I think you were standing there at the time. I didn't know you were sitting. >> Looks like we're all set to go now. This is a regular monthly meeting of the Princeton Historic Preservation Commission being held in person on Tuesday, April 28th
um at 5:00 p.m. in the main building of the Princeton Municipal Building of 400 Witherspoon Street. Pursuant to section 13 of the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been noticed by transmitting a copy of the agenda to the
Princeton packet, Town topics, the Times of Trenton, and by filling a cop filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton, posting uh on the municipal website, and posting on the official bulletin board here at 400 Witherspoon Street. If we
could have roll call, please. Is it is it feedback? I hear ringing. Do you? No. Okay. Just me. >> Miss Satderfield is absent. Mr. Shatskin >> here. >> Miss Howard >> here. >> Miss Capazolei
>> here. >> Miss Freriedman. >> Yes. >> Miss Croll >> here. >> Uh KV Nico is absent. Chair Sher >> here. We have quorum.
>> Very good. Let's get started. Um, first announcement is our council, Lisa Maddox, is not here. She's running a little bit late. So, we're going to try and do some business that doesn't necessarily require our attorney. So, we'll start with um any announcements
that uh Sarah has. >> Yes. Uh there's a new public law for historic preservation commissions that they have to attend trainings and also keeping in mind that we are in the process of trying to reinstate our CLG status. The
historic preservation history and historic preservation conference is coming up on June 17th and 18th and the early registration discount ends May 1st. So if you are interested, please register. Let me know
if you're going. I am obviously going. Um, and it should be a good time. >> And as we sometimes do, um, if it's a little bit out of town like this one is in Morristown, we'll probably try to get together car pooling or logistical
arrangements to help everybody. >> Sarah, do you have anything else? I think >> we allowed >> not for announcements. No. >> Yeah. Do we allow do minutes without Lisa or does Lisa have to be here? >> I don't know. >> Okay. Why don't we do this? We have a
concept review >> uh which does not require um our attorney to be here. So, why don't we push that to the front and then we'll go after we'll go in order after that. Um so the concept review uh is um Alexander Hall.
>> Mr. Chairman Seminary >> with with apologies as you start um uh the our architects are on their way over. They were prepping uh down the street so they'll be here probably in about five minutes as they come up uh Witherspoon. >> Okay then. Um that makes sense. You guys
were later in the agenda. you probably were counting on that um staff report. >> We'll do a staff report. Um I in speaking with Miss Kroll, she requested
to be added to two subcommittees. >> Yes. >> Yes. So that was the master plan and the education communications and website subcommittee. Is that correct? >> Yes, I think so.
>> I think we just have to say that on the record to add her to those, >> right? Do we have um does that push us over the number on any of those? The uh the number that they can meet with without issue >> education. No, I'd have to double check the master plan. I think they're both
only two members currently. Okay. All right. So, if there's any any issue with it, you'll bring that up. Otherwise, um do we need a a motion for this or just uh >> I don't think we did motions before. >> I think this is just now >> Yeah, it's in internal. >> Congratulations. You're a member of
those committees. >> We'll be happy to participate and help. >> Great. We've had a lot of changes this year. Our committees are very robust and we're doing a lot of things and um I'm I'm excited and um
new members on some of the committees. Great. Um uh anything from any members that they would like to bring up at this time? All right, we're going to go ahead and and and and approve our the the minutes that were included in the packet from
last time. Um, as we normally do, we usually open it up. Does anyone have any corrections, changes? >> I gave some typos and corrections to Ian. Seems fine. So, um, the only thing I asked Ian for
this time was to change wherever we say home to house. And that's something from my real estate background. A house is the structure. Structures are what we review. Home is what you make of a structure once you start living there. And um, it's a minor thing, but uh,
looks like we need things to talk about. So, there you go. >> All right. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for March of 2026. >> Second. >> Second. Charlotte.
>> Roll call. Mr. Shatskin. >> Yes. >> Miss Howard, you have to recuse yourself. Uh, Miss Capazolei. >> Yes. >> Miss Freriedman. >> Yes. Miss Croll, I think you're also a
recusal. Uh, Chair Sher, >> yes. Okay, >> they are passed. Well, I want to take a moment and uh thank the members of the uh commission Sarah and u the two past staff members
um Christine Lewendowski and Elizabeth Kim for uh what yesterday was a very nice event as I understand it. It's a a uh an effort that came from this commission to recognize um Elrich
Endersby with a um tree planting and a plaque that talks about the contributions he made to the community to the Historic Preservation Commission. And it's at the site of the Historical Society of Princeton out on Quaker Road where Elrich did an awful lot of work.
And if you read his background, that's where he started volunteering and got this career and background and body of knowledge developed that became that he became such a resource to us all. And I uh was unable to attend yesterday, but
from the family members I talked to uh yesterday um and from the photographs I saw, it was a very nice event and I thank everybody for what they did. Um, this was funded from individual commission members and I guess some other volunteers. I'm not sure where all the
money came from, just commission. Um, so it was it was very nice. Uh, Freda, do you have anything you would want to add to that or anybody have that anything they want to add? >> You all leaving me out here with nothing to talk. I just wanted to add that there's a an
internship now that's being funded by um Elrich's family. So, um, at the Historical Society of Princeton, I believe they'll be, uh, choosing their
first intern, but it's the Elrich Endersby Memorial Scholarship for internship at Historical Society of Princeton. I'll just note on the staff side, uh, this is Derek Bridger's last week. He's
retiring after, I want to say, 28 years, something like that. So, you know, sad to see him go, but, uh, you know, happy trails. So Derek has been the zoning officer for Princeton
and before that for Princeton Consolidated and before that Princeton Burrow. You're saying for 28 years? Wow. Okay. Well, if Derek sees this, congratulations on your retirement. I have a question for Ian. So, who is
replacing Derek as the zoning officer? >> So, I think they still have to do the formal handoff, but it'll be uh Taylor Gribbon, who's our current assistant zoning officer. Um, and then I believe that posting has gone out for the
assistant. So, they're wrapping that up. But yeah, Taylor should be uh taking over this week, I believe. >> Okay. Thank you. >> For members of the public that don't know it, um, Historic Preservation Commission works with both the planning
board and the zoning uh, board. And often we're asked for input. Um, we sometimes attend their meetings to tell what we learned during testimony in our meetings. Um, to tell what our vote was and to help uh move the process along. Sometimes we write letters of
endorsement when we see a project that's really useful or beneficial and especially if there's still some question from a zoning or planning point of view that we can kind of say the historic preservation commission is behind this project, endorses this project. So that's kind of our working
relationship. Julie has been the person who's attended the most of those meetings. If you wanted to say anything more >> about the zoning board meetings. Um yeah, that we just work hand inand with them and about
60 to 70% of our applications end up going to the zoning board. And so we have a meaningful collaboration there and they are always interested in our assessment.
So we're uh always conscious of trying to be clear and straightforward with our understanding of an application. So
>> recess, >> I give a brief update on the um website education subcommittee. Roger or Charlotte, do you want to give a little report on the progress we've been making with our committee on
education and awareness or whatever we call it? Um, we've met with Craig Denwy, the communications uh person for the municipality, and we're just moving ahead with
basically a monthly post uh either on the weekly uh municipal website uh sorry, municipal newsletter uh and we're looking for other
possibilities for communication like uh talking head videos, uh bringing video to some of the historic sites in town. U it's a work a work in progress, but uh we're moving
forward. We've drafted a piece about Mikey Cheryl moving into Drum Thack It uh focusing on the the building and the grounds itself, which have quite an extensive history. uh and that that's
also in progress and we hope to get that published in various media. That's about it. Mr. Chairman, at least um we could in anticipation of architect being here in a in about a minute if we could if it's okay to start plugging our things in and
getting ready, >> please. Watch me. I I think it was Princeton history and I guess it was just I mean was just on a scale
unlike anything you know wealthy people have to find because I think about it all the time but he also went up but city
by the university. It's just off between city and then he also funded most of and he wrote a check to the university. >> He's the one who made all of the big changes. But he built the wings
timber that he built printed copies. I think the article is called Houston. That's great. >> Princeton hotspot. >> Excuse I'm sorry. Yeah. Oh my goodness. Did you
last? Mr. Chairman, thank you for your patience and um um Oh, >> happy to begin. I don't I don't I don't want to presume, but we we are assembled here and obviously we have uh materials up on the screen now. >> Well, thank you very much. Um, and you
you you helped us fill time. Um, >> so, um, this is a concept review, so we're not going to swear people in, but we'd love to know who you have with you. >> Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much. Again, Ryan Kennedy from Stevens and Lee here for the applicant Princeton
Theological Seminary. As always, we are so appreciative of you uh, and your uh, team and Sarah in particular with allowing us and encouraging people to do concept reviews like that. We're excited to show what we're looking um to do as
this project comes together um and ultimately um bring back to this board um as it as it solidifies. Uh to my left, your right um we'll hear first from Anne Stewart, the executive vice president from the seminary um and after
she um says a few words of of welcome, we'll transition to our presentation with our architecture team. So Ann, um, if you could, I'll pass the microphone over to you. >> Thank you. >> Uh, thank you again for the time this evening. Uh, as Ryan shared, I'm Anne
Stewart. I serve as the executive vice president at Princeton Theological Seminary, and we are, um, so grateful for your time this evening and pleased to bring this project for concept review. Alexander Hall, as you will hear, is the original building of Princeton Seminary
and an important part of our history as well as the historic fabric of the Mercer Hill historic district. Our priorities for this project include restoring its tasteful prominence as the front door of the seminary as it was at the very beginning.
Uh with improvements to the landscape and walkways to lead pedestrians to the building and to improve accessibility as well as a full exterior restoration of the building to steward it for the next generation. We take the historic preservation of
this building very seriously and for that reason after a robust selection process have engaged the firm of Bayer Blender Bell as architects. This firm based in New York has extensive experience with historic preservation including incampus
environments and has worked on other buildings designed by John McCome. Uh we're pleased to have two partners from uh Bayer Blenderbell here with us uh this evening. uh Carmen Menal uh partner with Bayer Blenderbell and also Nate Rogers who is a partner and director uh
of historic preservation for the firm and he will be presenting the project on behalf of the seminary this evening. So just say a few words about his background. Uh Mr. Mr. Rogers holds the master of architecture and master of science in historic preservation from the University of Pennsylvania and is
also an adjunct faculty member at Penn's Whitesman School of Design where he teaches a graduate seminar on design in historic settings. As you will see, we are giving quite a bit of thought to the landscape improvements to the site and the seminary has also engaged our KLA
landscape architect studio as part of the design team. Uh this firm also was selected for its experience in designing sensitive landscape in historic settings and with religious institutions. So we welcome your feedback that we can incorporate into our planning process. And with that, I will turn it over to
Nate Rogers to present the project. >> Great. Thank you. Okay. So I think you can hear me. Okay. Um we're very grateful for this time. I'll dive right into it. I know uh we're tight on time and we really appreciate uh your patience this evening. uh if it works
for you all, we'll we'll get through the presentation as expeditiously as possible to really maximize time for discussion if that um seems okay. Um so just a brief orientation, you all uh you know where we are here in the project. Um we're on the south the
southern edge of the Mercer Hill historic district. um which the formation of that district uh dates from 1985 and uh was created in order to protect the integrity and significance of this wonderful neighborhood which is comprised of many mid-9th century homes
as well as portions of the university and seminary campuses. Zooming in a bit further, um here's the building on the east side of Mercer Street uh set about 200 feet back from the right ofway. We will note that the rear of the building is visible from Alexander Street uh
through a kind of narrow view corridor uh just south of Dickinson Street. And there's several other buildings kind of in the view when you're seeing the back of the building there. Uh existing conditions uh the front and the back of the building here. Um just to make things simple, we're going to call the front of the building north. We know
that's not entirely accurate, but it's going to work for us today. And therefore the the rear of the building we'll call the south elevation. And so you get a sense of that here. Both the Mercer Street facade and also the kind of quad or rearfacing facade. A little bit more context panoramically.
Here's the view from Mercer on the top half of the screen. You notice not just the building but a number of mature trees in the foreground and some of the other seminary buildings. And then the images at the bottom here. Um particularly I'll draw your attention to the center image. um which is the main
vehicular entrance to the campus just uh sort of project west uh of our building here flanked by two site walls which include some engraved stone lettering that that named the seminary and then directly across the street from our site of course is the seminar's right library
which is that lower right image. Um here's the sandborn map from 1906 uh of this precinct which I think helps to illustrate um you know really change over time the surrounding historical context and some of the other uh prominent historical buildings that are adjacent to ours.
