They're all the way in the back over there. [Music] Good. Yeah, Iris. Good. Okay. Okay. Let's uh call to order this meeting of the uh Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission. The date is uh
May 19th. The time is 6:30. 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 Commission has been sent to the Bergen Record and Ellis Baselito on Thursday,
May 15th, 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. Um, if we could mark this as B1. Thank you. Uh, we will move on to a roll
call attendance. Um, Commissioner Gucciardo is absent. Uh, Commissioner Samamp here. Commissioner Gunther here. Commissioner Sakong here. Commissioner Blazak here. Commissioner Gordon
present. Vice Chair uh Griga is absent. and chair grown present. There are six members of the commission present this evening. Five affirmative votes are required for a certificate of
appropriateness. Um would you like to Oh, yeah. Um before we get going, I have a special announcement about one of our members, Corey Ga. The reason why he's not here is he sent me a note saying um he's rushed his wife to the hospital and the doctor wants to induce labor. So, he'll
becoming a father this evening. at some point. So, I mean, he may still come in. Who knows if the meeting goes long enough, but I probably doubt it, you know. That is very exciting to hear. Thank you for the announcement. Um,
do we want to do or do we want Yeah. Okay. So, we have uh some of our commissioners to swear in this evening. Okay. Do we have to stand up? I'm okay with sitting down. Just raise my right hand.
Okay. First, first we'll do um Is this on? This does not sound on. No. Okay. Thank you. First we will swear in Commissioner Gunther. Can you raise your right hand and repeat after me? I Janelle Gunther I Janelle Gunther do
solemnly swear do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States that I will support the Constitution of the United States in the Constitution of the State of New Jersey in the Constitution of the State of New Jersey that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same
and to the government established in the United States and to the government established in the United States and in this state and in this state under the authority of the people under the authority of the people and that I will faithfully that I will faithfully impartially and justly impartially and
justly perform all the duties of a commissioner perform all the duties of a commissioner of the Historic Preservation Commission of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Jersey City of the City of Jersey City according to the best of my ability according to the best of my ability. So help me God. So help me God. Congratulations,
Commissioner. Here you can sign this. Okie do. Now, um, Chair Cronin, raise your hand to be sworn. Perfect. And repeat after me. I, Daniel Cronin, I, Daniel Cronin, do solemnly swear do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the
United States that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. to the government established in the United States. and and to the government established in the United States. And in this state and in this
state under the authority of the people under the authority of the people. And that I will faithfully And that I will faithfully impartially and justly impartially and justly perform all the duties of the chair perform all the duties of the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of
Jersey City of the city of Jersey City. According to the best of my ability according to the best of my ability. So help me God. So help me God. Congratulations, Sher. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Just right here. Yep. There you go. Thank you. All
righty. Okay, moving on. Um, next we have the approval of minutes uh from the April 14th, 2025 regular HPC meeting. Are there any questions or corrections to the minutes? Okay. Since there are no
corrections or changes, staff recommends making a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion. Second. Okay. So, we have Commissioner Gunther Commission. Okay. Okay, I'll take a roll
call vote. Um, Commissioner Sancamp I. Commissioner Gunther, abstain. Commissioner Sakong, I. Commissioner Blazak, abstain. Commissioner Gordon, I. And Chair
Cronin, I. So, we have one, two, three, four. We have four in favor. Uh, zero nazs and two abstensions. The minutes from the April 14th, 2025 regular HPC minutes are approved. Um for
correspondence, all copies of correspondence and application materials are linked on the agenda through their application numbers. Going back into announcements a little bit, um staff has one announcement. Item 8A under old business, case H24-024824 Bright Street has elected to
carry to the June 16th, 2025 regular HBC meeting. Next up, uh 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. Okay. Dan, if you'd like to call the first case. Okay. Calling the first case. We
are dealing with H-25- 0041 Continuum Design. The applicant is Continuum Design LLC. applicant on behalf of Naserga um Mark how you pronounce that Mark Markinda and Manuel Far Farooq
owners uh 571 Jersey Avenue in the Haramus Cove Historic District certificate of appropriateness for interior renovations rear terrace and full height rear edition at 571 Jersey Avenue non-contributing two-story resident presidential building built
circa 1975. I apologize for mispronouncing people's names. Thank you. Um Tom, uh you've presented in front of the board, but if we could just get you sweared in I do. Thomasic. O G O R Z A L E K.
staff notes that Mr. Olazaric has previously been qualified in front of this board as an expert in the field of architecture. Um, and feel free to begin whenever you'd like. Uh, yeah, thank you. Um, thank you, commissioners. Damn.
Can everybody hear me if I Yeah. Um, do I really need Please speak into the mic. It helps for the recording. All right. Sorry. Um um yeah, I will uh I'm a partner at Continuum Design. I'll be presenting the architectural plans
tonight for 571 Jersey Avenue. Um, this is a existing uh nonconforming uh existing non-contributing building in the Hearthimus Cove Historic District and we're proposing uh a rear edition
that's going to be three stories. And I'm so what I'm going to do is probably just I'm going to walk you through the construction documents and all the things that were loaded up onto the portal for you. Um just to get you get you oriented a little bit. Um
there's a little button in the middle. If you just hit the where it says push, it should turn green. Got it. There you go. Yeah. Nice. Um the project's located on Jersey Avenue right across from the Key
Foods. Um you can you can see that uh there's a series of similar properties adjacent to it on the northern side. And if you're looking at the proposed site plan, you can see the area of the addition in the rear. If you look at the
block plan, you can see the location of the subject property and you can see where the addition to the rear is. And the intention is that the addition to the rear is going to align with all the other existing buildings to the north. Just to get you oriented a little
bit um with the history of the site. Um if for those of you who are interested, this actually um if you look at the the tax map or the tax photo from circa 1938, you're going to notice that there was a single building occupying three of
those lots. And then the lot that we're actually doing work on was an empty lot, but they were all owned by a single owner. Um that was actually St. Mary's Church. They rented that out to the state department of labor and uh then subleted to the build subleted the
building to the um state probation office and department of hygiene and sanitation. Um part of the building was also used as an industrial museum for safety devices and a rehabilitation clinic for workman's comp. as far as we
can tell. Um, at least until 1948. Uh, and that's when somewhere thereabouts there was a fire that destroyed the entire building. Then the whole property was subdivided into four lots that are all approximately 18.75 ft wide by 100 ft
deep. Um, our project, if you look at the the tax photo for 74, um, the tax photo isn't that clear. But essentially, that's what the building looks like today other than the vestibule. Not that you can really make
that out because those tax photos are um actually pretty poor. So, our our proposal um is to do an addition on the rear of the property. And the probably the
easiest way to kind of see that is looking at the line of sight drawing. And you can see the hatched area kind of designates where the addition is going to be in the rear. So there's a rear edition at the ground level, at the second level, and then at the third level. And that's where the project
becomes visible from the public right of way. So from Jersey Avenue, you'll notice that a portion of the building will be um extending about 6 ft above the existing ridge line of all the buildings that exist there along that
row. Um, our intention is to kind of be as nondescript as possible and match it with a previously approved project at 575A. So, what you'll notice on the on the block plan or block elevations all the way to the right, which is the
northernmost part of these four structures, there was a previously approved project. Um, and our intent is to kind of match it in kind, not go above it and match all materials. I'll kind of return back to the materials later and we'll get into the details of
that um further on. So, let's get to the existing conditions plans. Um at the ground level, there's a kitchen uh a small kind of eatin area, living area in the front, utilities and
a powder room. Second floor is two bedrooms in the rear, one bedroom in the front. And the third level is basically attic storage. It's a gabled roof. You can kind of see that in the existing condition section. The front of the building currently is brickmasonry facade and a new shingle roof that was
done about 3 years ago. Um, so that's brand new. The rear is also brand new materials. It's a 7-in lap siding. It's a fiber cement with new sliding glass doors and egress windows and a new roof on the back. So that's your that's your
existing conditions. The proposed plan um proposes to do an addition that aligns with the rear yard of the adjacent property. There's an existing singlestory structure at the adjacent property at 573. Our goal is to go out no further.
That would put us at the 30-foot setback. And the reason we're doing this is we're trying to add a a larger kitchen area and dining area for this family that wants to stay in Jersey City and continue to kind of grow their family. The second floor is essentially
taking the two bedrooms that we had before, enlarging them, but pushing them all the way to the rear edition. Um, which leaves us some space in the center for a kind of open area study and to be able to fit in a brand new stair up to the third level. And then finally up on
the third level, you get to the top and it becomes just a master suite. At the master suite, it's a large it's a large bedroom area, large closet, master bath. They also wanted exterior space. So there's about a 4 and 1/2 ft exterior deck. When you're looking at this, you
can kind of see along the rear elevation. The rear elevation basically looks very s. We're using the same materials as we did before. We're actually reusing the windows that were there. We're reusing the sliding glass doors that were there. They're only about 3 years old. Um you can see the
the deck up above and the sliding glass doors at the back for the third floor edition. There's an existing or there's um there's a new ladder being proposed that will be permanent that'll provide access to all the HVAC equipment. Um,
one thing you'll you'll notice is we are putting some HVAC equipment up on the roof area. You can see that on the southern side of the roof. It's against the adjacent building, so it's not going to be visible from the public right away. We've also pushed it far enough back from the ridge, so you'll never see
it from Jersey Avenue. Uh there's also a skylight that we're adding that's going to bring light down that brand new stair to the second floor area to get some kind of natural light in that that central space. The rest of the drawings I'm
going to kind of walk through for you um kind of just basic basic electrical and lighting plans. Um some minor mechanical system plans that you're going to see. All the new spaces are going to be served by the new mechanical systems.
The existing mechanical systems will be saved and salvaged and still used. Um, and we're going to just add for the the new spaces. All the units will have control in the space. So, the two bedrooms have their own units. The the dining room
area has its own unit. The master bath and the master suite has its own unit. And that's all going to be served by the new unit that sits up on the roof. You see this a little bit better in the cross of the building section. So going from the ground floor to the top,
you can see the elevation of the existing kitchen along with the extension of some cabinetry into the new dining area. You'll see the stair to the second floor. The brand new stair, I mean the brand new stair headed up to the third floor. You'll see uh the new
rear bedrooms. Those dash lines that you see in the image indicate where the existing building envelope was. So you can kind of see the back of that gable roof and you can see kind and you can see where the rear wall of the existing building was. So that'll give you a
sense of what the what the previous building massing was. And then at the uppermost level you see the you see the new master suite with that area of exterior space on the deck. The rest of these drawings are kind of
just getting into details and specifications of some of the equipment and materials. So, I can return to these if you have questions. I wanted to kind of revisit um in a little bit more detail the materials package we sent and uploaded to the Tyler portal that you
guys should have a copy of. So, we can go a little bit more into the details of what the materials will be, the ones visible from the public right away and the ones on the rear elevation. So, what you're seeing now is the existing front elevation. Again, there was a renovation done to this project back in 2021. So,
this is all brand new brick and a brand new roof, brand new windows in the front. Um, and then that's when these owners moved in after that renovation was done by a previous owner. The new proposal calls for that addition
in the back where we get this 6 ft of kind of vertical wall at the ridge height. Um, after speaking with staff with with the previously approved project at 575A, we thought the best approach was to kind of try to make this as nondescript as
possible, make it almost invisible as best as we could. So, we used fiber cement panels as opposed to, let's say, a 7-in lap siding, which we felt may be a little bit too busy at the top. Plus, the fiber cement panels are a little bit
more contemporary. Um, they were much easier to install. You'll notice that the the color that we're using is a pearl gray for the fiber cement panel. The coping is an aged pettor, so the coping and the trim is going to get a little bit darker. You'll see this in a
second. um in one of the other images. Um this is a sketch. Don't think it's a rendering. It's what we would call a sketch that tries to match the tonal values of the colors with the proportions of the massing. So this is what you would see if you were across
the street. Um this is basically what's already existing now, just completed in construction at 575A to the north. And then for the rear um for the rear
decking um I mean for the rear uh rails uh we're basically just using black aluminum rails and and square ballasters. All the trim is existing for the existing windows is black. So we're keeping all those colors the same. The
new rear sliding glass doors at the upper level are black. Um, we're relocating the existing HVAC unit further back. So, what you're seeing on the wall there is an existing HVAC unit just being installed 12 ft further back
on the new addition. Um, and then the goal for the lap sighting back here, there's existing lap sighting. The goal is that we'll try to match that color as best as possible. It's similar to the light mist color which is a standard color for Hardy but again at this is not
visible from the public right away but we're trying to keep it similar to what already existed which was a 7in lap sighting. I can revisit any slides or if anybody has questions about anything.
