Is everybody okay? We'll start. >> Okay. This is a regular monthly No, this is a special meeting of the Princeton Historic Preservation Commission being held in person on December 1st, 2025
at 5:00 p.m. in the main building room of the Princeton Municipal Building at 400 Witherspoon Street. Pursuant to section 13 of the open public meetings act, adequate notice of the time and place and agenda of this meeting has been noticed by transmitting a copy to
the Princeton packet, town topics, the times, tranonian, and by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton, who has posted this to the municipal website, www.princetonj.gov/meings, /meings and posted on the official bulletin board at the Princeton
Municipal Complex, 400 Witherspoon Street, Princeton, New Jersey. Um, Elizabeth, do you want to take the role? Yes. Miss Satderfield. >> Mr. Shatskin, >> here. >> Miss Howard.
>> Mr. Shaw, >> present. >> Miss Freriedman >> here. Miss Croll, Miss Maria, chairperson Capazolei >> here.
Thank you. Um, so the announcement is that the fire department will be coming soon to check out. >> I think so. I think the >> weird smell over there.
>> We just want to make sure gas leak. >> So, just to make sure it's not a gas leak. So, we're um going to proceed with just some housekeeping. Um we need to put together our 2026 meeting dates. Um
Elizabeth, do you want to talk about what days work? >> Sure. So, um Tara had given me her dates and then I coordinated with Lisa. Um, unfortunately there's only two dates that are available. Even though Lisa and
Tara are available the fourth Monday of the month, Lisa says that that that's always a council meeting. So that doesn't work out. So we have Wednesday um the third Wednesday of the month or the fourth Tuesday of the month. And I
think that if we did it on Wednesday, court's usually not in session. So, if you want to do it at 4 and if Tara is also available, I'm not sure what her schedule is, but you know, uh that's also an option. Otherwise, if you just want to be consistent and keep it at
5:00, >> I have a conflict on Wednesdays. >> Okay. >> At 6 p.m. >> Okay. How about the fourth Tuesday of the month? How's that work for everybody? >> That's fine for me.
>> It's good. Yeah. Is that Roger? Is that working for you? >> Oh, okay. So, the fourth Tuesday doesn't work. >> No. Um, if we could >> Those are the only two days.
>> If we did the fourth Monday, what would happen? >> Well, the council meeting starts at 7. >> Okay. So, if I can probably change. >> Oh, okay. So, you think Tuesday might
work just that one Tuesday? >> Okay. All right. So, tentatively >> the fourth >> the fourth Tuesday >> Tuesday of every month. >> Um, yeah, that >> Okay. All right. And then what I'll do
is I'll set up the agenda for 2026 and we'll review that at the regular December meeting. >> So >> which >> if Tara if So that worked for you if you Okay, good. Okay.
>> Is that at 5? >> At five. Yes. Cuz court's here on Monday and Tuesday. So it' start at 5. The fourth Tuesday. >> Yes. So the dates will be we're gonna get a paper on the 15th, but like
starting in January, >> it would be the 20. Yeah. The first time we'd meet is um January 27th. >> So what's good is the third Monday for January and February. Remember it was always a holiday. So this way, so it
should be all right. >> January 27th would be our first meeting for 2026. Oh, here the firemen. >> Oh, okay. Here's the firemen. All right, we're going to take a break while the firemen are checking this out.
>> Is there a server rack there? Adam server. Oh, well, I didn't know. >> I did. >> Right. You smell already and I don't smell
>> Do you have keys? I know. I was just like This is my >> No laptop, nothing. I kind of smell >> not there. Just just over here. >> Just over here. Could
you receive this before tonight? >> It's dated the 12th. absorbing study on the spot. >> I can't remember. >> There were a lot of documents on it. But why would she have printed it?
>> Yeah. Thank you, >> Julie. >> Do you think that we should just get started and if they come back, we'll stop, but we're not sure if they're coming back. >> All right. Sorry for the interruption. Hopefully, we're okay.
We'll proceed. Um, so the only item on our agenda today is um the application of RB Homes, 344 Nassau Street, new building construction with variances, a new design in the
Jugtown Historic District. um block 3201 lot 214 zone NB B AH2 uh Z25-651 29HP 2025. Um Elizabeth, do you want to start with
a summary of your report? Sure. So, um I know that there's many of the commission members that are um here and have heard the application when it was a planning board application, but I am going to go through it because um the
last meeting I saw that there were some zoning board members here and they might want to review the recording. So, um for that purpose, I'll be a little bit more thorough. Uh, so the applicant 344 Nassau LLC has filed an application for
major site plan approval with variances and for historic preservation plan review construct a freestanding residential building with parking. The property has an address of 344 Nassau Street and is further identified as block 32.01
lot 214 in the former Burough RB neighborhood business zone with an affordable housing overlay 2 zone. A design waiver and several variances, including devariances, are required. The property is a corner lot with frontage
along Nassau Street and North Harrison Street. The property falls within the local and New Jersey National Register of Historic Places, Jugtown Historic District. In addition, there's a 66- foot wide district rightway along Nassau Street, also known as State Highway 206,
uh, which was established for the New Jersey and National Register Historic Places Kings Highway historic district. Jugtown is classified as type two district on Princeton Historic Preservation District and Buffer District's overlay map. Properties with within type two are subject to
preservation plan review for any changes visible from the public right away. So this application is in the jurisdiction of the zoning board of adjustment which historic preservation commission serves as advisory to their board and pursuant to section 10B-379
section 2 HPC shall provide their recommendations to the board of jurisdiction in writing and through one or more of its members or staff who shall testify on the application explain HBC's written report.
So, uh, the history of this project, um, as we talked about, there are two, um, state and national district, the Kings Highway historic district, connects Lawrenceville with Kingston through Princeton with portions of US Route 206 and New Jersey Route 27. This historic
roadway, which runs through eight historic districts, seven which are located in Princeton, dates back to when Charles II of England ordered this railway to be laid out to connect Boston with Charleston. Now, the Jugtown Historic District is a hamlet community consisting of a cluster of historic
structures around the intersection of Nassau and Harrison Streets. The district extends along South Harrison to Palum Street and west on Nassau Street ending near Prospect Avenue and it also includes Elyn Place. The original
European settlement dates to excuse me to 1695. Jugtown originated as a small residential and commercial center that developed because of its location at the juncture of two major roads. The principal highway from New Brunswick to
Trenton and a road to the mills at Map Mapleton and then from there to Cranberry and Allentown. By the early 18th century, Jugtown had become a small thriving village of stores, houses, hotel, a tavern, and pottery works from
which the neighborhood likely acquired its name. Modest structures were originally built and later incorporated with a wider variety of architectural style dwellings such as federal queen anne and colonial revival during the 19th and 20th century. Even though
Jugtown began losing its industrial elements during the second half of the 19th century, it retained its residential character and some of its village shops. From 1887 to 1897, this neighborhood was also recognized for its
for short-lived home to Elyn College for women associated with Princeton University. Uh the Jugtown historic district remains visually cohesive and distinctly different from the downtown commercial district along Nassau Street. These
streets mainly represent the residential components of the neighborhood that formed in the recent century. Houses are for the most part situated close to the street on small lots with small front yards and narrow sideyards. The Nassau Harrison Street intersection continues
to maintain a small village feel with neighborhood businesses within mostly residential style buildings. Uh and according to the state and national nomination report, three of the four buildings at the intersection are identified as key contributing properties to the Jugtown Historic
District and the fourth, which is on the southeast corner, is considered contributing. The three key contributing buildings were built before the Revolutionary War. Jugtown Historic District's period of significance is referenced as the 18th century through
circa 1918. So the building on the subject property occupies one of the pivotal corners of the Jugtown crossroads and is also known as the herer house. Joseph her built the house on the land circa 1760 which was
originally owned by his grandfather John her one of the first Quakers at Stonybrook. From his property, Joseph began running a pottery and brick business central to the Jugtown community. His business supplied bricks for Princeton University and is believed to have also supplied
bricks for the construction of Nassau Hall. Joseph her is known to have owned an enslaved person named Elizabeth. He emancipated her in 1777 after the local Quakers forbid members to own slaves,
which they determined were inconsistent with their values. A century later, it was alleged that this house served as a stop on the Underground Railroad through a tunnel under Nassau Street where escaped slaves were fighting protection and shelter. So, the building on the
property is two stories, rectangular shaped, and it's comprised of three stages of construction. The oldest section which uh will be referred to as the west wing which is on the west end of the building was built circa 1760 as a one-story house which later had a
second floor edition. A larger two-story edition which is referenced as the main house was built circa 1824 and was added to the east side of the original one-story house. It has stairs to the front door that remains the prominent entrance to the building today. The
latter al sorry, the last alteration was a two-story east and rear edition, also referenced as the east edition. Uh, this addition extends east off the main house with a recessed hyphen and a fulllength twotory rear edition including second
floor balconies. At the same time of this construction, an upper floor was added to the original one-story 1760 wing. The applicant indicated that this addition was constructed around 1985.