Um uh we'll go very high level with the research because that could be an hour of itself and we know we want to get to the proposal but um this is a really significant building and we um that that is something that um uh is very important to us. It was built in 1915 as the seminary's first building. It was
really the all-in-one building. Every function of the seminary happened in this building when it was first constructed before they added other buildings on the campus. Designed by John Mcum Jr. um an architect who maybe not well known today but very prominent in the federal period particularly in New Jersey and New York. Uh the building
itself was clearly inspired by the university's Nassau Hall, by which I'm referring to Nassau Hill prior to the 1850s changes by John Notman, which completely changed that building. Um so Alexander Hall is a regionally and nationally significant building in addition to being located in the Mercer
Hill historic district. It's also listed as a contributing structure in both the national uh and state uh register districts. Uh, a few more words about Mcum himself, New York-based, but he had Princeton connections. Uh, he's probably best known today as the architect of New York
City Hall, um, which he worked on with Joseph Francois Majan in 1803. Uh, and also just prior to Alexander Hall, he actually designed what is the oldest building on the Rutgers campus, which then was Queens College. And we've been very very lucky uh to be
able to dig through the seminary's archives uh to really develop a good understanding of the evolution of the site and the building over time. There's photos going back to the 1860s. And then we have a pair of lithographs um of the building that go back to the 1840s in fact. So we've really been able to
develop an understanding of the site's morphology. Um again this is a very high level about the research. But here's the site uh on the left hand side of the image, what it might looked like at the time of the building construction compared to the conditions of the site today. One thing we'll point out in
particular is the elliptical path in front of the building as well as an onaxis path. You see those in orange. Um they were removed by the 1860s and then the on- axis was removed by the 1890s. U there were also a pair of symmetrical
curb cuts originally. um the the north northeast one was removed by around 1910. And then something else that was fascinating in the research was that by the 1930s Alexander Hall had been entirely ringed with asphalt. You know this corresponds with the introduction of cars on the campus and the feeling
that you should be able to drive and park anywhere at any time. And so so really the building which you know had a lot of greenery around it then became completely uh kind of embedded in the asphalt. Looking at the morphology of the building itself, um we'll just note that
the present roof, the four chimneys on the building today and the tower and koopa all date from a 1913 rebuild of really the the very top top section of the building after a major fire that same year. Um the side vestibules on the west and east elevations were added in
the 1880s. Um and the fire escapes were added in the 1890s. So this is a building that has had some some changes and alterations over time. um the the the porticos that are on the south elevation you see there um date from the 1960s and they replaced earlier
vestibules that probably went back to the 1890s. Um I'll I'll touch on the kind of restoration scope and then we'll talk about um the other alterations and then end with the landscape. Um uh the the we're being very meticulous about the
restoration of this building. We've done a very comprehensive conditions assessment, not just from the ground, but from uh lifts to really get an uplose look at the building. The sandstone masonry walls are in good condition overall. They'll require some limited repairs. The ribbon mortar pointing dates from a 1990s campaign and
is still in good condition. So, that's just going to require some spot repointing. Um, a lot of the masonry scope is really to address the cracks and spalls at the brownstone uh window surrounds where there's um deterioration there as well as the string courses. Um, and there were some previous
replacements of the brownstone of pre-cast. Those will also be addressed um and and in some cases retinted with a mineral coating because they've discolored over time as pre-cast tends to do. Um, we are proposing to remove the fire escapes on the building. They serve no code or life safety purpose
anymore. the ladders were removed a long time ago. Um, and we'd like to return this facade to Mcum's original vision as much as possible, acknowledging that the Koopa and the tower do date from 1913. Um, a little more on the roof, uh, and
the chimneys and the Koopa. Uh, that slate roof again dates to the 1913 renovation. It's well beyond service life, so the slate would be entirely replaced. um completely in kind, you know, color, grade, and texture to match uh with grade S1, which is the highest
quality slate. The chimneys were rebuilt uh in 1913. They were stuckcoed then. They will need complete rebuilding because of water damage. Um but they would be uh reconstructed and restored in kind. The Koopa looks worse than it is. It really just needs surface prep
and and painting. Um and then we want to say worry about the cornises and the gutters. So there's a wood cornises with integrated copper gutters. Uh the cornises are in fair condition with some areas of wood rot. The gutters themselves are in poor condition and beyond service life. So those would be
replaced. We're looking at this two ways. Um we could meet the kind of baseline plumbing code uh of five inches of rain per hour and that would require we raise the copper liner by about an inch would be essentially invisible that change you know from from the street
elevation. But storms are, as we all know, becoming more severe. Um, we're looking at the 100red-year storm standard, which is about 9.3 hours of rainfall. Uh, 9.3 inches of of rainfall per hour. Uh, were we to meet that standard, that would require rebuilding
the gutter and cornice line. We think that can be done in a very sensitive and appropriate way where the profile essentially matches uh the historic and existing conditions, but it would mean more replacement of the historic material um than we would do with the 5 inch per hour. So, that's something we could discuss when we get to the
discussion point. Um, windows, which of course are very important to a historic building. Um, the the windows in this building are traditional double hung wood windows, uh, weight and rope balanced, single pane glazing. So, they still have the single pane glazing. Uh, different
components of these windows date from different eras. There's there are no exterior storm windows on the building today. There are some interior storm windows. Condition of the windows is quite poor overall. Um, we note that about a quarter of the windows have replaced sashes, replaced muttons.
Threearters of the glass lights are modern float glass. So, there's already been a lot of change and replacement on these windows. Um, the the scope that we are proposing is to combine frame restoration with sash replacement. So, fully custom sash replacements matching
dimensions, profiles. The only change would be going from single glazing to double glazing. These would still be weight and chain balanced. and then the frame itself gets full restoration. So at the end of the day it looks essentially like the original. Um but we believe is the most appropriate approach given the condition of the windows which
you get a little bit more of a closeup here uh uh in terms of what that is and also the need for what we would consider reasonable energy efficiency on the building. Um now we'll get into the alterations. The goal here is very much to intervene in a way that's appropriate and
compatible compatible to the building in the district uh and really maintain the historic character of this extraordinary place. There's an opportunity um as Anne said to bring more vibrancy to this building as the front door to the campus. We're proposing to regrade the entry so that the front door could be
universally accessible. It is not accessible today. And on the rear, which we'll come back to in the landscape section, we're proposing a terrace that we think enhances the relationship between the building and the quad. Um the you can see in the original makum plan in the upper left there uh that the
space labeled the refactory uh becomes our campus living room. And so that'll have a very nice relationship with the terrace that we're proposing outside. And we'll explain some of those changes. Um first just kind of looking at the building itself in terms of our of of what's proposed. I mentioned removing
the fire escapes. Uh we'd remove non-original entry railings at the front door. The regrading does mean that the stoop uh goes away, but we're creating a building that's universally accessible. There's a 1990s concrete ramp at the end of the building um which we're looking into potentially removing. It's actually
too steep for code anyway. It's not very attractive. Um but it is an additional cost. So we're weighing and balancing that. Um on the south elevation, um we would regrade for the terrace. Here we're cutting through the terrace. We're not we're going to show you the terrace later, but this is to help you
understand the changes at the building itself. Um so the 1960s porticos would be reconstructed. They would look essentially the same. Um but some subtle changes to get everything to the same floor level because there's some steps and stoops here. Um you'll note the um
the the dropping of the sills for the five windows on the first floor down to the level of the terrace and then two of those windows would become doors. We actually feel this produces a nice relationship with the arched windows that you see on the second floor that there's a nice kind of hierarchy and proportion um between our modified
windows there on the first floor in the center and the existing to remain arched windows on the second floor. Um we'll get into the terrace more but there'll be two sets of stairs up to the terrace which will align with those porticos and plan um on the east and west sides. We've
already mentioned the fire escape removals and the concrete ramp. And then um this is sort of the third and final chapter which is site and landscape. The goals here are to improve accessibility, uh, pedestrian safety with, you know, crosswalks, sidewalk widths, and
lighting, uh, and really create a welcoming front door to the seminary, clear entrances for visitors, uh, good wayfinding, but also to really honor the historic character of the building, um, with, you know, sympathetic materiality and plantings. Um, there's three
components which we'll dig into here. There's the vehicular and pedestrian campus entrance, which is in blue on this diagram. There's the front lawn and entrance to the building itself, which is in yellow. And then there's the uh the quad-facing intervention of the terrace in in pink, which again is not
visible from Mercer Street. Um so just looking at the site and landscape overall at the front of the building, you can see existing and proposed. You can see we're going to look at the improvements at Mercer Street in the crosswalk, creating an an arked path that recalls the idea of the
original elliptical path, but also avoids all of the existing mature trees. We're keeping all the existing trees and adding a few new ones. Um, and then we'll zoom in in the the larger red box there, which is closer to the building. So, just starting at the street first.
Um, you can see how we're proposing to replace one crosswalk with two crosswalks, maintain the existing light and and signaling. Um, the existing road is is about 20 ft wide with one sidewalk. This would be a 15 foot wide
road with two sidewalks. There's an idea in the future to make this one way. That's part of a larger traffic study which we're not going to get into today. We kind of want to talk about the aesthetics first. Um, but you can see how we're thinking of a a gateway that is more befitting of the seminary and certainly there's a lot of good
precedents at the university that we can draw on here. So looking at what that looks like in elevation um as well as three dimensions that we can complement the stone of the existing building Alexander Hall um create two arched pedestrian entries that flank the
vehicular uh entrance there. I'll just keep us moving here. Um then getting closer to the building again comparing existing and proposed. Uh the existing roadway in front of the building is almost 20 ft. Um we are reducing that down to about 12 and a half feet um with
significant uh plant bed and lawn against the building. You know to make sure there's a nice soft relationship between the building and the landscape as we change some of the grading. We're uh really discouraging vehicles from driving in front of the building. So this becomes more of a pedestrian precinct here um that is well connected
with these pedestrian pathways and again removing the steps on the front making that accessible. the the there's a sort of a plaza, a small plaza in a sense in front of the building which is a place to gather. Um you'll see on the next page um a kind of zoom in of that uh
plan with some materiality blue stone pavers um in the plaza area flanked by uh pvious pavers uh to the left and right and then low seat walls and benches of sandstone that complement the existing building.
uh sight lighting. Um really, you know, m make making sure we have good light on the pedestrian pathways, but we're not, you know, doing things that um increase light pollution beyond what's necessary for safety. Uh using the the standard so-called Princeton Ballard that matches the lamp posts that are already on the
campus. Um and then the third and final piece of the landscape here is the terrace. Um, so again reminding everyone this is um this is visible from Alexander Street but quite a distance 630 ft. Um, so that helps kind of provide some context but
we've thought about the design of this independent of whether it's visible or whether it's in the district. This is still a very important uh component to the building. Um, and while there's no indication that Mcum imagined a terrace here, that's obviously not the standard, right? Buildings are allowed to change over
time. Um and so the question is whether this could be considered an appropriate architectural treatment in this kind of context. So of course we were thinking about um other federal style architectural examples. Here are three and the and of course you know they were the inheritors of these Palladian ideas
about bilateral symmetry. You know that these composed buildings often had a second front that was on the rear facade or it was a garden facade, a landscape facade and they often had terraces. And um we'll say sometimes in the case of Montichello, right, that the that that those garden elevations are almost
become more more prominent than the front door. So um so we think this is a very to add a terrace on this building is very appropriate. Um you know if if you know it's all in the details of course here you see the plans existing and proposed existing on the top and the proposed down below. So in place of that
vehicular drive which you know we had that ring of asphalt around the building um this this changes into what you see here which is uh the terrace which is very sensitively planned. Two stairways that go up they align with the porticos an accessible route that's sort of plan
east. You can see that coming around the corner there. Um and we're really uh not encroaching too much further in the quad compared to the roadway today. There's a mature beautiful tree which we really don't want to impact um to the south of us here in the plan. This is what that
might look like in in in three dimensions and also an elevation. So there's a a low planter wall in front of the terrace itself that allows us to kind of negotiate this elevation change. We want to really soften the way this looks in the landscape. The materiality would be sandstone um with with blue
stone walking surfaces. Um so we think will be a very harmonious element on the elevation of this building. And here two more views so you get a sense of the accessible route uh at the bottom right image there um which is just very natural extension of the
language of the terrace. Um and very lastly um uh just raising the issue that of course uh you know storm water and green infrastructure is is is a component that we have to consider and we're thinking about that in terms of the uh in terms of the historic landscape. Um so we're going to
do as much as we can in terms of maybe permeable asphalt open joint pavers. It still may be the case that we need to consider rain gardens. So we're thinking about how to site those as sensitively as possible. understanding that you know pipe inverts and topography will will uh set the parameters for those things. So
okay, how'd we do? Not bad. 20 minutes not 15. Um but uh we welcome your feedback and and questions. We're very excited to present this project. Um and uh thrilled to be here today. So thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Is that Yeah, Mr. Chairman, that's the
the presentation. excited to again thank the initial feedback we got from um your professional and also want to thank the rest of the Princeton planning staff. Our expectation is this project will return here as a full HBC application but um based on our discussions with
planning staff, we think it could be a site plan waiver so that we we currently expect that your board would be the board of of jurisdiction um for the application. But we're here to get some take notes and and find out what we can do as we finalize the plan. So, thank you so much. Great comments, Julie.
>> I I have to say this is the best concept review presentation I've ever seen. Usually, it's like someone's holding up a napkin and they're like, "Well, maybe we'll do this." And, you know, so this is very thorough and much more than we're used
to. But, I do think this is very well thought out. I mean, obviously accessibility has been a huge factor in this decision. It's a lot of work, but it seems like a wonderful benefit
um for a number of people in the community and a much more welcoming entrance. Um right now, yeah, I see cars sometimes like turn on there. Mhm. Mhm. >> Looks a little odd.