Uh were you the architect on the other project that you're citing? Yes, we were. Okay. We were um Can you go to the section? I just have really one question. You want the detail or you want the building section? Uh the building section. Yeah. This one here. So what is
So we have the additional So you said it's a 6 foot uh above the existing ridge beam. Yeah. Um so then you have like I see the slope of the existing roof and then it looks like there's like a drop ceiling in that. There's a drop
ceiling in here. So, what's going on there? So, what's going on there is you've got a series of existing vents for bathrooms and mechanical systems. And what we're doing is we're moving all those horizontally so we can bring them further back on the roof. So, when we
bring them through the roof, we won't see them at this front end of the roof. So, this this whole space here is also where we have a cassette, an HVAC cassette. It's a kind of duckless system um which services this area. So over the
essentially, and you see it better here, over the stair, well, not the stair, but over this area, over the the walk-in closet, over the master suite, all this is an 8ft ceiling. This is all a cathedral
ceiling. And then this is cathedral down over the stairs. So this so the light from the skylight comes in. But in this area here, that's where we're running all the venting pipes from one side of the building to the other that existed. So we can kind of basically move everything as far away from the ridge as
possible. So when they come through the roof, we're not going to see any of this. Did that Yeah. I I guess my only question is and I don't remember I don't think I was here the day of the other project u when it was approved and I don't know if it's the same kind of
condition the scheme up there or if they have like a higher floor to ceiling on on at 575 or it's if it's the same it's exactly the same. It's exactly the same. Yeah. I just I I guess and I'm just questioning you know should this have been hey look this has already been
approved at 575. I'm just wondering why maybe some of that wasn't reduced a little bit just in height. Um I'm just trying to understand the overall height. Yeah. Yeah. We tried to push the overall height down as much as possible. So the pitch on that upper roof is one and a half on 12. We basically have a tpo roof
on that. Um so there's no shingles up there. That's basically a flat roof. And we dropped that as low as possible. Um we had worked with staff prior to staff who was currently away on maternity
leave. Um so um not not staff present here today. We just want to make that clear. Um we worked with staff to try to keep that as low as possible at the time. Um, and we wanted to be able to give ourselves a little bit of wiggle
room at the at the rear of the building cuz we want we knew we were going to have some heavy loads on that roof. Um, and we wanted to be able to drop beams as opposed to doing flush beams at the rear wall because that wall also becomes
a shear wall. So that gives us some lateral stability in the back. So there is a reason we have a header plus a space above it. Otherwise, we could have maybe dropped it about nine to 10 inches, but then we would have been doing some structural gymnastics that we
thought may not be the most appropriate. And yeah, I think I think that's my question too, like there's nothing, you know, no structural or any any changes that can be done to minimize the height and you're matching what's at 575. The other thing that I guess explains it too
is I almost think it would have been better maybe if there was like some fenestration in the windows. But we we had a in the front wall it was all full of glass first approach because we thought it would be great to get eastern light into that portion of the building.
But there was a concern that the glass two things with the glass at night it was going to light up like a like you know like a window like a candle. No, no, no. I don't. We wanted it, let me be very clear. But also, it would maybe
call more attention through its reflectivity than just an opaque panel. So, and that's what's led us to some of the the the let's say the 8ft ceiling spaces and the and the allowed us to be more flexible with systems. Okay. And
Michael, do you do you know when when was this approved? I'm just curious. Uh, if I had to estimate, it was probably I was going to say April because I had just joined. Okay. It was April. It was It was April of 20
24. Yeah. Last year. April of 24. I've lost track of time. I I was in California, so that's why I wasn't here that day. I convenient. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Tom. Is any other questions?
Okay. I don't see any questions. Does that conclude the testimony for this application? Yes, it does. Okay, we'll 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. Mike mic.
Staff sees no members of the public pre public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. Motion second. All in favor? I I I. Okay. And we will move into staff comments. Um, so as we discussed, yes, this is uh pretty much a mirror to the application that we
saw at 575A. Um, it is a a pretty straightforward addition on a non-contributing building. Um, contextually, it's very much in line with the size of additions that we've seen in recent years within the historic
district. Um, it is slightly visible from uh Jersey Avenue. Um, but again, this is a non-contributing resource. Um and the proposed addition meets the standard the bulk standards in the H zone. Um HPC staff also notes that uh there is
some visibility through the addition of the addition through the alley on third street. Um but there are existing intrusions already present in the alley as well. Um so in general uh staff acknowledges that the proposed addition is heavily
visible from the front facade. It's a vertical increase of 6 ft. Uh however, due to the building's non-contributing status as an intrusion into the historic district, it should be considered as long as it does not attract, distract, or cause an adverse effect on the to the surrounding historic resource. Uh HBC
staff believes that if the commission finds the application as presented would not have that adverse effect on the Horsesmith Cove Historic District, it could be approved um due to the building's non-contributing status with the following conditions um as present in the staff report. These are mostly
our standard conditions. Uh as well as one that just says all light fixtures shall be downcast in nature. Any questions for staff? No. Okay. So again, staff's recommendation is a motion to approve uh
with the conditions as present in the staff report. I'll make the motion to approve with the conditions as set forth by staff. I'll second. Okay, I'll take a roll call. Uh, Commissioner Sanamp, I. Commissioner
Gunther, I given that we have a previous approval that binds us to approve this. Commissioner Sakong, I. Commissioner Blazak, I uh and I also want to note I think it's I I think there's an opportunity
here for something that could have been better and I hope the architect um it could could re you know if wanted to could revisit that just just part of my comments as well if that's something that he or his client desired to do.
Commissioner Gordon I. And Chair Cronin, I. We have six in favor, no against, no abstensions. The certificate of appropriateness with conditions, uh, is approved. All righty. Moving right along to case H-25-0050,
uh, Continuing Design LLC. I'm assuming that's you. applicant on behalf of Katie and Alexander uh Pavia, owners at 55 573 Jersey Avenue. It's going to be a busy block there. Uh this is in the Haramus
Cove Historic District certificate of they're going for a certificate of appropriateness for interior renovation and a full height rear edition visible from the pedestrian right ofway at 573 Jersey Avenue, a non-contributing two-story residential building built
circa 1975. So, you've been previously sworn. Yes. Um, okay. So, for the record, I'll I'll walk you through the same the same thing. Um,
it's a very similar approach. Um, the existing conditions are very similar. What I'll point out is maybe some of the differences, so it makes it a little bit easier to understand. Um, again, it's a rear edition. um part of it will be
visible from the public right of way. Uh the difference on this particular project is that there's an existing ground level singlestory edition that had been done that was done I want to
say back in the early 90s um I'm sorry the early as um and we are keeping that building footprint. We are going to have to tear off the existing roof that was on it because the structure wasn't compatible
to be able to hold floor loads and other loads. I'll get into the details of that when we get into the sections. Um, but what you can see here is this is essentially the addition that hatched area. Again, this will be visible from the public right away. And uh to
Commissioner to Commissioner Blazak's point, it it is proposed based on what has been done before. Um I would love to revisit the the front wall. Um I I would
love to do it with every one of the clients, but this is where we're at at the moment with the design, and I don't know if we'll be able to do that once we drop those ceilings. Um so um to just move on with this project a little bit more, existing conditions are a little
different. Um you'll notice at the ground floor area and so I'm going to use the cursor here. So if those of you are following along on your screen, this back area here is the existing dining room. This addition that was done previously, you can see that in the rear
elevation. There's it's a partial gable roof and a partial shed roof from the back of the rear wall. They had built it that way because they wanted 9 foot to 10 foot coffford ceilings, never thinking they were going to do an addition. Um, you can see that with the
clear story glass that's here. All of that is going to end up being removed. Um, I'll I'll show you why in a second, but essentially the floor plan layout is similar to the other to the other unit that I just showed you at 571. Two bedrooms in the rear, a bedroom in the
front, two full baths. Uh the ground level has the dining room already, already has the footprint back here, so it doesn't need a new foundation like the adjacent property. Um for the most part, the existing front is not going to be touched. It's an existing
brickmasonry front with shingle roofs. Um everything in the back here, unfortunately, is going to not be able to be reused because of the way it was constructed. So, we're not going to be able to reuse the the bedroom windows and we're not going to necessarily be
able to reuse the sliding glass doors. Um, moving to the proposed plans, you can kind of see we're going to try to emulate the Coffford ceiling they had here before. Um, we're not going to have the height to do it. So, we'll show you that um when you see the
section, but this is the existing condition at the ground floor. So, we're not adding a foundation. We're not adding to the footprint down here. And what you'll notice that what I want to make sure that you're aware of, you'll notice that at the ground level, there's a space between the adjacent building at
575 to the north and the existing rear wall, I'll call it the northern wall of that dining room. There's a gap in here and this is where all the existing storm water drains go for the building at 575 right next door. Not 575A, but the
building right next door. So, we didn't want to touch that. When you get up to the second floor, you'll notice that the two bedrooms extend fully to the rear of where the rear wall is, but they also extend right to the edge of their property line. So, we're actually canolvering over that
space so that we get the full width when we go up to the second floor and the third floor. Otherwise, it would have been incredibly narrow. And with this lot already at 18.75 ft, the bedrooms, as you can see, are pretty narrow in the back. um when you split them in half.
So, we're can levering over the back. And then the difference up here is that in this particular approach, the clients wanted a much larger family room. Um they've got more children than the adjacent property. They have more reason to be inside. They didn't want an
exterior deck. They just wanted more room inside. Um more flexible space, but they've also added a full bath up there. Um so that's that's the kind of layout and approach for this particular project.
Um the rear elevation is a little bit different than the previous rear elevation. All new windows here. But here in this little space you'll see this is the edge of the northern wall of the ground level. This is a space between 573 and the adjacent building at
575. And then you can see the canal lever that goes over and runs to the edge of the property line all the way up from the second and the third floor. Um we tried to make the second and the third floor a little bit more cohesive with one another. Um the rear is
matching the same lap siding that we're using at 571. Um we're going to try to match the same color, the same style. What they have back there now is laps siding. It's 7in laps siding. It's a fiber cement. So, we're going to just replace it with
the most current uh new fiber cement. Um, they have accent panels in the back here. The accent panels are actually going to be uh dark knight gray. It's a standard color uh for for Hardy. And I'll get into the specific materials
that was in your material palette or your material booklet. But up on the back here, just to kind of notice for all the new units or for all the new spaces, there's another kind of mechanical system. There's a new there's a new condenser up top. Um, and there's
a roof hatch. Uh, we don't have any skylights in this roof. They didn't want any skylights. Um, so we just have a roof hatch to be able to access this um and be able to maintain this in the future. again um kind of just basic electrical
and lighting plans in the areas where we're doing the addition and the renovation. Same thing goes for the mechanical systems. All the new spaces are getting new units so they can be controlled at those spaces except for the dining room level. That's going to still work off the existing HVAC system.
We're able to salvage that. but at the second floor bedrooms and up in up in this area for the new family room. That's all on a new system. In this section, um this is the section where you'll see that the reason
we had to if you look at this dash line here, follow that dash line. That's the profile of the existing building. This was the ridge of the gable roof. It's about 5t up. And then there was a sloped roof here. there was no way we were really
going to be able to salvage that without having a jump in the second floor somewhere in the bedrooms um and having to elevate the rest of the building even higher um which would have elevated the top plate in the back which would have consequently had an impact on the front
wall. So we tore all of that out. We couldn't salvage it so we could align all the floors and then keep this as low as possible. keep that to match what was there for the other projects in terms of its slope and its profile and its
massing. The rest of these are just details and specifications that I can definitely return to if you guys have questions about these. Um, and then just getting into the materials. We're not doing anything to the existing materials in the front. Um,
the one thing we are doing obviously is we're adding the fiber cement panels to try to match what's next to it. So, in this drawing, you can kind of see where this where 571 ends. We're going to pick that up. We're we're specifying the same
colors, the same trims. We want to try to make make everything cohesive across that whole front facade um for that street elevation. Again, this is a sketch, but so you can kind of see how the two are meant to
kind of tie into one another. And yes, something is coming here. I can't stop this now. Um, and I would love to revisit it. Uh, but it may be challenging. I I am in
agreement with Commissioner Blazak there. Um here um you can see in the rear elevation. The one difference that we have for the beyond the lap siding we also use some fiber cement panels here. Um the note here I just want to point
out when we submitted this it said color to be approved by owner but there's there is a specification that's been added. Um so on you'll find that on sheet A6 on the elevation specification. It's a night gray. I know it's not visible from the public right away, but
we did want to put a color spec on it. Um, we think that's going to match or create enough of a contrast where it doesn't look like it's the same color. We wanted to make a contrast. The client wanted a contrast. Um, if staff wants us to kind of show samples of any of these
prior to purchase, we can do that. Um, just so we can make sure that everything's matching in the field before they actually place the orders. Um, if there's questions I can answer. Any questions? No. Okay. So, if that
concludes your testimony, then we can move on to public comment. Uh, if there are any members of the public who would like to address the commission regarding this application, please approach the public comment mic. Staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion to open
and close public comment. Motion. Second. All in favor? I I Okay, moving into staff comments. Um all all the same comments apply from the last one onto this one. Um it's very much the same application. And again, um
this does kind of create a pattern across the top. Uh so we will just have that one empty space for now until that application does come in. Um but see you soon. Give me give me a week. See you next month. Tom, can I ask a question?
Yeah, please. You've confirmed that the height of the new ridge aligns with the one on the end and the one right next door. Can you confirm that the planes are also co-planer? The planes are going to be a little bit different because the
slopes um are going to be a little bit different. And where the difference is, it's easier to show you this in section. Um, so because this slope is running all the way to the back here, we are
extending this all the way to the back. We are trying to match it with the same exact slope that's next to it. Um, and we should be able to do that and still make and still make headroom here. Um, that's the goal.
So the goal would be and the easier way to kind of imagine if everybody can imagine where this dimension line is. Imagine that the roof had stopped there and then there was a deck out here. Um however we really wanted to try to lower the overall height of this 6ft piece.
So, the reality is going to be that this will be a little bit higher because and when I when I say a little bit higher, not in the front, you'll never see it. But if you were to look at this from the roof plan, um, and if you were to look
at all four roofs next to each other from above, there's going to be a little bit it's going to be a little bit higher because we we kept that low point. So, that's a that's a nice that's a great observation, but they're not they're not going to all be perfectly in plane from
above. What um I actually wasn't asking about the the roof top plane. I was Okay. asking about the the um the ridge plane. Oh, the front's all in line. They're all in line. They're all co-planer. They're all co-planer to each other. Yeah. Sorry.
Thank you. So, more explanation than needed. I apologies. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. As uh as I was saying, this staff believes that the uh proposed addition um is contextual and in line with the size of additions uh particularly at the neighboring
structures. Um so HPC staff believes that um this application could be approved um due to the building's non-contributing status in the district uh with the following recommended conditions as laid out in the staff report. Um these are all the same
conditions except for on this one there is no rear lighting proposed. Um so if any does get added between now and construction documents or or permitting um just that we just ask that they'll be downcast in nature. Um other than that
there are standard conditions. So again HBC staff recommends a motion to approve with the conditions as laid out in the staff report. By the way, just before we get to a motion, I just want to state for the record that if there is another proposal for the missing tooth in this,
I don't think it needs to match exactly the same. if the architect if it's the same architect wants to do something else that's different but compatible um because these are non-contributing buildings and these this doesn't attract
and I think there is a you know a tradition of rooftop additions that are similar but but can have differences or even rows that have different um AB C patterns etc. So it's for the future if
something different wants to be done can be done I think. Um I'll take that into consideration and speak with staff about it. Having said that I'll make a motion to approve with conditions. Second. Was
that Robert? That was you. Yeah. Who was it? Yeah. Okay. Sorry. Just didn't hear you. Okay. Uh Commissioner Sanamp. Hi. Commissioner Gunther I. Commissioner Sakong I. Commissioner Blazak I.