Uh, as far as the existing conditions today, the subject property is located on the northeast corner of Nassau Street and North Harrison Street and contains 0.255 acres with the northwest to southwest slope. Behind the building on the property is a parking lot. The historic
portion of the house is a stone basin foundation is wood frame with brick bearing walls and stucco painted brick finish. The brick is laid in the Flemish bond pattern. Gable roofs are clad with asphalt shingles and has two brick chimneys. The architectural style of the
historic section of the building is vernacular colonial and federal. The main entrance faces Nassau Street and additional doors along the front facade and doors off the rear elevation facing the parking lot are present. Slate sidewalks from the house connect to
Nassau Street sidewalk. Exterior AC units are located off the east and west ends of the building. The west wing is two bay with nine over six windows on both floors that are symmetrically positioned and align between floors. There's a door to the
right that is a grade. Small rectangular wows facing North Harrison Street are situated near the end walls of each floor. The main house is two and a half stories, three big with stairs to the entrance door. Windows are 9 over9 on the first floor and 9 over6 on the
second floor. They are also symmetrically aligned between floors and space between each other. Locals might remember that after 1981, the first four windows were installed when the large colonial revor bay window was removed and no longer served as a gourmet shop
that occupied that space. The east wing is three bay with six over six window. A ground floor door and a second floor balconies are located in the hyphen. Windows on the 1960s, excuse me, 1980s rear edition are six over six double
hung except for balcony windows which appear to be casement. All the existing double hung windows are wood. Streetfacing windows on the stohouse have louver shutters on the second floor and panel shutters on the first floor with exception of balcony windows which
have no shutters. panel shuttles shutters frame all of the 60 over6 1980s edition windows. The building currently functions as an office building with a driveway off North Harrison Street to access the parking lot. The driveway also serves the addition the adjacent
parking area for 350 352 Nassau Street which is currently used by white realators. A PA sidewalk runs along the back of the building and the parking lot. So, a little bit about the project history to um refresh everyone's memory.
This project received a concept review for an AHO2 affordable housing overlay to zone design from the Princeton Planning Board in February 2, 2023 and a concept review from HPC on
February 27th, 2003. Following these reviews, a formal planning board and story preservation plan application were submitted for major site development. Demolition of rear portions of the existing building were proposed to accommodate a four-story 45- ft tall
building addition to develop 15 units of multifamily residential housing by applying the AHO2 zoning district. HBC heard the applications at special meetings on May 13th and 14th of 2024.
Although the design was compliant under the the AHO2 zone, HBC expressed grave concern and objections to the height and massing of the addition which would negatively impact the historic building and the important collection of pre-revolutionary war buildings at this
important intersection in the Jugtown historic district. They further concluded that the addition lacked architecture relatability with historic building and the historic fabric and significant key defining features of the historic building would be destroyed as
a result of interior and exterior demolition. Strong opposition was also echoed from the public and a neighborhood advocacy group called Save Jug Town. Because of these strong oppositions, the applicant paused their March 23rd hearing with the
planning board. After about a year, the applicant with redrew his planning board application after being deemed complete for a zoning application which consisted of a new site and building design is what HBC is reviewing today. The applicant advised
this design is a collaborative effort with Save Jugtown representatives with a sympathetic approach to preserving their Horner House and addressing concerns expressed at the HPC meeting. This new application proposed constructing a freestanding building with no
demolition. It will be three stories and set back from North Harrison Street from by 5T as previously it was zero ft. The new construction will continue to be positioned behind the existing building with 5 to 10 feet of separation between the buildings. Parking will also
continue to be under the second floor of the new building to avoid interior demolition. The existing building proposes to continue office use on the upper floors to eliminate the ne necessity to redesign the interior space
for residences. To compensate for such loss of units, the applicant is requesting permission to allow housing on the ground floor of the new building. Singular uses in both the buildings are not permitted under the AHO2 zoning regulation therefore require
devariances. I just wanted to clarify what I mean by singular use. Meaning that one building cannot just be for residential use and another building can just be for office use because according to the HO 2 zone that the first floor has to be
office commercial. Chris, correct? And the and the upper floors have to be residential. Um the new residential building will provide 10 two-bedroom units, two of which will be dedicated for affordable housing. a centrallylo lobby, staircase
and bike storage and two units will be provided on the ground floor. And then there'll be four residential units on each floor on the upper levels. So if you look on page I don't know what page it is, sorry. Um maybe four or five
uh of the report um under project details, you're going to see um a little table that talks about existing and new buildings. And this was just provided to show you what's existing, what's new with this development, but then also to
compare it to what the original design is. So you can actually see the decrease in square footage. You can see the decrease in height, the decrease in in um stories, um the amount of setback from North Harrison,
um setback from the rear lot line and some information on commercial commercial use square footage and residential when I had it available and also parking. So uh with this application there are eight variances
and one one design waiver required. Um there are eight parking spaces will be provided for the residential and commercial tenants. This is a reduction from what was previously proposed. New building setbacks off North Harrison Street will be 5T. There'll be 15
bicycle storage provided. U four uncovered areas, eight covered areas and three bike stoages. Um, new air conditioning units will be installed on the roof, which is shown with a 1-ft parapit wall, which is to assist with
screening the visibility from the right of way. There'll be a new concrete sidewalk, which will replace existing sidewalk pavers and extend to the North Harrison Street sidewalk, and that sidewalk is in between the two buildings.
Um some of the details for the new building. Uh the windows will be Pella Lifestyle Series casement aluminum clad windows dual pane. Um and windows with lower panels will mimic the same casing
dimensions as the exterior facing doors. Doors are all the exterior facing residential doors will be full glazed with narrow side trim and taller header casing. Balconies will be provided only on the second floor off the north, south, and west elevations.
Some of the product material used, there'll be exterior acrylic stucco with a medium finish with matching color joints, and the stucco color is proposed to match the existing building. The parapet will have the same exterior stucco finish and color as the building.
There'll be Julia balcony railings uh which are going to be aluminum uh with a with a black powder coat finish and the color schemes on the building. And Charlotte, if you want to pass the sample, um there's a sample of the
colors. Uh the exterior stucco is again to match the existing building. The windows are going to be an iron ore and the Juliet railing will be black. Um the other site improvements such as the parking lot,
the parking, most of the parking will be covered by the second floor of the new building as discussed. There'll be seven parking spaces, four spaces 9 by 18, one handicap and two compact spaces which will be 7 1/2 by 15 ft. There'll be an
EV station. The parking lot surface will be asphalt with a concrete curb. The existing curb cut will be shifted approximately 9 ft north and continue to provide access to the adjacent property. Parking aisles will be 20 ft wide and
there'll be a no left turn sign installed when you are egressing the parking lot. As far as landscape goes and fencing, there are eight existing trees identified on the landscape plan. Five trees will be retained and three will be
removed. Um there's a dead elm at the northwest corner property. Uh a 16 each inch elm along the north property line and a 6in blue spruce located in the northeast corner of the building. Uh there's a 22in red maple and a 16inch
magnolia on the u Nassau Street front yard and a 15-inch maple and a and juniper shrubs in front front of the AC units facing North Harrison Street and two elm trees along north property line which will be retained.
And um >> yeah, >> as far as the the landscape plan goes, I mean, I'm going to continue with this, but um in your package that's on your desk, um included is Dan Droberilski Associates landscape memo in addition to
the Princeton Traffic Consultants memo. Uh the landscape plan proposes one Washington Hawthorne, 13 low shrubs which are juniper horizontalis bar harbor and 17 ornamental grasses and um
perennial ground cover. The hawthorne tree is intended to replace the dead elm on the northwest property corner. Junipers will be planted in the planters adjacent to the public sidewalk and ornamental grasses and the perenn perennial ground cover will be planted
on both sides of the walk between the two buildings. The existing stone walk along the rear property line will be removed. Um sorry the existing stone wall and there are three new fence fences in uh
proposed to be installed. There is a 6- foot high black aluminum picket fence which is proposed to be along the north of the end of the parking lot and the property line. a six- foot high solid fencing gate installed off the northeast corner of the existing building for the
trash and recycling enclosure and a short run of a 8- foot high solid privacy fence installed along the east property line to screen the trash recycling enclosure and relocated AC units from the adjacent property at lot 25.
The plans indicate there are going to be three new light fixtures. And these light fixtures are the same as was in the original design, just in different locations. But uh uh there's a Juno 5 in recess canopy down light fixtures. It's going to be 2700 Kelvin, 8ft mounted
under the canopy of the south lobby entrance. There's going to be six of the street walk square Louvered cutff ballards 7in square 3 and 1/2 ft high. They're going to either have a 100 watt or 20 uh 2700 Kelvin LED. And these are
proposed in the planters on each side of the uh driveway next to the sidewalk. Three of them along the sidewalk between the two buildings and one behind the trash enclosure and relocated AC unit. And the third is the there's going to be
two CRE lighting and these are area canopy down lights were mounted on the ceiling of the parking area. And there is an existing 5- foot wide public sidewalk adjacent to the North Harrison Street curb. The applicant proposes to relocate the sidewalk to the
east along the uh the property line and right ofway. And this will create a 3-ft wide lawn strip between the curb and the sidewalk. I believe it originally was 4 feet in the original design and now it's 5T which meets the engineering
standards. Um I'm not going to read the thing about the architectural historic sites protocol. This is a duplicate of what we talked about uh what was presented before and nothing has changed from this report and the original one. But I am going to circle back on this when it comes to the comments. This
report um this preliminary archaeological screening was prepared by Richard Grub and Associates. So again um we'll circle back to that and that was dated November 7, 2023. And I believe that there was no uh update to this.
