility of the drawings of how they were sometimes a little hard to read given that they were um quote unquote 2D black and white drawings so we decided to incorporate some of the coloring and also just add a little bit of shading to really help the differentiate which um the different
surfaces of the building here is a little bit more clear in regards to the um columns that I had just mentioned as you recall we originally had these sort of white posts that were holding up the uh the Extrusion of the building we decided to change that and replace that with a much larger brick base it's about
16 in x 16 in and it's something that we pulled from the neighboring house uh two doors down as you see they also have a very similar feature let me zoom in they have a similar feature with a sort of like it's not
necessarily an arch per se but it's a sort of like large brick linto with a larger large brick what linto L NL I'm sorry uh with a larger brick post on the side so we started to incorporate that similar accent to um our building to
help in replace of those white post that we originally had um excuse me moving on to the side um elevations as I mentioned you can see here how we originally had the brick going up towards the first floor once
again we've lowered that and added more siding and reduced the use of brick to help eliminate that strong brick accent at the bottom and once again just brought that sort of red accent all the way across instead of the uh the previous brown brick that we had as mentioned to match the uh the
neighboring Brown accents of the buildings here you can see it a little bit better what I was referring to before of how the bump outs on both of the neighboring buildings have this sort of like strong white accent it's like a strong white cladding SL paneling so this is our immediate
neighbor here and the neighbor two houses down both their bump outs are pretty much a primarily white um white color you through through the use of different materials and we decided to incorporate that into both of our From Bump outs as well
and moving on to once again the uh the streetcape showing the building in context with neighboring buildings and we decided to take the uh the rendering of the front part of the building and superimpose it to the um
existing streetscape just to once again give it a better give it a better idea of how the building the new design more specifically Works in context with the neighboring buildings and that's more or less the uh the style of and the
way worked if you could speak to that as well yes I believe it was either commissioner Gunther or commissioner amuso I'm not sure which one it was but they recommended uh possibly doing a transm above the window just to help give it more a grander um entry feel so we went ahead and we did that and we
also changed the type of door thanks for bringing that up and I forgot to mention that we also changed the type of door to be a more tra to be this more sort of um two panel uh Paine glass style door it's a little similar to a barn door type but we changed it
for um because we felt it it worked better with with the uh the new design as well as it was something that was mentioned in the previous meeting and just to clarify the other door beside if you run back to that sheet that's just to give Dimensions that is not the one on the right is not the actual proposed
door it's just the construction right and it's labeled here that it's typical details for this brand of door so this is something that's found in most uh spec sheets regardless of what door you choose they provide the sort of like typical details for all the doors um of that Manufacturing Company okay and the
last question I wanted to ask you is regarding we had gone back and forth proposing a CMU wall removing the CMU wall that stand based on the commissioner's comments at the last meeting I believe that based off the last meeting we felt it was best to move forward without the
CMU all and do the railing so as you can see here we did incorporate it we did incorporate it into the uh streetscape the proposed streetcape study to give it a better sense of what it looks like in context and we also added it to our
rendering as well so going back to the initial rendering we did add the uh the railing going across the front uh this sort of low transparency point that you see back here in the bottom left hand corner that's the
transparency that you see in the bottom left hand corner that's meant to imply that's meant to show the fence because we do have a 6ot white board on board fence going all the way around we originally added the fence to the rendering but we felt that it was covering up the window so we just made
it a little transparent so that the windows were more eligible okay and that leads me to my real last question um there was definitely a comment from the commission part and parcel of lowering the impact I would say of that that
ground level recognizing we wanted to maintain it in order to have an ADA accessible unit um you need to have it down there but one of the comments that came out was regarding uh putting in some additional Landscaping in addition to removing the bre which I see um can
you confirm that we have also shown that as well we have done that as well um this rendering just to get a little technical is set to the noon Sun of the property so this light here is a little bit more um in Shadow uh so it is a
little hard to see the the uh bushes that we have proposed here at the bottom left hand corner but if I go back to the colored elevations on she A200 we are representing it there so once again we added some vegetation and brought the siding down to just help shrink down the
lower part of the brick thank you mariss any Commissioners have any questions want to look at anything on the plans again I just have a question about the height here which I've brought up a couple times I see that the Florida
ceiling Heights are 9 fet and this this building is so much taller um you know we have a site that slopes down and the buildings gradually also sort of slope down um and this one is just much
taller and I'm wondering if there's a reason that that we can't sort of minimize that with the Florida ceiling height being reduced I can answer from a legal side I do believe that Jersey City and perhaps can weigh some more the Land Development
ordinance does not want to see florid ceiling Heights of less than 9 is my understanding in addition to being um just another variance which I know is something obviously can be granted um I do believe that that falls outside of the general scheme that this both land
use boards are looking for is that a code requirement that it is a minimum of 9 fet or is that a preference it's a zoning requirement the zoning requirement correct okay I will just note it is written in
supplementary zoning that the recommended florid to sailing is ft applicants have asked for Less um but they are correct that the preference is but it's recommended it's not yeah it's well
so I don't know the phrasing off the top of my head plenty of applicants have come to this board before with Florida ceiling Heights of less than nine and have been approved with that however Ben is correct that the they do have to go to zoning board after this and Zoning Board is absolutely going to turn around and ask why their Florida sailings
aren't 9 ft I just I just think it's too tall and the base of the building is is is consider is tall and I know you've made some moves but it seems like reducing the ceiling height will help reduce the size of the building you know as I've said before you know you can see it on
this streetscape like it's the prevailing design is a a pedimented three-story building with a basement and I know that you're putting a unit at the bottom floor and that's causing it to be a little taller at the base than than what you typically see throughout this historic district I'm just concerned
about the height and the other thing I'm you know I know we have these elevations and you have a separate rendering of the building but what I don't see which maybe I could feel better um is a rendering of what this will look like in the context like at I level well we have
uh um it's not necessarily A rendering commissioner it's more of a superimpose photo that I previously highlighted um so this was scaled to match the um the the
property I guess for commission right scale that is an accurate depiction okay yeah and I think I think that that's a better that helps to see that I I am still concerned that the base of the building which is normally a basement floor it's a little
tall so commissioner what I will tell you also the Nuance difference between basement and I honestly don't recall we spoke about it last I'm not calling it a seller I'm saying I'm saying like it doesn't read as I understand that you're putting a unit there so you can't have
it be like the basements in this historic district but I do think it could be closer and it could be reduce you know the height of the Stoop from the from the grade from grade so that's a question I mean Martin can we reduce that anym below and have it there's
there's a there's a few things that would um I don't want to say would cause concern but some things that we would have to be mindful of would be the egress height of the windows um if we were to bring that first floor down for example a foot that's clearly going to
shrink the windows down about a foot so that could cause um an egress issue um in in achieving the proper egress size windows um other than that um to be honest I don't really see I don't see why I don't see much more issue other
than that it's really just more of a egress window uh issue but I I I like I said I just think it's given that that unit is already two feet below ground I think the more appropriate height for that unit would be the 9 fee because that's
also the Ada unit um which is something that the community was very Pro was very in support for so I do believe um as we had mentioned before that the minimum requirement or preference of the city is a 9ft floor ceiling um and we are working with that minimum um I
understand your comments commissioner I totally understand where you're coming from but I just personally wouldn't really lower that lower level I think I think it helps to have this information about the zoning because it seems like 9 ft is not you know like a code thing to me but um I do agree that a lot of the
other changes that you've made on this um on the project have have moved it in the right direction I think it it helps to see it in the rendering I think it looks looks pretty nice and it fits into the context materially commissioner just by way of
personal anecdote because I think it is I have personally brought one application before I believe it was the planning board not the zoning board with a less than 9 foot ceiling height and the only reason that it even got considered was because it was continuing
backwards um an existing floor plate so it was an expansion of what was there um but in my experience it's it's to miss O'Neal's point we could ask for a variance it's it's you can ask for a variance from anything in the zoning ordinance but I do know that it's something that they have specifically WR
the code as what they want to see so if you were to ask for less than 9 ft that would require you to apply for a variance okay thanks that that helps thanks yeah it's an ordinance issue not a building Cod issue just to be clear right I have a question for you um I
like the transition uh to the red brick it doesn't feel like the house is floating on a blonde Foundation it feels more grounded uh I definitely like the solid all green siding instead of the variation in
color my problem still lies with the columns across the front of the house um the the extra tall one on the left versus the two short ones on the porch um
just seemed too imbalanced and I was wondering if maybe putting a railing between the two porch columns like the neighboring house has would I'm sorry would Rectify that situation of the column on the left
feeling too tall too big and the other one's feeling too short are you suggesting aing here there like the H the neighboring house to the right has the two columns with a railing in between uh commissioner we had that
before oh you did yeah and it was recommended that we change it to this okay I I don't remember that um my other question is this this house is quite stately I'm still not sold on the front door it
looks like a Home Depot off the-shelf front door and I think that it should like any entrance to a beautiful home should make a statement and this says to me that we found this great door at the Home
Depot and I think it should look more like it's in context to the neighborhood maybe one big beautiful wooden door you know with a side side sidelight or something else
but that just looks um too big box to me understood and just but just to sort of plead our case the manufacturer is MMI which is not a quote unquote standard Manufacturing toour Company um I'm not saying that you can't get that at Home Depot or not but just to argue your
point the we went with a specific manufacturer that's not very used for very common standard home so uh we decided to go with this sort of barn door look because we felt that it was a little bit more traditional and it did fit well with the context of the neighboring buildings but if you for um
are still not satisfied with it we have no issue trying to see some alternative yeah I mean I I understand that you went to company who makes it special but it doesn't look special it looks it looks like big box I'm is there a particular design that you had maybe just something
uh uh with one window instead of it a divided sidelight um like an oldfashioned door would have one window with maybe some panels going right instead of the grill on the
front of the uh the door on the the the nine light division right because this is a two- panel glass door as this is the the specifications of it right right so rather than it's it's the nine light thing that's given that makes it