Commissioner Gordon I. And Chair Cronin I. There are six votes in favor. No uh nays and no abstensions. Uh the certificate of appropriateness with condition is approved. Thanks for your time. You're welcome. See you in a couple
months. Maybe. Okay. Moving right along to uh case H. uh -25- 0053 Steven Joseph Esquire, applicant on behalf of Selena Zido and Thomas Cook
owners. The address is 338 Montgomery Street, aka the Progress Printing Building. It's in the Grace, sorry, it's in the Vanverse Park Historic District Extension/Montgomery Gateway Redevelopment. The applicants are going
for a certificate of appropriateness for the enlargement of the existing second floor with an addition to the rear in the construction of a roof deck visible from the public right of way. The installation of new windows, doors, and new inswing doors at the vehicular uh
entrance of an altered contributing uh vernacular purpose-built industrial modern warehouse with classical revival over overtones. constructed constructed circa 1925. Good evening everyone. Uh Michael
Higgins on behalf of the applicant uh this evening actually. Uh so this is 338 Montgomery. It's the Progress Printing Building which I'm sure most members of the commissioner are familiar with. Um this is in the Van Boris Park Historic District and we're here seeking a uh
certificate of appropriateness um for uh renovation, rehabilitation and an addition to the existing second story of the building. Um it's uh sort of right midblock uh between Monmouth and uh Veric. So uh really without further ado
uh we could have our architect sworn in, Jeff Jordan, and he can he can walk the commission through the plans. truth. I do. J O R D an staff notes that Mr. Jordan has previously presented in front of this
board and been qualified uh as an expert in the field of architecture. Thank you, commissioners. Uh it's been a while. It's nice to see you all again. Um, so as as was noted by council, um,
the proposed project is a second story addition to the progress printing building. Um, for the record, that building, um, as shown in the site plan here is 100% lock coverage. Um, however, the second floor occupies roughly the
the front 20% of that that coverage. So what our our clients are interested in doing is expanding the second floor um to create a single apartment that they will use for themselves. The ground floor as shown here uh is currently a
garage type space and has been used traditionally as a garage and as a printing shop. Um that space will re remain largely um open unprogrammed space for now but they would like to retain the garage portion as a small
garage for their unit occupying sort of the central part of that and then there'll be access to the one side um up to their unit as well as some storage and a small bathroom for their unit. So they'll be occupying a small part of the first floor and then on the second floor
um as you can see here the um existing condition plan there is a small apartment up there now uh several smaller rooms that space will be reappropriated. Uh there's an existing brick wall across the back. Much of that will remain. We're going to remove a portion of that in order to uh bring the
stair up. Um but otherwise the the apartment will then expand backwards uh toward the parking lot in the rear. um not occupying the full second floor um but taking up a little bit more space than is currently there now. Um the new apartment will have three bedrooms,
kitchen, dining, living space, and then it'll it'll look out onto what will effectively be a uh roof garden in the back there. The there's a roof plan for reference. Um as was noted, the existing
building facade is largely intact. Um the proposal is to actually restore and take it back to what it would have been as close as we can approximate. We've worked with staff on um detailing uh in swing carriage doors that will be used for the garage parking. The windows will
all be replaced with historically accurate windows, including the larger storefront units on either side. Um, and in general, the idea is that the front facade will look much better than it does now and be consistent with what would have been seen in the 1938 tax
photo. The rear facade um is somewhat visible. There is a parking lot behind the building uh you may be familiar with. So, you can see the building from across the street. Um the addition onto the back will not be visible, however, from um Montgomery Street given the existing height of the parapit on the
front of the building. So, the proposal on the back of the building is largely a glass facade. Again, looking out onto what would be a roof garden. Um, more or less floor to-seeiling windows and then on the sides where we don't have windows, there'll be metal panels um for
the siding there consistent with the proportions of the windows. Um, it's just a simple sort of box out from the existing second story. sighteline drawings just to represent there is going to be some new mechanical equipment. Um given
the you can see here in the section given the current height of the roof and parapit we actually have a tall parapit that's going to block the mechanical equipment from Montgomery. It won't be visible and then the roof of the uh the new part of the addition will actually go up higher than the existing roof which will again block much of the
equipment from the parking lot in the back. Um so most of that will be contained and not visible. And that is it. Short and sweet. I will take your questions. Are there any questions from the
commissioners? Uh did do you have any photos of the existing rear facade of that second story? Um so I apologize for not having better photos from up on the roof there. It's you can't really see much of it in
this. I tried to get some extra photos in here. Okay, Commissioner Blazak, what I will tell you, um, you can see in the elevation drawing there, there are some original openings. They have been filled in subsequently with block, not brick. Um, they're not particularly attractive,
and there was a small addition built onto the back, which again was more utilitarian in nature. And so, the the rear facade has already been altered um over time, and those windows have been, in my opinion, compromised. So, We are, as I pointed out, we are with
with the proposed plan changes, we're actually trying to keep as much of that back wall intact as possible as a feature within the space. So, the existing window openings will be reappropriated as doorways moving through the space and plan. Um, and and the rest of the wall, which we couldn't
keep for this stair, will go away. Any other questions? Okay. Could could uh could you possibly walk us through the restoration of the primary facade with a bit more detail just absolutely the different elements the new windows and
door colors materials. Yep. So, uh the brick will remain um it'll be cleaned using the gentle methods that are typically uh used in these applications. the existing window
sills um at the storefront windows in particular have been painted. You can see in the images here the paint will be removed and so the existing stone will be exposed and left intact similar to what's happening on the sills on the second floor. The new windows will be a
wood windows um painted brown. We have the color on here as well. Um, and then the doors, the carriage doors, we have some details at the back if you'd like me to go through them. Those will be all wood and they're quite
large. Bear with me. So, these are large wooden units which will have um Whoops, I apologize. The upper 40% of those will be lights, divided lights. And then below will be a panel with that cross pattern, that
brace pattern um and then rails and styles around that. All these details we've worked with staff um already to a certain degree, but the idea is that as we get into construction and have a better uh opportunity to take a look at the detailing of the windows and the doors, uh we'll go through and work
through them with them uh greater detail to sort of resolve some of those finer details. Does that answer your question or is there more? Um, yeah. Could you I I want Yeah, I wanted to see more details about the
windows. So, the these are just flat. They're not box windows or or bays or anything. Correct. Yep. These are flat windows. The u the lower windows are storefront window with transoms above divided as shown in the the drawing. The upper
apartment windows are currently a set of sort of uh triple double hung windows, no divided lights. that condition will remain with a new window. Um they do have those sort of muttons or or elements in between them uh dividing them. Currently all that will be exactly
as it is. It's just there'll be new windows to replace the older ones which are you know single pane and poorly operating at this point. The sill will remain intact. Um the lintil all that is all in good shape and will remain as is. So these are essentially just new infill
windows to match the historic condition. Thank you. And all all the brick at the ground floor is is original to the best of your knowledge or is it is there just a different mortar or is it a different brick between I think it's been um
painted and here go to that photo. I think there's been given the nature of the neighborhood maybe some some activity along that brick through the years. Um, so you can see in the images here, yeah, it looks like maybe it was repointed on the top half,
commissioners, you're pointing out with a slightly different mortar. Um, and then there's been some painting and some other work on the bottom. It does appear, as far as I can tell, I'm not an expert in this matter, but it does appear that it is the original brick for the most part.
Um, Mr. Rita may have a different opinion, but the I agree. He agrees, but the uh the window openings, the door opening seem to be very consistent with what we're seeing in the 38 photo. So, it leads me to believe that that's all original. Any additional questions?
What is your And I'm sorry if you said this already and I just missed it. Um what is your um plan color selection for the mortar joints? the mortar color will be to match. So, we'll work out in the field what that appropriate color is based on what's
there. So, we don't have the color yet. It'll be to match what the existing condition is. I I ask because there's um when I look at the photo in contrast to the drawn elevation which I understand is um you know it's not for this purpose
but the photo shows an enormous amount of playfulness and and the coursing is really interesting. Um there's lots of different stuff going on in the the coursing. So the the mortar seems to be an important element
in in expressing that. so as to maintain that playfulness. Yeah. And and again, our intent is not to change the mortar in any way. It's simply will be if there's any repointing that's necessary, it'll be matching the adjacent mortar um as appropriate for
where it falls within of the upper portion, not the lower portion. Correct. And um do you the this deep forest brown that that's sort of being used for all the different frames. Do you have a um sample of that or or I don't have a physical sample with me. Is that what
that is? That Yeah, that's that's what that's meant to be. It's of course the color never comes out quite right in these images. So what we would typically do in this application is during construction with staff, we would share samples just for final approval. Same with the on the back there's a dark
bronze color being proposed for the metal panels and the window frames. It's all meant to sort of be the same um both for the panels and the frames. That's something that we would also share once we have those final material selections. And
um another question is um the commercial space on the ground floor is that is that um conditioned commercial space? In other words, is that uh does the apartment above need to be insulated um not just fire rated against the
commercial space below? Yeah, it it'll definitely be insulated and fire rated. Um I don't believe Tom, is that uh garage space condition presently? Any heating or cooling? I'm sorry. Any heating or cooling in there?
I'm sorry. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, he's the owner. Yeah, my apologies. there. So there's there's some existing equipment there. Now, uh the plan longer term is to actually use that space for something else and it will be conditioned properly, but the apartment work will
definitely have its own insulation. It'll be self-sufficient in that way. Right. I just want to confirm that the the portion of the residential addition um that goes beyond that first bay which pops up higher than the existing one,
right? that you've accounted for whatever insulation you need below so that it doesn't have to go higher once you Oh, yes, absolutely. Factor all those in. Yep. Absolutely. Yeah. And you can see in the section drawing here, we actually are including um we're showing insulation graphically
there as well. Assuming that'll be the case. And we have Yeah. And we have a good amount of height to work with there in terms of the ceiling heights as is. So, we will not need to raise that roof any higher. Thank you. Shall we move on to staff comments? Uh, so first we're going to do public
comment as long as there's no other questions from the commissioners. Uh, does that conclude your testimony, Michael? That does. Okay. Um, so if there are any members of the public who would like to address the commission regarding this application, please approach the public comment. Mike
mic. Staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. Motion. Second. All in favor? I I I Okay, now we can move into staff comments. Um I think Dan is working. We're experiencing some
slight operating difficulties here. Thank you. Who was smart enough to do this? That's my report. Thank you, Jonathan. I appreciate it. Great. Uh staff
staff believes that the application um is generally consistent with the standards for uh the secretary of the interior standards for the treatment of historic properties. Um the architect and I have met
extensively over the uh uh the property and we have uh a good working relationship. So I think that we can work out uh any details of the
particulars of the windows, the door and the uh the two side entry doors as well as the mortar and any cleaning or um restoration of the brick and the
stone at the first floor on site with the contractor. Um the addition at the rear is going to maintain the majority of the rear wall which is
uh uh very much welcomed. And uh the addition will not be visible from the front of the building. It'll only be visible through the parking lot at the rear. And the
addition is a very simple uh modern uh design which will be easily distinguished from the original building but will also probably die into the background. Um staff recommends uh the project. It
should not cause an adverse effect on the character of the district. Uh especially because the addition will be below the parapit. So uh the building will uh maintain its
its 20th century industrial low or scale um character. the standard uh the standard conditions are pretty much going to apply. Um that Jeff Jordan Architects will be uh
retained during construction. Uh the existing painted signage progress printing will be repaired and maintained as appropriate. Rear deck or accessories will be minimally visible from the public right of way.
um details of specifications and material submissions not currently submitted to and approved by the HPC under the certificate of appropriateness or changed during the course of construction or remanded back to staff. However, before work commences,
exploratory demolition will confirm the placement and construction of original doors, windows, and other character-defining features of the front facade. The applicant will work with staff to ensure the appropriate garage and entry doors are constructed and finished in an appropriate
manner. Uh construction drawings will be submitted to staff for approval before construction permits are applied for and issued. Any changes or deviations from the approved drawings are to be clearly bubbled on the
construction drawings and noted in an accompanying sign and seal letter to staff. Um if there depending on the degree of change or deviation, additional review by the HPC may be required and upon final approval of the
certificate by the HPC. Any deviations from the granted approval must be approved by the HPC in case except for in cases of emergency affecting the public safety, health and welfare which may be approved by staff.
Um changes or deviations that result in new work may require a new application to the HPC for the same work. Uh and last but not least, um before any certificate of occupancy
is granted, we are going to require a sign and seal letter from the architect noting that the completed work was consistent with with what was approved tonight in this certificate of appropriateness. Uh and outlying any uh
deviations that there may be. Are there any questions from the commissioners? Not a question per se, but um I I think we are we expect to receive physical sample boards. Um you know, we're about
a year and a half out of the Zoom paradigm. Now we're meeting in person again for quite some time. And I think some applicants and architects are still not in the habit of bringing in those physical sample boards. But we would like to see them moving
forward. I will remind applicants again. Yes. No. And that's noted. Note. Thank you. Okay. So again, the recommendation from staff this evening is a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness with conditions as read into the record and in the staff report.
Motion to approve. We have second. Does your client accept the conditions? We have uh reviewed the conditions and they're acceptable. Great. I'm now move on to a roll call vote. Commissioner Sankamp, I. Commissioner Gunther, I.