>> Um, so having it more pedestrian and less autofocused seems like a great idea. I also think that looks like the windows are not in good shape. Obviously, they're not
original because, well, it's been a while. So, there's been multiple things happening. So to have it uniform seems like a positive step forward. Um looks like there's maintenance issues
that you know need to be dealt with. So anyway, I I think it's fantastic. >> Anybody else? >> Freda, >> um could you clarify the gutters? >> Sure, happy to. Let me um jump back to
that slide. So, I think you said if you were to construct it to stand a 100 100y year um storm, it would look one way, >> right? So, if you could clarify that
because um so the the current plumbing code in effect right now um uh establishes a capacity that would meet a a five inches per hour, you know, torrential downpour. Um the hundred-year storm is just over
nine inches per hour. If we were to meet the five inch per hour standard, um the change would be very minimal and we could retain more of the existing wood. Um if we were to go to the nine that let's call it the 9inch standard, um we'll have to uh remove and replace more of the historic fabric. We do believe
that um we can come up with some very clever ways to um make sure that the profile itself doesn't change. So obviously there's a distinction between the historic fabric and then the historic appearance. So, we feel we can still maintain the historic appearance even if more fabric has to be replaced,
but um we have to repitch the gutters and look at downspouts. It it basically >> So, it sounds like you're leaning towards the 9 in version. >> Well, we want we want to futureroof this building for the next hundred years. Um so, it's something we're actively considering and it's something we'd ask
if that could be an acceptable tradeoff to prepare this building for the future. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks for your question. Any comments from this side of the room? >> Just applause.
>> For those of you who didn't hear Charlotte's compliment, she said applause. Um, what I'd like to add is that um I I really appreciate how the um on the north side, that's the side facing
Mercer Street, >> the um the access with the driveway that you want to put back in, which I think will be lovely. Um I like that it's pulled back from the building. Um I always worry about, you know, drainage and and um what landscape will do when
it gets too close to a building. And it seems like you've already well thought of that, of course. Um but I I wanted to to let our fellow commission members know a little bit about why why that's such a good idea. So that's that's appreciated. And
I made no notes. There's just nothing that that I wanted to say. Oh, this this is kind of needs explaining. Um, so good. Um, so this is a concept review, but do we still ask for public input if there's anyone in the audience
or is that more when we have a hearing? I'm not quite sure what that >> We'd certainly um if the board's inclined, we'd love to hear as get as much feedback as we can. >> Yeah, I just don't ever want to miss that step. Mhm. >> So, is there anyone from the audience
that has I see no hands? >> Um, any other specific questions from from your group? >> I don't think so. >> Sarah, do you have some comments you want to >> I just drafted a brief memo basically saying that as it is currently proposed,
it appears appropriate. It seems to adhere to the Secretary of Interior standards. Um, and it's just really going to come down to the details and what gets the final submission. It should be interesting and fun hopefully.
>> Yeah, I think so. >> All right, then. Um, thank you all very much. >> Thanks. Thanks so much. >> We look forward to your return. >> Yes. Appreciate your time. >> All right.
We'll welcome Lisa up to the panel here. to do >> I think um because they're raising the grade. So I I think also >> in terms of like drainage keeping the building like
looks like >> they've had some water problems especially with the existing windows. Yeah, >> that's true. But at the same time, >> if you
minor >> I do know >> now we have these sidewalks to church. >> I just saw your I'll also just add that Miss Kosnikova who's joined us for a role for the record
>> right terrible. Yeah. >> Um, Mr. Spatini, did you want to address the board? I I don't think that they can move around all the >> I don't care if they move. >> I just want to give you an opportunity to address the board. >> I I appreciate that. So, first and
foremost, let me apologize for this interruption uh from your agenda. Uh Dino Spatuchini. I am the president of Dorothy Van Dyke Mlan Association. I'm also acting as counsel for them this evening. We are a corporation. So, we do
need a council to appear before you as you know. Unfortunately, I have to be in Euing Township by 6:30 for a council meeting there. And and I can assure you my value here is not much with our architects and our team that we have here. But what I would like to express
to the board and hope that you will uh um grant our request is that we are happy to proceed without an attorney for this application. we will uh proceed uh um and you know with prejudice so it's
not as if I can come back and say later oh my gosh we didn't have an attorney when we were present or something like that but we're happy to proceed before you with the balance of our team like I said that is much more critical to this than than I am uh here this evening but
I wanted to state that um and and part of this is as you may or may not have seen in the documents and I'm not sure what was submitted, but part of this is a matching grant with New New Jersey Historic Trust that we're very excited about refurbishing the exterior of our
building, uh, which is the trustees, you know, we take very seriously. It's a large grant. We're putting a lot of our own money up for that. And due to the seasonal activities of our uh, organization, uh, we're ready to proceed as soon as we
receive your blessing. uh pull permits and the like and summer is the best time for us to proceed because it's the least amount of activities at the house. So delaying us by 30 days because of me I would have gotten someone to cover it
would really you know harm us and through no fault of yours but my own. So, um I I kindly request that you grant this request um and apologize for disrupting um your proceedings. That
said, you don't have to reschedu the deck as long as you allow them to move forward. Sorry guys, you'll have to wait until the end. Uh but they'll be happy to do so uh and provide the presentation. And I hope that that's acceptable to the board. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. So >> it's it's up to you. I mean so it the question is you know whether or not I guess the applicant must have a an attorney represented. I mean by law you are
supposed to but this is I you know this is not a zoning board. I know before zoning board and before a court you must have >> correct >> um we don't have any rules specifically in in our HBC ordinance on >> on this. So I guess the I would say that
if the commission is so inclined it it can move forward on the application. Um >> absolutely again I'll make the analogy of I'm waving my Miranda rights. I'm I'm good. Um, so, uh, we would really
appreciate it. Again, it would help us. It would not only help us, it would we would be able to meet our schedule, uh, without disrupting the programming that we do at the house and the like by commencing our construction um, uh, next month is is what the goal is. So, uh,
again, I'm I'm here asking and I'd appreciate your consideration uh, in that matter. >> All right. So, then if I understand correctly, >> you can move. said we might as well put them back from the agenda where they were, >> right? So you have to leave now anyway. So it doesn't really help to do
anything. Yeah. So >> they'll continue with the >> So would you be able to make that decision before I leave whether you'll proceed with us at least or >> Yeah, I think so. It's it's okay. So I I mean so I think I mean I I I could say
you know my my thought is that the it's up to the commission but they can proceed >> with hearing the application at the applicant's risk. >> Absolutely. Again, we're the ones saying we're okay without counsel. Okay. I really appreciate it everyone. And again, I apologize for disrupting
everything. Thank you very much. >> All right. Getting back to where we should be on the agenda. Uh we're going to quickly do the um resolution from the from the last meeting. It's a formality at this point. And um uh let's see um we just normally name it
at this point. It's the um it was the application for the trustees of Princeton University related to 144 Mercer Street, the property that we know that was occupied by um Professor and Mrs. Gunning. We um reviewed the process
of the project um at the last meeting. I think um Sarah told me that there was some additional information that we had requested has been submitted. Yes, they updated the architectural sheets with the updated window specifications which they presented in
the meeting >> and there were minor changes to the resolution as I sent them out yesterday. >> And I was just going to indicate that there were three requested revisions from the applicant which um upon consultation
u we didn't think were major but we will absolutely um address them. The first one was to number two of the resolution that where it indicated originally the property is improved with a two and a half story wood frame. It would be changed to corrected to say two um just
twotory woodframe. The second change was number four. The the last sentence says the dwellings elevation. It should say the dwellings finished floor elevation. And the last one is number five.
The second to last sentence is just corrected where it says fixing the brick walkway. It should should say walkways. So those were the only revisions requested by the applicant and they're consistent with our review of the the
notes of your of your hearing. So >> right. So at this point, do we hold it or just we it's done or >> you could say you can move on. Yeah. Based on with those changes. >> So based on uh what we have just been informed uh we're ready to move ahead.
Does this recall a roll call or we've already done that last time? >> I think we need a motion. >> Do we need a motion? Okay. Seeking a motion. >> I move to approve the resolution for 144 Mercer Street. >> Thank you, Julie. Second from somebody.
Charlotte >> as corrected. >> As corrected. Yep. >> Charlotte second. >> Yep. >> We'll do roll call. >> Mr. Shaskin. >> Yes. >> Miss Howard >> was not here.
>> Abstain. >> No. >> Miss Capazolei. >> Yes. >> Miss Freriedman. >> Yes. >> Miss Kroll. Miss Kosvnikova. and chair sher.
>> Yes. >> All right. Resolution is passed. >> Let's get to applications. >> All right. Resuming um our first application next or our next application
first application is um from Crown Castle and it's the location at 153 Birch Avenue, corner of Birch and Race Streets. And as you all come up to the table, please. Am I good to to start? I didn't know if
there was an opening to that. Good evening. >> Where are you in? >> No, this is >> good evening. Robert Godioso with the law firm of Snyder and Snyder on behalf of the applicant. Thank you.
>> Okay. And I am uh Lisa Mosy, manager of permitting and utilities for Crown Castle. >> Okay. So, I'm just going to swear you. And would you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you state your name one?
>> Lisa Mosie. The last name is M O ZI. Great. Okay. All good. Okay. All yours. >> Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you all tonight. Um, for those of you who who may not know, uh,
Crown Castle is a public utility uh, who builds, designs, operates, uh, maintains telecommunications infrastructure. Uh, so we build infrastructure for the major carriers nationwide. Um, we have worked
over the past few years with the township of Princeton, uh, the historic preservation office engineering, uh, to thoughtfully deploy small cell infrastructure throughout this community. Um, these installations were designed to address some longstanding
coverage and capacity issues uh that were well known within uh within the the jurisdiction. And um through that partnership we have been able to to build over 80 of these small cell sites
throughout. Um so we are nearing getting close to the end of the our current deployment within Princeton with a few more sites to go. Uh so tonight we'd like to discuss the proposed small cell installation at 153 Birch Avenue. So that's located within the Witherspoon
Jackson uh historic district. And this project, this this specific location is proposing a new uh wooden utility pole 33 feet above grade, which will support a small cell antenna, uh
shrouded cabinet, a disconnect, and a meter. Um, all finished in the matte black to match previously uh HBO approved installations throughout Princeton and to minimize visual contrast. Um although this would be one
of the few poles on the north side of Birch Avenue, as the historic preservation officer notes in the report, Birch Avenue already contains a continuous line of wooden utility poles and equipment. So that's establishes a
strong visual precedent uh along this corridor. Uh this pole is not out of place with the established pattern along Birch. Um, so I'm happy to speak to the four comments or recommendations that uh
were on the report and answer any questions about this build. Um, I can go through the questions or the the comments and give and speak to those if you'd like. >> Okay. >> Go ahead and do that.
>> Sure. Okay. Um, first comment from the report. Does the project meet the Secretary of the Interior's standards for treatment of historic properties? Uh the answer to that is yes, it does. The standard does allow new infrastructure when it retains historic character by
avoiding alteration of contributing buildings. Um uses compatible scale and materials, avoids creating a false historic appearance, and is reversible if removed in the future. So this node does meet
all of those principles. Um does not alter uses commonly a common wooden utility pole which is already typical throughout the district and introduces an only uh a minimal change in the public rightway which could be removed in the future
without impact. Uh the second comment is the installation appropriate and compatible with existing structures. Uh again, yes. Um as as staff noted, uh the new pole is not out of place among the existing poles that define the Birch Street uh
streetscape or Birch Avenue, excuse me, streetscape. The matte black equipment is meant to re reduce visual contrast and the installation stays within the established uh utility corridor of the
district. So in the right of way. Um, comment number three, does the installation adversely affect the district's ambiance, character, or relationships of structures to the public way? No, it does not. Uh, as mentioned in the
staff report, the project retains historic character of the intersection and does not adversely affect the overall ambiance. Um, this installation is in public right away, so no historic property is physically affected. The district's spatial organization,
including building relationships and sight lines remain unchanged. And then finally, is the height visually compatible with other utility poles? And the answer is yes. So the the proposed 33 foot height uh upon completion of the
of the installation aligns with the general scale of the of the existing poles on birch which are between that 35 to 45 foot range. So, in summary, um it does respect, we
believe, the historic character of the the district, aligns with Secretary of Interior standards, meets with Princeton's ordinance criteria, and um provides some essential modern wireless service while maintaining a thoughtful
design. So, I I appreciate your review, and I'm happy to answer any questions on this particular site. Thank you very much. Uh, commission members, some questions, comments, >> please.