look like it's coming off the shelf from the Home Depot got you know we had a development on Sherman Place and they used Hardy plank siding and did all that but they used a beautiful custom 3ot wood door that looked like it belonged
in context to the neighborhood this does not look like that at all sure I me we can also look um once again at the neighboring doors the the doors of the neighboring homes um I know two doors down has a just a solid door or yeah as
you can see here let me zoom in real quick um two do sound just has a solid door yeah that's not a historic I mean the porch has been closed in so that's not really a historic door but maybe the house on the corner give you a better indication the house on the corner is a little similar to the one that we um had
chosen I think the one that's the more unique is the one to our immediate neighbor which has a sort of um oval shaped window so that's something that we can once again see if we can come up with a better alternative for that okay yeah I agree with um commissioner uzo it should be a wood door um it should be a
you know like with a raised panel and and maybe the sidelight I don't know about the transom but you know that maybe um but it's it's materially not appropriate for like an a door an entrance Door um and a little bit it's a little bit
also the style so just you know look at other other homes that are similar in the district that might still have their historic doors as a guide I think there is one a little bit more down it has double it has Slimmer sidelight windows on both sides and I think something like
that when you're talking about I think something like that will probably be better fit here so we'll we'll take another look at what's I think ju I think it just because of the style of the house and the neighborhood um I I just think it needs to be a little bit fancier looking
understood and more like a home door than a a door to a I don't know it just doesn't fit so a change there would be great thank you so I I agree with the comments of Commissioners Gunther and amuso um my
first impression upon seeing this revised uh design is that it is definely Ely a big Improvement I'm pleased to see a lot of these changes the thing that struck me however was the um the use of the white cladding which you had said is
bold strong um based on some of the neighboring properties I do see that in the the photos you shared um but there's two SE those two sections of the building uh just to the left of the main entrance most prominently and then on the extreme left of the front facade
that is a lot of white a lot of white cladding just broad expanses of it I wonder if you might have gone a little too far with the white cladding to me it it seems a little odd um and I might
prefer to see that paired down a bit but I would also be curious to hear what the other Commissioners think it it to me it it seems odd well we did um I'm sorry commissioner that's I would agree with with yeah I would just say that one of the Alternatives that we tried was to um
do more of a solid green all the way around including the bump outs and then once again utilizing a larger window trim to kind of help differentiate the uh the two colors so that was the original sort of design that we went with once we did the alternative with the white cladding we felt that that worked a little bit better but that's
definitely something that we can revisit and see if um come up with maybe an alternative so it's not so so prominent in the front facade um one more question regarding that white cladding is it just flat cladding or is it like a shingle no we're proposing fiber cement panels
fiber cement panels so it is just flat and has no decoration ofish s you're talking over one another you have to wait until finish this so it's just what was that it's just a white panel with no embellishments or shingle or any kind of style it's just
flat and white which I think adds to its largess right so this is a sample that we provided here it's a smooth uh White fiber cement panel okay the neighbors had more of like a
vinyl plastic looking type of panel um uh we're proposing something a little bit different but we we understand the comment and something we can we can um we can revisit maybe um maybe a wider window would would
help I'm sorry commissioner maybe a larger window wider would help that situation I don't I don't know for which for which that white the the the bulk white uh that we're just talking about sure where you have a single window
maybe a wider window would help loosen lessen the the white cladding yeah I mean I have some ideas of how we can improve upon it so I'll definitely um I'll take those comments uh to mind and see we can do yeah I I don't think it needs a
dramatic overhaul I feel like with some tweaking you could be in a good place any other I just building on what Paul and Robert were saying about this area of the building if it were um like you've used some of the shingles or
scallops Textures in the other parts of the building that might be enough to break up the sort of intensity of this sort of white part of the building and maybe it would just have more Shadow and more texture and maybe that would be enough right um kind of going back to what I was saying before uh we had
originally like I said had a more the whole building was originally green and the use of the trims was helped it um have some color differentiation uh we originally had the left side as just green and only one strip as a white panel that was um something that looked good altern Al Ely
we decided on this but like I said We There are some Alternatives that I think um can satisfy your comments in regards to the use of the white panel okay any other comments questions feedback okay so the question I guess I would
have for the commission these changes I mean I wrote them down um are I know I think the chairman I think you you said they're relatively minor tweaks um would you prefer that we return to show you these tweaks um or would you prefer that we work with
staff I tend to think that these are significant enough that you would have to come back but uh what do you think that's your determination it's up to the commission to defer to staff I I think with multiple significant design changes I think you would have to come back but
hopefully it would be a relatively short presentation and you don't have to give a fourth introduction to the project um okay no problem so then if it's okay with you what I'd like to do since I have our planner here if she can speak to the commission this time so that I she's great but I can avoid
paying her to come back next time if that's all right sure perfect okay thank you you thanks sure you swear or affirm the testimony your boun given this proceeding will be the truth the whole truth nothing about
the truth I do and state SP your full name it's Carolyn worell yep Carolyn worell c a r r o l y n weell w r s t l o Carolyn if you could please give the
commission the benefit of your professional uh your educational and professional background and the status of your license in the state of New Jersey sure um I'm a licensed uh planner in the state of New Jersey I have a master's degree of uh City and Regional planning from RoR University I've
appeared before the uh Jersey City Planning and Zoning Board numerous times and um I just don't believe I've I've yet had the chance to speak before this board chair I would submit Miss worell as an expert in the field of professional planning uh the chair
recognizes Miss worstell as a licensed planner thank you so Carolyn just recognizing that we are going to be returning with those uh modifications discussed on the record this evening um to the extent that you can still give your general planning opinion as well as
the context of the neighborhood and the project as a whole that would be greatly appreciate it yeah sure I I'd love to um so I've been involved with this project since its very Inception um you know really working with the team to deal with what is from a planning
perspective a little bit of an odd lot um everything about the Jersey City zoning ordinance is designed for narrow deep Lots uh so when we're sometimes presented with with a project on a lot like this we sort of have to say how do we work with a lot knowing that no
matter what we're going to do we have to go for variances because a lot just doesn't conform in any way shape or form to what is typical and what the ordinance was written for um so we worked really hard with this um this lot
itself is very much oriented more side to side so it's a much wider lot and so we worked really hard with the team to design a building that really focused on how does this building present itself and deal with the the context along
Kennedy Boulevard on this particular block Kennedy Boulevard hits these lots and creates a diagonal um and when you look at the context all of the homes that are to the is north of it each one steps forward a little bit and so it
creates sort of a pattern along this block where each building is sort of step back but there's this stepping um and so that was something when we were designing and looking at this building is we wanted to continue that design style creating a building that continued
that step back pattern along the block um so that was sort of one of the the things that we really looked at with this design um we also looked at the fact that we're in um an area where our maximum Building height is 35
ft but the buildings that are here and the context we're in was designed and built at a time when there was no ordinance um and so we really tried to look at it in say we want to try and create a building that is consistent and
creates a consistent window pattern um and then creates a uh uh a roof line that is somewhat similar you know that the the focus is on the Peaks um so that was sort of how we were sort of looking
at the context we were trying to say how do we create a building that that is consistent with the character of that block um but also again acknowledging the fact that we're in a very different design uh period
that there are certain uh code in building standards that are different than when these other buildings were created um and so that's sort of where we sort of started off within looking at this building in design um and then we really tried to to meet a lot of those
standards that are there um and in the Jersey city ordinance you know there's standards for new construction oop sorry what did I do um you know and it really looks at saying um we're not trying to replicate the building that was there we are not
trying to essentially totally recreate the buildings that are next to us but we're trying to take a lot of that and take the character and create something that seems appropriate along that block um you know and so uh the standards there are talking about things like C
and setting uh the building height again we we were trying to create a building height that seemed appropriate um while still creating um uh spaces that met the new sort of standards and codes of of today's uh uh
construction um we were trying to create that visual compatibility by making sure that the window patterns were very similar that that they generally lined up with the block um and again the block it all steps up so it's not perfectly even across the block as you may see in
you know your traditional row homes or town homes uh but again trying to make sure that that the floors to floors generally lined up so that it didn't look completely out of context um we looked at things like the um relationships of The Unbroken planes
to voids um so again talking about how do windows and doors you know align along the frontage um looking at the relationship of vacant land to buildings and structures um so what is the spacing between them um and this is something that Martin had had mentioned in
previous uh testimony was making sure that we were creating spaces in between our buildings that were consistent um so here again we we were trying to make sure that between our building and the buildings next to us we're creating something of a consistent pattern um so
we that was something that that we were really looking at um that relationship of exterior projections to the street so making sure that our buildings step back uh consistent with the character of how the other buildings are sort of stepping back um using those exter uh the
building materials uh focusing on using the um I'm just going to go to the space and leave to okay sorry I me to interrupt um trying to use materials trying to um
utilize the uh the sighting to create those textures and patterns that are very characteristic of uh you know the the design of the buildings that are nearby um uh the roof forms focusing on making sure that we were creating a roof
form that was consistent with a very strong Peak with the strong pediment you know those are all very characteristic of the the three other buildings on L's block um you know and then just again looking at generally the scale um and again none
of these buildings are exactly all the same they're all a little different um and so you're not trying to match up and say we need that our roof line to exactly match the building next to us because that's not the character of this block uh it's not you know roov town
homes that are exactly the same we're all built at the same time um and and really this this is very char istic um you know I was was reading while we were doing this I was really looking at that Westberg and East Lincoln Park guidelines um and within those
guidelines when it really talks about the character of the whole District um on page eight um it really talks about that the West Bergen East Lincoln Park historic district has a distinctive character founded on the diversity of
its architecture and that you know this was sort of a Hallmark of the time and period in this area was developed and that they had this aesthetic appeal that took delight and I think the term was constant variety so the idea is that
these homes don't have to look exactly the same because the idea was that they're all a little bit different um you know and and so I think that was sort of where we were going is trying to make sure that we had a building that looked like it wasn't out