Commissioner Sakong, I. Commissioner Blazak, I. Commissioner Gordon, I. And Chair Cronin, I. We have six in favor, no against, no abstensions. Uh, the motion, the certificate of appropriateness with conditions is approved. Thank you everyone. Good
evening. Thank you. Take care. I just have to excuse myself for a moment to go get a glass of water. Of course. Thank you. Okay. All righty. We'll uh moving right along here. Uh case H--24-0410 Jensen C. Visel, registered
architect, applicant on behalf of Hector Herrera, owner. The address is 2894th Street in the Haramus Cove Historic District. Certificate for certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a twostory infill addition at the third and fourth floors of an existing
fourstory rear edition and the construction of a new iron fire stair at the required means of egress visible from the public rightway. got interior renovations, restoration of front facade, including the removal of
existing triple window at the parlor floor and the restoration of the original two bay window arrangement. the replacement of windows, the replacement of doors at the basement, and the parlor level repair and the parlor level repair and repainting of brownstone stuckco at
the front of an altered contributing fourstory 3bay Greek revival brownstone fronted rowhouse construct constructed circa 1860. I do your full name Jensen Vasil V as in Victor asil. Thank you.
Staff notes that Mr. Vasil has previously been qualified in front of this board as an expert in the field of architecture. Good evening, commissioners. Good to see you again. Uh I'm the architect for 289 4th Street. Uh project is in the
Harrismus Cove uh historic district. The proposed project is for a um a gut renovation and infill rear addition to um an existing three family uh brick rowhouse. Project is on the uh the south
side of Fourth Street uh towards the corner of Kohl's. It's an interior lot that's fronted on the front with the front on Fourth Street and the uh rear of the property facing the public alley. Um the applicant looks to um do fill in
this back addition, add a fire stair um and also to restore the front facade. There had been some work um specifically at the parlor and garden levels that was done in the past to widen openings. So we're actually bringing it back to the
original condition, the 1938 condition. Um so uh on my first sheet here the HPC1 uh you can see on the block diagram the building is massing wise is uh pretty consistent with the rest of the block.
Um it does have a garage an existing garage in the back which would not be touched. Um it would just be the principal building where the work would be would be would happen. Um the proposed um condition is um is conforming to um is conforming for
zoning. Uh and the lot is slightly unders sized but it's otherwise conforming. Um so on HPC2 u you can see the existing and proposed site plans. Um on the left the drawing
number one there's a um a front uh drive a driveway that would remain and gate. Um there are there's a planter bed now in the stoop that would all uh the configuration would all remain as is um with some actually enlargement of the planted areas. At the rear of the
building there is a uh a one-story uh what we're calling a shed which is the egress from the uh from the basement unit to get to the backyard which is slightly higher. that would be removed and then the entire area between the
garage and the principal building are is paved with concrete and that would be all uh taken up and and replaced with pvious um pave pous gravel actually uh pravel between the uh between the two buildings. So, um, in order to maximize
the the, uh, uh, impervious coverage on the lot, we've made the entire area between the two buildings impervious, uh, impervious and then expanded the, uh, the the planter bed at the front um, on the side of the driveway and uh, and
added one um, inside the property line uh, right next to the uh, right next to the uh, existing stoop. So, and also there's a photo there. You can see the the gate and the plan on uh the next sheet HPC 3. Uh we
have some photos of the site. So uh starting from the top left um an aerial from the rear of the property looking looking back towards Fourth Street. Um and you can see you can just catch a glimpse there of the the cutout um at the top two floors. So, there's an
existing partial addition and then there's a small cutout piece there that's currently used as decks. Um, and then on the uh the the the photo below it, we have the um an up close photo of the front facade where you can see the
uh the brownstone rust rustication at the bottom two floors as well as the lighter uh brownstone uh that has a tooling pattern in it um on the upper floors and also the cornice which is um which is chipping paint but is actually
overall in in fairly fairly good condition There are there is an aluminum awning there that would be removed. Um, and I just while I'm on that photo, just to call reference to the fact that the lintils and the sills from the original opening are still there and they just
they left them and and filled it in um with that three bay three wide window. Um the rear of the property is um as you can see it's a little it's very tight. So this is a com a composite image. Um there's a there's a basement
in the first floor um that are to the full extent that that footprint won't change. And then on the left you can see the two decks that are filled in. Those would um those would all be removed obviously and the building would would go all the way up and the fire escape contraption that's there would be
removed and replaced with a proper uh steel stair exterior stair. Um as quickly on on number four, um again, you're looking down that block. Uh you can see consistency of the of the these additions in the rear going all
the way down um all the way down the rear of the that block frontage and also the the the garages. And finally, we have some uh just pictures of the existing garage as it is and as will remain.
Uh on the next page, HPC um 4, we have um the existing layouts. Um right now it's a duplex apartment on the garden and parlor level with uh one unit each on on three and four or on two and three. That's how it will remain. Um the
that configuration the interior with that stair will all be obviously gut and um and the addition will be uh the addition will fill in in the back. We are keeping the remnants of the of the wall um at the original edition. So um
we are keeping that one foot piece that they um uh to to show or demonstrate where the original building um where the original original building ended and we're proposing to remove the uh the chimney breasts that are there um that are going from the from the garden level
to the roof. Um on the next sheet HPC5 uh we're showing the proposed layouts for um for the units uh at garden and parlor. Again, it's a duplex unit. Um
it's three bedroom, four bedrooms, excuse me, uh with two on the upper floor and uh and and two downstairs. Um that's going to have the the kitchen. Um uh it's an in-law kind of situation. So they have two small kitchens. They have
the kitchen on the on a small kitchen up there on the parlor and then one on the downstairs. But um but it'd be like a mother daughter and then um an apartment the um the uh bedroom and bathroom uh downstairs and then another bathroom
upstairs on the upper floors. As I mentioned, those would be two-bedroom layouts with the living room fronting Fourth Street. And then at the back of the building, um, the fire stair which is turned to, uh, turned to the side, so it's straddling the back of the
building. The sighteline diagram on number six, uh, shows that the the proposed AC units, which would be located on the roof, cannot be seen from the from the front public rideway. And then also you can see the um, from the alleyway over the garage, you can catch a glimpse of
the third and fourth floors. Um on the following page uh HPC6 we have the existing front elevation uh which is drawing number one. Uh the upper windows would just be removed and replaced in the existing openings. the
entry door uh and awning would be removed and a new door would go uh new door to match the 1938 would go in that triple double hung window would go away and then we would we would keep the original uh go back to restore go back
to the original uh lintils and sills and make the and fill the openings in with the windows at the parlor level which are quite long. Um, additionally on the on the garden level, um, the same configuration, although there were no because it was that rusticated those
rusticated bands with no with no headers there, um, it would just be the water table that forms the that keep that maintains as the header. So, we would we would actually bring the height up a little bit and then the then the um the sill down to um about 4 in above the
grade level. Uh, all of the windows would be wood windows and the proposed color is Essex green. I have a a group of samples here which I'll pass around in just a second. Um, the tooling and the stucco color
would be approved on site. Um I've I've uh I have put a um a approximate brownstone color um there, but I think it's best to to match the predominant color on the site and what was appropriate for the time. So there'll probably be a few samples that are put
on the building and and approved by staff. Um the back of the building would have a uh would have a sliding door with um to the stair access to maximize light and then a double casement window um
into the uh into the bedroom there. So um and then that that material would be stucco which is again pretty consistent with that block frontage for additions and also what's there and um a uh aluminum gutter and fascia with a with a
black a leader um that connects to the storm sewer. Um so I think right now I'll pass around. Yes, this is which is the stone color, the rear stone
color, the front window color, which is green, the fat trim colors, which are the Benjamin black, the black, the um which is the class A rated fire
resistant wood, and then finally um the Marvin um aluminum ebony color for the back windows. Um that also is a good approximation for the gutter and leader because they're also black uh black
aluminum. Uh on the next page, HPC7, you can see the uh the section uh section of the building just filling in and also the removal of that rear
edition. The details for the steel at the uh the fire the fire stair which um as noted in the report is utilitarian. Um but we do have a top and bottom rail with some um some steel ballisters. We
have um a a a section for the the little stairs coming out from the garden to the rear yard and um the gutter detail. And then on sheet HPC8, uh on
the left are the front window, uh window sections, including that that color, the door under the stoop, which has a uh which is two panels with a glass upper light. And
um finally on the HBC uh sorry on the next page HBC9 we have the uh sliding door elevation and details that are going into the uh to the rear as well as the casement window detail also in the
rear. And finally on the last sheet HBC 10 uh we have the sections uh in vertical section and plan section of the and elevation of the entry doors again which uh would match the um the 1938
photo and whatever surrounding site evidence for original doors we can we can gather from the block. So, um uh with especially with with uh regard to the sticking around the um around the uh window window openings or the um the
glazing the glazing lights inside the door and the transom. And uh that concludes the the draw uh presentation and I'd be happy to happy to answer any questions. Any questions?
Yeah. Yeah, I do. This might be more of a question for staff. Do we typically um accept such a dark color for window sashes on Greek Revival buildings? The Essex green um is a color that we do
see an awful I believe it was Essex green. Yes. It's it's a common color here in Jersey City um on buildings uh that are not being restored to a period of you know 1860. But you would
see it during the building's period of significance uh starting possibly in the 20s and definitely by the 30s and 40s. Okay, thanks. Thank you for bringing in samples. I mean it was noted earlier and yeah. And
do you have any idea when the existing edition dates to? Um I don't. No. Um I don't. Okay. Um, the existing addition, at least in part, uh, the L appears on the
1873 Hopkins map. And it does appear that a another wing was added on and some infill uh, later on, probably about 1920. But there's no historic fabric left even
from that original edition. Very little. The windows have been uh filled in. Um altered. Uh there are a couple of sills left, but uh the integrity of the rear has been
destroyed. And normally, you know, I would normally hesitate with a full height, full width addition, but, you know, looking at this context, looking at the block, it seems like this is this is a site where it can it can
take it. I think this will however uh retain the historic rear wall of the L. Yes. Okay. and the lower part of the addition to the west or to the
east. This is only going to be a twofloor infill where you see that wooden uh balconet that is going to be filled in. The fire escape will be taken off
and new fire stairs will be put there. Any additional questions from the commission? Uh, I just want to say I'm enthusiastic about the restoration of the primary facade. It this building needs it and I'm I'm going to be happy
to see that aluminum uh awning come off and the restoration of the parlor level windows. I think it's a nice improvement. So, thank you. Thanks. Okay, if there are no Austin, sorry, you're good. Um, couple questions. I I I
I too share the the enthusiasm about this this project. Um long overdue I think and and a welcome project. Um what's the scope uh related to the um entrance under the main the um the
stoop. Um so we're planning on replacing that door. Um but we're not planning on doing any um anything to that existing paving uh that's there. And so that that um that white
um gate that I'm seeing in the existing photo is that is that the door that would get replaced or is that remaining? So yes, that that uh that door is going to be moved actually to to where it was
underneath the stoop. that will be that area that would be filled in and then we would have it directly underneath the parlor level door. Okay. Um I just note that um the front elevation should
reflect the you know the continuation of that material under the under the stoop either with a cutaway elevation or something. Got it. Um, the other question that I had was in the historic tax
photo. Um, there's a peculiar thing that I'm seeing at the bottom of those parlor windows that almost look like sort of metal panels. I can't tell if the windows just partially open or if that's a fixed architectural feature or a flower box. Do you know what those are?
I believe that that is infill. I believe that has originally these windows would have gone down uh to the water table. Yeah. Um they were originally brick buildings that had a that historically
had a coat of uh rendering or um stucco placed over them to uh simulate more decorative stone. The parlor windows were filled in when they were no longer fashionable and windows were more standardized. Yeah. Um, but we do, if
you look at the current photograph, you can see those same boxes. The shadow lines are a little different, but you can see those same boxes under the historic quote unquote sills. Mhm.
I guess I mean clearly the the proposal is a vast improvement over that kind of whatever it is the 70s suburban um thing happening there. Uh I guess the question I guess the maybe obvious dumb question
would be why not why not bring it all the way down to the water table again? Um, is that would that be prohibitive for the I don't think that that would be uh prohibited by the standards. It wasn't something that was brought in. Um, this is a uh condition that is
documented within the period of significance of the building and the neighborhood. And we no longer have um the well the windows that are there now are a one over one. They are a
modernization. Yeah. Uh from the original building as is the uh double parlor door with the transom top. Um, so staff's opinion is that it
it's quite possible that the infilled windows are uh part of a later rehabilitation within the period of significance and they kind of go together.
And like kind of like Commissioner Gunther said earlier about the window color. I think she's also they gave earlier Greek revival buildings that often had multi-light windows. That's probably when the you had that configuration when the parlor windows went down further all the way
down to the at the same level as the door. So, if we're not going to restore the windows to multi-lay configuration to maybe a lighter paint color, um, we're restoring this kind of a later period significant, probably more like turn of the 20th century or so than than
the original configuration whenever this was built. Yeah, that's I I find that the taking the windows at the parlor floor to this later height and not going all the way down is acceptable because there there's
evidence of other right alterations. Um the one over one windows would not have been historic and the facade was originally brick and now it's it's stuckcoated. So I think taking it back a step to to match what's in the tax photo is acceptable. I think if we were if we
were to, you know, encourage lowering the sills to the original height, the windows would start looking proportionally odd because they're not multillights. So, I think that's a slippery slope and that the way it's been presented is is acceptable to me. Yeah, I think I I concur. I think that
those are great observations. That's it for me. Thank you. This might be a staff question. And it's um the 3-in PVC mast. Are we accepting PVC now? Cuz I don't remember that for the electrical.
We have been use we have been accepting PVC because that is what um oh it's not con what is we call it here? Um PSG um has been installing lately. But we do paint it.
So for my knowledge, PSNG is not the one who installs the mast. They put they they make they bring over the wire, but they don't install the mast. They they have been kind of um how could I put it?