So moving on to zoning and engineering. Um under the HO2 regulation, 344 Nassau Street is identify identified by address and lot on the required building retention list. Uh the applicant is
applying this provision. Uh, and the engineering and zoning report outlines the numerous variances necessary for the application to be approved. So, I'm just going to quickly go over this. We have the sideyard setback which uh they're proposing at 5t and is required to be
zero or 10 according to the overlay. Uh, the rear yard setback is required at 15 and they're proposing 10 ft. Parking spaces uh they required 19.1 and they're providing nine spaces. Percent compact
the maximum allowable is 15% and they're providing 25%. Parking setback minimum 4 feet and they are providing one foot setback. Distance between buildings on same lot is 10 feet and theirs varies I believe from 5 to 10
but 10 obviously is the minimum. So that's what the engineering zoning report identifies. Uh the Dvariances um again this is because uh the ground floor and the above floor uses is going
to be singular in use for each building. So they're not going to have the commercial office on the first floor res with the residential. So both buildings would require a devariance. Um and then the one design waiver is that the minimum driveway aisle for the parking
lot is required at 25 ft and they're proposing it at 20 feet. Okay. So we're going to proceed to the comments. Uh obviously the the historic preservation ordinance criteria are listed in between here and the comments.
Again uh no change except for the criteria the criteria previously was um related to historic buildings and this is for new structures not considered historic structure since it is an independent building.
Um just a few comments in 2024 preservation New Jersey named 344 Nassau Street one of the 10 most endangered historic places. Um the applicant uh this office really very much appreciates that the applicant's willingness to
revise the building design with a much more sensitive approach and also the applicant's willingness to work collaboratively with safe jug on the new design. So very much appreciated this uh you know this new design. Uh the applicant states
there were certain design changes that were intentional to address um certain concerns expressed at HPC meeting not only but HPC but other comments and uh I'm going to list these for for uh the commission to understand.
So the first is the separation of new construction from existing building was designed to eliminate demolition so that the herer house could remain unaltered. The second is the new building setback is increased to 5 foot from Harrison Street right ofway which allows the new
construction to be behind the her house which reduces the impact of the development of the historic building. The increased setback also offers official additional space to landscape between the new building and sidewalk. The third comment they provided was separating the new construction and
reducing the building height and mass was designed to minimize the impact on the NAS on the Nassau streetscape. The applicant believes the proportions are more in line with the neighborhood and preserves historic streetscape. It further states save Jugtown supports
these changes. Maintaining the business in the existing building eliminates the need for interior demolition to reconfigure the interior space to develop residential apartments. Um, as HPC may recall, the interior
demolition uh would destroy existing historic fabric and design defining features on the building such as the brick glazing that was retained when the 1985 edition was constructed. So with this design, there are no exterior or
interior alterations to the existing structure. And the last is the applicant and save Jugtown believe the new building elevations are now compatible with historic district criteria. Um so I'm going to go to uh the next
comment which has to do with the preservation area. I'm just going to h this is under section 10B-397. I'm just going to highlight the comments which again were the same ones that I commented from the original design which is the preservation area shall be
delineated so that improvements respect the historic pattern of use of the historic property respects the inter relationship historic features of the property and provide for an adequate visual buffer for the principal structure or structures and provide for an adequate visual buffer for the other
historic features of the site by use of open space areas and appropriate planting. ings and in implementation of these standards create protective areas around the historic feature on the property. Uh the area shall include the principal structure and other features on the
property. In addition, the area shall also be of a size and configuration sufficient to maintain the historic setting and historic character of the property. these links of these buildings and properties and spaces should visually preserve in order to maintain the sense
of historic setting. Um, so when I looked at civil engineering sheet two, which delineates the proposed historic preservation area, it really talks really about the immediate area in front of the building and on the sides. It does not include the buildings. Um, and
these should be part of the preservation area. Um, in addition, uh, I think the concern that I have is that I feel like the preservation area was not delineated first in preparation of the site plan.
Um, but as as the remainder of whatever space is left over that was the preservation area and it really should be the other way around. Um manufactured product sheets or details should be provided for doors, windows such as the casement, windows
and the lower panel. Uh the fixed and the circular fixed uh door trim and trim for select windows matching uh door trim should also be provided. Horizontal band around the new building. The material profile dimensions that should be provided. 8ft high privacy fence
specifying the material and fence style was not um found on the drawing. Um, and although the trash enclosure and fence will likely not be visible from the right of way unless the gate is left open, a detailed uh describing material and style should be included in the set
of drawings. And as far as lighting product sheets for the proposed three fixtures, um, unfortunately we don't take the product sheets from one project to the other. So we do need those submitted with a new application since the zoning board application. So, we do
that need that for the Juno 5-in recess canopy, the street work square ballard, and for the crete lighting LED, we just need that for the Kelvin. Um, what what was what the applicant intends to use as far as the Kelvin for that lighting.
Uh, details of the following are lacking and should be provided and discussed at the meeting. There's a lobby entry canopy which is in between the two buildings. there was very little information about how that was constructed material. Um exterior wall treatment for the ground floor of the
new building. Um we can see that there seems to be scoring there, but we would like more detail about that. Uh concrete curb planter walls proposed on both sides of the driveway along the public sidewalk. They vary in height from 1.1 ft to 2 feet. And a detail of this wall
uh is should also be included in the civil set including if the concrete will be tinted. The west elevation drawing should include features on the herer house that are missing from the drawings such as the attic windows, the bilco doors and then the notsaw street steps, railing to
entrance and bike rack. Uh there's only a south elevation existing building drawing and I know that um the applicant had sent over a what was >> sighteline drawing right? Uh but I think
that it would be good to see what those features on that building are just for information purposes. Um the applicant did provide their color color rendering which is in your package today. So we appreciate receiving that. Um it is recommended that the stuckco
color for the new building not match the existing building. According to the secretary interiors, there should be a different differential and even if it's a slight visual distinction between the two with a slight change in the hue that would you know we hope the applicant
will consider that the applicant's architect states that building style material and architect features were taken from inspirational images provided to them by Save Jugtown representatives. Um, it would be helpful if representatives of Save Jugtown could confirm on the collaborative effort on
the project. And within your package, I think you saw that inspirational um photograph that was included. The applicant is asked to discuss why certain variances were considered more worthy of pursuing the others. And the
reason that I asked this question is because it would seem that the building would serve better to be farther from this building like closer to your north
property line for a variety of reasons. One is because then uh you know you do have more space in between the two buildings which is a variance in addition to I guess I have some concern about the construction of the foundation
or the the subconstruction of the building and the parking lot so close to the existing building. So, I'm just wondering if that was cons a consideration or did you feel like it's we did you feel like it's harder for us you felt that it might be harder for you
to get a building setback variance versus a parking setback variance? So, I'm just trying to understand maybe what your criteria was for that. Uh buildings in the Jugtown historic district are for the most part not very elaborate. Um
they have simpler lines with some ornamentation. The redesign of the building is more simplified and the size, style and configuration of the fenistration is better related to historic building. The flat roof is also better situated and suited and
complimentary to the similar features of the building and helps maintain a low building profile. Um, as lovely as the Washington Hawthorne is, um, it's recommended that maybe you look for another one because they do have thorns and if you have children walking down the sidewalk,
it's, you know, just think about that. Um, it is recommend that more attention be given to the landscape plan. I think there's an opportunity to do uh more than just kind of put the same vegetation, you know, the same 20 species, whatever. But
that's, you know, that would be um, greatly appreciated. a little more consideration. Uh the scale on uh the civil drawing it just needs to be changed uh to be accurate to one inch equals 20 ft. The applicant should
consider again at the sama I carry over relocating the arborite if they're in good condition. Just hate to see trees thrown away. They don't need to be. Um there are two elm trees on northern property. They're supposed to be retained. the applicant could in should investigate these trees are in good
condition and if they'll survive again I defer to Dan domilsky's memo on that and the king's highway district should be shown on the plan again a comment that's carried over um and this is the one that has to do with the archaeological historic sites protocol is recommended
that section 10B 388 which is the architectural historic sites protocol be included and referenced in HPC's chair memo to the zone zoning board of adjustment as a reminder of the requirement. I don't believe that the zoning board has ever seen this
requirement before. So, I think that it would be worthy of that being included. Uh it is recommended that HPC support RGA's preliminary architectural screening uh the report of November 7th, 2023, and in particular that a ground
penetrating radar survey be completed prior to ground disturbance. Um, it is further recommended that an archaeologist beyond site drone the GPR survey work and if and if the the ground penetrating radar GPR is not performed
uh if if that work is not performed by an archaeologist that an archaeologist be there. And uh in addition I think that what when they do that work it would be a good idea to have them look at that stone wall in the back. No one seems to know what it is but if they're out there might be a good idea to have
them do that. And then uh 21 talks about um items for the applicant address. I'm going to pass that over and have them address that separately. Um and then the commission is asked to consider the following. After reviewing the criteria for the two historic district
nominations, the evolution of the districts and historic preservation review criteria, HBC should determine if the proposed improvements to property are appropriate with minimal degradation to the historic building on the property to the streetscape and the two historic districts and if they meet the secretary
of interior standards. HP HPC should discuss whether the redesigned building is sympathetic, properly proportioned and compatible with historic district on the property and with the Jugtown and Kings Highway historic district. The applicant is seeking devariances to
allow the existing building to function as is as a completely commercial or office building without providing residential units on the upper floor and for the new residential building to provide housing not commercial use on the first floor. This request is being
made to allow the new construction to be a separate building which eliminates the need for partial demolition. Allowing the office building to continue to function as office on the upper floor furthers HBC's desire to preserve the historic building. It would seem
appropriate for HBC to port variances that protect and preserve the historic fabric and features of the significant herer house, its setting on the property and the historic district streetscape by limiting demon demolition
in this case interior demolition as well and supporting appropriate scale and location of new construction. It is recommend that HPC review each requested variance, not only the D variance, but the other ones and the design waiver and address which ones
directly impact the integrity of historic preservation and which ones may not and decide on how you vote on both of those and um that should be reflected in the HPC's memo to the zoning board of adjustments. And as always, all
utilities should be underground. That's all I have, Madam Chair. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you so much. That was a very thorough report. Um, I wanted to hand it over to the applicant and I'm not sure if you have a presentation or Yep. Okay. I'm wondering
if we could get it on our computers here or >> or if we >> Oh, now it is. Never mind. Got it. Thank you. All right. Sorry. Go ahead. >> Thank you. I'm Chris Tar representing Daniel Barski. Daniel's going to take
you through his slide presentation. >> Yeah. And we should swear you in. Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give this evening is the whole truth to the best of your knowledge? >> I do. >> And can you just state your name and spell it?