of context but wasn't exactly the same as what was around us um and so really think that that's what we've achieved here um even when we were just discussing the colors we were talking about the blues and the Tans and it felt a little bit almost too much uh similar
to what was there which is when we went with the green and the blue it seems to be consistent with the character but to create that distinctive approach for this specific building um so I I think that you know overall we were we were really trying to meet those guidelines
and create a building that was both uh distinctive um but also appropriate in the context of where it is thank you and Carolyn did you have a chance to read through Miss O'Neal's report um as well I think the most recent version I sent
to you today oh I missed that one I think it was relatively similar to the last one I think I only updated that you guys submitted new drawings okay okay yes I I have reviewed uh her Miss O'Neal's report I guess the most recent
I reviewed was uh December 16th okay and then there was so there was a recommendation in that version about removing the wall which we've done um do you feel that there's any anything within that report that conflicts with your opinion as a professional planner
uh no I don't um I think you know uh this talk about um and the staff recommendations talking about that it's it's mostly consistent um and that again this this is a new building um you know it's not Recreation it's not uh
restoration so um you know it is trying to really meet those uh uh standards for new construction uh and I I believe that that we have uh met them okay and that was actually alluding to my last
question to you um regarding the general standards for new construction um the fact that obviously you have to work within um building code relevant in 2025 and Beyond when you are constructing a new a new structure even in a historic district do you feel especially in line
with some of the comments about you know Florida ceiling Heights um as well as you know ADA compliance obviously which probably did not exist when these other structures were constructed not even close right so do you do you believe would it be your opinion as a
professional planner that the project like this again understanding that we will be back with a couple of additional tweaks as discussed this evening um generally supports uh I guess that dichotomy of of marrying the old to the new uh yes I do okay thank you so chair
that would conclude my direct examination of Miss wory thank you do any Commissioners have any questions great all right so we know we're going to be carrying this case so that they
can make those architectural adjustments um we have given them a written down a bunch of feedback um Charlene I know you're here for this application do we want to open public comment yes okay great so if
anyone wants to make a motion to open public comment I'll make a motion to open public comment second okay all in favor I I all right if you are a member of the public and you'd like to speak regarding this application you can approach the public comment mic and just as a reminder for all
public comment any questions do need to be directed uh to the chair who will take all the questions we'll write them down and then we will um answer them once we close public comment could I ask does that mean there
will be no public comment next time the applicant will be submitting new materials so we have to open public comment again I see okay you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding would
be the truth Tru truth yes Charlene CH h r l Yen B ke thank you um thank you Commissioners um and thank you Ben wine
he has been very Cooperative with his team and meeting with the community we've met twice and there were certainly aspects of this project that were changed that were um based on comment from the community and particularly on the unit
count but let me read what I have to because I want to get it all in my three minutes um this is uh there have been two meetings with Mr wine and his team with the community with a few of our concerns addressed such as the reduction
of the units within which might be sold as condos which is one of the things we were hoping rather than rentals um there remains a number of items that concern us the neighborhood on on other
items that we had opinions listening to all of the discussions here has been enlightening and the modification suggested have been seen by me at least as improvements this is a key visual entry and exit to the northern boundary of the
West Bergen historic district um amassing contributing and key contributing structures from Montgomery to Duncan Avenue except for one building so all of them are key or
or certainly contributing those just two houses key just to the right of this project area those are the only uh contributing everything else surrounding this is key contributing except for one
non uh apartment building across the street um so it's Northbound going going along this when you go Northbound this project is squarely in your view because of the
reverse s that the boulevard takes at this point um now all these buildings that were here were described as in our nomin as circa 1900 late Victorian style homes
typically representing the architecture that was along the boulevard before apartment buildings became predominant starting in the 1910s so here's a few of the things that we need to address as a
community we still think that the um density should be reduced by one more unit because it would reduce the rooftop bulk which we think is way too large for this building it's just massive compared
to the mil buildings just to the South so that still gives a 50% increase to the permitted density that gives three units within this building all properties to the South are currently
only one family allowing a masonary wall in front would con would continue to contribute to the continuity of the front yards of the homes to the South we were in support of that a low wall just
to create continuity with all those others because the property near Montgomery that's with that has a wall and a setback and a much larger space that creates a gap between these houses and the Montgomery Street project and
then lastly increase the roof overhang the eaves on the porch um and no leader down leader from the uh the rain attach should be
attached to the column that is so tacky and I see that on the plans why should the leader be on the column it should be back on the building put the the drains in the back and it should be on the building
um to the main house those are the three things otherwise I like the color changes the things that were suggested here the masonary on the bottom bringing down 30 seconds 30 seconds thank you um all those are positive changes and the door
in particular you have lots of original doors in the neighborhood I thank you for that that really is the the entry the smile that the house makes to the public if you're not going to pay attention to these little details and I say that about the eaves cuz that little
overhang would make a difference on that porch entry it it's a little thing but that little detail impacts the area so much and look at the next buildings over all of them have nice eaves on them so
thank you thanks Charlene are there any other members of the public present who would like to speak regarding this application right staff sees no members of the public present um who would also like to speak so I recommend a motion to close public comment motion second all in
favor I okay I have the notes written down from there for the additional suggestions to the building so when I send the previous ones that the commission discussed I will include those in that email sure thank you and
uh commission without I know you have a a busy agenda this evening and I don't want to take more of your time um I do just want to ask one question and I appreciate Miss Burke's comments as well she has been a pleasure to work with um it's always great when you have a good neighborhood association historic or non that's that's willing to at least get
you to you know 95 98% of where you'd like to be my one question and I I asked this out of pure deference um obviously this wall has been a topic of conversation and I just want to be clear for the record my client has no issue
either with the CMU wall or without the CMU allall and going with the railing option that we proposed but hearing that there is a little bit of of I guess disagreement between um between the commission and the public I just I just want to make sure that the commission's
direction to us is not to have that wall um that's really my question so just to clarify the staff recommendation was that there was no wall there historically if they need the wall for engineering related purposes
right structure related purposes which is the whole point of a retaining wall no problem with it um but to my knowledge they don't so we recommend we just said we don't necessarily see the need for it especially because there is a front area way fence um so I think Mr
M's just looking for feedback from the from you guys on which on if you guys care if there's a wall there or not so I have a question if you put the wall up will the fence disappear I think as we had testified last time there would be a a railing on
top of the wall most likely because the gate entry component would it would be taller than whatever that two two and a2t wall would look like I feel like a lot of the walls in this streetcape are retaining walls like the yards are raised so they make sense and if it's a
difference between a metal fence and what effectively is just a brick fence the metal fence makes more sense yeah to my knowledge they're all retaining walls for a raised front yard that have been added within the past 10 years so then I would go back and say
that um I'd be happy without the wall if it's not doesn't have a purpose other than to match the neighbors correct okay all right so that being said um if there are no other comments on this well
did the applicant before we um put this off till the next meeting did the applicant want to just respond briefly to the other two comments raised by Miss Burke so just so we can make sure you don't have to come back a fifth time sure
so yeah yeah so there well the the elephant in the room was the comment about density which I think probably also goes to commissioner Gunther's comments about the the size and and massing of the building if you were to reduce the number of units that might you know kill two birds with one stone
but is that something that the applicant is willing to entertain so look one of the things and I recognize that this commission did not have the benefit of being part of those neighborhood conversations and the at this point what is probably close to two years of design when this project started one of the
things that and I know it's not a land use consideration but it it it is in a sense of this has been a vacant lot and to develop this lot has to make sense cents dollars and cents to a developer in order to construct anything on the lot um to make it worthwhile while
that's not a typical land use concern where it does get involved and it and it does talk about it a little bit in in case law is if it's it's to the point that you're going to have a blighted site that's just going to remain vacant because it doesn't it doesn't work then that is something that should be
consider it so one of the things and again I recognize that this commission didn't have the opportunity to be part of those conversations when we started with seven units or really six unit I say seven but it was six by the time it even got to the community seven was worked out with a
very substandard sized unit with City Planning who did not recommend that one of the things that the that they really focused on the community was well we would like to see these as condominium units um so we were able to say look it's we developers as you may know do not typically make that decision until
after a building is constructed you can you can design building but recognizing that you're you're at least a year and a half if not more away from making that final determination obtaining your certificate of occupancy and being ready to um make those units available to to
the public my client really said well I I would prefer not to even make that consideration now and my recommendation to him was I think you should design or redesign these units so that they are conducive more so to condominium purchase rather than rental one of those
things and again this Commission did not have the opportunity to see this at this point but one of those things included putting washer dryer units in every single one of the units unlike a rental building where what we had previously was one room on the lower level smaller
units we had six units so that you you did not need to take up space with amenities like that because you could put it in one small room in the basement um we we made that change and if these are still rentals that's a really nice amenity but that is something that's constructed in a way that is typically
more conducive to condominium purchase so I know this is a very long- winded way of answering your question under the R1 zoning requirements what would be permitted on this lot is two units in a principal building and one additional accessory dwelling unit so a third unit so three units are permitted as of right
on this lot what the zoning board is going to hear from our professional planner who you heard a little bit from tonight is that this lot is not going to work with an accessory dwelling unit I don't think it would be historic appropriate in the slightest to have any type of accessory dwelling unit in the
rear despite the fact that the R1 Zone allows for and arguably encourages that I I I can tell you with all honesty most of my R1 applications now include that feature because it's a bonus unit available to developers at a very low cost to construct that would not make