>> Yeah. Good evening. I um I reviewed this before the last meeting, so I um and I didn't take photographs of Birch Street, but um my recollection is that all the utility poles are on the other side of Birch Street, that they're not utility
poles on the side that you're proposing. I I there are not many on the north side. Uh but we are not able to attach to the south side that existing pole line that belongs to PSENG. All of those
poles have uh equipment on them that is disqualifying equipment we call it. So they have either a transformer or other mounted equipment that would preclude us from being able to attach to those. So there is no option for us on any of the
existing polls >> there. There is um a poll on well it's vis from if you stand at the site of your proposed poll and look towards the playing fields there's a poll right um at the edge of the playing fields. Did
you look into that as an option? >> All the polls within that district have been or within that area I should say have been vetted for viability. our first choice, our first option is always to use an existing uh utility pole. Um
the only time we would suggest or request a brand new installation is when there are no other feasible options. I'm not I'm not familiar with the exact poll that you're referencing, but I can assure you we've looked at all the poles
in the surrounding area and they are all disqualified for one reason or another. Either they have primary power on them or they've got uh like I said disqualifying equipment which we would not be allowed to attach our equipment. >> There's a line on top of all those
poles. I believe that's Race Street um heading in that direction. And if you look on sheet four, >> if you look on sheet four of 11, >> you went around the corner >> out with me, but um >> yeah, if you see on four of 11, you can see the pole to the I guess it would be to to the left, and you're referring to
the pole on the right, but you can see the lines cut across and there's a line on top of all those poles, which is what the problem is. >> So, we couldn't attach on the top of that pole and there's no space below those lines. So, if you look at the photograph on the right, pole looking
west. So, if you looked if you looked east, which is the around the corner, and then if you looked at the um if you looked at the uh photo looking east as well, in each direction, the line is on top of those poles. You go to sheet three of 11, you could you could see it
as well. There's a line on top of those poles. >> Um yeah, the location that I'm discussing is not on Ray Street. It's on the street is not marked on here. It's the street along um the the the playing
fields along community park fields. >> No, just the parking lot. >> Yeah. I don't think that's actually a street. I think that's I think that's in the park. >> So that's not in the right of way. I believe that's in the park. >> It's it's at the edge of the park. That's not That's not viable.
>> Correct. I have a quick question. 153 um is it Birch? Are they aware of this? The the owners of the building you referenced? We have not spoken to the residents um
as we're in the public right of way. >> Okay. >> So, we're trying to understand and um we're at the mercy of having not got it in front of our screens. Um the parking lot that runs along community park that
is kind of served by uh community or public works trucks and things. None of those poles are are viable for >> Is that private property? >> We believe it's public property. Okay.
>> It's not the public right of way though. So >> it's not what? I'm sorry. >> It's not in the public right of way. Right. So, but it seems to me that it would be best for the community from what we look at if it was on a pole in
that location if it's owned by the municipality as part of the parks or access road rather than in in in front of these houses. Would that be correct? Is that what we're looking at? >> Yes. Yes. So the the location the corner
that we had selected is not in the front of the property. It's the side of the property on Birch, >> but it does affect the streetscape in as much as there are no other utility poles at least nearby on that side of the street. >> Well, they are right across the street
and they are right around the corner in both directions. >> There are others on that side of the street. not right directly next to it, but there are others, >> right? I guess perhaps what we're thinking about is it's one more
intrusion in and that there are other intrusions already doesn't make it correct. Um, and it's such a prominent location right at the corner there. It's, you know, on behalf of that neighborhood and all the things that
we're charged with doing, you know, it's kind of our responsibility to ask and and double check that it there is no other option for it there. >> Yeah, we have we have certainly vetted all of the existing poles in the vicinity in the in the public right of
way. Those are all um not viable options unfortunately. But as we learned a moment ago, the public right ofway in public from your attorney was that maybe those other polls that we're asking about weren't considered. >> I'm not familiar with the polls that
you're referencing. So I just asked are they is that a private property that you're asking on? >> It's a municipal park, but I don't know how that >> So the property would be owned by the municipality, right? >> Yeah. So I would say that we are a
public utility that own that operate within the public right of way. Um >> you know respectfully that's that's what we're here asking for approval on. >> Um I I have a question. So I was wondering uh for Sarah. I was wondering
if engineering had reviewed this at all because um there is the round for affordable housing proposal for the edge of community park and the that parking lot
there and I don't know if that maybe interfered with the placement. Um, so anyway, I'm just wondering if there was municipal conflicts. >> Yeah, I I can confirm it. This was reviewed by engineering and this is
going to be an administrative waiver on that level and this is a recommendation by us for the approval of the administrative waiver. So yes, it has been reviewed by engineering which the a lot of this came in before I was here.
So, but as as based on the notes I reviewed from Elizabeth and the the existing application, this seemed to be the most appropriate location per engineering and per the polls in this
general area. >> Okay, thanks. >> Thank you, Julie. That was the question I was trying to formulate. Um, other people with questions. >> Yeah, I was just I mean the public rightway seems to extend north of Birch on Ray Street. There are
houses almost immediately to the um the parking lot at the park. So, I wondered about um whether any location on on that little spur of Ray Street that ends on the
parking lot would be possible. Again, it would take it away from the corner. It's a there's it's about 300 feet, I think, from uh Birch to the parking lot. and
we we've uh done approvals for a couple of those houses right there on on the parking lot. I don't know if it's an easement with the town. I I don't know the conditions of of those houses in terms of their
what property they lie on, but I assume it's private property on on a public right away. So, if the um the pole does need to to go in the general location where that cone is shown in the is there any leeway of
moving it back from the corner any >> Yeah, I think sure. >> Yeah. I I think there's a lot of doubt right now, at least for me, to vote yes on this. Um, I actually went to the site, but 153 doesn't wasn't really marked as
153, so I kind of had to guess. Um, I mean, I don't know, Sarah, if it makes sense to to give us some time to make another site visit. I I know that based on um Elizabeth's notes, this was submitted
init this was submitted initially in 2024 um in a batch with a number of other applications that didn't that were either not in historic district or were existing equipment and this is the only one that is currently left that is a new poll in historic districts. Mhm.
>> Uh so I know Elizabeth did take into consideration and recommends um that the applicant investigate other viable options in the area closer to the park, other locations along Ray Street. And the final submission I received as
the updated documents from engineering with their review and from the applicant was is this corner on B. So, so is this the one you guys were trying to put in front of Triumph and you moved or No, no, this one was always here. >> Different one. >> This is No, this has always been here.
And I and I would just add that these particular locations are very thoughtfully vetted out with our carriers. they have specific needs to be within a couple hundred feet of a certain location so that from an RF
perspective they're not in conflict with other tower or macro small cell sites because when you do move and slide down uh it's not as easy as to say oh just go around the corner or down the street another block because now you're interfering with another location. So
they're very carefully selected to complement each other and to provide that coverage. Um so I'll just add that >> yeah I think that's precisely why I'd like to make sure um because they're so
precisely selected um on your client's behalf. We have to work on behalf of the citizens of Princeton. Right. So I could not vote yes on this today. I'm happy to take time tomorrow to make sure. Um, but
I couldn't give my vote tonight for it because I need regardless of whether this is the second or third time it's been submitted, we still have to be sure. It's not just a vote. It's it's, you know, when once it's there, it's there. >> I appreciate that, Freda. Um, other
commission members, do you want to make a comment or decide whether there's a motion we want to put forward one way or the other? I have a question about the clock. So, if we would delay this,
>> this one is it we're we're delaying it more for the administrative waiver because they are the um the administrative waiver of site plan is the board of jurisdiction. So they are waiting to work through us first and
have been waiting for scheduling things and other reasons and updates to the plans that were requested from previous submissions. Um, so >> if I could >> Yeah, I don't think it's something we could really carry because we're not the
board of jurisdiction. >> Oh, so we couldn't carry this. >> We I mean that's more of a Lisa question. I don't think we can because we're not the board of jurisdiction. We're giving a recommendation. If I could also just speak to the federal law on this the this is a small wireless
facility in the right of way and under the federal law the shot clock is is 90 days on one of these applications and we're well past that deadline already. I think as Lisa said, you know, we're certainly happy to slide it uh as the chairman suggested uh to the east. Um
there are utility poles literally on every other in every other direction. You could see that from the four photographs. utility poles across the street. Um there's utility poles around the corner on race. Uh there's utility poles also uh on the uh north side of
Birch uh as well as some on the south side. So um it's not out of character. If you look at the criteria that was thoughtfully set forth in the uh officer's uh report, we Lisa did go through those criteria. It's it's it's consistent with what's there. That's the
standard. it's not a significant effect. Uh, which is also the standard. Um, and and and as Lisa testified, the existing utility poles both on Birch and on race all have existing lines or equipment on them. So, it's not as simple as just moving to some other
pole. And you can't put a new pole in a in an existing pole line. So, that's why we're at the location. But, as Lisa mentioned, you know, we're happy to slide it uh to the east uh more away from the corner. I think that would be a fair compromise uh and keep us on track
under the under the shock clock of the federal law. So I mean from my perspective there it the applicant does have a lot of rights in in this type of a situation as you know. So um
I mean if the representation is that they've investigated all feasible options and this is the feasible option and we know that they've had discussions with I'm assuming it was Jim Purcell. >> Yes, we've been working with Jim for a long time >> and you and he he's vetted this.
>> Yes, >> he would most likely say I mean I haven't spoken to Jim about it but knowing that Jim was involved he >> he's he's not he's not that easy on these on these applications and he will ensure that they're in appropriate locations. So, if the only other option
it sounds like might be municipal property, I mean that's a I don't know if if if that was considered, but if it was considered and then >> I I have documentation it was suggested to be considered. Whether it was ever truly a whether it was considered or
whether it was a viable option, I don't have that documentation. I I'm not a engineer so I don't know I would function with the polls. Well, that might be in a I mean I I did you guys consider the um the poles in the parking lot that are I I guess they're in CP
South. >> I think as Lisa's testified, number one, it's it's it's further than from an engineering standpoint, it's too far away. So, we wouldn't consider that far away, but also we wouldn't consider private property. I know you call it municipal, but the end of the day, it's private property, which would require a
lease, which is completely different than the utilities locating in the right of way. It's It's a public park, but it's not the public right of way. >> That's right. >> And it's incurring. Yeah. And it's And we don't know anything about those poles and what they're being used for. >> Correct. >> So, it sounds like the testimony is that
this is basically within a 100 foot radius of this pole is really the location and from a an engineering and a from from your um from your standpoint. >> Yeah. And the reason for the corner is that you you're getting directional
support all four ways, right? As far as service and coverage. So as we slide down, Bur, as you're saying, maybe slide down, you know, you're you're losing that visibility towards the park and also in the other direction. So you want
to be by the intersection as much as possible. And that's what this shows. um from a regulatory standpoint, we you know, we would have a small window of a few feet to be able to come down if if that's what you're asking for. Um but beyond that, then that's a new whole new
proposed location and application. So, you know, there's a a little bit of a leeway, but we're not not, you know, 20 feet in another direction. >> I would say that the there should be a vote tonight.
Are there any members of the public who want to make a comment on this application? Okay. Does anyone want to put forth a resolution that can be voted either way? All right, then I'll try to give it a
try. Um that understanding that there are constraints larger than what this commission knows about that are engineering related and that the
municipality's engineer has not uh found any other alternatives for us. Then the question is can we uh vote to approve the request
with the understanding that the um pole will be installed to the extent possible away from the current cone location uh so that it's not smack right on the
corner. So, that's my that's my proposed resolution. >> Okay, I'll I'll second that. >> Drew, roll call. >> Mr. Shadskin. Yeah, I I vote yes reluctantly, but I think we're
constrained. >> Miss Howard, >> no. >> Miss Capazolei. >> Yeah, what Roger said. >> Miss Freriedman. >> Yes. >> If we have to.
>> Miss Scroll. >> No. >> Miss Kosvnakova. >> No. I feel like chair. Sure. >> No. >> So, the recommendation does not have the
majority. We have six here tonight. It's half and half. >> We have three. Three yeses. But it's a recommendation. >> So it's only recommendation. >> It's only a recommendation
that we would we do not recommend it as proposed. >> Okay. >> But we need to then that would be the memo that we would site. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Well, the administrative waiver of site plan.
>> So just to be clear, the recommendation is no on the administrative site plan waiver. Correct. That's the extent of the vote. And the next step is >> go before the planning for administrative.
>> Will we submit the we submit the memo to the board of jurisdiction >> and then the chair subs >> I'm sorry I'm just having a little trouble hearing you because of the >> No, I'm sorry. The chair will submit a written memo to the um to the planning
board indicating the reasons for the HPC's recommendation and it's under the law. It's it's a recommendation. It's an advisory. They're acting in an advisory capacity. >> Okay. >> On this matter. >> And is there going to be discussion this
evening on on what that recommendation is? We do not recommend the preservation plan as proposed as part of the administrative waiver. Okay. >> So that portion of the administrative waiver does is not recommended by the HPC.
>> Okay. >> But then the planning board will take has that recommendation but then ultimately the planning board makes a decision on the preservation plan approval aspect of the application as well. >> Okay.
And just to be clear, is there anything further that goes in the recommendation as the reason for the recommendation or is it just a matter of that the vote was was three to four against the motion to approve? I've just never seen a motion to approve
voted against by the person who made the motion. So, I'm just a little confused procedurally on how the recommendation would uh would read. based on the record, I think, and the comments from the council, from the the commission, and I think the commission
um can speak to this, but it sounds like it was based on a lack of information or a need for more information about the location and
whether there were any other feasible locations. Thanks. >> I guess the only thing I would ask then is that if the recommendation could please include what the language of the motion was because I think that's very important specifically that uh there
were constraints from an engineering standpoint that the board didn't have information on or knowledge of that the municipal engineer had not found any al other alternatives and to the extent possible that the facility uh would be moved away from the cone location shown.