>> Daniel Barski. B A R S K Y. >> Sorry. Proceed. Oh, and you know what? Um, how many slides is this? because we can just mark the whole thing as an exhibit. >> 41. >> Okay. So, I think um we'll mark this as
exhibit A1 and note that it's 41 slides. And then I think just for completeness, we should also mark the color samples as exhibit A2. >> Yes. because the the PowerPoint will be A1 and then the color samples will be
A2. Okay. Okay. Sorry. >> Uh good evening board members. Um first off, thank you for arranging the special meeting and coordinating it so quickly. Uh we appreciate it. We're eager to
show you what we've spent the last year recreating on this site and uh hopefully the board is pleased with this revision. Uh so Elizabeth already stole a little bit of my thunder and went through a lot of the background on the property, but
I'll show you some pictures and go through it once more. Um I believe everyone was here from the first meeting we had almost a year ago, but going to start over. I'll go through these relatively quickly. So, the site is on 344 Nassau Street on the
corner of Nassau and Harrison. This first slide shows a historical photo. Um, going to present day 344 Nassau is currently used as a
commercial Oh, we're not seeing the same picture. Ian, I guess >> my slides changed, but the slide on the screen hasn't. But I was doing something before. There was a major delay in the
Let's try something else. That is very strange. up here. That's what Excellent. >> Thank you. >> I looked at the wrong person. >> Okay. Technical difficulties. Um, so this is present day uh 344 Nassau Street
looking from the opposite side of Nassau Street. Uh, currently the building is commercial office use on both floors. Uh, there's a mix of um, a bunch of different tenants in here.
Some tenants rent multiple rooms grouped together like Queenston Realy. others rent one single room and uh the building is fully occupied at the moment. Oh uh this is the side elevation of 344 Nassau Street if you're looking from
Harrison Street. This is the rear of 344 Nassau Street. Um you can see the parking lot in the rear. And this is the existing survey. You can see outlined in blue are the property
boundaries. Shaded in pink is the existing building with the parking lot in the rear. And the property is located in the AH2 overlay zone. And you can see here um highlighted in the yellow is the overlay zone itself
which this site falls kind of in the middle of uh but where the blue star is indicates uh the lot. Uh it also falls on the edge of the historical district and as Elizabeth has shared with us it does have
historical significance. Um, so just a few of the surrounding properties. This is 341 Nassau Street across the corner. I'm sharing here a height for the building. I'll elaborate
on that later, but it's 37 foot 9 to the ridge. The same building in the rear is almost 41t 3 high. So on average, it's somewhere between 39 and 40 ft. That'll be relevant later when I share
the revised plans. 338 Nassau Street is a couple buildings down heading into town. Uh, this one is 37 ft to the ridge. 342 Nassau Street directly across
Harrison. 350 Nassau Street, the WER building is right next door. uh Remax, which is directly across Nassau Street on 345 Nassau. Uh 14 North Harrison, the Maril Lynch building is
um across Harrison Street from the uh current parking lot. And directly in the rear is 11 North Harrison Street, which is the foot and ankle doctor. This slide is not what I'm proposing today. I don't want to upset everyone by
bringing up past traumas, but it's important I give the history and context behind the approval process on the site. Over a year ago, I was in front of the same committee presenting a fourstory 45
foot 16,000 square foot addition to the Warner House. The proposal was to demolish a portion of the existing building and attach this addition onto the rear over the parking lot. This was um the 3D perspective rendering
of that application at that time. Uh we heard from this committee and many of the neighbors led by the Safe Jugtown group about their displeasure with this proposal. The consensus from the
community was that this previous proposal was not consistent with the historical district and neighborhood specifically in terms of scale and massing. This previous application um proposed 15 units among the four
stories, but it's important to note that the previous proposal was conforming to the zoning in all respects. It met all the criteria for a fully conforming application. However, after hearing feedback from
this committee and neighbors, instead of moving forward with a compliant application, we decided to revise our proposal with the collaboration of uh Save Jugtown leadership to propose a new building that we feel is more compatible
with the neighborhood and better preserves the historic streetscape. This is the new colored 3D rendering of our new proposal that we're here tonight for. This new design proposes a freestanding building independent of the
existing historical Horner House. There will be no demolition or disruption to the existing building. The height has been reduced to 37 feet and only three stories. The proposed building is significantly
smaller in scale. It has one-third the amount of square foot feet as a previous application, one-third less height in terms of feet and also stories. It's three stories instead of four.
Um the unit count has been reduced from 15 to 10. It is visually compatible within its relationship to the neighborhood and does not detract from the neighborhood's historical elements. This is the new proposed site plan and
it depicts existing and proposed. Shaded in purple is the existing herer house and in yellow the proposed new building. Again, there is no attachment or demolition proposed. Totally preserving the existing herer
house was critical in this redesign. We heard at the last meeting that there was historical significance in the interior of the existing building as well. And though that is technically out of HPC's purview, we have come up with a prop with a proposal that completely
preserves the existing herer house inside and out. Um, one thing I remember is Elrich specifically being a proponent of saving this existing building entirely. Uh, sadly he's not here today to see this redesign, but I like to believe he would
be very pleased to see this revision. Anyway, there's a 5-ft separation between old and new with a walkway connecting the two uh to the Harrison Street sidewalk. You can see in the rear the darker
yellow is the first floor footprint of the new building and the lighter shaded yellow is the second and third floor overhang which overhangs over the parking lot and park um parking spaces. The parking lot is mostly covered by the new building which includes eight
parking stalls. Uh trash and recycling is located in the corner of the building where it does not impact any streetcapes but is easily accessible for the existing and new buildings. Also, bicycle parking has been addressed with bike storage distributed under the
lobby door canopy outdoor for short-term parking and inside the building. inside the lobby. Specifically, the new building setback is increased to five feet from Harrison Street right away, which allows the new
construction to be behind the Horner House, which reduces the impact of the development on the historic building. Also, uh it's worth noting here on this slide that the new and old existing corner
house are separated by 5T, but at the closest point. For the most part, it's separated 8 to 10 feet. Um so, just on the closest corner, um it's 5T from one another.
This new proposal has 10 residential units. 20% or two of them are to be allocated to the affordable obligation. The existing building is to remain as it is currently being used as commercial office space.
The following slides show 2D elevations from each side of the newly proposed building. This is the west elevation facing Harrison Street. The south elevation facing the existing building. The north elevation facing the foot and
ankle doctor and the east elevation facing whiteart. Before I show, you know, more details, colors, um, and address some of the questions from Elizabeth's memo on the new building, it's important that I share
the zoning chart for this new application. Even though the new proposed building is much smaller in scale, separating the old from new has triggered variances. The sideyard, oddly enough, is the
requirement is zero feet or 10 feet. We think it probably should be 0210, but our building is 5 feet from the setback line and so that triggers a variance. Um, we specifically brought it in
further than zero um as to make sure that the new building isn't the prominent feature on the site. The rear yard is 15 ft where we have 10 ft for the setback. Our overhangs on the second and
third floor are 10 feet from the rear setback line. However, the rear yard does back up to a commercial zone or building, the foot and ankle doctor, not a residential zone. So, um we do feel that there is
justification for that variance. The big variance here is a use variance. So in an attempt to separate the building the buildings and not disturb the existing structure at all, we have triggered the use variance. The zone
permits only commercial on the first or ground floors and only resident residential on floors above. This application proposes to totally preserve the existing building inside and out and thus will continue to operate office on
the first floor. Subsequently, the new building proposes two apartments on the first floor and in an attempt not to grow the building past three stories. This variance seems appropriate given the history, but we will look for HPC
for support on this variance. In the original proposal, because the buildings were attached, there was room for parking on both sides of a drive aisle. Now that the buildings are separated, parking has been reduced, triggering variances in relation to parking,
the number of stalls, percentage of compact stalls, setback of parking stalls, and the actual width of the drive aisle. We believe the parking varants are justified in the attempt to preserve the historic corner house, but also because
of the proximity to downtown amenities and public transportation. Though it cannot be counted towards our parking total, we do have access to off-site parking within minutes of walking distance to this site. But we found through other properties in downtown that parking is really not a
priority for people who want to live in this part of town. Lastly, there is a one variance uh for section 1083 which has a minimum distance between buildings. Um, so as I pointed out in the site
plan, we're predominantly 8 to 10 feet away from new to existing, but uh, one section where we're 5t away does trigger this variance. Here's a cross-section of the building floors and height. So, we're proposing a
35- ft building height assembly with a 1-ft parapit totaling 36 feet. There was a question on the memo of why the building assembly is 36 ft with the parapit, but the civil engineer calls out 37 foot4.