appropriate sense here so one of the considerations that and I know it's less for this board and more for the zoning board but one of the considerations really is that yes we're asking for one additional unit of density for this property to make it make sense but in
order to spend the time spend the money and spend the effort on constructing a good project here that makes sense to actually develop this is one of the considerations that that we're going to put into play so I know that was a very long answer chairman but I I would appreciate if the if the commission
appreciates and understands okay that's helpful context thank you and then of course the final con uh comment was regarding the uh overhang or Eaves and the down leader of being attached to the column rather it should be on the
building do you have any that I will certainly ask the architect to look at I objectively don't have a problem with that um we we'll take a look at that if that can be accommodated it's the first time we heard that comment but we'll take a look at that perfect thank you great all right so the next HPC meeting
is March 10th I assume you'd like to be carried to March 10th let me double check that real quick mhm I will make March 10th work great all right that being said if anyone wants to make a motion to carry this application to March 10th
motion second all in favor I thanks man thanks very much thank you all right um now moving to new business I will call case H-24
d406 the applicant is Kristen Hopkins kle AIA applicant on behalf of Vanessa Ang and Gil Perez owners the address is 2524 Street in the haramis Cove historic district this application is for a
certificate of appropriateness for interior Renovations front facade restoration and proposed rear Edition at 252 4th Street and altered contributing italianate influenced Greek Revival roh
house built Circa 1860 in the haramis Cove historic district do you swear orir the testimony yours given this proceeding will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do and your full name you're going to have to keep your voice up hold on one second I'm Kristen
Hopkins CLE it's k r i s t i n Hopkins h o p k i ns and then a hyphen CLE CLE e g g all right staff notes for the record that Kristen has previously been qualified in front of this board as an
expert in the field of architecture okay so um I'm here for 252 4th Street um the only work that's being done um is really the owner's duplex which is on the garden level and the first floor which I call parlor level most times which I call what level
parlor level um the only work that's being done to the top two floors is window replacement on um the front facade all the front facade windows will be Marvin Wood ultimates per historic um requirements um or to meet historic
requirements and in the front elevation um um we are also lowering um the the front windows at that parlor level we are not changing out the front door um so what we're really here for is that back um
addition currently I'll go back to what's existing um currently there's a little bit of a hodgepodge of additions that have been done prior to um um the homeowners that are my clients um so we are actually going to demolish the
existing addition that is there um and add a a larger addition to the back I'm going to actually show you that in 3D to make it a little easier so you can see the back elevation of the existing facade um a lot of the existing
facade um of the bottom two floors where we're doing the work um has already been um demolished and removed over time so um this addition is to include uh one bedroom and uh the kitchen along with a
deck and a privacy screen because the deck is adjacent to is on the property line on the east side of the property so that's a zoning requirement now and um there is a a deck a 5ot deck off the
back of the kitchen and um we will be using the hearty plank smooth um I have samples if you'd like to see um it's going to be in the um in the night gray um here that you can see if anyone wants
to see it I can bring it to you um and then we are painting the corice and also like on the front facade besides the windows um cleaning the Sills they've been painted so that is um that is the majority of the work that we're doing I
can answer any questions if you have any questions the addition is not visible from the public RightWay at all the public right away yeah uh I'm just looking at the egress is it do you require secondary egis now how many
units is it um it's three units uh the building department is allowing a 40 foot rear yard set back for erass okay I'm just trying to see how you where where did you achieve that that um uh erress from the top of the second
floor Edition I'm not seeing it is it a is it a drop- down ladder uh yeah there's a drop down ladder here um so from the top two floors you come down here and then um and then come down onto the deck and then out and you approval for a drop down there well I have to go
I have to go to the building department after this okay so um we'll find out there um we had a drop down ladder before so um you know that's what we're hoping so that's my only questions thanks okay if we have no other questions that concludes your testimony
mhm great um if there are no more questions testimon is concluded we will move on to public comment um if there are any members of the public who would like to address the commission regarding this application please approach the public comment mic uh staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion
to open and close public comment motion motion second all in favor I I I okay we'll move into staff comments um this application is uh pretty straight forward um staff finds it to be consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior standards for historic preservation um the front facade restoration work um is appropriate and consistent with the downtown historic uh District guidelines the enlargement of the first floor Windows um is consistent with site evidence for the building as
evidenced by the infill brick below the windows um and it also is consistent with other buildings within the row as we noted uh the addition will not be visible from the public right of way um and is show similar to other additions on the Block there's one that's larger
and then that are a few that are smaller but um it fits in with the existing block Paradigm and development patterns of the area so in HPC staff's opinion uh the project as proposed will not cause an adverse effect on the character Andor Integrity of the historic resources or
the um harith Cove historic district as such HBC staff recommends a approval of a certificate appropriateness with the standard conditions as noted in the staff report motion to approve second okay we will do a roll call vote
um commissioner amuza I uh commissioner Gia is absent commissioner San Camp I commissioner Gunther I commissioner sakong is absent commissioner blazak is absent commissioner Cronin I uh Vice chair gucciardo is absent uh chair
Gordon I okay we have five vas zero nay zero exensions um the certificate of appropriateness with conditions is approved thank you everyone
thanks uh all right before I call the next case it's a little early but I think maybe this is a good stopping point for a five minute recess so uh we'll take a fem minute break and come back at 7 51 all right we'll call the meeting back
to order it's 7:55 and I will now call case h24 d163 the applicant is Steven Joseph Esquire on behalf of sasm Morris company
LLC owner the address is 83 Morris Street in the Pauls hook historic district this application is for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a new 13 residential unit and two commercial unit mixed use
building an Associated site work and the interior renovation facade repair and window replacement of the existing building an altered contributing Greek Revival building built Circa 1860 in the Paul hook historic district this is a
recommendation to the Jersey City Zoning Board of adjustment good evening Stephen Joseph castano quickly trami for the applicant um yeah it was a mouthful the description of the project there's there's a lot going on here it's it's a little unique because it's mostly new
construction but there's this existing building here that we're incorporating into the new design and I think our team did a pretty good job of that um this is a referral to the zoning board so I I feel like I should mention that a little bit here we need preliminary and final
major sight plan approval but we also have variances for use height rear yard setback building coverage parking number of signs per facade ter setback a number of trees sounds like a lot of stuff it it makes sense in context some of it's
due to it being a mix between the old and the new um the other other part of it is the historic ordinance doesn't really talk about mixed use buildings talks about tow houses this commission has seen applications with those variances before uh the other part of it
is the flood plane it's also my understanding this commission has seen an application in the past for for this site it was a it was different larger in scope and density but the site may look familiar so let's bring up the architect
we'll take a walk through the plans and uh we'll see how we feel nelon let's get you sworn in do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to given this proceeding be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do and your full name
please Nelson benavites NS o n b n a v DS and last meeting and youn and testified I would ask the commission continue to accept
his yes so accept did thank you take away good evening I wanted to introduce um 8389 mois Street um the project is 13 residential units
um with two or three ground floor commercial um uh spaces which would be including uh restaurant use sorry this is moving all over the place um the current lot is cons
consists of an existing three-story building which contains a ground floor Restaurant and TWO residential units um and on the the existing building extends almost all the way to the rear yard l oh excuse
me pardon me extends to the um rear what I'm calling a rear yard line but it would appear to be it's currently zoned um based on the zoning description as a sidey yard um then there's also an empty lot
um which is the long uh 25x 100t lot um we're looking for variances for um building coverage and height um as described U by Steven Joseph U among some of the other variances so the proposed building is a
four-story building um which would contain um 13 units the new building um which surrounds the existing building would contain 12 units um and the existing building would contain one residential unit the ground floor
restaurant um would remain um and the new building would contain uh the building Lobby for the residential unit and uh the commercial space for an additional restaurant which is an expansion of an existing
use um the following drawing shows the existing block um diagram um and showing the existing building here and the empty lot that's on the corner and on the side the proposed building um completes
the corner um encompassing the existing building um the building would be four stories in height um and leaving the existing three-story building in place and the the side drawings are showing the existing um block elevation
with the existing building in place and then the proposed um bulk elevation um which shows the four-story building uh this would be the Washington Street elevation and on Moore Street uh we would the existing Mo Street
elevation is here uh with a larger you know six seven story building on the corner and the existing um Standalone uh townhouse uh three-story townhouse here and the proposed building
uh would be basically the four-story building sorry four-story building uh surrounding the existing three-story building there is currently an empty lot um adjacent to it which is not part of this project it's uh under different
ownership uh these are currently the sight line uh drawings uh from the public right away um from the streets sorry let me just go back this is the primary one from Washington um and the remaining three
are from Mor Street this view here basically is showing the existing um townhouse um with basically the addition uh new building in the rear this is the existing drawings of
the the current building that's there um which shows a really long one-story Edition sorry that this is moving around basically there's a rear yard one-story Edition um with a uh with a crawl space for the existing kitchen and
the townhouse um has the two residential units above and ground floor uh restaurant going back to the we are proposing you know completely renovating the interior of the existing building um since it would be a different um layout
removing the old um rear yard Edition completely and reconstructing the sidewalls of the existing townhouse um but preserving the front half of the existing town housee to maintain its structural stability this is the proposed seller um
of the building it would include um the commercial um space for in the seller um both in the corner of Washington and Morris Street and in the addition existing um addition existing building would also be part of the commercial
space um we have our two means of egress for then all of the trash and common uh utilities for the residential and Commercial part of the building we're including an elevator which connects the residential units um for all the floors and then we have a service elevator
which would connect um just the the ground floor to the seller for commercial use for mostly for trash removal and um deliveries this is the first floor the ground floor um
space starting over here on 83 I call it 83 Morris which would be the empty lot um would be the residential entry um into the the residential part of the building we have the existing commercial restaurant space for the
townhouse um on 85 Morris and then on going towards the corner 8789 and on Washington would be one larger um commercial space or restaurant use um for this purposes we're showing two areas for residential kitchens in the
back um and as you can see here um we have they're basically our service elevator um for the commercial portion and our mean of egress out on the side towards Washington and also through the the res the residential part through the