I think that's important >> um for context. >> Absolutely. >> And I would ask if it possible if the board can reconsider your vote uh in that context. Specifically, the preservation officer, you know, pointed
out that the that the standard is um you know, there's nothing about alternatives in the standard. Uh the standard is whether the work pursuant to a preservation plan will have a significant impact, which we think we've shown is not going to have a significant impact because of everything that Lisa
testified to. Quite frankly, I don't think there's anything about alternatives in the in the in the criteria that are cited specifically under section 10 um T10B 390 um T10 B 3861 2 and 7. Um there's
just nothing in that criteria uh regarding al alternatives. Um it has to do with sustainability um whether this is in context with the existing streetscape which we believe it
is um and with respect to the preservation plan application itself. So we'd ask the board if you could reconsider your vote tonight. I guess I have a question for for all of us that >> can you mic?
>> As I understand it, you are saying that it can't be relocated by the park because it's not public right away. >> Yeah, I think it's I think it's I think the testimony was really three-fold. One,
these facilities form a network and they cover a very small area because of the low height of the pole. Again, the pole's only to the top of the antenna 33 ft, which is at or below the surrounding poles. >> So, they don't cover a large area. When you look at when you look at the photographs and the plans, you can see
heavy um uh foliage in that area going down race street. So, that's one reason. Number two is we don't have access to public property, including property. we do have access to the right of way as a public utility just like the other utilities that have poles in the right of way. So I think those were the two
main reasons. >> Okay. So so in essence it's whether it's moved off the corner or you know 20 ft down the street. I don't know that that's any better and it's I mean it
just seems to me a necessary evil if you're going to say the community needs coverage. >> Right. >> Correct. This is this is coverage for >> Yes, we've p we've personally met with police, chief of police, with uh emergency responders that have
demonstrated to us that they this is a need all throughout Princeton that they've encountered time and time again when there are events or you know um public >> for the public good one assumed right >> that they have trouble with
communication. So this is meant to service the community. This is why these are being installed. >> So I don't I don't think by moving it off the corner 10 I mean it's a big poll. That's unfortunate that
>> could we just get some clarification? Um Sarah or somebody did did the Princeton engineer examine all the other options and determine that this was the only option? >> I can't say that.
>> Okay. I can't conclude that um because I wasn't here for these these discussions, but this this was the final selected um location after a number of revisions and that other locations that would be outside of
the historic district that would be not here were proposed by Elizabeth when she was here. So, those were considered. Um, and if if there is outside of that, I to
bring it back to my report because the the comments and recommendations section in my report and in addition to the other citations I make to the ordinance is referencing the standards that per the ordinance we are supposed to review
a historic preservation plan review. what the criteria for a store preservation plan approval is. The questions and the the comments and recommendations. >> Yeah. And I and I looked at the code myself. It was spot on. I mean, the officer's report was spot on on what the
criteria are. I mean, it's not compatible with a historic neighborhood, right? It just isn't. It's just not visually compatible. But I don't know, you know, unless you can't put it underground, right? I I don't I just
I'm not That's right. >> I mean, I'm not advocating for you all. I'm advocating for the neighborhood, but I don't know what the alternative would be. I I >> I I guess I feel one of the unanswered
questions is um in deference to historic district whether the municipality can say our our property that we own as as the municipality that >> it's not the public right of way.
>> There's a difference between public property and the public right of way. Utilities don't necessarily run through a public park >> because it's an existing utility line with in the public right of way. >> Yeah. And under federal law that there is and and I don't mean to lean on
federal law too much and I'm doing it respectfully. Under federal law, there's a requirement for your municipality to allow utilities such as Crown Castle to put these types of facilities in the right
of way in a non-discriminatory basis. And as Lisa testified and as the plan show, there are other utilities in the right of way a very similar design. In fact, more intrusive. There's no wires overhead coming from this pole. The wires going to this pole are
underground. The antenna must be above ground to your point. Uh it is wireless technology to serve a public purpose. Um everything else is very consistent both in the color uh of the wood pole, the color of the proposed antenna which
matches other poles we have in Princeton uh and equipment we have in Princeton that have been approved in similar circumstances and that are similar to the other utilities. So it's not as easy just to go on on non right-of-way property. Federal law actually has requirements that we be allowed in the
right of way in a non-discriminatory basis. And I think that's important. >> Thank you. So, I understand uh just now that um the commission can uh decide whether they want to reopen this and and vote on it
again or differently now that we've heard some more information. So, I guess we would need uh someone to put forth that they want to have us discussing it more and perhaps vote on it again.
I still think that I need more information and I'm willing to take the time I need to get the information I need, but I don't have what I need to make to give you a yes vote today. I you know
other members want to comment >> and I'll I'll just note that as the applicant indicated that the standard is section 390 for the uh the review of of this board. It's of this commission. It's it's based on the you know the the historic preservation standards under
section 390. >> I I believe that we've have sent memos to both zoning and and planning board where we've indicated that we haven't agreed on on a particular issue. Um
>> Lisa, doesn't the um would the memo with the recommendation have to site specific preservation plan review criteria that it doesn't meet >> because I I think we should >> No, I think it can it can cite the
reasons that the commission isn't comfortable moving forward. I I think it's important. >> I would say that you might want to put them on the record that the commission should put them on the record indicating that and then then that information >> can be shared with the planning board.
Would the commission be willing to reconsider its vote and possibly add a a a third condition to the chairman's former which is that on the understanding that um at the administrative waiver provision it'll be
it'll be um confirmed that there are no better alternative locations in the general vicinity of this and on that the board the commission would recommend the approval How do other commission members feel? I I do like that
confirming no other location is is viable after we hear back from engineering. >> Were you suggesting that that would be part of the planning board decision or >> correct? >> Right. So it would be
>> a recommendation on the condition that >> condition that at the planning board hearing there is testimony indicating that there is no other viable or feas however or feasible alternative >> a more feasible alternative in the general vicinity. >> Okay. >> Just I I just think it puts it in context a little better. >> I'm sorry.
>> It I I believe it puts in in context the discussion that we've had here. >> I think that makes sense. Mhm. You can That's absolutely Yeah, I think I think um >> All right. So, um
I just I I had to learn how to to put this out there. So, um thank you for that moment. a resolution tonight to say that >> that HPC would approve
>> recommend recommend approval of a preservation plan that the subject to the planning board having gotten additional information that that says that that's the there's no other alternative
There's not a more feasible alternative. So, that's a motion. Anybody want to second that? >> I I'll second that. >> Okay. >> Mr. Shatskin, >> excuse me. Clarification. Is this an
overwriting vote or an additional vote? I guess the motion would be first to um I guess you would repeal your first motion and uh this would be a new motion in in place of that original motion uh in place of the original resolution.
So you can clarify that. >> Okay. Yes, >> Miss Howard. Yes, >> Miss Capazolei. >> Yes, >> Miss Freriedman. >> Miss Kroll,
>> Miss Kosmnikova, >> Chair Sher. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much for working through that with us. We appreciate it. >> And we'll do we'll do a good amount of research on on that alternative. Thank you. >> Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you. No, I think Okay, thank you everybody for your patience. Up next is the application for um what's the address? 13 Mercer Street. >> Nine Mercer.
>> Nine Mercer Street. Uh about replacement of 11 windows on the third floor. If you all could come on up, please. >> Thank you for considering our application. My name is Beth Young. We're at Ner Street on right at the top
of Mercer Street. Sorry. Thank you. Um and uh my husband and I, my husband Lou and I have owned the building since 1996. Um it's the one with the little red geraniums in the front. Um and we are looking to replace the third story
windows um with windows that are the same as they're not. The windows are um fiberglass. >> Beth, one second. >> Oh, >> do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you please state your full
name for the record? >> Beth Young. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, um we the um proposal um meets I believe meets all the
qualifications that are listed um under the consider the following conducting their re you know while conducting their review part. Um we are not changing any of the styles of the windows. They're all going to be the
same. They are we are uh requesting that we can change from fully wooden windows to fiberglass clad with wood on the inside. Um the windows are not original. Many of them are not original. I can't even tell which ones are original, which
ones were not. The building was renovated in 1981. Um and at that time, I think some of the windows were replaced. I'm not quite sure which ones. The building is from the probably the 1840s uh 40s 1850s. So
it's gone through many revisions. When you look at the application, you'll see that the building was changed I I think dramatically over those years. So um we're just requesting that we can replace those windows with Marvin uh
elevate windows, 11 windows on that floor. So, anything else you need need from me? >> Hang on for a minute. I was going to ask Sarah if she would um give us the her analysis.
>> Yes. So, I I won't read it word for word in the interest of time. Um but as the applicant stated, this is a property in the Mercer Hill historic district. Uh it is a type two historic district, so it's subject to preservation plan review for any changes visible from the public
right ofway, which almost all of these windows on the third story are. Uh, this current building dates to probably 1850 based on historic maps I found, but has drastically
changed over time from a small one-story building, I believe, initially one and a half story building um to what we see today as a three-story building. Um, based on the alterations and additions, the only windows I could say may
possibly be the original windows are the ones in the front. Uh, but that we obviously can't confirm that. Um, as I stated, although the current windows are most likely not original to their respective alterations and additions, they have retained their
historic materiality. The proposed replacement windows are not of inkai materials and therefore this constitutes a change in material to an architectural feature visible from the public right of way and we know that the current configuration of the house has been in place since at least the early 20th
century based on historic photos and aerials. Uh, in regards to my comments and recommendations, staff finds the proposed project generally retains the building's historic use, features, spaces, spaces, and spatial relationships as well as the overall historic character of the property that
qualifies it as a contributing resource to the Mercer Hill historic district. Staff recommends that the commission consider the following while conducting the review. whether the proposed project meets the secretary and the interior standard for the treatment of historic properties. Whether the proposed project is appropriate to and compatible with
the existing structures and landscape of the Mercer Hill historic district. Whether proposed project would adversely affect the ambiance, character, and appearance of the Mercer Hill historic district. Whether proposed project preserves or enhances the historic architectural value and character of the structure. whe the proposed project
would adversely affect the ar exterior architectural features and setting of the structure as well as the historic and architectural character. Whether the installation of fiberglass clad replacement windows that match the existing wood windows in size, configuration, operation, and finish but not material meet the criteria for
preservation plan approval. >> So I I mean I I have a picture of the front of the building here. Um, and I don't know. I can pass this up to you if you'd like. Um, so >> Miss Young, is that's is that the same
picture that's in your application? >> Yes. Okay. >> Same picture as that's that was taken recently. >> So like uh the day that I submitted the application. >> So that's a brand new picture. Um, in in light of our previous um person's
conversation, um, we've always sort of thought it would be great to have under underground wiring there because if you look at that picture, but that's beside the point. Um, so it's far up. It's high above the
streetscape, third floor. um not something that you're going to people are not they'll look up but they're not going to see the materials that well at that level. I also talked to the person at Nice Lumber um who is going to uh
Niece Lumber's quote is in the is in the application um and I spoke to him today about the the windows. He said they are uh you know longterm windows. They provide good um insulation to the
building. Um they are you can't you know they're appropriate to what we're doing. Niece Lumber does a lot of window replacements for historic buildings. And so when we chose these windows, we
wanted to choose ones that were appropriate to the historic district. So that's why we went with these windows. I mean, I think that the building has gone through a number of changes
over the last 80 years >> more or more. >> So, I think given the current state of the building, I don't see a big conflict
in this decision. Well, I I I agree with the applicant and with Julie and I think that maybe we can get right to business on a on a resolution if someone wants to put forth one. I >> I'll make a motion to approve the
application as submitted. >> Second. Thank you. Roger. >> Mr. Shatskin. >> Yes. >> Miss Howard? >> Yes. >> Miss Capazolei? >> Yes. >> Miss Freriedman?
>> Yes. >> Miss Croll? >> Miss Kuzvnikova? >> Chair Sher? >> Yes. >> Resolution is passed. >> Thank you. >> Motion is passed. Thank you. >> We appreciate it. It's a fun building. It's a And if you get a chance to look
at the pictures that are here, I think what happened with the building is they actually turned it the wind the front windows I think are actually on the side of the building in the one picture and they turned the whole building. It's fascinating. Um,
and the basement is fascinating because it has all kinds of different materials in it. So, it's a it's a nice little building. All right. Thank you very much. >> Our um Yes, we're all thinking the same thing.
Our Yeah. >> Thank you very much. >> 22 Green Street. >> Hello. Got to use the slideshow. Okay. Is it working? >> Will you both be testifying or speaking?