Um, that's because his calculations are based on average grade as required by the zoning code. Um, so in some places that means this building changes because of the actual grade. So I found this slide pretty
interesting. Um, from Nassau Street, the new building will not be seen from either side of the road as depicted in the sighteline drawing. So you could see the two perspectives, one on the same side sidewalk as the building and one on the opposite side. Partially because
we've reduced a story, but also because we've detached the building um pulling it further back from the existing herer house. Uh but the good news about this building is you won't see it from Nassau Street. The floor plans for the new building are
relatively simple. There is access to a lobby from both the parking lot and the walkway which is on the other side of the new building. Um, and the building is compromised of 10 two-bedroom apartments. Two here are located on the
first floor, four on the second floor, and four more on the third floor. So, the second and third floor are identical layouts totaling 10. There is a proposed flat roof with a parapit with a 1 foot parapit as shown
in the previous slide and the condensers will be located on the roof. We've located them in the middle of the new addition as to make them non-impactful to any kind of uh street view or streetscape. We are proposing Pella lifestyle series
aluminum clad casement windows. All the exterior doors doors will be full glazed with narrow side trim uh with taller head casing. Uh the casings are going to be finished with stucco. So they're just a raised casing with a stucco finish. Windows
with lower panels will mimic the same casing dimensions as on the exterior facing doors. And we are proposing for them to be finished in the um iron ore color finish which is on the
bottom left of this color chart. We're also proposing an exterior acrylic stucco by Stoke Corp with a medium finish with color joints to match Stuckco color. The color of the stucco is to match the existing building by chip matching the color code at Sherwin
Williams. And I know that there was a question about should it exactly match or be a touch different. So I'm open to hearing from the committee how they would prefer to proceed. I can either take um a color chip and
get an exact match of the existing built existing herer house or the sample I provided that I believe the committee has in front of them. It's very very close to the existing building
but um a little bit of a different hue. So really could go either direction on that. Uh this is a profile detail of the stucco showing the width, depth and separation of scoring along with the
profiles of the molding. Um so you can see the you can see here on the slide uh the different dimensions for the stucco finish and trim detail.
um the rustication for the first level and gets simpler as it goes up. And some of these details were taken out of inspiration images as we were going through on the redesign
process for the exterior doors that are within the units. Uh we're proposing a Juliet balcony with black railings and that's the slide here. And uh there is a lobby entrance canopy proposed on the entrance of the new
building which faces the existing building. Um so this really doesn't have any impact on from a street view. Uh but this will be used as a welcoming entrance to the new apartment building and used as a place to have some covered
bicycle storage. This overhang will be steel uh and painted to match the stuckle color with um wood sophet. So as a quick recap, we came in over a year ago a year ago with a fully compliant zoning application. The
proposal was not wellreceived by this committee um nor our neighbors. Uh since that time, we have collaborated with Save Jugtown leadership and made some significant concessions in the scope of the job. We are now fully preserving the
historic house inside and out by completely separating old from new. The new proposed building sits further from the street, is much smaller in terms of square footage, number of units, heights, and stories. We believe this
revision is more simplified in the size, style, and configuration of the fenestrations is better related to the historic building and neighborhood. However, this does come at some risk to the developer uh because the revised proposal does include variances where it
didn't before. We ask that HBC approve this application tonight and support the variances requested in the effort of pre preserving the historical Jugtown neighborhood. Uh thank you for your time and consideration and I covered a lot of the
questions and recommendations from Elizabeth as we went through the slides, but I'm happy to take questions about any specifically if there are any. One thing we'd like to do which is unusual I suspect is to ask our neighbors to comment before you asked your questions.
>> Uh absolutely. >> Some of the questions were whether in fact Jugtown save Jugtown actually in fact likes the building and Clifford Zinc is going to speak for them and he's here tonight. >> Okay. Well, if you want to go to p public comment. >> Well, it's not public comment so much as
a very special oh presentation. >> Right. The say Okay. Well, um I invite the Safe Jug Town Committee to come to the microphone and um relay any comments or concerns as well as um
>> this is not Mr. Zinc, but Mr. Afran. He'll go on. He wants to do this. >> Okay, good. We're happy to have him. >> Yeah, we have microphones everywhere. So, There's a microphone. There are two there. There's one here.
>> Just have to turn on the button. >> No, we're good. We're good. Thank you. >> Well, good evening. Thank you. I'm Bruce Zaffron and I'm the attorney for Save Jug Town. And usually when I'm in this room, it's often the scene of battles.
Um, so I'm very happy to be able to say that we have a compromise that works for everyone. And of course, all compromises, you know, have leave everyone feeling something is left on the table. But really, this does work.
And what my clients originally raised was the issue of maintaining the actual physical integrity of the historic building. And that was really of critical importance that people need in the future going forward. You know this building will be there for the next 50
60 years perhaps 70 years who knows and people need going forward and that's two or three generations. So people need to see this architecture as it existed and to have an understanding of the past and how buildings functioned. I grew up in a
town on Long Island that was potato fields and became a subdivision and every once in a while you would see a leftover building uh from the early 1800s, 1860s and it was very important to see those things and so that was the fundamental point we brought to this was
that we want that integral structure to be preserved so it can be seen as it has always existed. So we've achieved that compromise and I want to say after this initial hearing where the board had um you know rejected one element of the application both sides immediately came
together to negotiate. I think both sides spontaneously reached out. Uh the lawyers didn't weren't necessarily doing that but the the principles did that and it really is demonstrating what planning is about when it works. We had several problems with the design originally and
I don't mean that as a criticism of the design. uh they're always conflicting interests. One of course was maintaining the physical separateness of the buildings. Uh the second of course was that we felt the new building was sort of enveloping the old. It wasn't
technically doing that but the appearance from the street would do that. The third of course was its height. We felt that kind of overwhelmed the building. The compromise we have achieves all of these three pro these major concerns. Uh we have a separation.
It goes from 5t to 10 ft. The anyone seeing this building from the side elevation will always see a separate integral structure and that was very important to us. From the front from Nassau Street, one will see the structure with all of its wings separate
and not affected by theru the new structure at all. And finally, again, from both sides, the side elevation in the front, we will not see a fourth floor that overwhelms the historic structure. I think this is very similar to 338, if I'm correct, Daniel, uh,
which has a floor that just barely peaks above the apex of the A-frame of the old structure. And that's really what we were hoping to achieve. So we want to thank uh Daniel and his company for and and Rebina, Miss Rebina for the really
strong accommodations to these concerns. Uh so this really does achieve a very strong compromise and we think it's a good not a legal precedent but a practical precedent for people to use going forward. Um I know there's a variance requested. I want to endorse
this variance in particular because I think it's important. There's a variance to change the o office commercial use on the first floor of the new structure into residential. Now obviously use variances are always a little difficult and tech technically this one I think
makes a lot of sense because this part of Harrison was really never something that had a commercial streetscape. We do have the medical building but it's accessed only from the rear. There is no active streetscape with that medical building. and further we have the
firehouse and we have the utility parking lot. So we never really had a commercial street frontage on that part of of Harrison. So I don't think anything's lost but what's gained is we gain the positiveness of the historical integrity of the structure. So I would
endorse we endorse this variance in particular. The other variances are more technical. I don't need to comment on them but I would endor ask that this council the commission endorse that variance because nothing is actually lost from the historical usage there but we gain preservation of the historical
structure and so I would ask that assuming you approve this which I expect you will based on the compromise I would ask the commission put in a special provision that would endorse that particular variance because that's probably the most difficult of the variances um for the developer and we we
fully endorse that. So in general I want to thank um the developer m my my colleague and sometimes adversary Mr. Tar uh and especially Miss Rebina uh for altering the vision of the original design. This is something Save Jugtown Leadership, that's a technical term
because it's not a member organization, has fully endorsed and we've endorsed it in discussions with other neighbors because it's not a member corporation, but those we speak to, we've endorsed it. And I think uh if if the developer wants, we certainly would be at the
planning board to speak to the issues in exactly the same way. So, I want to just endorse this and and thank the developer and ask that you do approve this in this form. Okay. Thank you. I think Mould >> you just spell your last name for me? >> Oh, sure. It's Afron. A F as in Frank. R
A as in Nancy. First name Bruce. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Thank you. I think Mr. Zinc, if anyone has any questions for me, of course I'm here. But I think Mr. Zinc also had a presentation. >> Oh, that's great. All right. Thank you. If you want to sit same place, Clifford,
that's great. >> Thank you. >> So, um, Daniel mentioned, uh, Elrich. >> Yeah, we should, um, swear you in. >> We're going to swear you in. >> Oh, uh, if you raise your right hand, do you swear that the testimony you're
about to give is the whole truth to the best of your knowledge? >> I do. >> Thank you. So, Daniel um kindly mentioned Elrich and I wanted to start with also
thanking Elrich uh postmortem for really um showing a lot of us really the significance of this building and particularly Daniel mentioned the interior
um that Elrich was very um that he very eloquently showed and illustrated how it relates to other houses and I think that was very very very important. So thank you uh for all that Elrich. Um I I think
HPC deserves a lot of credit for um taking a stand a year ago um that um the proposal didn't really meet the requirements of the historic preservation ordinance. So, uh, I and
other people in Save Jugtown and elsewhere really appreciate that. Um, I think, uh, Elizabeth deserves a great deal of credit. Is this your last HPC meeting? >> One more. Everyone's welcome to the
party, >> right? It's the 15th. >> So, we meet one more once more on the 15th. >> Yeah. But this is the last application that I'm aware of. >> Okay. Well, thank you Elizabeth for all your service over many many years and
also for all your hard work on this particular application. I know you worked you know you spoke with us, you spoke with Daniel and Roman and Marina and so thank you for all your effort to bringing this to where it is. Um,
so, uh, I have to give a lot of credit to, uh, Daniel and Roman and Marina and to their advisor Chris Tar who were open to dialogue about this. And we don't
always see that around town. Quite often there are adversarial situations where the two sides don't talk to each other. And um we were very lucky, fortunate to have a developer in
this situation and an architect and an attorney who were willing to look at how a compromise could be arrived at. As Bruce said, the most important element here is to preserve the original building.