Uh not so gently suggesting PVC as opposed to metal. I've seen a couple of them, but I don't know why. 90% of the historic districts have metal masts. Yes. And when they're painted and historically they should be
metal. Could we change it to a metal? And if PSNG causes problems, we will have Commissioner Sandamp speak with them. I will. I know you will. That's why I'm
suggesting it. Okay. So, there are no more questions. We'll move on to public comment. Uh if there are any members of the public who would like to address the commission regarding this application, please approach the public comment. Mike mic staff sees no members of the public
present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. Motion second. Second. All in favor? I I Okay. Okay. So, staff comments. Um staff recommends approval of the project with conditions. I think we've discussed
quite a bit of it so far. Um, the proposed far parlor floor windows uh will be revised to reflect the historic configuration as shown in the 1938 tax card photograph. Exploratory demolition will
be undertaken to determine the exact size and position of the windows before the windows are ordered. The architect shall review all site evidence after demolition, shall review all shop drawings for the proposed windows, and shall present his findings to staff for approval before purchase, manufacture,
or installation of the new windows. I did leave out a section that said um the same condition shall apply to the basement windows. The proposed parlor floor front
facade entrance shall be revised to reflect the historic configuration and detailing as shown on the 1938 tax photograph and available site evidence at adjacent buildings and onsite during exploratory demolition. The exploratory demolition
will be undertaken to determine the exact size and position of the door transom and framing before the ensemble is ordered. Architect shall review all site evidence after demolition. shall review all shop drawings for the proposed door ensemble and shall present his findings to staff for approval
before purchase, manufacture or installation. The same condition shall apply to the basement entry. I believe that in the absence of um direct site evidence during demolition, we're going
to find paint ghosts that we will be able to uh coordinate with the tax photograph and with uh neighboring houses of the same period. Uh the proposed finishes for the front
and rear facads are to be approved by HBC staff in the field before execution. Uh, the architect Jensen Vasil RA shall be retained during construction and shall submit a signed and sealed letter representing and noting that site
construction was consistent with work approved under the certificate of appropriateness before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. uh detail specifications, material submissions not currently submitted to and approved by the HPC under the
certificate of appropriateness or changed during the course of construction as well as shop drawings for the windows, doors, and fire exit stairs may be remanded back to the HPC at the discretion of the HPO. And then again more of our um
usual um conditions. Construction drawings noting materials and finishes cross reference with the material sample board are to be reviewed by reproved by and signed by the HPO or HPC staff for compliance with the issued certificate of appropriateness before construction
permits are issued for and are applied for and issued. Any changes or deviations from the drawings approved under the certificate of appropriateness are to be clearly bubbled on the construction drawings and noted in an accompanying signed and
sealed letter from the architect addressed to staff for review. Depending on the degree of change or deviation, additional review by the HPC may be required. And upon approval of this certificate by the HPC, any
deviations from the granted approval must be approved by the HPC except in cases of emergency affecting the public safety, health, and welfare, which may be approved by HPC staff. Any changes or deviations from the approved plans over
the course of construction shall be submitted to HPC staff in writing from the architect of record for approval on an as needed basis. Changes or deviations that result in new work may require a new
application to the HPC for said work. Again, the recommendation from staff this evening is a motion to approve the COA with conditions as read into the record and in the staff report. I'll make a motion to approve with the
conditions as set forth. Second, Jensen, do you agree to these conditions? Do. Okay. Um, so I will move on to a roll call vote. Uh, Commissioner Sanamp, I. Commissioner Gunther, I. Commissioner Sakong, I. Commissioner
Blazak, I. Commissioner Gordon I. And Chair Cronin I. So we have six in favor, zero against, zero abstensions. The certificate of appropriateness with conditions is approved. All righty. We're going to take a little five minute
break now. Okay, sounds good. See everybody make us look good. I guess we can we can kick back off. Okay, everybody, we're coming back. All right, so let's move on to our our next
case. Let me just find it here. And that is case H-25-000023 Jensen Visel. Is that how you pronounce it? Vasil. Vasil. My bad. All right. Hey, applicant on behalf of uh Bart Everett, owner at 632 Jersey
Avenue in the Hamilton Park Historic District, certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the existing three-story rear yard edition and the construction of a new three-story rear yard edition with a rooftop terrace visible from the public right ofway as
part of the conversion of an existing four family dwelling to a two family dwelling in the Hamilton Park Historic district. Uh, no work at the front of the of this contributing altered three-bay four-story masonry and frame
Italian rowhouse constructed circa 1860. Thank you. Thank you. Um, good evening again, chair and commissioners. Um, also the architect for 632 Jersey Avenue. Um, as introduced, uh, this is a, um, an
interior renovation to convert a four family to a two. Um, it's not a full, uh, full interior renovation. The majority of the work is happening on the owner's unit with owner's triplex, which is the parlor through the through the fourth uh, the top floor, the third
floor. Um, the front facade, the front's in great condition. We're not touching it. The rear um has an existing masonry addition um that is two story that is uh two stories and is not the full width. There's a setback between it and the
neighboring building um that would come down in order to uh expand it um to a threetory rear edition. Um there is currently a deck on that on the over that uh that addition as well and that there would be a new uh roof terrace uh
that would that would go back in its place. Um starting with um sheet HPC1 um the site's located on the west side of Jersey Avenue on the sorry east side of Jersey Avenue um between se uh 7th 7th
and sixth streets closer to sixth um one in off the corner. It's because it's one in off the corner. It's it's blocked in quite a bit. So um by the building that is fronting Sixth Street and the and the corner building which has uh almost 100%
lock coverage. Um so the proposed addition would only be able to be seen from Seventh Street if there were no trees or obstructions or things like that. I can show you um you know show you that condition. But um but it would be from the furthest point away from the
other from the opposite side of that block. Um the proposed addition is conforming uh to zoning ordinance um 60% and there is a stair from the parlor level to access the rear yard. The garden level would remain a rental unit
um as it as it is. So um on the next page HBC2 have an existing site plan and a proposed site plan. um on the existing um that you can see the outline of that addition with the gap between um the addition and the and the neighboring
building on the corner. And then the rear is uh right now all has a planter bed at the at the perimeter um and is blocked in on buildings at the rear and um and on the side on the right hand side. Um and then the proposed condition
would be um to have a a full width addition against that against the adjoining property that's that's uh extended on the corner. Um 60% lock coverage and that and that stair to the rear with some blue stone pavers. And um
we chose synthetic grass only because when you see some photos it doesn't there's very little opportunity for it to get um to have any um a lot of natural light. They do have um young children so they want a place to play.
So the sort of manicured kind of shade garden didn't it it's you it's doesn't fit for their for their use. Um we would use thermal thermal blue stone um in the back and uh the coverage impervious
coverage is um is max the pvious coverage is maximized on the lot. Um on the next sheet HPC3 um you can see there's it's quite a lot of vegetation there but you can see on on one uh you can see from the corner
looking looking to the north um the building on the corner um as well as the building right behind you can catch a glimpse of the um of our addition which is lined up with the addition at the back of the of that corner building and um and the little
deck there on the on uh below it on photo number two. You really get a sense of um of that the massing of that existing addition which is three stories, excuse me, three, it's three above ground uh like two plus the basement and then there's an addition on
that uh deck that's on top of it. So, and you can see the gap between the two buildings. And then number three, you can see the rear yard with that building coming in off Sixth Street, the raised garden at the perimeter, and the gravel that's there now. So, um, so it's blocked in quite a
bit by the adjo adjoining buildings. And that building on Sixth Street is is straight four stories of, um, of brick straight up. So, um, moving on to the next sheet, HPC4, uh, the existing layouts, um, the rental
units, um, and then the owners have the the top two floors. I'll just make a a quick just technical note is that, um, it's listed as a four family on the tax records. It currently is a three family um, with the top two floors being a
duplex and the bottom two floors being separate units. I don't know when it was converted, but it's currently being used as that as such. And on top of the existing roof, um there's a rooftop RTU with exterior duct work, which is very unsightly. All of that would be ripped
out and the mechanicals would be completely redone. Um on sheet HPC5, um again, you can see the um the proposed condition where the configuration at the basement basement apartment stays essentially the same.
The kitchen stays intact. The bathroom stays intact. Where there's an addition um instead of having mechanical room, they'll have two proposed bedrooms um with a little walk out because um because their basement level is below the rear yard grade. There'd be a
retaining wall and um just a small sort of area, a little bit of outdoor space for the for the tenant. Um, and then on the parlor level, um, there'd be large glass doors with a set of stairs to get down to the rear yard to the to the
backyard. And then on the parlor, second and third floors. Those would all be the owner's unit. um which would consist of um of three bedrooms with um the living, dining, kitchen on the bottom floor, powder room, two bedrooms on the next
level with a laundry room, bathroom, and then sort of a um a family room, informal family room in the front on Jersey Avenue facing the street, and then the master suite on the top floor. The top floor is the original uh footprint, and then there the uh the
terrace would be um would be expanded. Um it's not the full full um it doesn't cover the full addition. There are setbacks on the um on the right hand side uh which is the north side and the uh and the east side. On the back um
there'd be two heat pump units which would go towards the back of the building. If you look on uh detail six or drawing six, the we put them at the back. You can't see them from so they're not they're not visible from Jersey Avenue.
Photo seven is the photo from is the photo from um from Seventh Street. So that would be the one where it would technically be able to be seen. It's um through all the trees and everything else. I've I've been there. This is a winter photo. I've never been able to see that far with through all the
obstructions, but um but technically it would be you could see it in a perfect world. Um on the following sheet on HPC6 um we have the proposed condition at the back. The back right now is is uh the
stucco, the cement stucco as you saw. Um and that would be replaced with brick. So um we have um this Belden face brick, this red face brick, um black aluminum windows, um the sliding glass, big
sliding glass doors at the parlor level, and then two smaller sliding glass doors at the back at that little private patio that uh that's enclosed with a retaining wall. Um, additionally they um the sills would have would be cast stone um which
would be a light gray or medium gray and um and there would be a caststone water table that and uh stucco that would be from the uh from the parlor level floor down to the grade. Um, so that a little change of material there with the the
heavier uh the more monolithic masonry uh giving way to the brick on the upper floors. The railing is a cable rail um minimizing its uh visibility um from Sixth Street. You can uh if you go far
enough down, you can catch a glimpse of the existing railing. You'd be able to catch this, but it really would not be with the cable rail in that distance over the over the corner building. You wouldn't I don't know that you would make out much of it other than the the um the little bit of um black iron work.
And then on the adjacent building uh on the side elevation on number three um that caststone water table carries carries uh along there's um light gray it gives way to um a
stucco on the on that side facade and that's a um would be a light wickcham gray um color on the upper floors and the um the same with the the lower portion. I'm gonna pass around some samples here. This is the
color, the rear windows, all of that trim. different from the application. This brick that's on the back saw and finally the deck the deck tiles.
Um so it's it's got a a I think some pretty neutral some warm neutral colors on that on that uh on that back. Um and look moving on to HPC7 you can see from the section uh especially on drawing
number two the existing and proposed uh condition where the uh moving the addition back um the deck tiles would be the pedestal system. So there would be minimally uh there would be a um there'd be they wouldn't step up from the back.
They would be um less visible. Um and also at the the back gutter is a simple gutter with a um a black aluminum leader to the back. Um the windows are all black aluminum clad. So on the right hand side of HPC7 is the garden level.
Um Marvin sliding doors um on the following sheet on HPC 8 is um a thinner profile Marvin modern um with uh four panels. And then on the um the second
floor, that same Marvin modern in a French casement. Uh also aluminum clad in the black. And then um finally on HPC9, we have the um that top floor rear door to
the terrace which is also in that aluminum clad and the uh the last double hung window. This is on the um the original part of the building. So there's a differentiation in both material and the and the window style between the addition and the original
building. Um and these actually fit in um the original openings. So there there's no change to the to that configuration at the top floor. Um that concludes our drawing presentation and I would be happy to answer any questions.