>> Uh, he might be. He had dental work today, so I think it's unlikely, but >> Okay. Well, can you Well, can you >> phrase our haters >> both? Okay. Both. Yes, please. Um, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. >> Okay. And if you can just give your full
names for the record. >> Uh Kirsten Thaft >> and Theodore Nado. >> Great. Okay. Well, seems like I say something and the thing skips ahead. Um good evening. Uh my name is Kirsten Thaft and
I'm the architect and co-owner with my husband Ted of the house at 22 Green Street, property that we have owned for 20 years. Um, not to be repetitive, but I guess it's important to read this into the record. My 30-year practice has
focused on contextually sensitive residential work in Princeton, ranging from the restoration of a 1905 Queen Anne duplex at 50 Wigan Street, which received an award from the historical society, to high performance new homes
such as 45 London Lane, a lead platinum project, and the Valley Road Houses, which received both energy efficiency certifications and recognition for community education about sustainable buildings. Uh across these projects, my consistent
goal has been to respect the character of the neighborhoods that they're in while allowing buildings to function well for contemporary use. In January, I came before the commission for a concept review for this project, and I very much appreciate the feedback that I received
at the time. I also did meet with Sarah a couple times, um once in the field, once in the office to review various options. um because I took your comments to heart and have updated the plans for the project accordingly and so I wanted
to give you a quick slideshow to orient you and describe what I've changed. So this first image shows the Sandborn map from 1895 and also the
location of the property. Um, oh, sorry. Oh, hello. That's much louder. Okay, now I don't need to yell. Um, the exonometric uh indicates, and I can even use my
cursor here, I guess, from this point forward is the existing building. And this small L at the back is what Sarah told me it's called when it's an extension off an existing house. Um that
is the addition that we are um requesting zoning permission for. And this is an ADU which is a tiny house. It's only 251 square feet. Um, so those
those are the two additions to the property and the roof which I had originally come to you in January with as a gable facing the green street I have changed to a hipped uh roof which
is um higher than the existing hipped roof but um still less than a half story high. Um, and the purpose of that is to accommodate mechanical equipment.
In the next slide, you can see a site plan which shows in lake gray here. This is the existing house. Whoa. And the existing porch on Green Street. And then the hatch mark where it says addition is
the proposed addition. Um, which is pulled in from both sides of the house. So, and also is shorter than the existing house to reinforce its observience and the fact that it's an addition. I will say that the original
house is actually three parts um and was built sometime after 1850 and we're not sure actually when the last piece was put on, maybe around 1895. So it has grown over the years already
um in three pieces and our proposed addition would be another extension in that same spirit. Um you can see that our addition is still back from the properties on either
side their rear rear facades and it's barely visible from the street which I will show you in the next slide. So the upper image is the existing streetscape
and the lower image is the proposed streetscape. So you can see that the um increase in the height of the hipped roof is uh negligible in terms of its visibility on green street. And
the pro the proposal is to maintain the facade exactly the way it is. Same colors, same shutters, same window trim, um same door, same porch with um a few
improvements. Whoops. All right, I'm going to go back to this roof just to be clear about the height. So, I want to raise the roof by a total of 5 foot n from what's currently existing. I would keep the eaves in the
location that they're at and I would end up with 4 foot three of mechanical space in the attic. So, not a full story by any means, not even really half story. Uh just enough space
to put an air handler and duct work in. Um, and this on Green Street is what you get if you stand across the street and at an angle, which is, I think, as much roof
as you would be able to see. Um, I think that maintaining it as a hip, um, keeps it consistent with its current look. It stays the shortest house on the street. Um and it can it maintains the eve line
that wraps all the way around the house which we currently have and maintains it at the same height. Um I have taken the front roof and pitched it even further back than the sides. Um so that I'm keeping the
mechanical equipment in the back of the house and that way I'm I'm getting as little roof visibility as possible from Green Street. in the rear. The this portion here, this
gable is the proposed addition. And again, it's slightly lower than the rest of the house. Um, pulls in on both sides. The window fenestration is a little bit different. And I have a little bit more window back there. Um,
which I thought was appropriate for distinguishing it from the mass of the existing house and what we'll call the original house. Original as of today. Um, this is the ADU. This next door, which unfortunately I
didn't get quite as big a picture of as I wanted, is the singlecar garage. that is uh our next door neighbors and the ADU that I'm proposing is a little bit larger than a single car garage or it's
a little bit larger than their single car garage I should say but it's 25 one square feet which is about the size of a single car garage so um I believe that it's consistent to have that in the
backyard it it um follows development pattern in the rest of the neighborhood. Uh we would have it. The next door neighbor has one. The neighbor to the right of that has one. And then two over on the left in this photograph also has a
garage which is actually a double a twocar garage. The these are the floor plans which I put in just so that you can see the extent of the addition that's being requested. It is, I believe it's 13, I'm sorry, I don't have this number off the
top of my head. It's about 13 1/2 ft by 14 1/2 ft, I believe. Um, and we're doing it so that we can get a bedroom downstairs and uh a bathroom and a closet upstairs, an additional bathroom and a closet upstairs.
This is the ADU floor plan. Oops. And I uh had a conversation with Sarah about, you know, whether there was a concern about the appearance of it from Paul Roberson and whether it was
garageelike enough. Um, and so I propose that we could flip it so that its entryway is facing the house as opposed to Paul Robersonson and that the commission might be more inclined to be
happy with that. Um, I I'm not for from my point of view, the plan is better when it's the lefthand side one, but I'm certainly willing to flip it if that feels more in context for you. Um, an ADU is something we're
allowed to do. Um, but I understand that you might want it to look more like a uh a secondary building. This is showing the roof plan. Um, you can see that the the pitch at the front of the house, which is on the right hand
side there, is significantly pulls the peak way back so that I don't think that you're going to see much of the roof from Green Street. Um, I am proposing solar panels. The roof color is shown accurately on the right there.
It's a timberline um shingle in charcoal and the solar panels are black and so the plan is has a grayer roof so that you can see where the panels are but in reality they're going to be a very similar color to the roof shingles and I
think it would be very difficult to see them from uh any public right ofway um particularly green street and for gutters the The house doesn't currently have any gutters. Um, no Yankee gutters, no
nothing. And I would like to put gutters on it. So I am proposing a half round metal gutter sighting. Um, so I everybody told me about their feelings about Hardy Plank last time, which I agree with. Um, and
so I did a lot of research into alternate materials which Sarah is passing around and found a uh a composite siding which is made out of fly ash and it is exactly the same
profile as um new wood siding and the existing wood siding. same exposure, same thickness, same bevel, and it would be indistinguishable from a new wood siding
um if we were to use it. And my request is that we be allowed to use that as replacement siding for the two side elevations. Sorry. um which you can see from this photograph and these other photographs
and also mentioned in Sarah's report um the sighting is quite degraded on uh both sides and the rear. It's in good shape on the front thankfully and so our proposal is we we keep it on the front,
we patch it if needed. Um, but other than that, we we are going to keep the facade exactly as you see it with the exception of improvements to the porch. Um, it's got a a mismatched column,
which I have a replacement for. The railing is broken. The steps are concrete uh pre-cast sinking into the ground. And so I'm proposing that we put in new wood porch
steps which are historically accurate, that we replace the column, uh that we've repair the railings, and keep the siding, keep the shutters, replace the window sashes, um if possible, if assuming the frame is
okay. And if the frame isn't okay, then to we would be using Marvin. Um, I don't know why I don't have a photograph of it. I apologize. Uh, Marvin, uh, elevate windows. Um, which
is what I would be using in the remainder of the house as well. Uh, let's see. The siding front door will remain the same. And there are two brackets on this house that I do not think were it's
unclear when they were put on there, but they look 1920sish to me and to Sarah, I believe. And I would like uh I would like matching brackets on all the posts. And so I'm proposing to do a custom bracket that is
based on a um Robert's illustrated milwork design um which is in the milwork catalog that um Sarah has a copy of as do I. Um and I think
I think that's it. I'm happy to answer any questions. I don't know if I covered everything. No, it's late. Can I just did the materials that are being showed right now are they they're not they they haven't been provided as part of the application have they >> the materials
>> that you're presenting right now are they >> the ones that you have now yeah they were >> okay >> these were in the agenda packets >> okay just making sure I >> organized a little differently but it it's >> Yep. >> Yep. Thank you very much.
>> Uh I will. >> So big difference from the concept review. I mean the the roof height is a lot lower than what you had originally proposed. So Wow. So >> well >> um >> took you seriously.
>> It looks it looks a lot like it does now. I mean, >> that's the plan. >> It really does. I was kind of surprised. Good. >> So, um, >> you worked hard on it, so thanks. >> You You really listened cuz Yeah, it it's quite a bit lower. So, anyway, I
was really impressed with all of this the work you've done, especially the wood product that you found >> is really interesting. It's It's I'm Yeah, it's really expensive, but I think it's really worth I think it's worth it
because it really it gives you the same shadow lines as a wood siding, but it's rot resistant. It will hold paint for 15 years apparently. Um so it's a product I'm excited to use actually.
>> Yeah. It has a very different feel than Hardy Plank. >> Yes. >> Very different. Yeah. >> So um Yeah. Anyway, so thank you for listening to us and I I think I don't have a problem with the ADU the way it is shown on the plans, but I don't know,
maybe other people have an issue. I mean, there it still is the smallest house between the other ones, so you've kind of stuck with that. Um, and that's not usually the case with these
applications. So anyway, thank you for for all that work. >> Yeah, I I >> Yeah, I I second Julie's praise. It's a It shows that you did a lot of work. >> Great. Thanks.
>> Um is there are there any plans for landscaping behind the ADU? >> Um I did show I mean basically our neighbors put in a a row of arbor viday. Um, by behind you mean at Paul Robas?
Yeah, sure. >> Yeah, our neighbors put in a row of arborvite and I mean I I can do that. I mean I I'm not sure how much we want how much the purpose is
hide and disguise or or not. Arbor Viday I think are pretty bland. >> Yeah, I'm not a fan. But they are evergreen and you know they they grow taller than a six-foot fence and so >> I'm happy to take you know whatever
thoughts you have on it. I haven't thought a lot about the landscaping to be honest. >> Okay. >> Yet but that is what I'm showing. >> So I just have a question on what we're looking at now. Is that your original
um view from Paul Robson or is that the flip? >> That's the That's not flipped. Right. So, you can see that there's >> Looks fine. >> There's two windows here. >> Mhm. >> Uh which are a little bit which are bigger.
>> And there's no I mean I don't have a problem with the way it looks from Paul Rubes if if that's your original >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I think that would be nicer. that lets the sun into the little place that you sit in the ADU. So, >> yeah, it kind of it pick it picks up the
fenistration from the back a little bit. >> Yeah, >> I did bring one other sample that I didn't tell Sarah about because it just showed up on Friday and maybe I I I was it's window trim. Um, it is Marvin's
window trim that goes with the windows. It is meant to be historically accurate. It is the same size as what I showed in the drawings out made out of boral. Um, but I talked to my contractor about it
and he said that he thought that it would produce a sharper line which would be better looking than the boral would. Um, so I brought it because it's because but I
understand that it hasn't been read into the record or whatever the whatever the terminology is. So, um, yeah, I I can stick with the boral if necessary if you don't want to consider this or I'm happy to pull it out and you can think about
it or we could talk about it later. I don't know how how to go about that. Well, let's take we can enter it as an exhibit. >> You brought it all the way here. >> And I guess we can mark it A1
as our chair has reminded me. Yeah, that's the >> That's a good question. I think it's the side. Yeah. >> I know it's >> got sprung on me. I don't want to see it. >> Oh my goodness.
>> Yeah. Sorry about that. >> Uh can can I ask a question? Yeah. I have a Can I ask Can I ask a question? So actually if we go back to the um view site from Paul Robinson, there was a question from the public last time um
about the solar panels and if you could indicate to us where the solar panels will be in this picture. um here along on this back roof here and then here on the rear of the main house roof.
>> So not on the ADU. >> No, that's it. Thank you. >> Um I I have some questions. First, I I think changing the roof line is fantastic. I think that really I you know seems to accommodate the HBAC and and also not be
a major change. Um but I am concerned about the nonreplacement in kind of the wood paneling wood siding. um in particular on the west side >> um because as you showed on the the plot
plan of the street um >> the house to the west is pulled very far back from the street so that when you >> drive down Green Street um you see actually more of the side of the house
>> than you do than you the side facade than you do the front facade. So it it's very much a contributing feature of of the house in my opinion. Um. >> Right. >> So I'm wondering why what what is the rationale for not replacing it in kind?
>> Um well basically given that they're exactly the same appearance. My rationale is maintain maintainability and the ability to hold paint. Um to not have to be repainted. it won't rot. Um,
so the material is just far superior. In fact, I've got a >> Well, the the wood has been on there for more than a hundred years. Um, so it's it's pretty durable. >> Well, okay. So, agreed that that wood is durable. So, if you look at what I've
got here, you can see what wood from 1918 looks like. It's old growth wood. It's got very tight rings. >> Yeah. No, I I I've seen that illustration elsewhere. Um, >> so >> but I I do think that there's I I I do
think that there's reliable wood siding. I I don't think that it's um I Yeah, it's >> okay. Um I' I've used wood siding before. I I I I almost brought I I I should have brought the piece of wood siding because you can
feel you can feel that it looks like the 2018 new growth sort of feels like balsa wood essentially even though it's cedar. Um, so yeah, I mean that that's my reasoning is
is to not use the wood in favor of a material that will last much longer and looks exactly the same. >> Has this material been tested for over a long period of time? It's boral has been
on the market. It so the sighting which is called duration is made out of the same material as boral and it's been on the market for quite some time and yes it has been tested. It's it's like the top choice of
contractors and architects. >> Can you can you define quite some time? >> Uh I could have my husband look it up. I I don't I don't know that off the top of my head. >> Okay. Yeah, because I guess well Julie said she wasn't familiar with it and hadn't seen it before. So
>> Oh, the Well, the product that they were talking about the for siding, >> right, >> has not been available. Boral's been out there for a long time, but not that >> that not that profile >> profile. Exactly.