um and pulling the new building completely away from it is the number one importance and particularly also saving the interior. Um secondly, uh as Bruce said, lowering the height so it's less intrusive in the historic district
is really important. Um, regarding the variances, several of the variances are required because of the way that the AHO2 was written. When when AHO2 was composed and
passed, there was no recognition whatsoever that there was an historic district as part of the AHO2. It is not mentioned anywhere. And so several of the requirements are because um that was
an oversight. Um the there's also a completely impractical requirement in the zone overall zoning ordinance about the uh commercial use of the
second floor. This is an existing use. So why would the developer have to apply for a variance to continue an existing use? Makes no sense whatsoever. So I I urge the HPC to um to support the
variances to the zoning board. Um, regarding the design, um, we had multiple meetings with, uh, the developer and with Marina and Chris
Tar present and we collectively tried to look for a design that would still yield a significant number of affordable units and um, at the same time have a scale
and a presence in what the design looks like that would be unobtrusive to the building, the herer house and the historic district. So, the design is actually fairly simple. Um, and we
looked at other examples on Nassau Street right in that area. The WERT building is a 20th century building that is relatively plain, as is the Trinity Counseling
uh service building across the street. And yet they have a traditional pattern of windows. And so they sit comfortably in the historic district even though they look and are 20th century buildings. And so that was part of the
inspiration for coming up with some examples to the developer that would work for three stories. And um and uh so again, we really appreciate uh the Barskis and
Marina um really collaborating on what would meet the historic preservation ordinance and the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines regarding uh the color. The building is distinctly different
from the her house and from the Scott House across the street. So nobody will confuse it as uh as existing from the time. And so our thinking is that uh a different color for the new building
will make it stand out more. And really we don't want it to stand out more. It certainly will stand out on its own. It's three stories. It has a slightly different window pattern. It has casement windows. It has a big garage opening. Um, it will
be distinctly different and we feel that if it's a same color as the front house, it will blend in uh the best way for the um for the historic district. So lastly, um
I think archaeology is really important here and what the um grub, this is the grub report from 2023. This is a very important sentence. It says, "The historical research suggests
the potential exists for buried archaeological deposits that could potentially contribute to the significance of 344 Nassau Street and to the Jugtown historic district. Now, um
the developer has indicated that they will do ground penetrating radar and so that's uh I believe will be in place probably as part of your resolution and um and then I believe the is that right
Elizabeth archaeological protocol will kick in if something significant is found in the GPR. >> Right. So I believe what um Richard Grubman Associates does is they kind of
mimic what the ordinance is saying that if something is discovered I mean he's basically reiterating what the ordinance is saying in his preliminary report. >> Okay. So um the other the ground
penetrating radar will be um fairly informative but it won't be totally definitive. So when the excavation gets done it will be important um for the excavator to be
aware of coming across anything. And typically what might happen if there's something buried there, a foundation for a smaller building, and we know there are two smaller buildings shown on earlier photographs, it might mean just
recording the dimensions of those foundations and photographing them before they're removed. So, um, part of me says, "I hope you find things archaeological that might contribute to the significance of the area, and the other part of me says, I hope you don't
find too much to impede your work." So, um, our save jug town group is very appreciative to HPC and to, uh, the developer, the attorney, and, uh, to the architect and to Elizabeth for coming up
with this compromise, and we urge, uh, the HPC to support it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Really appreciate it. Oh, one more. >> No problem.
Just we just have to swear you in. >> Yes. >> Uh >> Maggie Deenrock, 333 Nassau. >> Okay. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth to the best of your knowledge? >> I do.
333 Nassau Street. I just uh quick remark. Um, I just wanted to thank the historic preservation committee, Elizabeth, um, and the developer, Daniel, for genuinely listening to the neighborhood's concerns
about 344 Nassau Street. We appreciate the thoughtful redesign to three stories, which meaningful meaningfully reduces the mass and scale while still supporting incremental affordable housing in our community. This
collaborative approach shows that preservation, responsible development, and neighborhood character can all be balanced. We hope other developers will follow Daniel's lead in embracing genuine compromise. And we are proud
that thoughtful public involvement can meaningfully shape what happens in our town still. And that personally, my kids get to see firsthand that getting involved truly matters. Oh, that's great.
Thank you. All right. Anything else from any >> I think we're okay. That was part of our presentation which we were quite excited to have presented to you. >> Yeah, that was a great idea. >> Well, so now we're sort of back to
reality. There are 23 questions that have been raised. so you can pick and choose among them which ones you need some more information on. >> Right. So, um, I just wanted to start off by saying that really excited that we're finally here and we're finally
hearing this and that we're finally um, able to acknowledge the collaboration that is so unique and wonderful that actually should be on the head of the New York Times because it's it's
groundbreaking in the United States that we can do is um I did have some questions about the landscape memo. Um >> Oh, Dan Doberki. >> No, we didn't get it.
>> Oh, he wrote it on November 21st. So, >> I can ask your questions. >> Yeah. So, just um I think there's going to be a number of questions. There's going to be some questions about
changes in landscape and I guess my question is how do you think these changes could be accommodated? Like do you think appointing the um the arborist
in you know with the staff in consultation is sort of the best. As you know at planning they've got a landscape subcommittee which you're going to go to zoning zoning which they don't have such a subcommittee right >> but uh we have we have a pretty good track record of
boards approving applications subject to municipal arborists working with him to revise things or move things around depending on the situation and I would be happy to do that. >> Right. So that's just I I think there's
going to have to be some adjustment in the field, >> right? >> Um because he seem Dan seems to be concerned about a number of trees that you were hoping to preserve. So I think >> yeah, a few a few of the trees like uh
indicated in Elizabeth's memo in the rear by the foot and ankle doctor, those trees are in bad shape. Basically any arborist is going to say those trees should come out and um I know the owner of the property quite well and he's already you know agreed to
if I we need to take them down we can. So if those things change as we go through on the compliance end I'll be sure to accommodate because there's in all reality there's not that much landscaping here. So to accommodate for it's not a big deal. So, we can take the memo and and uh that's one of the
recommendations was that we come up with a better landscape plan and we'll have time before we get to the zoning board to do that. I think we'll take that uh seriously. >> Oh, great. Okay. Thanks. Um I wanted to open up to other commission members
questions or comments for the applicant. Um Leighton, >> thank you, Madam Chair. I very seldom weigh in as a liaison to HPC, but I'm sitting here and I just have to
recognize that we have, you know, come to a point where we have had two opposite sides of a very important architectural location in Princeton, New Jersey come together. All right, this this is a
first. Now, let's let's all be real. We got people here on two different sides that have come together on an agreement. And I'll be honest, I'm not an architectural engineer or, you know, a person steeped in
architectural design, but again, this is a first for me. I think this I'm looking at it, it is a major and drastic change from the first design, and it is very well done. And as I say, it's the first time where I've
seen two opposing sides, one side that's steeped in architectural integrity and another side that's on the development side, come together in a compromise. I would be very happy if this board, and I'm not suggesting that we do, but I think that this is something to be
recognized as a first and as a significant step in the municipality of Princeton's coming together for us to recognize the significance of our architectural and historical past and the fact that we must grow together to create opportunities for people in the
future to live here, to raise a family here, to grow and place here, to age here to be seniors here. I never seen this before in Princeton and I'm 74 years old. So I want to just commend Darskis,
Mr. Tar, Bruce Afron, Clifford Zinc, 333 Nassau cuz or 333 I don't know your name. Maria Rubina, th this is groundbreaking right here. And I'm I'm just here to tell you you
participated in this and I'm happy you did. And I'm just putting it out there that this is a first. And I'm not trying to tell this panel or this HPC committee how to rule on this. But for me, who's been here for 74 years,
oh my god, thank you. And I think this is the future of Princeton. Not the past, but recognizing the past. I'm done. Thank you. >> Thanks, Leon. Shirley, did you want to say something?
>> Um, sort of. Um, I have a lot of concerns. We first put a sign up that says, "Defend Jug Town historically." And then we put a sign up that says, "Defend historic Princeton." I would not have used the word defend. I would have
said respect. We defended our rights to be in Princeton for years. So when ar when developers come here and every bit of land that we have, something's being built there. That could have been a nice
little park where people walk along and they have somewhere to park. There are two apartment buildings further down by the shopping center. When you call it affordable, who's it affordable for? We have day laborers. We
have people who take care of homes in the western part of Princeton. We have people who take care of all of the clubs in Princeton, not just the ones on Prospect. They cannot afford to live in any of those apartments. And every little place that we have,
even the Witherspoon Jackson community where I grew up and defended to be up on Nassau Street to shop or to have the same rights that people in Princeton had. developers to come and they build houses and we cannot afford them. So,
here's another apartment building. Yes, it is beautiful. Yes, it's architecturally fine, but the day laborers can't live in it. I'm just concerned that we talk about historic Princeton, but we're taking
away all of the history, and that's a historic building right in front of those apartments. So whether you live on Nassau Street or you live on Clay Street, I'm really concerned about developers coming here and taking every bit of land that we
have to build apartments and you're making the money and those day laborers will not be serving you because they won't have any place to live. Thank you. >> Okay, thanks Shirley. Roger, did you want to comment?