lobby um the building extends um essentially towards the rear again the side yard line um with a small overhang and deck on the back this is the second floor sorry
let's go back this is the second floor um basically we have four units in the new building and again one unit in the existing uh building Sor the resident uh for the existing
building would be entered in on the second floor um so he'll still have its two means of eress through a common hallway um and essentially it's a duplex um we have a two-bedroom unit on the empty lot which extends from moris
Street to the rear yard and we have one small one-bedroom unit in the rear and the two other corner unit the one corner unit is also a two-bedroom and um another two-bedroom apartment on the Washington Street Street side um all the
units have basically Frontage on the street with the exception of just the one bedroom um unit in the back um and the unit in the back has a small balcony um to introduce um some uh outdoor
space uh all the floor uh the apartment layouts are the same except for the duplex in the existing building um the building does change the top floor um we changed the massing on the top floor for uh the the corner unit
we step back adjacent to um the existing 85 more Street um so basically since the floors don't align for the existing building versus the new um there's a set back um at the top floor to create a small
Terrace um there's a small addition over the existing building as basically a penthouse U bulkhead stair um with then a Terrace on the roof of the existing which is also set back and on the roof We have basically a
small um centralized roof deck um with the two means of egress and elevator um the perimeter is surrounded by green roof and mechanical utilities um there are no um interior spaces on the roof um other than the
means of erress staircase in the elevator this is the elevation on mois Street showing the new building um sandwich between uh sandwiching the existing building um I include the materials um
for the facade the primary facade is um two types of br um we have two tones the field is yeah uh the field brick essenti yeah
that brick sorry is a flued special shape brick okay uh which would be along the perimeters and the infill panels below the windows um would be a combination of two bricks would be a special shaped
brick and a same color brick which would be a solid brick and a standard um brick profile I'll go through the overall elevations I'm showing you the details of it um so essentially the facade is
consisting of two tones of brick go work we're using a uh Marvin Type window for the front facade um using various divisions and overall pattern of it uh the ground
floor storefronts are also a like a Marvin system and broken down to uh to mimic a typical storefront of Base panels transoms and picture windows including
doors as well um the existing building will be um restoring its facade replacing the windows with wood Marvin ultimate double hungs um the existing storefront um and entry will be restored
um the cornices will be painted um the lentils will also be essentially restored to its original color and the cornice would also be painted and restored um there's no real modifications to the existing facade um
and with uh on this facade we're showing basically how the building changes as it goes across from starting at 83 moris on the far left side um essentially is the empty lot which would be basically the four-story building in the residential
entry um and then it steps down to the original um townhouse and then to the right um the cornice breaks is down lower um within a a recessed setback uh Terrace uh for the metal panel uh facade
and on the corner it goes back to its full height uh and turns the corner as well we also play along with the basic you know the different patterns of the windows and The Bays to essentially not make it this monotonous building of everything being consistent where we do
organize it based on the different levels and the different um groupings of where uh The Bays of these of these buildings this is the Washington Street elevation um which continues the the corner again
we break down the individual Bays where we have the corner um is basically a mirror of each other and then it breaks down to a different Bay for the middle and then on the end to break it uh to continue it to the adjacent existing town houses we lowered the cornice and
created a metal Panel System above it to reduce its appearance and bulk these are the sections this is a section through uh Washington Street um showing the outline of the existing townhouse to the left and this is the rear yard um
where basically we uh it's a simple uh facade with uh large windows and doors and The Terraces um with the railings and balconies and then on the right hand side it would is the let's call it the through the lot the long uh empty lot uh
where we have the the through units where we have the three floors of residential above the ground floor the materiality on the back is a a a smooth Hardy board panel um for the middle section in the courtyard and then on the
rear yard facade of the uh uh the empty lot would be a brick um similar we're going to be using the red brick for the back yeah sorry these are proposed color schemes for for the existing
building yeah sorry I'll go back to that the r drings this is the section of the building um through the existing building uh showing U the existing cornice line um and the sight lines from the building U through
the building um that the roof decks are not visible from the from that sight line including the existing uh roof Terrace um on the existing building and then the new roof deck on the the new building and here you can see that the
we respected the interior floor lines of the existing building um and then the new building has the different floor to floor height and there's another SE showing um through the existing building and the new building um seen
Beyond we are returning the the brick um on the side facade um and then introducing a metal panel on the interior part once it's about 10 ft away from uh the street uh this is a section again going back to the sorry that section
repeated this is a section through moris Street um showing that the the roof deck is not visible from uh the full four-story height uh this is a section again through Morris Street uh in the
residential entry of it um where there's no roof deck is visible there and this is a a section showing um the setback um at 87 Mor Street uh which which would be on the the fourth floor um outdoor Terrace on
the front of Mo Street these are basically the wall section details of the facade um basically I can go through that but basically we're showing a alternating pattern um using the different types of brick um modulating the facade where the
facade has the the punched openings of the large windows that are recess back um the three-dimensionality of the of the brick um the play of the um alternating brick pattern um in the individual
Baye these are section details of the the cornice uh sorry not the cornice here I have the um canopy um for the corner unit and for the residents and including some signage um that we'll be
using uh mostly blade signs um and then the signage on the canopies and this can Sage on the canopies yes this section here is a section through the existing building showing the restoration of the storefront and
how we're me uh melding the two different constructions together with the new construction um and Resto and basically reconstructing the interior um of the building this is a ren a corner view um from Morris Street Morris and Washington
um showing uh the building the cornice um is made up of a zinc metal panel um it's broken down also into Bays um where um the Cornus is not just this continuous Cornus it's a sort of modernized corness um articulating it um
slightly different this is the view from Mor Street um looking towards Washington and this where shows you that uh the two different types of bricks on the ends the corners um and
the The Columns we have the U the fluted brick and in the indivi in the bay um below the windows is an alternating um we have the three-dimensional um brick that we're going to be doing in the soldier course um alternating it with then a solid
brick band going across um the window heads and Sills are going to be this pre-cast um material in a sort of a buff color like a limestone color and that's also then continuous and banding
throughout the uh entire building this is the view of um from Washington Street um showing the breakdown of the the shift of the cornice and the change in material of the metal panel um for the fourth floor floor the metal panels um will be more
three-dimensional they're they have a we have a detail for the the grooves are going to be more of a Batten um sort of a uh an articulation of the panels it's not just a flat panel with a reveal this is like an elevation
rendering of Morris Street and an elevation rendering of Washington Street um and here's some of the details shown the metal panel and the three-dimensional um articulation of the
Bay of the brick masonry Bay and a detail of the cornice as well uh and these are just a miscellaneous details shown the railings um for the roof deck front yard uh the glass Railing at the uh front Terrace on
Morris Street and uh just some typical window details and this is a a section um cutting through the existing building um where marries and meets um the new building and how we're treating it structurally
uh keep keeping them independent and that concludes my summary of the building and I can answer any questions if you have anyone have any questions want to go back it's a large building and a lengthy presentation so if anyone wants to go
back and look at something before we really get into it I I it's not a question it's more a comment and you're going to have to start calling me Robert parking Gordon because I I know this is not I know this is not the appropriate form for this I and I know this is going
to zoning but I still feel an obligation to put on the record that we keep losing parking in the historic districts and we don't seem to get any parking um and it's not really a historic issue except to the extent that soon parking in the historic District's going to be a thing
of the past and uh I have real concerns about that so just putting it out there I can answer that or comment on that yeah no because we did an investigation on if is parking feasible here and in our my professional opinion I did studies on it parking is not feasible in
this site just because of a you have a historic structure that we're trying not to demolish um to have an access ramp um going down to a uh let's call a Sellar parking is feasibly impossible um the
previous application had a lift um for the scale of this project it's it's not financially feasible um for it uh the you know grade parking is discouraged um so so that limited our
opportunity of parking we didn't want to have an empty lot um that's currently how they're treating parking right now um so those were the considerations that we did considering that this is an urban um environment um it's also uh real close
to public transportation um it's a walking city um we are actually giving up uh a driveway cut two driveway Cuts so um we kind of feel that we're contributing to street parking which is more in the nature of this neighborhood so that would be
my comment to that noted thank you okay so does anyone want to go back and look at a detail spend some more time on the elevations anyone have any questions did you take any inspiration from the Sugar House this is definitely giving me um
Deja Vu when I think of 174 Washington Street has a similar um look to the windows to Shar house not specifically I've done work in that building but I haven't it's not my inspiration at all um I don't know if you've seen some of
my previous work um at 16 Bright Street that's probably closer inspiration is just sort of the uh working in this neighbor in the different neighborhoods in the historic district I feel really sensitive towards brick work I think I know how important that is that this is
not just a flat facade um or a glass structure um that's my inspiration so okay any other questions comments should we move to public
comment okay there any members of the public Pres who'd like to speak all right um do you want to make a motion to open public comment motion second all in favor I all right um again
just for the record all questions will be directed through the chair and answered at the end of public comment so Diane will go ahead and swear you in you swear orir the testimony about to give his proceeding will be the truth of all truth and of the truth I do or just
state your name for name is Diane case d i Nee last name is k a e and I'm here for speaking for the historic Paul hook Association who has reviewed this application and I also
wear kind of two hats because my house is adjacent to this property site so I'm well aware of of the the details of this project um first of all I'd like to say thank you we have worked with with the uh developer on this uh quite a bit over
the last year or so we worked extensively with the prior developer and um basically um have no qualms about the size of of the project it's been brought down in in units um but unfortunately
what we lost in units we gained in um no parking so uh we now have 13 units with no parking which none of us are thrilled at but we're very happy to see this um Corner finally addressed after many many
years the there are a couple things that I just want to note for the record one is that the garbage all comes out on the south side it's on the small sidewalk it uh will it needs to be very carefully monitored it needs to be very carefully dealt with there because otherwise it's
going to end up on the Residential Properties to the South um you have two spaces that are outdoor spaces one of which is essentially a a active yard the other one is appears to be off the commercial kitchen area and off the