>> Yeah. But I would say that I have seen a huge difference in the quality of wood over the last 15 years. If you look at framing from like the 19 even up to the
1980s, you'll find that it's far denser and solid and reliable. And as you get into the 2000s and now 2020, it's super fast grown and it's porous. I mean, the wood
is literally like balsa wood. It's light and it's not it's not structurally the same as like our house's frame from the 1950s and we have a newer edition and
the difference in the wood is tremendous. That old growth wood is a completely different product than what they're selling right now as wood. It's >> Yeah, I know. I completely agree. My research department has found that uh
Boral was founded in Europe in 1946. So it has been around for 80 years. >> It's made out of fly ash and resin. And you've got a sample of both the trim
up there and the siding profile. >> Yeah. Well, boral. Boral is the alternative, which is what I was requesting to use. Yeah, >> that's what my contractor believes. I mean, and he's used both. So he he
thinks that that's a better more historic and crisper look than than the boral. Yeah, it definitely feels different. Yeah. I mean, I guess I would argue I hope no one's tapping on my house, but
they could, I suppose. I I I think I was going to say that I think that the criteria is how it looks. Um, but >> I think that >> it looks like plastic.
for exterior use. No, you can't. It's really I mean you could you could use e pay I suppose there there's no um there's no wood exterior products that
are not um expensive tropical woods that can withstand Yeah. I mean it it's just wood is not what it used to be here.
But just to clarify, the fiberglass was a different option than the boral included. Yes. I would, you know, >> if the boral is >> different feel, >> correct? Yes. If the boral is okay and
that's not, that's fine. Yeah. >> Um, can I go back to the solar panels? And this is really not the question uh for the applicants but this is really question for the commission members because um again the member of the public last time she brought up sort of
you know the um sort of the differences and sort of um I guess she maybe has come across uh the solar panels issue in the Witherspoon um Jackson district. So to the you know I just wanted to make sure that the members of the commission
are okay with how the solar panels are placed uh in this particular case and that it is consistent with any previous cases. Um I guess that's what I'm trying to say. Um >> I was going to bring up a similar question. So that's good good that's
come back up again. So, uh, Sarah, in your evaluation and looking at this and sight lines and where you could stand, it seems to me that they are pretty far like back midblock kind of positioned
so that you don't really see them up front and that I'm pleased to see that they're not on the ADU, which would have been an obvious thing to do, but it would have been right in your face. >> So, I I I appreciate that difference. And are they um did you say that they
are black and the roof is like the dark gray timber line? >> Yep. >> Okay. Well, they should kind of disappear, I think. And that they're pretty far back. They're not up front. >> Person, can you put up that slide? >> Sorry. Can you put up Can you put up the slide showing Yeah.
>> the solar panels? >> Yeah. >> They're pushed to the back. Also, the roof profile changed since we saw it the first time. >> Yeah, >> it's much flatter. >> Yes. >> Yeah.
>> So, you have five solar panels on there. >> Sorry, >> am I reading it correctly that you have five solar panels or >> uh there are I think there's a total of >> uh 14 >> but in five
in groups five groups, right? Okay. >> Yep. Yeah, >> I'm sorry it keeps doing that on its own. >> Emily, >> um I I'm just I actually have a question for the for the um HPC because I haven't
been on it for that long, but I I certainly believe that the HPC has approved a lot of um applications uh for uh replacement of wood siding and replacement of wood trim on buildings within recent years. Um I I'm sure some of the ones that have come before from
the university um have been um and so I I you know I just I just want to make that point that in fact certain people s have seem to have been able to do a very good job of replacing wood siding and wood trim noted.
So to to my knowledge this is the first time of the and I don't know what to call it. Let's call it the the fiberglass uh replacing the boral or in place of for the window surround. >> Oh yeah.
>> Do we Sarah, do we have any others in our file? Do you I mean that's kind of an unfair question for you. >> Yeah, I don't know. It's not a product I'm familiar with. Uh boral we've seen Yeah. >> pretty often. Um but the the Marvin
fiberglass is not something I'm familiar with. So, I'm personally I'm not a big fan of of boral either. They use it on on my house some and it sticks out at me. So, um you know, a new material being
put forward is is um is exciting or interesting unless it turns out to be. So, what I was going to say, and it's really not relevant, but it's my only experience, is that the fiberglass that's used on a lot of
boats, now remember, I'm a wooden boat guy, so my comments are uh are jaded to begin with, but that sometimes the fiberglass in sun, of course, on the water is very different than on a treeline street. It begins to look really strange after time. you know,
it's like oof, you know, looks faded and cracked and whatever. So, we don't really know how this is going to play out. Um, >> I I have >> but your work on on profile and shape and heft
are all kind of consistent with what the Secretary of Interior standards asked us to do. So, I don't really know how to answer this any more than that. >> I said heft. You know, it has a little >> It is lighter weight. You're right. And
it um >> or will pieces get broken out of it when the lawn mower sends a >> Well, I hope hope not. I mean, um, I I do have these these windows, not this trim, on my own house, which is now 14
years old, and it hasn't had any fading or color change. Um, and they do Marvin, which is a very reputable company, does say that it won't. Um, mine are dark bronze, and those I would expect to fade. These are stone white, so I I
wouldn't expect any um color change. Mhm. >> Um, so that's not a concern. I haven't used these before, so I can't, you know, I'm relying on my contractor who I have worked with for 30 years. Um, and his
assessment. Um, but I can't change the fact that if you tap on it, it will not be a solid material. So if that's >> So I guess the the question that's out there is is could these
>> could the window surround or whatever the proper term is you know could that be be wood but we're saying that the wood is not not that nice. >> I would strongly prefer using boral because I the wood just rots.
>> Oh I meant the um that material. Oh, >> the white. What are we calling that? >> Uh, fiberglass, I guess. >> Fiberglass. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> If if I could broaden the context for a second, >> you should say, >> right? Right. I mean, if if this is a big sticking point, I'll just use the
boral, >> you know, that's >> Yeah. >> Can I can I just uh jump in real quick, please? Roger. >> Sorry, I apologize. I just wanted to remind um the members of the commission um as well as Sarah that we had a case fairly recently. It was one of the last
cases that Elrich Endersby uh was here for where we actually the committee the commission recommended that an applicant who came in and she wanted to replace the wood siding. Um so we actually recommended that she do not do that and
uh we said we said that repairing would be better. So, we had that fairly recently in the fall. >> And that's on the siding component versus the uh fiberglass. >> Well, I would comment that what she was
proposing was an extruded vinyl product that did not have a true reveal. It was basically sheets of extruded
plastic. >> This was the the four square house, correct? And >> to that point, the siding is a character-defining feature of the four square style. Mhm. >> I mean, we can argue the the retention
of historic material and keeping the historic material intact or replacing it in kind here, but outside of the reveal and size of the sighting, this is a much more vernacular structure. Um, and as I I cited in my report, there is precedent
in the secretary and interior standards of a secondary feature or secondary elevation if it's not character defining to use substitute materials, especially in cases of wood because wood is not the same quality it was 100 years ago. And
um regards to the the west elevation is the more visible of the two side elevations, but based on my site visit, that was the one that had the the sighting was showed much more damage, which probably because it is more visible, so it's more exposed.
Yeah, if I can jump in again, I just want to change the the paradigm in that Witherspoon Jackson is it's not an architecturally pure district. We're talking about essentially a cultural district >> and I think that's the basis on which it
became a historic district. It's very heterogeneous. Uh there's vinyl sighting, there's aluminum siding, asbestous sighting, you name it. Um, and so to me,
if it looks like wood, I'm I'm fine with it. I mean, if it maintains the same appearance, I think it it's fine in in this district. Perhaps this is where design guidelines would be of great comfort to
us, but we don't have them yet. But one minor note I would I would say is that uh 22 green is a specific somewhat unique somewhat historical retained contributing member of in terms
of the sort of architecture and history of this area in addition to the cultural things. And we are making every possible attempt to maintain its look in the historical way that it currently appears
so that most people most of the time will still see it as this contributing member. the fact that the wall passing by the house um the large western, you know, face that you could see between
the houses, you're still most of the time going to be seeing the front of the house when you walk by the house. You may notice it, you know, rarely, but it's also we're not trying to unmatch the side of the house from the front of
the house. We want it to look similar. We have super high standards ourselves for, you know, how the house should look. Um but we are here to um adhere to the you know HPC guidelines regarding
you know sensitive repair um you know replace change you know all of that aesthetics which I can't speak to as well as Kirsten can but you know I know that you know we're we are sensitive to that and that's why we you know modified
the plans for the roof um just to keep it the way that it is or more the way that it is even though you could argue a lot of different ways about that. Um and so the the siding issue is really this has to do with the maintainability
um while still adhering to the look of the historic house. So, we want this house to also last for another hundred years, 200 years, you know, and that's why we're doing the things that we're doing to um repair and keep it in a
historical way, but also enable it to be updated for the change that we want. So, um, if there aren't other comments, um, I'm going to share what I was thinking and and that is that
where we are now, the changes to the building are much less impactful. Is that a word? >> We'll use that. Um, that we have not changed the structure so that the shape of the building is greatly changed. I
mean, I think that is something that all of us reacted to last time and I think also the public comment was about that that, you know, it was making the building much bigger, much grander, it was overwhelming, blah blah blah, whatever words they used. um that
trying to work around the basic minimum for the mechanical systems and that somebody has to go up there and change that filter in 4T 3 in >> not me um I I think is is very significant keeping the all the window
sizes and things we haven't talked about changing that so the character of the building really does read as authentically as it as it has the question is about the sheathing um
and there have been a lot of materials as as Roger points out a lot of different tribes materials tried in that neighborhood probably all over town but the density of that neighborhood you see more variety everywhere um
that it in one way does keep with the secretary's standards in that it's shape and reveal and intention is to be as close to original but
replacing materials where needed is um I I think in keeping with what's supposed to be and I think consistent with our ordinance. I do get nervous about introducing new materials. I mean who who doesn't? Um, I
do take that you're not only homeowners here, but your your profession is kind of on the line. What, you know, what what are they doing and everyone's going to see your your product and you're willing to step out there and try these things is more than my just putting something up on my house saying, you
know, whatever. Um, but I don't want to dis dismiss the comments that have been brought up about these other materials. And so, um, I'm not really sure where to go with this except for, um, does anyone want to
try putting together a resolution that talks about these different things and what choices might be? Um, the applicant hasn't really said, "Oh, I will try anything and change anything for you." But we could make a suggestion back in the form of a a resolution and see if
it's something everybody can live with. Um, and David, >> can I just read a few highlight a few things from my report? >> Yes, please. I'm sorry I forgot this. >> Okay, I'm again I'm not gonna read it in full because it's a small research paper. Um, but I wanted to highlight a
few things. Uh, one in regards to the solar panels with how they are set back. I think they will largely not be visible from Green Street. So they will not be visible from inside the district. There
may be some visibility I think on the rear L edition from Robus in place. Um but that's it's the addition the ADU all of that is going to be visible from Robus and place and that's in part the district southern boundary.
So that is up to the commission to determine the impact of that on that specific viewshed. Uh, and in regards to the sighting, I wanted to highlight the one comment and recommendation I had that was specifically pulled from the
criteria for a PR. What is what's the citation? Too many pages. Uh, additional criteria applicable to historic structures. uh under the criteria for preservation plan
approvals. Um we do have part of the ordinance that specifically references roofing and siding materials that uh a substitute material that matches the same shape, size of the original sighting
may be used. Uh, and I have the legal citation that I won't read out, but that's that is there is allowance for that in the ordinance criteria. >> Uh, whether the installation of duration fly ash sighting on the side elevation
meets the conditions of a substitute material that matches the same size and shape of the original sighting. And it's I don't know if you need the actual legal citation, but I have that as well. Um I don't think so. I think those were
kind of the this is a recommendation to the zoning board of adjustment. uh we are not the that we are not the board of jurisdiction and the rest are more the standard conditions that apply to new structures and additions. Those were
just ones I wanted to largely highlight um as seemed related to concerns the HPC had and I just hope you otherwise enjoyed my mini research paper. I'm hope you otherwise enjoyed my mini
research paper in the form of a staff report. Anybody want to make any further comments? Is a I don't think there are any members of the public anymore. I think these are for the next application. Uh, I'd just like to um make sure that
our memo points out that the applicant was very was diligent about coming in for a concept review. I think that's important because we have a number of applicants that don't take that extra step and that not only did they come in,
but they also revised their application plan considerably after feedback from both the HPC and the neighbors. and that um and that we saw a a really a revised
plan that that fits very nicely into the neighborhood. Anybody else? Well, you can tell we're torn. Um, >> but Kirsten, I think you said you would use something else. Would you use the
boral instead of this if this is the only sticking point? >> Yeah. So, >> but I mean what uh Sarah read out from what she read out it seems like the the new material
is a good substitute for the old material. >> That that was only in regards to the wood sighting, not the trim. >> Wood sighting, not the trim. Okay. Is and there's nothing regarding trim. >> No, because I surprised her and all of you. >> Yeah. I I >> Right. True. In my report, I only
referenced the because the trim as currently proposed is only for the new windows on the sides. >> It's for the sides. Yeah, the windows on the sides. >> Which I I briefly referenced in my report that the the boral trim is for a new fenestration
pattern. Um, and is the purpose is to match the profile of the windows on the front of the house. >> So, it will it will stay in the same design. Yep. >> And it's not as I kind I referenced in another part the the sort of the more character
defining features and what gives this house integrity is the form and the shape and the features of the facade which are remaining intact. >> Yeah. >> And then side elevary elevations are proposed to be
to emulate those match those >> so they won't stick out. Yeah. which is usually the per the secretary interior standards, they are designed to harmonize with the rest of the building and the exist existing features. So if that's the only sticking point and
she's willing to use boral, then I I mean we could move forward, right? >> Yeah, >> I think so. >> Would I make that into a motion, please? >> Yes. Um, I don't know how to rephrase it, but I uh I move to uh approve
the revised drawings um with the use of the boral material as um as the framing for the new windows. Um I think that's it, right? >> Yeah. >> So, just to clarify, the burrow is in the drawings currently.