Okay, David, >> thank you. Um, of course, after this meeting and this process and this year and a half that we've been thinking about this, it it is absolutely appropriate to say thank you to the all the parties that came together to make
some changes and to um come up with something that looks very workable. Um but at the same time uh just to be fair to all the other applicants that come before us I need to share observations and ask some questions uh just so that
the process is seen as is fair and equal. And I guess where I want to start is talking about the the historic resource the existing building that's there. And if I read all the notes correctly, and
correct me if I'm wrong, um, and I think I heard it again tonight, that the existing building will become all office space, but at the same time, all of their
parking will be taken away. And I have a concern from working with historic buildings in districts all over the country about taking away some of their um features
um that some might say lead to a certain amount of obsolescence. If I can't have my car on site, if I can't park there, especially as an existing tenant who's used to that, that's a big change. Um and that's just something that we have
to say is this impact on the resource of taking away the parking for the tenants who are supposed to support that building and therefore keep that building in good condition and have the resources and the funds to to maintain it. Um is this something that's
potentially detrimental to the historic resource? The next thing I wanted to go to is when we don't have parking sufficient for the office tenants and 20% of the
residential tenants, where do they park and what's that impact on the surrounding buildings in historic districts? That's that's another question that needs to be thought about and I guess that's a different board that thinks about that than us. But I think about
the historic resources, the buildings in historic districts that are covered. Next, I wanted to ask about Thank you. Thank you for making that building smaller. Could it have at the third floor been
stepped back a little bit so it it has even a little less impact as far as bulk on the um on the area. It still towers over the other building, but it is a separate building and I appreciate that. But you look at zoning and in other
places historically there are buildings that that were designed to step back and and break up their massiveness somewhat. And is there a lesson for us to learn on that? Is that a question that should be still pursued? Uh, next is I don't really understand
the Juliet balconies. Is that a a requirement by building code or is that a design element just to make it? It is a design element. I don't quite know about that one. So, if we could find out about that in the drawings in the in the rendering
that is lovely here. I can't figure out from this or from the large sheet drawings what actually happens around and above the second floor windows. It looks like there's something meant to be there. I understood the rustication on the first floor and the
drawing makes sense to me on that. I just don't know what's going on around these windows and I think that we want to know more about that. Okay. What else? Okay. Okay. Uh the question about same color or
different color on the stucco. I um I think in the same color it's going to kind of have an impact that's hard to tell. But then again, I'm a guy that kind of like color is is less important than the all the other
changes that happen. Um color is reversible. Color can be talked about. So I hear that. I just my mind says same color doesn't sound right and I would ask any applicant that. So again I put that before the commission members to
think about when we write our letter six. How do um again this is maybe way beyond us but how it impacts surrounding buildings. the parking for the residence.
Um is that going to be assigned per apartment or per tenant? Um when the uh handicap space is not needed, is it usable by others? These are again not really historic preservation questions,
but their impact on the historic district question, historic resources question. put those questions out there for my fellow commission members to think about as we try to get uh this project, you know, approved and done. I'd like to
comment technically on the parking. You if you follow the AHO1 and two ordinances, you know that uh they say that be need be no parking spaces for the first floor commercial space and there need be no parking spaces provided
for the first five of the apartments. Now here, if you're leaving the second floor as commercial, there is a shortfall there that goes beyond the ordinance. the governing body. We've talked with them a lot about this and uh our understanding is that they're coming
around to say look if you want to have seven parking spaces if that's going to be up to you as as a business matter. The residential site improvement standards the state RSIS now refers to the parking numbers as a maximum
not a minimum. So there's a trend that's occurring that it it should be a private matter. Uh >> private matter, I understand that and that's what I tried to say in my introduction to this comment, but how it impacts the buildings in the rest of the historic district, I think is something
that still needs to be considered. >> Right. >> So the the point of it is that here and elsewhere, if you have two or three cars, you're not going to rent an apartment here. It's pretty pretty clear. Uh I think Daniel might have some comments on some of the other questions you've raised.
>> Sure. Um yeah, so for for the parking in our experience with other buildings even along Nassau Street and we have others that have no parking um that there are still a handful of
tenants who have no cars and are looking for apartments. Essentially what happens is those apartments come at a discounted rate as opposed to >> I said those units come at a discounted rate, right? So the market really is
deciding the price for a unit, a leasable unit with no parking. And there is a pool of people looking for units with no parking, especially in this downtown area. Uh so I don't see it uh
impacting the historical district is it's not like these people are going to have they're not renting these units have two or three cars that are going to be parking it all over the area. Uh for the most part people are not going to be renting there that need multiple parking
spaces. Um and with the existing the existing space is currently all office and it's going to stay all office. Um likely what's going to happen there is
the amount of tenants is going to get consolidated to less tenants that will take more space at a discounted rate. So uh meaning the building will still be fully occupied. just instead of leasing out individual rooms for X amount,
they'll be grouped together and and leased out at a discount. So that's usually how we address with parking. And so I don't think that there's any impact that there's going to be any impact on the historical district. Um, regarding the Juliet balconies, it's a design
feature. Um, it just allows you to have um a French door that you can kind of open the outdoor space into your unit. Um, and for the parking that's there, uh, typically on projects like this, they're just leasable spots. So, if
somebody needs a space and wants it, they can lease it. If there's none available and they need a parking spot, then they just don't rent the unit. U, but there'll be leasable spaces. And I I believe handicap space has to stay handicapped, especially because there's a commercial use in the front. So, uh,
if there's a need there, um, uh, that that is that's met. Um, I think the last comment was why we why we didn't step the building back on the third floor. Um,
frankly, in order to achieve this compromise, we really scaled it back substantially to the to where it is now. um meaning five less units, one less story, six 7,000
square feet less. So any more reduction wouldn't make a compromise really viable. And so um that's where we landed. And I guess while we're on it, I can address one of Elizabeth's comments about why we chose the variances. We
didn't really we plotted the building in a manner to fully separate it from the her house but also um to meet the the rest of the many other zoning criterias as much as possible. By sliding that building back further
um it would create a couple problems. Number one, we've created an avenue to allow the WER to the WER property to access their parking in the future, right through our drive aisle. So if I was to pull that building back, they would lose access to their parking. And
so trying to be a good neighbor with say Jugtown and the residents there, but also with WER next door. So that was one main element, but also in doing so, it would trigger another five or six other variances that aren't that we're not asking for today. So, um it was like
fitting in a a fine puzzle piece and um like like that's been mentioned here in a manner that we could as a developer and still live with and and you know we're locals too. We live in Princeton.
We've actually there's a park on the corner of John Street that on and Lidle that we used to own that the town approach us which is now a park. So where it's appropriate and where it's viable, we you know, we do take this seriously and that's part of the reason what that we, you know, met with
Clifford and Save Jugtown and, you know, really try to make something that was more appropriate here, but something that could still still work here and still provide two affordable units, which is really the whole goal behind the overlay zone.
>> All right. Thanks. I want to go to Charlotte. Did you want to have any? >> Yeah, I just had a a couple questions. Um, but again, thank you for the presentations and and just for your cooperation. I hope you'll um, you know,
maybe write a letter to the town paper kind of outlining your process and highlighting it for others because it's it's a really a great example. Um I
to had a well I'll start at the bottom. Um on the residential units that are on the first floor is are those those are large windows right on the street. Is
that correct? I mean, they're right like uh I just I guess you leave it up to the tenant to put curtains something. >> I mean, we we supply window treatments. We supply window treatments for our
rental units. But, you know, the reality is again, people who are even looking at this location, they understand that they're downtown, they're up on a sidewalk, they're up on a road, and so >> yeah, just the ones on the first first floor are, you know, little um seem like
big windows. But um uh I also had a question about the the balconies that just they're um they looked so very modern and if there was but you're doing that as a
safety feature as well as decorative, >> right? >> Yeah. Okay. And maybe but maybe the um the sample we have is black, pretty intense black. And maybe it could be softened to at least the window color. I
mean the window the iron ore. >> Sure. >> Something a little just temper it a bit. Um I'd like to put in a plug for not matching the existing historic structure. I think
you know that you Huh. >> The stucco color. Yeah. that the sample I have that we have here is is really light. Um I think you've you've pulled the building away from the historic
structure which we advocated and which I think is great. Um it's different. It's acknowledge its difference. You know I I would um advocate a light gray or you know
something quite different. not try to to match the existing historic. Um, and then I just had a quick the the round windows are in bathrooms. Is that what they they're
a couple, Marina? The round ones. >> Yeah, it's lobby. They're in the big >> big ones in the stairwell. Okay. >> And the little ones are in the bathrooms. Okay. >> And this is on the south elevation which
uh faces the existing orderer house and >> especially the ones in the corner. Even the one in the middle is not visible from any street. >> You can't really see it. Um there there's one square one sort of Oh, no. I guess that's in the her house. Um yeah, they just struck me as, you know, so
very different that just completely different style. Um that maybe they could be made square. And the last question was about the portico which oh let's see is that do I
understand that is just floating sort of >> you had yeah >> is it is it just canal lever >> yes >> floating and and finished in
>> it It's um going to be steel but painted the same color as whatever stucco color we land on to blend in. And then the uh uh the sophet will be wood.