you noted that the um the existing addition railing, the top was visible from Sixth Street and therefore likely the the the new railing would also be visible. Do
you do do you have a section that shows whether or not the the coping and the addition itself would be visible from Sixth Street? I don't. Um I don't and it's it's not from directly across the street of of or it's not direct it's diagonally down the block. Um you can
just catch a glimpse of it and when you see it now you you're only seeing the railing or are you also seeing the existing addition? You see No, you only see the railing and it's only the part that pops off. So if you see the um if you the part that juts out Yeah. That that part that they put
turned into a fire escape which extends quite a bit beyond. Right. And that is primarily because of the uh the trees and the fence that are on that uh side of Seventh Street and that run
through the backyards. Jensen, can you um confirm if the outside face of the addition is forward of or behind the the part of the existing railing that juts out that far? Do you know what I'm asking? I do. So
the projection of that where that that projection ends is um is where your wall is very close to where the where the proposed addition is. Okay. As far as the line. Yes. I don't have an exact measurement but it's very close. Okay. Thank you. You're
welcome. Any additional questions? So, I I like that you're using brick for the rear facade instead of a stucco. Is there a reason you're not wrapping the side? Is it is it just weight and attachment issues or could you
uh extend the brick over to the north facing facade as well? It was we could we we definitely could. There's um that the thick the the brick thickness the um of how the and the um
and the cost were the two considerations for the side. Since we can't consider cost um what uh could you explain a little bit more about the brick thickness and how that would affect your your wall system please? Sure. So inside the the
plan is exactly symmetrical um between the um the two sides. But if you had one side thicker, if you wrapped the brick around because of the the brick, the airspace and everything else, the one side would become on the interior width would all would decrease on both sides, making everything uh everything the
windows and everything a little bit um narrower because you'd have to mimic it on the on the left side even though you don't need that thickness on the left because it's against the building. on the right that one foot four of you know wall thickness would be would shift
everything would shift the everything over any additional questions anything further does that conclude your testimony Jensen it does okay then we can move on to public comment if no commissioners have further questions if there are any members members of the public who would like to
address the commission regarding the application. Please approach the public comment mic. Staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. Motion second. All in favor? I. I. Okay. And we can move on to staff
comments. Again, the uh and again staff uh sees the application to be generally consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's uh standards for rehabilitation. Uh currently there is a
threestory masonry basement and uh frame twotory addition at the rear of the building which is at least recorded in the 1873 Hopkins map. Uh it appears to be the same edition
that is there currently and it has a very modest Italian8 revival uh cornice a top it. Uh the addition is visible uh in
principle uh from seventh street but it is very hard to make out any sort of details or decor. um uh for that addition from the distance uh of 7th Street. uh the
application to demolish the addition um and to replace it with a new addition which is just slightly larger than the additions to the north. um should not be necessarily uh
discernable and uh it follows the bulk standards uh and leaves one story or one floor uh off. So, it does not go the full height of the addition of the uh of the building, allowing for a little bit more of the
donut to be uh the block donut to uh get light and air. Uh the new rear edition is consistent with the broad patterns of development in the area. So, in staff's
opinion, um I do not think that there will be an adverse effect to the neighborhood. The question by Commissioner Blazak is uh well taken. Most of the additions on that row are
stuckcoed. Um so I don't think that a stucco finish would be necessarily inappropriate. Uh the the conditions of approval that staff would ask the commission to oppose to impose are our very standard
conditions that the architect uh of record Jensen Vasil shall be retained during construction and submit a sealed letter representing and noting that site construction was consistent with work approved under the certificate of appropriateness before the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy. uh details, specifications, material submissions not currently submitted to and approved by the HPC under the certificate of appropriateness such as shop drawings are changed during the course of construction are remanded back to the
HPC or shall be reviewed by HPC staff. Construction drawings noting materials and finishes cross reference with the material sample board to be reviewed by, approved by and signed by the historic preservation officer or staff for compliance with the issued certificate
of appropriateness before construction permits are applied for and issued. Any changes or deviations from the approved drawings are to be clearly bubbled on the construction drawings and noted in an accompanying sign and seal letter from the architect addressed to staff for review. Depending on the degree of
change or deviation, additional review by the HPC may be required. And upon final approval of the certificate by the HPC, any deviations from the granted approval must be approved by the HPC except in cases of emergency
affecting the public safety, health, and welfare, which may be approved by HPC staff. Any changes or deviations from the approved plans over the cost of construction shall be submitted to the HPC staff in writing from the architect of record for approval on an asneeded
basis. Changes or deviations that result in new work may require a new application to the HPC for said work. Uh since I do not believe that the owner is present at this hearing, would you
please be sure to give the owner a copy of these conditions? I know that you're acting as his agent, but please make sure that the owner understands these conditions. Absolutely. Thank you. Uh, I just have a quick question for
staff. Um, I I didn't really notice the cornice until you mentioned that there's a cornice and is there any concern with the removal of the cornice from the I'm guessing there's not, but can you just speak to that for a moment? I have walked by this property a number of
times. Um, yeah. Uh, there's a concern with removing the entire addition. I don't like removing, you know, historic fabric in so far as we could possibly save it. Um,
the cornice I have, you cannot really notice it from seventh street. I do not think that it is necessarily good preservation to remove the cornice and reerect it on a new
addition. Uh but if the uh architect was to somehow uh refine or incorporate some design motif from the existing cornice, I don't think staff
would have been opposed. Yeah, I mean I think at a minimum I I would strongly urge the architect to try to at least salvage it. Maybe not for reuse, but for some installation in my office. Yeah, maybe. Yeah, maybe. Or, you know, it it seems like it's a
cornice that's in good shape, and it's a good example of a a cornice on a rear facade. Um I think it's kind of a shame to lose it, but otherwise, I think I think this is appropriate. Okay. Again, staff's recommendation this
evening is for a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the conditions as read into the record and in the staff report. Motion to approve. Second. Who was that? Was that Sorry, who was the second? First on the second. Okay, great. Sorry,
I just missed the second. Um, do you and your client accept the conditions? We do. Awesome. Um, Commissioner Sankamp, I. Commissioner Gunther, hi. Commissioner Sakong, I. Commissioner Blazak, I. Commissioner Gordon, I. And
Chair Cronin, I. So, we have six in favor, zero against, zero abstensions. The motion uh, the certificate of appropriateness with conditions is approved. Thank you all very much. Have a good evening. You too. All right.
Yes. Yes. right here. Okay, moving right along. Uh, we are going to H--25-0162. Andre Cortez, RA, applicant on behalf of Settleman, Blaza, and Eli
uh Pinkas, owners at 163.5 York Street in the Paulus Hook Historic District. This is for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a one-story addition at top a previously approved three-story edition not visible from the public right ofway. This
application is to approve work subsequent to a previously approved certificate of no effect. And then in parentheses, this is H23-068 for site improvements, front font facade repairs, new windows and
doors, a threetory rear edition, and repainting of brownstone stucco at the front of an altered contributing four-story 3bay Greek revival brownstone fronted rowhouse constructed circa 1860
and altered circa 1890. I do. Andreas Cortez C O R T E S. Thank you. Staff notes that Mr. Cortez has presented in front of the board and has previously been qualified as an expert
in the field of architecture. Feel free to begin. Press the little button until it turns green. There we go. Okay. Um Okay. Good evening. Nice to see some of you. It's been a while since I've presented here. Um so this is
a second proposal. We we have a previous approval as was indicated for threetory edition in the rear. And what we're looking to accomplish here tonight is a slight enlargement or singlestory addition at top the previously approved threetory edition. So, I'll just zoom in
to the site plans. Um, here we have the prior approved addition from column line four over to column line six. Um, I just want to point out that we had cut out this courtyard over here in order to provide light and air to the neighboring
building to the east. Uh and that partly motivates what we're seeking to do today because as a result of that cutout, a lot of square footage was not given to the owners u for their home and they're trying to recapture a little bit of that at the top floor so that they can have a
more comfortable uh bedroom. So that's what this proposal is down here where we're looking to just do this enlargement. It's about 70 to 75 square foot enlargement at the top floor between column lines four and five on
the site plan. Okay. And this area in gray sort of an elevation zoning section I'll call it uh indicates the proposed total addition. You see here it's noted as 75
ft. Okay. The motivation again is um they have a their master bedroom up here now that we are midway through construction and can really feel uh that bedroom. It's it's quite small. We all we always knew that
going into the project. Uh but at the time uh staff recommended that if we were going to seek an enlargement to that room that you know we filed it sort of separately and subsequently which is what we've done and why we're here now. Okay. And here's sort of the proposed
impact on that bedroom. It just makes it a comfortable bedroom really. Um everything else stays identical to the uh to what was shown in prior approval. We I think I'll just skip ahead to this
drawing. So on on the left is the prior elevation and the top floor uh the fenestration at the top floor is the existing fenestration. There was a door and the two windows and a smaller sort of side window over here. And we had proposed this ornamental metal railing
up there for a deck. So, we're essentially proposing to keep the same um articulation at that top floor. Same door, same windows, same window configuration. We've measured those carefully um during construction and are
proposing to keep the prior approved railing in place just obviously a little bit smaller uh now that we are trying to enlarge that room. Uh materially we are utilizing the same pallet that you've seen on some of the prior presentations
tonight and uh with with the red masonry that would match the prior approved masonry down below. blacks for the metals. Uh, and on the side elevation, no, I think I can back up. On this side elevation over
here, this area, which was going to be a stucco, sort of a taupe, a grayish type stucco color, we're just proposing to to keep that same color at this new added portion over here. So, keeping the stuckco uh consistent throughout. Uh we
did want to show these sections over here just to indicate that uh from a structural and from an envelope and waterproofing point of view uh we're you know addressing all of these issues. We're not going to have we're not creating a hazard um to anybody or to
anybody's property namely the neighbors uh property. the the building is sort of squeezed between a much larger um multi-unit condo on the east and then a single family home that's similar to our client's home uh to the
west. And here are some photographs. We just have the the tax record photo at the front. We're not really talking about anything at the front here tonight. This is the old uh elevation prior to um commencement of construction
for the third story edition, the three-story edition. And here's a photo currently after the addition's been constru constructed with that cutout for the courtyard. You see that we made some room there for the windows at the neighboring building. And also
can see that the neighboring building is sort of much taller than um these other row houses next to it. I should stress, I suppose, that uh none of this work is visible from any public right of way. Not even there's no glimpse of it. And
when you're standing on the back, the very back of our client's property looking up, you can't see the uh the top of the addition. So, it it won't be visible from the garden levels either for whomever might be in the backyards
and in the donut home, so to speak. And that is our proposal. Any questions from commissioners? So, as part of the work that was approved, so that was a staff level approval for a three-story edition? Yes.
Okay. And was the reconstruction of the top floor part of that or because it looks like it's gone now. We did have a the the facade was in very poor condition mostly because there hadn't been a gutter on the back over there and
it was just absorbing water over time. So all of the a lot of the mortar was very spalled. We've actually during construction have to have had to repoint extensively at the interior of the home on the three sides. So during demolition in the back there was a dangerous
condition over there and we did end up having to remove that top floor over there. Although we did keep I guess there were two things. We did keep all the masonry from that demolition. A and B we had always discussed with staff at the time the idea of wanting to um
extend you know to submit this proposal that we have here before us. Okay. And I have seen this before where we have um so was the rest of the facade removed below the top story? Yes. Okay. because that is unfortunately a
common problem that I've seen where when the rest of the facade below the top story is removed, there are issues if it's not properly braced or if just issues with the rear facade that the top floor of the rear facade needs to come down and be reconstructed. Um, but I
guess staff was properly notified of this and and the bricks were kept. We did keep all the bricks intending to reuse them. Okay. I mean it assuming that the drawing on the left on the screen right
now is from that first application. It in that in that application the note says um rear facade to be constructed of break recovered from demolition of existing facade. So it is it the case
that when that prior application was before this commission you had expected to demo that top story? We were aware that the facade was in very poor condition but not I think it became much more apparent after the property was
gutted. Um and and you could really see particularly on on the inside how much mortar had had spalled away over time. It was like dust. You could sometimes just pull the bricks off. So, it was bit of a delicate um situation during construction. I guess the follow-up question would
be the new facade notes the Glengary spec. Um are you still considering reusing the bricks that you've saved? So the total percentage of
recovered masonry is far below what would be required to to fully reconstruct it using that masonry. We do have a pile of it in the back. So in theory, if we wanted to reconstruct the top floor out of that
masonry, there's probably sufficient for that, but there wouldn't be sufficient for the entire Yeah. And so this building is is part of So my concern is that there are at least two other buildings to the west that are part of the same row, have the same
pattern of punch window openings and in the same plane. Uh is is that the extent of it or is there any other buildings as part of this I know there's a big former industrial warehouse building by a couple buildings over.
It's um Yeah, this one is what I think you're talking about. The 160. Yeah, that's the largest. I think we I think we can see 16. So, this is 163 and a half. Okay. Right. 163 is to the right. That goes back much further. Okay. So, there's only these two buildings to the left, right, that are part of this row.
Correct. And 165 York has a an addition as well. And it it's an odd sort of geometry. Um, next door there. Yep. I have a question. Is the height of the rear facade changing at all? Cuz it
looked in like in your side by side elevations maybe it was being raised a bit. We did raise it a little bit because the the head clearance. Let me see if I can Right. So that that
slight increase in height is just to allow for comfortable head height inside the enlarged space. It's already um low as it is. So at at this
um at this location over here inside it's like 7 ft. I would possibly since I've been there uh think that it might even be less than 7 ft. I remember feeling yeah stuff on my but otherwise the
punched openings are the same. They're just coming out. They're all going to be in the same position and everything. Okay. The the goal is to as much as possible recreate the prior configuration. Any further questions? Okay. If that concludes your
testimony? Yes. Okay. Then we can move on to public comment. If there are any members of the public who would like to address the commission regarding this application, please approach the public comment mic. Staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment.
Motion. Second. All in favor? I. Okay. And we can move into staff comments. So, just piggybacking on uh Mr. Cortez's comments. Uh the lower three stories
were approved by staff since this new addition, even though it is only 7 foot deep, I believe. Um since it goes to the roof line and will increase the height of the roof line does have to come to the commission. Um the I did not see the
condition of the rear wall beforehand, but I can tell you that having visited it afterwards, um the roof height at the very very back uh was uncomfortable for me standing 6'1
and wearing my flats. Um it also is a very uh small room. So this will make it a this addition will make uh the space a bit more functional. Um staff has no objections
to the application. uh it is not visible and uh as long as the adjacent building to the west is supported, as long as the the rear wall is supported and not damaged,
um staff has uh no further comments except to approve the the addition as proposed. So again, so again, staff's recommendation uh this evening is for a motion to approve the
certificate of appropriateness with conditions uh in the staff report. And can I just have a question for Seth? So this this new addition is going to be how much further out? I believe it's how many feet? Seven.
the top story edition, the single, the what we're discussing now, it's uh 3 feet seven inches out and 3T 7 in. Do you have any concern with um this being in a forward plane from the other two buildings to the west? No. What about
the stucco on the side? Stuckco was already approved by another staff member. So I think that it'd be better to be consistent with the with the uh paradigm of the addition
below blah blah blah. Yeah, exactly. Motion to approve. Okay, we have Gunther second. And Sang, do you agree? Do you and your client agree to the conditions in the report? Yes. Okay, great. I'll move on to a roll call vote. Uh, Commissioner
Sankamp, I. Commissioner Gunther, I. Commissioner Sagong, I. Commissioner Blazak, I'm going to vote nay. Uh, I I do have concerns with the the changing of the plane of the rear facade as compared to the the buildings within the row. U, so I'm going to site
341 71. Uh, and I'm going to cite section three additions um just in general as well as the uh new construction in historic
districts specifically with roof forms um as well as um there was one more that I had. Sorry, I I'll just leave it there. Okay. And just to clarify, you said 345,
right? 345. 345-71, right? Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Gordon, I. And Chair Cronin, I. So, we have five in favor, one against, no abstensions. Uh, the certificate of appropriateness is approved with Thank
you very much. Nice to see you all. Thanks. Have a good night. Okay. Okay. Moving on to tabled cases. Uh I do not believe we have any updates on 172 Belmont. Yes, I have uh spoken with the owners of 172 Belmont. Uh they are
hiring a they have uh provided me with photographs of all four facades of the building uh with notes about what materials they had and what materials they would like to use. Uh they are also
going to be engaging the services of a carpenter to do woodwork and trim around the windows at the gables at the cornises. um aside from and apart from the original contractor. So stay tuned.