>> Okay. >> These were just brought to the meeting. So, that is as >> proposed. So, we approve as is without the new. >> Let me just get another pen. >> As applied. Yeah. Right. As an application. >> Not this. No.
>> Yeah. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Julie. Okay. Uh, Mr. Shatskin. >> Yes. Miss Howard, >> yes. >> Miss Capazolei, >> yes.
>> Miss Freriedman, >> is a yes. >> Miss Kroll, >> Miss Kosvnikova, >> yes. >> Chair Sher, >> yes. >> All right. Vote to approve recommendation to the zoning board of
adjustment. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Time to go to bed. >> Thank you for waiting. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Really? Thanks. Push my ear.
You guys all set? >> We're just about set. Okay. >> Okay. So, I can swear you all in at the same time if you're all going to be potentially testifying. Okay. Um, raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. I do.
>> Okay. All right. Time. >> Good evening. I'm Kevin Wils and I'm here as the owner's representative for the Doratha House which has been providing social services and social support network in Princeton for the
past 115 or so years. Uh their mission has been consistent and the building was built in 1913 and now is in need of repair. So, we're coming before you tonight to ask permission to
do an exterior restoration to the outside skin, walls, windows, some windows, and roof of the building. Uh, my name is Kevin Wils. This is Ted Trelli. He's the executive director of the Dorothia House. And this is our architect. >> Just to advise, please speak into your
microphone. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. Why don't I sit down? >> Thank you very much. And this is Julie Krun, our architect who works at Clark Kaitton Hints, and she's going to describe to you what we propose to do.
>> Good evening everyone. >> Uh so the location of Dorothia's house, you may be familiar. It's in the um Witherspoon Jackson Historic District. It's right on the corner of uh Paul Robersonson Place and uh John Street, the you know the funky
intersection. Uh brief history, it was constructed in 1913, as Kevin mentioned uh as a community center for the Italian immigrant community of Princeton um in honor of Dorothia Van Dyke Mlane uh in the Mediterranean Revival style u by the
well-known firm of Delano and Aldrich. Um in 1931, there was a small addition put onto the south uh by famous local architect Ralph Bone. Um the only other major changes to the exterior since then um were the porches on the backside were
enclosed in the 30s and the 50s. Uh but it still retains a high degree of the historic fabric most of the original features. Project overview um we're doing a exterior renovation only in this phase.
uh includes repair of existing stairs. Um replacement of one non-historic stair. Uh repair to the existing clay tile roofing. Uh replacement of flashing in kind. Uh restoration of wood windows at the
basement level. U several of the exterior doors and a minor amount of wood trim repair. And then uh repainting exterior woodwork. Uh for the stucco uh we have some patching and crack repair
and then uh repainting with the mineral silicate paint that currently exists on the stucco. Uh repair and repointing of the brick and stone foundation. Um and then there's some site work including uh replacement of the asphalt
parking lot in the back uh for drainage um and other landscaping I'll go through briefly. U so the basement plan um it's really just um some minor repairs at the entrances
um resetting pavers um along the parking lot side we will be installing new window wells that match the existing on the north side um and that's because water is currently um draining against this side of the building and causing a lot of damage to
those windows. So, we are with the window wells, restoring those windows and um adding a sidewalk to grade the asphalt parking away from the building. Um at the first floor, the main work to
the plan is the front stair uh where there'll be new treads and railing. I'll show that in more detail in a couple slides. and replacing the non-historic stair at the south entrance. Uh roof plan. Uh we're trying to retain
as many of the existing clay tiles as we can. Um and just uh repairing where necessary. Uh this time it's estimated about 10% of tiles. Um, and then for the elevations, uh, most of this work I've discussed already, but repointing select areas of
the stone foundation. Um, it's not a 100% repoint. Um, and there's some minor areas of the water table stone that needs to be replaced as well. Um, and then for the stucco, as I mentioned, um, most of the repairs are
on that south edition, especially along the bottom, um, where the icing of the sidewalk there has has caused the the stucco to need repair. Uh, there's a few images of some of the work. U treads are cracked. We're going to
replace those in kind with new blue stone. This example of one of the window wells. Um the the sill is below so it's right at grade. It's we're going to need to restore those basement windows. Uh but we're not replacing any of them. It's
just um minor repairs. Um replacing a couple small pieces, mostly scrape and paint and um a little bit of u adjustment for hardware and things to make them operable. Uh new weather stripping. And uh just an example of what one of
the roofs looks like. Uh the front door uh will be repainted. Um new hardware. So there'll be um egress hardware for um ADA on on these doors. Uh just an example of one of the downspouts. Um we actually don't need to
replace any of the downspouts, but just reconnecting and reattaching them to the building with new brackets. Um, there is at the front elevation one opening that used to have a window grill until very recently. It has disappeared
and we are going to be um recreating that. Um, we have enough photo evidence from recently to to make a new iron grill there. U, so one of the main features that needs repair is this front grand staircase. Um, as you could see in the
historic photo, it was a little different originally. you could see the treads. Um, and since then it's been built up with concrete pging. Um, we're going to propose to remove that pging. Um, bring it back to the original
condition. Um, it does need new blue stone treads. U, a lot of those are greatly deteriorated. And then the railing, um, as well as being rusted out and broken in some places um, is also not, you know, currently code compliant.
So, what we're proposing um is a new railing that would be at um current guardrail height for code um but with the same um design and profiles just at a higher height. Um and then at the south entry u there's
this uh later addition of a wood stair that's rotted out. Uh we're proposing to replace that with a masonry stair. Uh the original one was brick, so we'd like to put a brick at the front facing of it. U and then for the railing, we're
proposing it would match the railing of the front stair. And we we would keep the existing configuration to the side um because of the way that the landscaping and planters have been built out since then. Um and then some select lighting
replacement at the exterior um for safety and upgrading a few of these old worn out fixtures um with a new small spotlights in the existing locations. Um site work I mentioned the main thing is uh rebuilding this asphalt parking
lot in the rear. Uh restriping we'll be adding ad an ADA spot which doesn't currently exist. Um, and that's there's a new ADA path to the main entrance that they use off the parking lot resetting these brick pavers and repointing so
that there's a wheelchair accessible entry into the building. Um, and then a few other minor site items. Um, adding the stop sign and stop curb here for um, safety at that intersection there. Um, installing brick
pavers and a new shade tree where the U formally was here. Um and then just addressing uh you just had the comments about supplying the historic treatment program. We will do that once we have the contractor on board. Um contractor will submit that um as well as railing shop drawings. We can
forward to keep you in the loop. >> Thank you. Any questions? Yeah. No, I this is um uh it's wonderful to see. I mean, Dorotha's house is just a fantastic institution in town and um I've taken many Italian classes there.
So, but the your your restoration is um I I feel like you've covered everything and just really are restoring it appropriately and beautifully, elegantly. So, others may have
questions, but um I I really I don't. Um, I'll just um agree with with Charlotte and and just uh commend you for for for going above and beyond what was what is is needed in terms of the restoration of the steps at the front.
Um, so it it all looks great to me. >> It's a beautiful building. Um, so my only little comment is on the lighting. That's the only thing that jumped out at me sort of like, you know, looking at the lights that you're proposing. Um, is replacement. Um, I don't know whether
there are sort of maybe nicer alternatives, I guess I'm trying to say, that would kind of like go a little bit better with the building, but that's just kind of my personal opinion. But otherwise, I think it's looks beautiful. >> Yeah, we're not replacing any of the historic fixtures there. just the later
ones and trying to get enough spread across the parking lot without putting multiple fixtures as well. So, >> right. Right. Um >> it's a larger flood light. >> I just I feel like you know like lately with the lighting it's been a complete nightmare where you know people installed this white lights and we just like were flood everywhere with that
white light which is not great. And I also know that we um approved sort of like that castle uh pole at that corner also. So I just wonder how thing these things are going to you know take away
>> from the ground pole on that corner on 120. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um >> so all of that sort of adds up >> that will be on an existing traffic pole there. Yeah. Which then I don't know if they got a chance to talk to you guys today but they >> Yes.
>> Yeah. to coordinate. Um, so that won't add any additional lighting. And then the the what the wattage of the lighting is something we could discuss. Um, if that's if that's a concern, we
>> we actually think the new fixtures will provide much less glare in the environment than the existing fixtures, which have no appropriate shielding other than the staining of 40 years of sitting up there. Uh, so really, we're going to actually place the light down
on the ground surface where I think it belongs instead of just blasting all over the neighborhood. those old things, we poratively call them glare bombs. Uh, and what we're really looking for is kind of more like a little theatrical light that actually
throws light right down on the surface where people will walk. They didn't have any oldfashioned fixtures that did that. Sadly, >> um my question is were you replacing brick?
You you you will be replacing some brick, right? >> No. Um we're just using the new brick for the for the south stair. Did I pass? >> There you go. >> Yeah, new brick at the south stair and for the window wells. Okay. Um and then
resetting some existing pavers at one entry. >> Okay. >> Everywhere else is um stone foundation. >> Yeah. We're not um doing anything to the window surrounds that you see in this picture. >> And the brick you're using is that kind
of terracotta color to match the >> uh Yeah. it'll be um chosen during construction with the contractor, but we'd like to match the existing that's on the building. So, I can go into my comments a little
bit again on this. Um this is kind of a unique project that we don't have a lot of the specific materials because it is in process and will be done over time. Uh but it is being done per the requirements of a New Jersey historic trust grant. So, they have to adhere to
the secretary of the year standards. So I I will be reviewing it, the historic trust will be reviewing it. Um and I did I included two specific conditions to include with our recommendation for the approval of the administrative waiver.
Uh that the applicant include me in pre-construction conferences and mockup meetings between the applicant, the architect and the historic trust. So if there is anything of concern I can highlight it then and before the issuance uh because part of the the
trust grant is that they draft um they include the trust and the architect with shop drawings mockups on site of like mortar samples etc. Uh and that they draft a historic what was it historic treatment plan for the property property. Yes. Um and that the other
condition is before as soon as our compliance review before they get their final certificate of occupancy that the applicant is to submit the historic treatment plan any specs shop drawings uh for the proposed iron work and any other material sample specifications
that we don't have now and would not otherwise meet a ordinary repair or replacement in kind condition uh to my office for review with the chair and I to determine if they need a a higher level of review or what level of review is required based on the impact it would
have to the district and to the resource >> and we stipulate that we agree to that. >> Okay. I that sounds great. >> Sounds wonderful. >> That sounds great. So it's great to know that >> we're in good hands. Okay. Thank you.
>> No, it looks like a great project. Uh, it's an iconic building in town and it's going to get better except for the idiosyncratic Roman numeral which drives me nuts. But I guess that's part of the charm of the building as well.
>> I don't really have much to say at all except it's one of those buildings that you always notice. I I always thought it was very elegant in its simplicity and those flourishes of the the brick around which that's that's pretty high style for the time period and for a small town
like Princeton. I mean Delano and Aldrich coming out here that's I mean a couple big houses out here but that's pretty pretty fancy stuff. So I'm glad to hear that you guys are taking such a nice and sensitive and appreciative kind of approach to the whole building and
congratulations on the funding and um I I don't have anything else. So, is this a letter or is this a resolution? What do we >> It's It's Yeah, it's the the memo, the recommendation. >> Yes. >> So, our memo would say that we're just in support of it that we And do we need
a roll call vote on that or >> with with the conditions I outlined? Yeah. That we're >> Yeah. Yep. Yep. >> Okay. >> That's right. Those conditions, right? >> Yep. Okay. >> Okay. So, >> yeah.
>> So, moved. >> I'll second. >> And second from Julie. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Uh, Mr. Shotskin. >> Yes. >> Miss Howard? >> Yes. >> Miss Capazolei? >> Yes. >> Miss Freriedman? >> Yes.
>> Miss Croll? >> Yes. >> Miss Kosvnikova? >> Yes. >> Chair Sher? >> Yes. Recommendation for administrative waiver is passed. >> Yeah. >> Thank you for your patience in the >> Thank you very much. We really
appreciate >> appreciate it very much. 20 minutes in. Sarah, do we have any other business we need to bring up? I no >> then. How about a a motion to um to
dismiss? >> It's motion to so moved and nobody else is paying attention. Can we have a second from somebody? >> Item 10 with my motion.
Ajour. Why is this not working? >> Thank you. All in favor say I. I >> I wrong.