commercial um um restaurant area and it also has access from the community space of the building so the question is is that going to be outdoor seating uh the neighborhood certainly would prefer that
that is not outdoor seating for the restaurant um and I don't I know that's not yours but it it's it's a problem for us as we have dealt with the uh the last restaurant there who used uh the the Deep lot as one of their places to throw their garbage on a regular basis so and
the noise associated with it so um the handrails on the Front Street facade need a cap um they seem to be rather thin uh fences in the rear yard we will work with a developer on that because
that uh the six- foot fence there that is proposed that is a solid fence along with the new building the go the uh tishman buildings that are going up are dramatically closing in our block which is one of the few that still have the original dut so we would like to get
those to be more um have more ventilation have uh some sight something through there that gives us a little bit more light and air um the details of the brick um we've gone back and forth on on a regular basis um nobody's thrilled
with the darkness of it uh and we would love to see if we can deal with that and with the colors a little bit uh more in the future which um well and then there's two other things the uh taking the rear off the historic building it's not clear to me
from the drawings and I haven't seen any structural drawings as to if they're actually rebuilding that entire section of the building and how are they connecting the original building and stabilizing the original building what is left of it
um uh to the uh new building so I think that's uh if we're going to do facadism I think we need to have that spelled out very carefully and that's essentially what I think we're doing there but I'm not quite sure um lastly what this does is that the the
state of the drawings and the state of the development of this project don't provide a whole lot of detail to us it's good interesting Concepts but this is going to rely very heavily upon staff to make this
successful and I I have a concern with that not because we have problems with staff in any way shape or form but they have a lot of work to do and do they need to be dealing with this at this level can we possibly take this to a point where it is more developed and
we're um you know a little bit further along and that's my question for you as a board um um but like I said the overall massing of it the overall concept of it the
neighborhood does not have an objection too thank you thank you are there any other members of the public in attendance who would like to speak all right staff sees none and recommends a motion to close public
comment motion second all in favor I I I okay move into staff comments unless Stephen there's anything you want to actually no well does anyone have any questions concerns about any of the issues that Diane raised can I make a comment sure um so
the only thing I'm reacting to with this scheme is um you know there's a lot of busyness with my my initial reaction was there was a lot of business busyness with the windows and then um you know there's a lot of texture on the building also and
I don't necessarily dislike it at all um I'm just wondering you know the the historic historic building that's there has a quietness to it like very quiet and I'm concerned that like these buildings are not in conversation with
with with each other quite enough and I'm wondering if there's a simple move like the black windows and the black cornice like could that be toned down to like a warmer like a brown color to bring things like a little bit down a
notch and then you know maybe even the corice on the historic building could be brought up a notch in tone so that they kind of share more language visually you want me to answer now that's just that's just how I'm you're still your testimony is still up that's
just how I'm reacting to the design because I mean I think it's well thought out and it's it's very interesting and there's a lot going on but I'm sort of torn between the new building having a lot going on and the old building yeah I can answer that part sorry sorry go ahead and just that the old building is
very very subdued uh yes the the existing building is uh you know it's on the minimal side um it's subdued my feeling was uh
to replicate it or to continue that same punched window opening over the the size of this building on this corner would be monotonous it would just be like as if I was recreating a series of tow houses just put together
um so I was trying to deviate that um by making them larger and more interesting but not making it a glass um um building um a lot of the newer buildings that's the trend you know uh you know floor to ceiling windows that wasn't the intent
here um going with a larger more you know taking it to the next up a little bit more modern um breaking down the wind uh you creating larger windows but breaking down the modules and creating that path pattern I think that's what what brings interest to it um and that
same thing with the the texture of the building yes it has a lot of texture but it's consistent um it's rational um it follows the same you know historic um pattern that exists in these buildings a lot of the buildings in the area do use
um different types of brick um to create brick patterns um in Bays um so I'm playing with that as well um but still trying to keep it modern I'm not trying to recreate an old old building in this neighborhood um some of a lot of the ones that are you know done that way in my opinion are failures a lot of them
just look the detail is not there um so here I am trying to introduce a different type of cornice um something that's a little sharper but still has the same scale and presence that exists on the Block um the tone of the cornice is not just black it's going to be like
a charcoal blue gray um the renderings are you know some these renderings are really hard to achieve a ISM to it so unfortunately we go have to go back to what the material is um just to make that connection that leap um the existing cornice um on the building will
be painted and we're going to go with a dark um you know a dark brown which is traditional for this neighborhood I do think that um by blending in the red tone uh red brown red tone of the uh wood windows and the storefront is going
to work with um sort of the the purple brown brick um that's fluted um that's the primary um and then going with a more traditional red but using a different shape to make it unique um and in my opinion that's what I think really brings this building to a different
level um that we really don't see that often in this neighborhood so that would be my comment no I really I do enjoy the design and the textures I just at least in these renderings I'm just a little bit concerned about the dark windows and the dark cornice relative to the
historic building I understand that based on the renderings renderings are you know I don't know if you sat through them it's really hard to get it exactly the way you um you know to do it just based on the time of day that the renderer picks you know there's all these issues that we're dealing with um
when it comes to doing we're not there with photo realism at least not me yet um to get it that way and was there another um comment okay I was going to say that the existing
um building is is not portrayed well in the rendering it it's it comes off as sort of bisque yes yeah is really a red brick building it is and I did that intentionally just so that there's you know because when you're trying to now match red to Red it it it I think it was
just going to start forcing it to look the same we all know it's going to look different has a different mortar joint it's even like old red brick does not look like new red brick even new red brick if it's the same brick isn't going to look the same so I wanted to keep that separate and that's why I use um
the fluted brick um adjacent to it so it automatically breaks it down and really your perception is just going to be more about tone and color and texture I think it looks great thank you it doesn't um try to as you said
mimic historic structures yet it has a certain uh to me almost an industrial feel which which is you know tied to Paula's hook I mean it was there was so many warehouses there back in the day and um
I think it I think it you did a great job okay so I I think I would just re you know uh repeat Miss case's questions yeah to give the yeah sure well I can if I can read my own
handwriting um so the first comment related to um the garbage on the South Side uh a desire to ensure that garbage doesn't end up on the properties to the South can you speak to that uh yeah we you know uh most of the commercial
garbage in this district is handled privately now or at least the owner that's how it would be written into um the lease it's not just leaving it out um on commercial trash day it's handled on it privately um we're using well garbage will be stored in the
seller um that's where we provided a service lift um service elevator um to transfer the garbage out and um we also created a buffer zone um between the building um and the sidewalk with the the fenced area um so it looks more
residential um and so that's how I address that comment will there be outdoor seating for the restaurant that at this point I we don't have an application for the actual restaurant space I know there's distinction between restaurant versus Cafe Cafe does not
permit um rear Yard seating restaurant does um that would be um under a separate application if uh rear yard uh seating is proposed and I'll just interject here I don't know if this is on not you have to tap it on it's
green how about now no super duper okay uh sorry for just want to focus that the board commission's review is not on seating permits or things like that are garbage and it's I think it's difficult when we're looking at what these buildings are and like people are going
to be here and living here and doing things um but the commission is focused on the the considerations in the ordinance so if we could just keep on that uh the next question hold on yeah it's like a normal button on that one but there yeah take take your I do think
it is relevant to know because it is in uh one of the conditions of approval in in staff comments is that the these commercial spaces are so rarely have tenants and fit outs and everything like that ready to go at this stage right so
things like signage and and layouts and even sometimes a number of commercial spaces can change and that would require tenants coming back to this commission potentially and to the zoning board potentially um once there's a specific fit out for for each of the spaces
sure um there was a comment that the handrails need a cap and they're rather thin yeah I have details shown that and we do do a standard not standard sorry um a flat top um articulated top rail on
the front yard um fencing um that's I could show you those drawings and that would be here that' be the top right hand corner here this the standard or the typical uh railing for uh the front yard and this
will be the railing detail as well which would be a painted iron fence not aluminum all right and then there was a comment that the uh just was to me interject I think the reason why that might have come up is it because I'm
looking at the rendering yeah probably the yeah the rendering rendering appears to have sort of a pick Sor yes so the rendering appears to have a a sharp pick it yeah yeah that that would be a rendering change or something
that was overlooked um in the rendering but the detail the drawings uh specifically call out this detail um this is the intention the existing railing on the existing building is a picket oh sorry with yeah with a
vertical and a flat top yeah and no flat top okay on the existing building okay I see now that we've got that clarified uh comment about the 6 foot fence closing in the block um we want to maintain the donut and ensure that there's
ventilation for light and air uh yeah the owner agreed that they would have a discussion on what the fence should actually be I'm showing a six foot high cedar fence whether it's a solid board um tongue and groove or whether it's a shadow box um that would be for the owner um um to discuss with the the
neighbor um yeah the the ownership doesn't doesn't particularly matter to the to ownership so happy to work with the staff and and Diane on what whatever is suitable for the fence that sounds good thank you uh there was a comment about the
brick being a little too dark do you want want to respond to that uh yeah I wanted a distinction in bricktone I wanted a distinction in Brick tone from a more traditional red brick um
again to break to create that difference of the existing building um using a darker tone um we struggled finding bricks that we liked um we're you know we were avoiding a lot of bricks that were sort of just not quite there you
know there's different color Reds there's a whole spectrum of Reds once you start comb looking at a dark red um it it doesn't look right looks too purple um we were looking at um Browns and for me the Browns look too close to
the red um so for me this diction of going slightly darker but not going you know black or charcoal gray um was a nice distinction plus also this brick has a Sheen to it um it's not just about the color it's about the sheen it's about the flute it's going to be about
the shadow line that exists on the brick um so that would be my opinion okay the the next comment or question was a question I also had which was about how you're taking the rear off the historic building um how are you
doing that how are you attaching the new structure to the existing yes so we this was taken into consideration highly um when we when I was doing the initial design um you know this design took into consideration structure um you know I reviewed this
with Structural Engineers and we discussed this and also knowing the reality of construction um you know I had an experience in New York City where we're doing a um a reconstruction of a three-story woodframe uh historic facade