There are constant developments in the right direction here. Okay, great. And then we can move on to demolition review if you would. Okay, our first one is 1051 Garfield Avenue.
Uh that's D that's B-25-00007. Okay. and believe we have the applicant. Yes. Uh good evening, Mr. Chairman, uh commission members. Robert Bertoello from the law firm of Connell Foley on behalf of the uh applicant public service electric and gas company, otherwise known as
PSENG. Um we submitted this uh application for a demolition permit in connection with the upgrade and rebuilding of the Garfield Avenue substation. Uh we do have pending before the uh zoning board a an application uh
a site plan application. Um as part of the checklist requirements, we were uh required to submit a demolition permit which has been uh reviewed by the historic preservation office. Um we do acknowledge um the age of this building.
I know a memorandum uh was issued by staff on this um recommending that the demolition permit be denied. uh we asked that that not be followed. Um one um technical question I have is as part of our application uh our demolition permit
application we had included a uh facility assessment by our project engineer. When I looked online on the uh agenda, I did not see that as part of the package of documents that um was included uh before the commission this
evening. Uh I just wanted to check on the record to see if that assessment was part of the file that was provided to the um commissioners. I did not upload that. Um it is a structural assessment. Um structural
uh integrity is not one of the factors that this commission can review demolition applications under. Um so I I did not feel that it was relevant to the current application. It's also not one of the things that we ask for in a
demolition application. Um, if it would, you know, make sense, I can upload that onto the portal for further review. Um, but I I do not see how it is relevant to this application. Uh we respectfully disagree especially since my understanding is the uh application
that's before this uh commission this evening is to recommend to the zoning board adjustment and the planning board pursuant to and I'm citing from 345-9 and perhaps I'm mistaken but my understanding is the purpose of this hearing is to recommend to the zoning
board of adjustment and the planning board the grant or denial of development applications where such are deemed to be within the intent and purposes of this article. Um if that is in fact what's going on this evening then I think that structural report was gerine to what is
going to be discussed here this evening. Ultimately what PSEG is is purporting is we are not debating the age or the factors that are listed in the historic preservation memo. But we do but we do
um assert that there's a balancing of interests that have to occur. While historic preservation is understandably important that has to be balanced with other factors such as economic development and public utility need in this situation. Public service needs to
for a variety of factors many of which are laid out in that memo which was not part of the file that you have had the opportunity to review this evening. it laid out that this facility is now functionally obsolete. Uh in
order to m in order for PSEG to maintain its mandate of providing safe, reliable um sustainable energy to the uh citizenry of Jersey City. This building needs to be replaced. This isn't simply a a a structure that warehouses
equipment. The equipment isn't is part of the housing. And as a result, we cannot just rehab the existing building and divorce it from the equipment. It all is essentially a
package deal, for lack of a better term. So based on that, we respectfully assert that all of that needs to be considered here this evening. And again, if if the purpose of tonight's hearing is under 345-9, that is certainly within the
purview of this board to review. We acknowledge that the staff's memo is is restricted to the seven items that are now listed in the revised section 345, but this commission's review is not. My understanding is this is a demolition
permit application, right, for prior approval. Correct. So, I don't I don't know if it's 345-9, but rather 105-3, which then cites to the factors listed in 345-30, but
345-9 sets forth the powers and abilities of this board. 105-7 does not. 105-7 provides the mechanism by which a demolition permit is reviewed by staff. It does not speak
to the powers of this board. Perhaps 345-9 should have been amended accordingly, but presently it has not been. So un So what So my question for you then council is what are we proceeding under and and how is this
board empowered to do that? I would say 105 is the procedures for demolition permits and it cites to the factors under review in 345. Again, your enabling ordinance is 345-9, is it not?
Let's look at what 345-9 says. Super. I guess 345-9B, right? Powers and duties of the Historic Preservation Commission. B4 to advise and assist city officers, employees, boards, and other bodies on all matters which have
potential impact. I guess that 3459, yeah, establishes the HPC and the powers and duties and the membership. I guess I'm not understanding what you were saying about 345-9 not allowing for the review that
is happening. It was stated by staff that the review of this board is limited. Our position is that there are other factors that should be considered in addition to the factors set forth in section 105 and 345-9 permits this
commission to review those factors. Those factors were not properly submitted to review of this board. For the record, we want that noted. Secondarily, we're going to put on the record are our are secondary reasons that we think are valid for this commission to consider. Do you have a
copy of the Yes, I have a copy of the of the report that could be marked as an exhibit this evening. Yes, that if if that would if you would like to do that that is sufficient for me. I don't know Jonathan feels about that but no I think it can
be part of the application and part of your discussion but I do think that the board the commission is limited in its factors of review for a recommendation for prior approval to the zoning officer in an application for a demolition
permit to be limited to 345-30 and what is the basis for that the basis for that is 105 sets forth the proced procedures for a demolition permit application and it says that the review is limited to the factors in 345. But
that but I would submit that that is with regards to the if my memory serves correctly section 345E submits applies to the historic preservation officer not to the
commission. That is what the historic preservation officers commission, the historic preservation officer's review is to the commission. Correct. I'm not disputing that. Great. But what I'm disputing is that this commission is not restricted
by that section. We can we can agree to disagree, but I think this commission can make a a more holistic review of this application. not restricted solely to the 105 factors
given its mandate under 345 under the enabling ordinance and mandate under 345-9. Thank you. Oh, okay. While you review that, I have some other housekeeping. We have the check for
precision reporting. I think that the factors for demolition review and a recommendation to prior approval are limited by the zoning the demolition ordinance and the corresponding um 345 sections pertaining to demolition review. But I see what
you're saying and I'm not it's not my job to limit what evidence is um submitted to the board. it's the chair and staff. So, I would say you can pres put the case on that you would like. Um, but my advice is to limit your review of these factors that
are listed in the zoning ordinance. Again, for purposes of the record, we will mark the um report as exhibit A1. If I may approach And as I just note for the record, pieces of our site plan application were submitted uh to this commission. So I
don't understand why this report was not included, but this report is now part of the record this evening. Um, it is available for review and inspection should any commission member want to review it. But we would ask that any recommendation that this commission makes take account of this
report. Again, just to reiterate, our main argument is that we're generally proud that our substation has withtood the test of time and our Garfield Avenue station, which has been utilized as an electric substation for this entire
time. The use has not changed. Our proposal is not to change the use. Our proposal is to moder is to upgrade and unfortunately through the upgrading process we will be compelled to replace the existing building. Um we're proud of the fact that it's it it has stayed
there. As I said earlier, we acknowledge that public utility infrastructure is not inherently exempt from complying with historic preservation laws, but we respectfully submit that there's a balancing of interests that have to occur. namely that preservation efforts need to be balanced with other interests
such as economic development and public utility needs. This particular substation is part of a network of substations that provides electric service to the southern and eastern portions of of Jersey City, namely of which is the Morris Canal area, which
I'm sure everyone on this commission is aware has undergone tremendous growth in the last 25 years. This particular station has been maintaining electrical service for 100 years to over 15,000 residents of this city. In order for public service to continue to supply that service, there
are necessary upgrades that need to occur and that is part of our site plan application which is relevant and gerine to this application that's here before you this evening. That is the sole reason why we have submitted the the demolition permit.
Um we try to relocate the station but unfortunately there are no other properties available. Therefore the any upgrade has to occur on site. I have with me this evening Narin Mariner who is a a licensed professional planner for public service. uh she will provide more
detail as far as what has been going on with the upgrades in Jersey City and the other factors that we respectfully submit this commission should should consider before rendering any recommendation to the zoning board. If there are no questions for me, I will
introduce uh Miss Mariner as my witness. I will just question right now we're making a recommendation to the zoning official, right? Not the zoning board. Well, according to according to the um MLUL,
your recommendation is to the board. And again, according to 345-9, any recommendation this commission makes is to the board, not the official. Staff's recommendation is to the board. The board's recommendation is to the zoning official.
But again, that's inconsistent with your law with your regulations because when it's referred to the commission, my understanding is that when it's referred to the commission by the zoning board or the planning board, then the recommendation is made to the
zoning board or the planning board. But in applications for demolition permits, the ordinance says that they need prior approval of the zoning official. And in this instance, we are making the commission is making a
recommendation to the zoning official on whether to issue prior approval for this construction permit. Again, that's inconsistent with 345. I would just note for the record that that what council has just said is inconsistent with three
345-9. If that's the position of council, we we will accept that, but we will accept it under reservation that that night might not be the appropriate law or procedure. and we want that noted for the record. Um, I'll proceed to my Do you re just a
question for our council. Do you recommend that we review this? You we can review this or I think that you should review the application as it's submitted, right? And the ordinance does say review the materials that the applicant submits. So I I think you
should review that. Okay. Um and just noting that this is you know this has I mean Robert can further talk about it and I I guess we have perhaps testimony relating to this. We do not have an engineering expert here this I I do think it's unfortunate that perhaps
materials the applicant wanted to be reviewed were not included in um the application that you were received. If you would like to I would if you'd be aminable to adjourning this so that they can review that.
We did in all respect we did ask last two weeks ago for that to be disseminated to the commission members and staff refused to do so. I do apologize. I I did not I did not refuse. I the when the application was submitted
um that was included on the Tyler application. Um, we then send the application out to a consultant for review. Um, because the consultant cannot review engineering documents. They're they're not certified engineers. They're not it's not part of their
purview as per um the ordinance the way it's set out. I we did not send it to them. And I just upload straight from what I get back from the um the consultants. Uh I I did not
intentionally do it. Um, when we discussed it, I know you had brought it up, I did not realize that it was when we had discussed the contents of it, you didn't I I did not take it as an instruction to upload it as part of the
application. I do apologize for that. Um, that was it was my mistake. I was not a intentional, you know. Yeah. And this is a this is a technical engineering document that has at least 17 pages of text and conclusions,
photographic surveys, photographs, etc. So, um I'm happy to hear this application, but I think kind of like as our we're not going to be able to all we're not all going to be able to review that tonight. Exactly. And I'm I'm happy to pass this down, but I' I'd like to be
able to review this further. Okay. So, should we table this for another date? I mean, I think that's the only appro I think it's the appropriate thing. If you want us to review this, we we can't review it right now. We're not going to sit here all night and pass it
around. I understand. Um, and frankly, I'm not an engineer, so I don't know if I'd understand half of it to be honest with you. Um, but I would like time and I think we'd like time to see and to think about this. I I have just two questions for our
council. Um when we have reviewed these types of applications in the past for um demolition construction permits. Um, have we reviewed engineering reports in
tandem with the memorandum that addresses the aspects of integrity? I can't speak to say what is reviewed for every demolition application. I feel like this is before the commission. I
guess before the commission. I can say that the ordinance that I maintain is what's covering these procedures is 105-3 the permit procedures for demolition permits and it says that the
commission will review everything that the applicant submits. I think if the applicant is saying, I would like you to review this, I I would advise us all to review it. To what extent that's part of your determination, I think is a
different question. But we're not bound by the strict rules of evidence, but I think it it behooves us to give people the opportunity to be heard. Thank you. And and to speak on that further this just to clarify something
as well. We're not the final this is a recommendation to either the zoning officer the zoning board. I'm not sure, but they have the final say and they can therefore choose to accept or ignore our recommendation whether it be for or
against the demolition of this building and they can take other factors into consideration than just the seven aspects of integrity that we're bound by. That is my understanding. Again, I would respectfully request or respectfully assert that you're not
bound by the seven factors of integrity. staff is restricted by the seven factors of integrity. You are not as a commission. Well, I think that's something we might need to have figured out. I don't I don't know how we just I don't think
we're going to be able to get to that answer tonight. Will you be able to get to that answer in the next by the next meeting? I think that send sorry I think a sending a council I would appreciate the time to think address that we'll certainly have a better chance of getting to it by the
next meeting than just doing it off the fly tonight in all honesty we would still ask uh the courtesy of being able to put our factors on the record just to preserve our rights that's what I'm saying okay put them on right submitting this every everything
that you want submitted for review submit. I don't know how if that would be something that like we revise the application or upload it in the portal. Yeah, I'll just I'll just upload the report to the data portal and it'll
be public and then everybody can review it and then at the next meeting we can start start the night off with this application. Is there I'm not really sure how how any of this really serves the applicant if there's a delay. If we
we end up ultimately determining that our consideration is narrowed to those seven factors, but the zoning board or the zoning official has the ability to take into consideration other factors such as those the applicant has presented, then I would think the applicant would want to get before the
zoning board so that they can present those arguments because I don't know that this is the correct body to do that. I mean I I understand we can take that back and look at maybe we can but this is just delaying the process unnecessarily.
I wouldn't clarify it as delay. This is it. This is important for maintaining the integrity of the record. What this commission does should be based on the full record that then gets recommended to the zoning board and we will proceed accordingly. But for you to have an an
incomplete record doesn't necessarily do my client any good. We have accepted your report and entered it into the record. You've made your arguments very clearly on the record. So I think if you need to preserve arguments for appeal, you you've
accomplished that. That is an opinion. If if you would like to continue with with your professionals, you you're more than welcome to. Okay. Yes. Continue. Call up uh Norine Mariner, please.