where the entire building had already collapsed other than the facade and it was about to be pulled down we were able to basically remove the entire interior and reconstruct it in modern material and preserve the facade and reconstruct the facade um since it was wood frame it
was a little easier to handle um but uh in this case since it is a brick structure uh what we're proposing is reconstructing the sidewalls um what we're going to do though is preserve the front 10 fet of the existing brick
because we're not going to excavate um on the first 10 ft um for the structure the Sellar let me just go back to the Sellar plan sorry we're stepping back um when we're when we're constructing the cellar uh
we're basically stepping back 10 uh I think it was about 8 feet on the side um because the existing Cellar goes down around 7 feet so we are on a 45 degree angle we're not Excavating near the front of the building um to preserve as much of the original structure as
possible then the sidewalls once it's beyond that we are going to reconstruct it with New Foundations and new um masonry walls uh and then the entire building on the inside would then be reconstructed as well um none of this is
visible um with with the new building uh so but essentially we are keeping that line um so essentially it's still an independent structure um but with a new structure on the inside uh yeah if we you we do have to
excavate um the area because of the soil condition um these were originally other apartment buildings or tow houses and when they were you know demolished they basically left the rubble in place um it's just fill you know dirty
fill um so um the front part of the building even in the cellar we're not Excavating um the Foundations at the front we're going to bench it we're going to step it down um so we're keeping the original seller at this point and then we're increasing the you know we're lowering
the cellar floor to match um the new building towards the back does that explain or do you need me to elaborate a little bit more do you have the details of how the the new structure will be joined to the remaining original structure yes
uh okay so in the this is the existing facade on this wall section here uh we're doing new uh wood frame uh wood frame uh on the interior floors are
you able to zoom in a little it's yeah sorry yeah hard to read yeah right uh we're doing tji construction on the interior um that tji tji um wood frame um floor structure and roof structure uh on the interior uh two
floors uh the ground sorry the first second floor uh is going to be some sort of concrete structure um separating the commercial space from the residential uh then on this is a
section basically through the existing building where we're preserving the masonry wall um and then the new building so the new building would be an independent structure on its side we're not going to be essentially
connecting them together except for the back part which is going to new okay I think unless anybody else has questions I think we're ready for staff comment and judging by the looks in my direction no one else has any questions
all right um we all have the staff report I do just have two you know classic scenario typos that I got to address on the record the first is that the case number on the staff report is wrong it should be h24 not h-22 the second is that in the project
proposal and background um it is not owned by 445 Jersey AV SPC although everyone can tell what staff report I used as my base document now um it should be this owner as reflected on the landowner verification form on the application and on the agenda all right
moving on to staff recommendations and comments um so in general we are supportive of this application um we have seen this commission has seen and staff has seen many a proposal for this site um and we
are always in favor of putting something here this happens to be a very good version of something um we think it's a wellth thought out design um we think it is does a good job of connecting the historic building with something new and we do think it's contextual for the
block um they are asking for a series of variances we don't think any of them are particularly crazy um particular crazy um there's of course the use variance for the multif family which we see a lot of because we don't permit it
um there's a couple of smaller variances that are relatively low-key and I think are satisfied or not satisfied per se but are necessary in order to have a project that is
contextual um we do think that there are of course some details that need to be worked out um they have been raised this evening almost every single one has been raised this evening so I think we have a pretty good list of them that will need to
be either slightly modified or expanded upon at the time of construction documents um but yeah over we think it's consistent with our design standards we think that it's a good project and we do think that the HPC should recommend the project to the zoning board and approve
a COI um we do have conditions that are being proposed um some of them are standard in nature some of them are I'm going to go through them um the first is that all Lighting on the standard roof deck lighting to keep everything
downcast um the second one is a standard roof deck one that no portion of the roof deck or the Terrace front Morris Street as I forget if it was Steven or Nelson explained that is technically a sidey yard which is why that Terrace doesn't they are abiding by the 10-ft
setback um at our request um it they don't technically have to meet it because it's not the primary facade of the building it's a side Terrace but anyway nothing should be visible from that roof deck trees umbrellas anything like that um the exterior lighting on the facade of the building this is not
something we typically see but there is a lighting order ordinance in the city that says all of the exterior lighting needs to be less either one foot candle or less than one foot candle at the property line that is less important for a rear yard more important for a front yard just keep everything downcast and
that's not an issue um we have the intercom condition which is just that we're putting things into the brick mortar I recognize that this is a new building and that is something that you typically see on historic buildings however if we put it everything into the
brick mortar when they eventually have to change the technology we're not going to have holes in the brick um we so there are commercial tenants that are going to go into this building there is signage proposed for this building we are fine with the
signage as proposed we think it is perfectly appropriate for the building right so there's two types of signage proposed for this building we have some uh blade signs coming off of the building blade signs coming off of the building I will slow down I can see it in your eyes that you're W yes I'm sorry
and then there coming off the building coming off of the building and then there are some pin letters proposed for the awnings um neither of which have lighting we are fine with all of that if a tenant comes in and chooses to utilize either the blade sign in the same
hanging arm and size or put their tenant name and pin letters with no lighting we're going to improve that at the staff level because it's on the site plan however this condition explains that if they want to St install any other kind of exterior signage other than you know hours of operation on a door or
something that we would normally prove at a staff level they will have to come back to the commission um we've seen instances of like of that at 130 Bay Street where they've had some tenants there come back to the commission for more signage that condition also
includes yeah a reminder that this does not include this any approval tonight would not include in fit out for their interior uh attendant fit out for the interior space so any tenant that signs a lease here will have to come to the HPC to do attendant fit out most of the time we approve that at the staff level
if there are changes to the exterior of the building those will have to come back again we the commission has seen examples like this before but not a standard condition um and then we also just have a condition regarding that rear Garden space that Diane brought up um again
that's something that we're going to we are specifically requesting that on the future tenant fit they address that Garden space if they're going to have access to it what kind of access to it um and that may or may not need to come back to the commission depending on what kind of access they're looking for and
then after that oh I'm sorry after that we have all of our standard conditions and then we also have one more that the applicant shall work with staff and the neighborhood to revise the rear yard fence can I make one correction yes you may um when you said that the signage did not have lighting oh the on the onw
the awning does has lighting minim and it's not visible yes so just to make that correction it's just a little bit of up lighting correct okay which we are fine with so fine that I forgot that it existed just a question for you Maggie
um I don't have I personally don't take issue with the new building what I do take issue with and this is why I want to ask you is what I would consider to be partial demolition of the existing historic building yeah I don't take
issue with the Demolition of any additions to that historic building but the original envelope is a that's a question for me how do we reconcile that because that's not something that I think we've done except
for in Redevelopment plans where we've allowed sort of for better word fac facadism mhm so so it's it is a tough pill to swallow right I'm not suggesting that everyone you have to swallow it I'm just
saying like it is definitely something that is not it's something we do Nelson can you bring up your plans just the existing maybe not the existing maybe where we can see what is proposed on each floor yes so and something that I think uh is
easy for you guys to address would you be able to do the foundations for the new building without redoing the foundation for the existing historic building is that feasible that is not feasible and that is the reason why I Nelson can attest this I how many
questions have I asked about this many times and with the SS report um and also the you know the existing condition of the seller is a not I wouldn't even call it a rubble wall it's a porous wall um
that needs to be uh essentially reconstructed um under pending isn't even an option there um cuz it's in such poor shape um the front part uh because it's the street wall that appears to be in probably the best shape but the rest
including the back because the back wall if you I'll take you to the existing yeah so I I would like you to go through the existing and then the existing this is the line of the existing rear yard wall at the ground floor um that wall has basically been
completely removed and on the Upper Floor it's preserved in place um the existing wall there's probably steel there but it's was done years and years ago and we expect that that conditioned to be poor um at the seller
level sorry just go back yeah here you'll see at the cell level they essentially excavated out the back backyard um to to have access to some sort of crawl space um where the kitchen was built um this whole wall
here essentially is uh you know I use the word porous it's it's in poor condition um the mor has basically completely um been removed you know or deteriorated yeah it's virtually not there yeah um and we found this
condition all the way to towards the back um the issue that I see what's happened over the time is you know the two buildings the two adjacent buildings next to it were removed um there've been years and years of just water filtration um in this area um so every attempts
being made and structurally you know by benching back um the front 10 ft of the building by not Excavating um at least in sequence once the new building foundations are in place then selective excavation for grade beams can be done
um to safely you know uh build next to this historic building um so that's been taken into consideration highly I I preserve the outline of the building um so basically knowing that we're
trying to maintain it as much as possible but knowing I'm being upfront and being realistic um based on consultation with you know excellent structural engineer that's had many projects built here in Jersey City as well um uh and basically that's been our
uh profession opinion professional conclusion on this we didn't take it lightly we weren't looking to do a facade ectomy and just complete you know cut it off at the front you know we all seen that building going you know the corner near Palisades um and they basically just chopped off the whole
facade um and left it standing and you know shorted it up and then put a glass building around it um that's not what we were trying to do here yeah I see that I I generally would say that in my opinion if we were to allow a partial demolition to any structure though in the historic
district we would need that Engineers report so you say you're working with an engineer right now I think we should be getting Engineers report for that we have an Engineers report you want me to submit that as um as exhibit for
this or you like to address this at a later you know um as part of the construction documents as we really develop the drawings and uh you know the structure part of it I mean you can submit it as an exhibit to show the commission that it exists I I can't
review it on the spot no no no I'm not exp do we want Nelson and I can both represent that there's an engineering report that exists we could enter it if we want to enter it but we content what is that actually telling us
you have an Engineers report yeah that we're yeah essentially and the engineer saying that this is not stabil we cannot stabilize this structure something to that effect the entire structure yes right the back half
okay we can mark it as an exhibit Mark that as an exhibit yeah I'm just we I don't think we have the capacity to review it on the spot right now that's not a realistic expectation I don't think exhibit A1 uh engineering report
dated uh January 29th 2025 prepared by J a engineering mag will be A1 in evidence thank you Nelson can you also go through and show the line of reconstructed wall versus
like just through the whole set yes wait for this to come up on the screen so this dark gray line here um that would be the existing building and the existing seller um slab the gray lines here take it all the way back um this would be the reconstructed wall and
reconstructed Foundation um and then the back wall um since it doesn't really exist above we're just creating columns to support the floor structure above sorry yeah why don't you go like floor by floor by
floor and this is the uh ground floor commercial space um again the structure will be uh reconstructed on the side um and we would have basically beams at this point as well going to the columns on the Upper Floor um which
would be the residential area we're essentially saying we're going to we're reconstructing the outline of the original townhouse this would be the third floor same thing we're reconstructing the outline of the original townhouse
and on the this is the roof plan do you can you tell us about the history of the building I I feel like you know we kind of went through the application pretty quickly and we focused mostly on the new construction but now that we're having this conversation about partially demolishing
the historic structure I'm a lot more concerned about learning about this building that we're about to yeah tear apart well these are the drawings of the existing just so you see the profile the existing condition of the
building uh on the Upper Floor is in terrible shape it's essentially it's been an abandoned Apartment um that is probably 50% demolished um and there's a an existing apartment um on the second
level um which is in okay is in you know it's in poor condition but livable condition and and then there's the current uh restaurant on the ground floor um and then the seller um the actual history of the building um I
don't know much about other than it was probably built in the 1860s um it looked like a basically a tradition a typical storefront um with living above and it was a relatively small modest
building um in G the facade is in great shape um you know the corn the original Cornus um the wood cornice is in place the tin um cornice at the storefront um is in place the existing storefront looks like it was modified over the
years um but again it's not some it's a it's a typical storefront in relatively good condition so we don't see any issues with the front facade um um the existing brick work on the facade um has been wellmaintained
um the sidewalls um because it was a originally you know sandwiched between two other buildings has not been other than some stucco paint that's probably been put on it um for that probably isn't even uh watertight so that's what
um I would describe sorry here's the uh Nelson yes would you say that any reuse of this building would require substantial reconstruction renovation you were mentioning found yeah uh besides yeah besides the foundation the internal structure of the building um
considering the small floor plate um and the introduction of bathroom and kitchen in this you know the joists are in poor shape um just walking through and seeing the existing plaster that's sort of been removed and Patchwork um so in my
opinion to do a new building um around this old build you know this original structure it would have to be completely restructured on the interior um obviously with working with the structural engineer we're going to take consideration if sistering joist in the
front you know first 10 ft is sufficient to support um the new floor loads um we'll take that into consideration but in my opinion just going through the building um no you know and even preserving what we propose as the layout
um requires you know a reconstruction at least of the perimeter walls and so is that what you're proposing then to reconstruct these portions or are you you going to be demolishing portions and dramatically changing the envelope of the building in
places I'm not clear well yeah we're re um on the upper floors so here this is the cellar so we're reconstructing um the base right um on the first floor we're also reconstructing the
sidewalls um we're creating new openings um on this since it's a new structure uh on the Upper Floor we are reconstructing um the side walls and the rear walls so you're you're reconstructing it
with but introducing the new openings yes okay I guess I would ask if staff has any precedent like any other examples of so we we do see applicants come in with having to reconstruct walls right this
is a common thing especially when these buildings have been around as long as most of the historic districts have been um in the context of a new building being built around it while reconstructing that that's something we see less um but I mean they are keeping
it in the same footprint right they've gone through this there's also existing plans earlier in the set that show this as the footprint the first floor is really where we see the most dramatic effect of this because you have the new openings on the sides right we can I in
my in staff's pen I'm ignoring the opening on the back because there's a whole addition there right now that's a non-historic Edition that's coming down so that opening was always going to be there it's the introduction of those new openings on the side that connect to the other
spaces right so it's it you like I said this is not necessarily an easy fix right the walls need to be stabilized regardless if we were doing if someone had come in with an application for this building where you have that on story addition in the rear and they said we want to add two more
stories on top of this right like that's a pretty standard application that we say based on their testimony you would still have to do reconstruction it's just what like it's just a larger part of
the rest of the project is so large that this seems like it's kind of a lot more than it is I would say what I would like to say are the structural drawings for it and at the time of construction documents a stabilization
plan um we've had them submitted in the past where the applicant shows how they're going to stabilize that section that they're keeping I think that's something that could easily be condition I well I I don't think we would need to reconstruct any portion of the building if we weren't building a new building
around it and then once we're reconstructing those walls that kind of opens the door so to speak to creating new openings so I actually I I'm going to go ahead and take a leap forward and I'm going to disagree with you there so let's say we
did not have an application for one person developing this lot and the next lot right cuz that's what is Lots one and five they're next to each other say in an alternate universe right and this is purely hypothetical Lots one and lots five were owned by different people and someone
wanted to develop lot five based on their testimony for that that person to develop something completely separate from this building you would still need to address the foundations on this building because you would not be able to do anything over there on the next
slot now all of that is purely hypothetical and basing it on their testimony with an engineering report that I got 10 minutes ago right I'm just saying it's I don't think it's necessarily true to look at it in a vacuum where we're saying we
would never have to reconstruct these walls if we weren't doing this project because I don't think that's true based on their testimony can I make one other point or yeah um if we were trying to avoid reconstructing this
I think we would end up with a building that would not satisfy the commission where we would end up with whether it's a three-foot or a 5 foot alley on the two sides of the building um to essentially not touch the sidewalls of this building um there would be
basically you know it would just be a terrible building with two alleys um you know completely separating this townhouse from the new building nson do you have the tax card photo on the set the tax photo the tax card photo
uh I know it was like a crappy one yeah it's I'm just looking for context on what was on either side I'm just I I know this is neither here nor there but out of curiosity do you remember what was the most recent approved just generally cuz I I I don't remember if
there was any reconstruction or partial demolition yeah in the pre in the previous application the 2018 application did also so that yeah that application had a host of issues
um that I don't need to dive into necessarily now but they also had partial demolition proposed not to this extent but I do not believe but they also had a very different scheme for the seller that the applicant has already
testified was not technically feasible so I think it's a logical assumption to make that perhaps the applicant did not assess properly assess the um feasibility of the foundations and it for what it's
worth they also could have deteriorated in the six years that they were untouched could you put a condition in to to work with the applicant to preserve as much of the original structure as possible based on what they
find in the field sure I think that's reasonable so something like the applicant shall work with HPC staff prior to the submission of instruction
documents to determine feasibility of preserving additional exterior walls of the existing building or existing exterior wall space not space wall area
does that work for me yes there's no objection from the applicant cool okay so then we'd be adding that condition and then we'd also be adding the condition for um the stabilization plan to be submitted at the time of construction documents which for what
it's worth you would need to get permits anyway but I do want it specifically right now are there any other questions for staff anything we want to go back to on the plans they still have testimony open so if there's something that we want to
look at okay does anyone want to make a motion I'll make a motion with uh conditions second okay and just to be clear that's a approval of COA with conditions and recommendation for approval to the
zoning board correct okay and that's Paul and Janelle you are the second okay um so even as your client accept the conditions in the staff report and as read into the the record yes all the conditions are acceptable okay great we'll move to a
roll call vote commissioner samp I commissioner Gunther I commissioner amuso I commissioner Cronin I commissioner grias absent commissioner sakong is absent commissioner blazak is absent Vice chair gardo is absent chairman Gordon I right
there are five votes in favor none against with no extensions COA and recommendation to the zoning Board of adjustment is approved thank you very much thank thank you all right continuing
on so we do not have any demos uh on the agenda tonight table cases oh and uh we do not have any update on 172 Belmont the tabled caseate on what 172 Belmont the tabled
case we do not have any updates on that yeah the demo case that's listed on the agenda requested to carry once again um we carried them not necessarily they they asked to be carried to the next HBC meeting we carried them to an unspecified meeting date um
I it increasingly appears that they do not have their act together and do not know their path forward so I don't think it's worth a worthy use of Staff time to touch base with them once a month so when they are ready they will come back to us and if we reach
July you can also make a motion to dismiss make a motion to dismiss all right or do you want me to handle this go far okay so right around that time of year or every two years we do have to um
make a committee for that should says March election of officers that should say April um election of officers we will as we do every two years we have to elect a new chair Vice chair and secretary so we need some a volunteer or two to bring us
a name for who wants to be chair and vice chair um unfortunately Robert and Stephen are not permitted to repeat in their specific positions they could flip-flop if they wanted to they can be chair again in the future I know this is
your second stenes chair Robert um but we do need a volunteer or two to just ask people and that is the purpose of this if anyone wants to volunteer volunteer to ask people on the
board want yes it is it's guys I know it's in our bylaws for what it's worth this usually ends up happening whoever volunteers for this ends up asking people before the March meeting when you submit the name and everyone says cool and then in April
we actually have the election and that's when we remember to do this for what it's worth so these conversations usually happen right before the meeting so we should create members that aren't here tonight is that what you're saying
there we can despite no we should run them right now just push it through yeah well that can only happen in April all right I'll blink first okay anyone else want to help I will help great two
members of the committee excellent that is a minimum anyone else want to I think we strive for the minimum okay great because if you're asking people it'd be rude to ask yourself so there you go I love that I love that
mentality all right um so if we make a motion to appoint chairman Gordon and commissioner Cronin to the nomination committee motion second all in favor I I great all right and then the second item
I know this says resolution I conferred with everyone in my office we don't actually need a resolution to this we just need a motion to make Michael acting secretary motion second I okay all in favor I I great yes
and then you know come around that April election I won't be here to be secretary so you're stuck with me all right that being said we have no resolutions to memorialize and we do not need an executive session so that just leaves us
with adjournment motion second all right it is 9917 all in favor stop recording