I do. Please state your full name. Norin Marener. N O R E N. last name capital M E R A I N E R. Miss Mariner, uh could you just please
give the commission uh the benefit of your qualifications? I am testifying tonight as a professional planner. I am licensed as a professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I am employed by Public Service
Electric and Gas Company. I have been with PSENG for 27 years. Prior to that, I was an environmental planner with an engineering environmental and consulting firm. I have a BA in economics from
Clark University, a master's in marine affairs with a concentration in coastal zone management. My thesis was on gentrification in Hoboken and Jersey City. I also have an MBA from Excelsier College and I'm certified as a project
management professional. I am here because for the last one second uh chair staff recommends um that the board accepts uh Miss Mariner's qualifications as a expert in the field of planning. Yeah,
agreed. Thank you. Thank you. I am here because for the last 15 years I have worked with stations in Jersey City to upgrade PSEG's electric distribution system. The stations that PSEG, namely
me, have been the applicant for in Jersey City. We have 12 substations and switching stations. So 12 facilities in Jersey City. So far we have upgraded five of them and actually built one new
station. Also I was involved in six stations around Jersey City that have all been upgraded. All of these are in nearby municipalities like Hoboken and Bayon. I mention this because what PSEG
has been doing is gradually updating our electric infrastructure. What we do is wherever there is the most electric demand and development pressure, that's where we go and upgrade our system. Plans to update Garfield Avenue
substation started in 2019. Like the city master plan, what we're doing is planning for long-term viability. We have an obligation to serve facilities and maintain electric service that keeps up with growth in
Jersey City. And I don't have to tell you how you've grown since the 80s. That's why we've upgraded six stations in the city and six around the station. And our goal is to continue to provide reliable and safe service throughout
Jersey City and Hudson County. This station, as Robert explained, serves over 15,000 customers. this station and why it's important for you to look at this facility assessment is it was constructed in 1907 to 1909.
The station was expanded in 1916 and 1927. We have the records obviously we built it. We still have the plans. Some of those plans are referenced in the package you have. What this facility report, the building assessment is going
to show is that the overall station is in poor condition. The equipment within the station is antiquated. The building that encloses the equipment is in poor condition. And you won't need to be a
professional engineer to understand that as you look through this. The main concern is this building right now meets no New Jersey uniform construction code standards. Doesn't mean the building's
unsafe. It doesn't mean if you walk around it, it's going to fall apart. But as I said, the station is antiquated. The equipment is antiquated. We looked into how would we upgrade this station? And frankly, we have come to this one
last because it's a very small site. If you've had the opportunity to walk around this station, you will find that it's literally cheek to jowlel with other uses in Jersey City. This is not all that unusual for substations in urban areas. For example, in this
station, you'll find that on Harmon Street, we're right next to three garages where across the street from a new residential development on Garfield Avenue, we're opposite from tire stores.
The only new structure in the area is the ice cream store that is right next to us. However, the area is revitalizing the ice cream store, the new residences that were built opposite the corner of Harmon and Garfield, and even a new
residence on Rolph Avenue. We back up to them. So, the area is revitalizing and we are there to support the revitalization. Our concern is that we believe based on the situation and our unique role in
the city that this board should look at some other standards in particular. You shouldn't just look at the historic building that we're in, but rather you should also look at the neighborhood and what's happening to the neighborhood. Now, as the staff report mentions, it
looks like there's possibly been some encroachment onto the station. You have brand new residences across the street. Certainly, there's not really been too much in the area that's helped to preserve the historic integrity. The
station's not in a historic district. It's not next to any other historic structures. It's not loca, it's not designated as a local landmark. We wonder if this is so historic, why have these other things been allowed to
encroach? We think it would be more important for the commission to recognize the paramount importance of the building and its whole use as an electric distribution facility. What that means is that inside the building
we have equipment that essentially takes one voltage and converts it to something more usable by commercial and residential neighbors. The building is essentially a structure that surrounds the equipment. Normally you would think of a
public utility as just the pipes and wires. Certainly we do electric and gas throughout the city and Hudson County. People would think the wires are electric and the pipes would be gas, but actually there are a number of
underground circuits we call conduits. You could consider those as pipes. So we're pipes and wires and we're throughout the city and in particular along Garfield Avenue. We think there's a compelling public need for safe and reliable
energy. This station, like all of our other facilities, serves a very utilitarian and important function. So, you should consider the use for this station. We're not a warehouse that's converting to residential or commercial. We've been public utility the entire
time, and we plan to continue to be public utility. As I mentioned, the report that we are asking to be submitted into evidence shows that the building doesn't conform to any modern building sub standards. It cannot
continue in the long term to be sustainable. That's why we did this facility assessment. When we were looking at what can we do at this station, we looked at 11 different opportunities or rather building options
since 2019. We thought, can we build this station elsewhere? So, what we did is started looking in a radius of three to five blocks for other property. You know, this area, there's not a lot of spare property. The best we could do was buy
some houses on Randolph, which is behind our substation. And what we will use those two properties for, is to run underground circuits. not even put electrical equipment but rather underground circuits because you
can imagine Garfield Avenue chalk full of utilities some are ours some are JCMUAS some are well who knows what's actually down there we know it's cobblestones it could be Jimmy Hawa I
hope it's not former mayor Frank Heg but there's stuff there and we have to work all around this concern is even if If we could update the building, it will not be able to contain the modern utility equipment. We all know things have
drastically changed since 1907. We are worried that even getting the equipment out of the building may cause us to take down walls or the entire building. The equipment is literally fitted into al coes. In fact,
some of us are wondering is how did we build this the first time? That building report will show you some photos and show you generally what's going on there. And I think you'll be able to understand it as lay people. So what we're asking is consider
that there's more than just historic preservation going on here. It's also sustainability. It's compelling public need for public utilities. Its infrastructure. It's economic development.
What we can do is we can change our proposed architecture however you might see fit. We had originally started speaking with Mayor Fulip and city planning in March 2022. Mayor Fulip told us he doesn't
like the look of any of our substations. He wants walls around everything so you can't actually see what's going in. Well, all right. if he wants walls, we can do walls. So that's why I had worked with Tanya Marion and former planner Liz
Oper to decide what could we do. We all decided that a neocclassical traditional building was the best. That's what this building generally is and we'd like to keep that kind of motif going on. But what we can do if you wish
to is we can replicate the Palladian windows. We can move the emblem. Our traditional logo was a triangle and it represented electric gas and transportation when we were actually
operating railroads and trolleys. That emblem I'd like to put that on the front of the building. I'd also like to take the historic name plate of the building, Garfield Avenue substation, move it from Harmon, and I'd
like to put it front and center right on Garfield Avenue. We can also do a historic plaque. After all, we have all the records of how this building was constructed. This is not something that would normally be in the public domain. It's ours. So, of course, we have the
records. We can make that available. We are also willing, if you would like, we can put a historic plaque. Sorry, just make sure you're speaking into the mic. Oh, I'm sorry. You're good. We can put a historic plaque on the building explaining what the building is and how
it was constructed and its relevance to Jersey City. I have done that in other cities. Also, PSEG on my projects have done interpretive signs along the Delaware and Raritin Canal Commission. This is in Southbound Brook and
Lawrenville for our stations. So, we are prepared to make the building look however you would want, but our concern is the building in its current state is not something that we should keep. We can however replicate it. And we're
suggesting that when you evaluate this, you look at section 345-30 E1 and E.2. two because of the unique function of this building and look at the use, look at
the structure as it is, look to see can we reproduce anything on this building. We think we can and we think we can come up with something acceptable, but we cannot use the building as it is now.
Any questions for Ms. Morener? I I did look through the report just now and um I believe my understanding in the conclusion was that it would be possible to expand the existing
building, bring the existing portions of the building up to the current codes and extend the life of the building for 60 to 75 years for the cost of $138,665,66. Is that consistent with your evaluation?
It is similar. Our concern is that the modern equipment is such a size that if we reinforce this building and you will see that this is unsupported masonry, we have to put a whole super structure inside the building. That's right. That
limits the size of the equipment and that's our concern. if I may jump in. Um the a lot of your argument I think um has clearly articulated why the building
can't remain as is and the very real need to expand electrical service in this neighborhood. Um I personally accept both of those premises. Clearly this building can't remain as is. And clearly um we do need to balance um
historic um preservation uh the importance of historic preservation against and along with alongside with the real needs of a growing city infrastructural needs. What
I have not heard yet is um uh is why this building cannot be adaptively reused, why you can't stabilize the building structurally, why you can't introduce, you know, lateral bracing, why you can't um st you know
reinforce the foundations and introduce a superructure and make the building work to provide both the additional electrical service that the community needs as well as preserve the historic integrity and character of this
building. I think it's important for us as a body to note that all the comments about the what you would provide uh once the building is demolished and what you would build back I think we should not review because that that would be a you
know that would be that would be filed separately right you would you would submit that as a as a separate um certificate for appropriate certificate of appropriateness I think again sort of going back to the question of should or should we not demolish this
building independent from what you would put in its place? Um I you know I I I I have skimmed this report and I would appreciate the additional time to review it further but um I don't know if I count
myself as a lay person. I am a practicing architect. I do adaptive reuse projects all the time in the hundreds of millions of dollars of of cost and impact and infrastructure. I have actually recently designed a a substation um with historical
considerations in mind. In my mind, this is all doable simply costly. Doable comma simply costly period. So I I I I while I accept um the applicant's um let's say originating
premises of again the need to expand service um and the the uh the inability of the existing building as is to accommodate that expansion of service. I have not yet heard why it can't be done with an
upgrade of the building's systems. Um, from a structural point of view, from a from a building construction point of view, um, it seems doable to me. I'll leave it there. Okay. And any additional questions for
Miss Mariner? Okay. Besides the structural report, is there anything else that you would like to have posted on the portal? I believe this the building assessment is the most important. Certainly we had provided you
with all the deeds we have for this property. So you have the ownership record and how we assembled the lots. I I will post the deeds as well. I said I was done. What do you know? Um
if you have um studies uh infrastructural studies, architectural test fits um building system uh evaluations that test sort of
um what the needs are of this building against what the building provides beyond the beyond the struct I mean you know this is this is a good start is val again I'm I'm not to be clear I'm not sure that this falls falls under the purview of of demolition review, but since it's submitted, I'm happy to
review it. Um, but if there are additional test fits or studies that substantiate the claim that this can't be done, period, um, I would certainly, you know, I again, personally, I would
welcome the chance to review. Um, but but I would remind the applicant also that um, this board reviews uh buildings of historic significance and the built environment with historic significance and not necessarily the
cost to do so. What I am not doing is since I am not a licensed professional engineer, in no way am I testifying on behalf of what the conclusions of the report. I am
merely mentioning that there is a report that should be understandable to many people. Certainly, if there is a need to have the signatory testify, we can do that. If you think it's even needed,
I I mean, I don't think it's needed. I I I just think it's very interesting that the the report that that the applicant places such emphasis on indicates that the building can be preserved for the next 60 to 75 years at a cost and it
explicitly says it's cheaper to demolish it than to bring it up to code. That to me is the bottom line. Again, what I would what I would caution against that conclusion and again that was written as part of our site plan application which we conceded
and we have introduced it this evening is the concern also that was raised which Norine put on the record earlier is in removing the equipment from the existing building the building may be compromised and might not be able to be saved as part of that process of
removal. Um, we don't know and again we haven't uh so I'm sorry to interrupt. Is that an opinion as rendered by uh construction um manager? Um is that something that has been sort of tested and studied or is that someone who
walked the site and kind of opined? I don't know if you can take anecdotal information but this was from the project manager Frank Dejakamo who was not able to be here tonight. He has wondered how he's even getting equipment
out of this building. Conor, I'm sorry. PSNG's project manager. Yes. Yes. I So, you know, the the the reason why independent reports are are useful is because um there you know there's just a
um separation of interests, right? So if there is an independent consultant, engineer, construction manager who had who can study the process of removing these things, shoring and stabilizing in the in in the process and you know kind
of constructing a step-by-step sort of sequence of of how that process might unfold and then kind of pinpoint. Aha. But here actually like there's we're stuck in a Gordian knot and and you know this isn't going to work or I don't know
how to figure this out. You know, that would be a much more precise and useful reference for us. I think a a PSENG project manager who works for a company in whose interest it's cheaper to demolish a historic asset, I think um
would be less convincing, at least for me. Understood. That's why it may well be just anecdotal. That really does not and I'm giving this third party. So how right but you asked so I'm telling you but it may not be what you want to
consider because it may be hearsay. So I'm I'm I'm providing the applicant the applicant the chance to go to go beyond the anecdotal and substantiate these anecdotes with more let's say uh
substantive and credentialed um evidence. Okay. Okay. So ajourn. Yeah, Robert, if you are amendable to it, we could Well, what's the proposal? I'm not sure what the
proposal is. Is I I presume the commission is not going to make or render any uh decision tonight. Is that correct? Correct. The I think the proposal would be to adjourn and then we would come we would review this and then we would take this up at the next
meeting. and following up with the commissioner's idea of having like third party validation for what you're saying because obviously, you know, we want to make sure we're getting all we're getting nonbiased. So, you're getting all the facts. Exactly. Yes. And I think we want to have our council have the
time to look at this and look at the ordinance and make sure how we're reviewing this in accordance with the ordinance. Just want to get everybody's ducks in a row. Understood. That's what we were trying to do. Gotcha. Okay. So, if we could have a motion to
I'll make a motion to table to the next next scheduled meeting. Yes. Just carry it. You probably don't want to table it, right? Just carry it. Carry. Yeah. And just for the record, no public notice is required. Is that correct? Correct. All right. I'll make a You made the
motion. I'll second the motion to carry this to the next public meeting in June. All in favor? I. Okay. See you in June. Okay. Thank you. We're just carrying it. Unless you're carrying it is fine. Okay.
Okay. Oh, we got one more. Yeah, it is 9:48. It is past it is past our our 9:30 call time. So, uh if everybody's amendable to it, I would say we just carry that one as well to the next meeting. a motion to
I'll make a motion to carry the next uh agenda item which is great. Now it freezes up on me. It is 85 Wade Street B25-000010.
So I make a motion to carry 85 Wayne Street Wade Street B 2500 1 to the next scheduled meeting. Second. All in favor? I I Okay, so we
have uh no updates on the tabled demo case. Um I have not heard from them. Um we have no resolutions to review and approve. We do not need an executive session. Uh all that leaves this evening is adjournment. Uh does anybody want to
make a motion? Motion. Second. Second. Okay. It is 9:49. All in favor? I. Thank you.