>> Got it. Got it. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. >> Yeah. I just wanted to weigh in on the color issue. I think I'm outnumbered so far, but I I would argue to keep the color of the new building the same as
the old building. If you look at the 1980s edition, it's the same color. And the hyphen between the old and new building tells you it's a separate structure. Here you have a separate building, a building that's separated by five feet from the old building. And I
do think it will blend uh not call attention to itself as much if it were a uh a different color. Um, I also had a question about the the rendering of the windows. There's some triangular shapes. Those aren't muttons. That's just
indicates that it's a >> a vent window. That's correct. On the uh the elevation of the >> elevation >> the other elevations window >> side views.
Yeah. like on the top left two windows. That's >> Oh, that just shows the swing. >> Yeah, that just shows which is the operable door. Yeah, >> got it. Okay, >> anything else? Uh, Leighton,
>> thank you, Madam Chair. I I just want to go back for a minute because the liaison I just want to be clear as we are vetting this application. We have had conversations about parking in general and I and I I want to ask Elizabeth
among other things and our attorney here is is parking and parking resources under the purview of this committee as it pertains to approving an application process.
Well, at this point, you're providing recommend it's um providing your recommendations to the zoning board of adjustment via a memo. And I think as uh Mr. Sher pointed out that parking and how it affects the overall historic district is a consideration for the
board. I mean, we always I've heard the board consider um you know, screening of the parking lot, is the parking lot in the wrong correct or or the wrong place, things like that, how it affects the overall historic district and impacts the historic structure. So, I think that's a valid concern of this board,
but ultimately whether to grant the parking variance for the number of spaces is up to the zoning board. Okay. And the reason I'm asking is because this is this is a major undertaking for the town of Princeton. It it's
going to create places for people to live. And not to be heavy-handed, but parking you, we we we in Princeton are trying to be less car centric and we
have made great strides to eliminate how many parking spots we have for units. I I just want to put that out there so that we are really taking a look at what we should be looking at with regard to this application. And I don't think
parking is at the top of the list. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um, >> wait. Uh, sorry. You have Mr. Efron. Yes. >> I just wanted to say that >> Yeah. >> Thank you. I
didn't want to Sorry. I didn't want to be silent and not be sensitive to what Miss Satderfield was saying. Um, you know, obviously I agree with all of those sentiments. The problem lies in the nature of the affordable housing rules that really the courts have
fashioned. We were faced here with the issue that because of those rules in the third round, the developer gains rights to build. So we felt we had to mediate those rights with preservation of the historical structure. And I agree with
everything Miss Adterfield has said about what happens with affordable housing. Uh we couldn't change that. So our task here was to deal with the historical question, but I didn't want to uh not respond because I wanted to express agreement with those points, but
we were faced with a somewhat different problem here. That's all I wanted to say. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um, so everyone has commented except for me
on the color and I just have to say I respect um the Save Jug Town organization for being so active in the community and engaging and taking their time and um
effectively expressing themselves in a way where you guys could work together. And I really defer to them. I feel like they're going to be looking at the building and Bill King, his building, his edition is the same color as the
original building. So, I feel like in this case, it's the same. It >> You don't think? >> Which building? The one Katie Eastges. The one on the floor. >> No, no, no. Bill King. >> Oh, the one next door. Okay. >> Yeah. And he did his edition the same
color as the building. So I feel like in this case I don't I don't see a problem >> with it. >> Yeah. >> Oh >> and that and that's
>> the same and it's an addition and this is separated so it's even more distinct. But >> I respect the group's um >> endorsement of the original color of the building. So I'm I'm okay with that. Um
if there is it madam chair, can I just put in one not to belabor the point of the color, but I I do feel like it's >> it's the whole town that's looking at it. It's not just the neighbors. >> That that's true. >> So
>> absolutely true. Yes, a cliffford. He wants to weigh in too. >> I I just want to cite an example of uh what I think is one of the best examples of a new addition onto an historic building which is the Carl
Field Center on Olden and Prospect. the front of the building was the Elm Club and eating club and a really gifted architect named Anna Beha from Boston designed the new addition on the back
and I think it's one of the best examples of how to design something that looks a bit modern but yet relates to the existing building. Take a look at it next time you go down the street. And the new building is the exact same color as the front building. And so the fact
that the new building is a distinguishing design of a distinguished design immediately indicates that it's not an historic building, but the fact that the two colors are the same really really
ties it in together visually. And so that's why we feel that um you know it it would be good not to have the the additional the new building stand out but rather you know just be part of
the visual landscape in terms of the pallet that's there already. So uh take a look at that Carl Field Center. It's a really excellent modern addition. Thank you. >> I agree. Thank you. All right. If if
there's no more discussion, questions, comments, um I'm gonna ask Elizabeth if she wants to follow up on some of her points just to get clarification.
some points as what in the report or just >> in the report you've got um >> okay >> just as if we go through there's you know 23 points um for consideration
>> okay so do you want to do that now before the commission decides on what they want to support okay all right I get it Um let's see. I guess the first one has to do with the preservation area.
Okay. So the delineation of that I think as a minimum it has to include the buildings. It can't be the exterior because according to the definition it needs to include the buildings. Um, so the HBC has asked where would that delineation extend to in the back or
along the sides? >> That should be >> I see. So >> because I think >> Sorry, I'm looking I'm seeing you guys are confused. >> No, we understand the building should be included. That's that's pretty clear. Daniel's put up the site plan and the question, one of the comments that
Elizabeth made was it ought to include the walkway and so forth and so on. It gets a little tight to do that and then also do the work back there. So, uh, >> well, I think that it's it's not to do the work, but to designate the preservation area, right? I don't think
that this says that >> the the walkway is going to be redeveloped, redone. Well, there's a walkway already. It's just that you're extending it to the street, correct? >> Yeah, but um
the walkway the walkway is going to have to be redone though. It's um and there's nothing historic about the sidewalk that's back there. Well, it's it's >> so that sort of takes us back to >> So, this doesn't really talk about what's historic within there as much as
retaining the historic character and protecting. It's like it's like a protective area around it. >> I I would be I I understand your point and I would be comfortable with incorporating the area that I already included plus the actual building to the
basically the back of that purple line. My my cursor doesn't work here. But if you take the rear of the existing building and draw a line across it and incorporating all that in the front, I mean, I'm going to be saving the building inside and
out. So to preserve that obviously would be sensible to include in the preservation plan. Beyond that, uh I think it's going to be just very tight and difficult to include much more beyond that. So I I'm just going to read this one section where it talks about
and provide for an adequate visual buffer for the other historic features on the site by use of open areas and appropriate planting and an implementation of these standards. So I don't think that it's excluding from certain work to be in there but
obviously not extensive development. I mean that's the way that I interpret it. So, I mean, if you've got a sidewalk there and you're going to make an improvement to the sidewalk, I would say that that still allows for the visual um
access to the historic building without putting anything. So, I think it's more like we wouldn't want to see another structure closer to what's already there. >> I I you know, I I I understand your intent and I I know
you're retiring. Congratulations. If the next person may hurry up, get it out, right? >> No, the next person may interpret it differently. And that's where my concern is. I mean, clearly we know what the intent is and the plan depicts that pretty detailed, especially on the civil
side. And so, um, >> so, but what's your reservation? How would you think that someone else might interpret? >> Oh, no. Uh, you included this walkway that's existing in the back uh in the preservation plan and now
you're redoing the walkway. I mean, first off, it's it's really it has trip hazards and it's not really viable right now. I mean, a building code inspector is going to ask me to fix it anyway, but the point being is that somebody else may say, "Well, you haven't preserved the sidewalk." And that really wasn't
the intent of this application. So what I'm suggesting is to incorporate the building to the back of the building itself. >> So look, the preservation area shall be delineated so that improvements respect the historic pattern of use of the
historic property, respect the inter relationship with historic features of the property and provide for an adequate visual buffer for the principal structure or structures. So, I mean, I to me it's more like you don't want to
put something like a building or a structure in that space. I mean, would it make sense that in our in the memo to the um zoning board that it says it >> the preservation area, you know, goes
to that edge of that walkway with the understanding that that walkway is going to be improved to meet, I guess, modern safety stand modern safety standards, >> right? Yeah. And also the landscape's going to be improved as well.
>> Yeah. And include that. Yeah. Also, landscaped areas will also be improved as noted on the site plan, >> which will be subject to site plan review by zoning and and then if we ever change the walkway, it'd come back here. >> Okay. Well, I >> Okay. Okay. I think if we put some kind
of language in there just >> Okay. >> from a I think that's okay. >> I mean, that was my main concern that we get that clarified. So, anything else or um let's see. We we had some things here about the product
sheets or details, but I mean I know that you provided something about the horizontal band. So, I'm assuming that all of these you're okay with, right? Providing to update the drawings. >> Yeah. And I'll send you a digital copy of that as well for your phone. >> Okay. So, that would be number five with
A through G. Um and then a detail of the lobby entry pan. Again, some more details. I'm assuming that number five I >> Yeah, the the steel >> lobby entry, right? Which you showed us. >> Uhuh. Yep.
>> Uh the the wall treatment and the the um >> curb planter >> concrete go propose on both sides. >> Oh, concrete will be tinted. >> No, it just says will it be tinted? if
the concrete will be tinted. It's If you're saying no, then that's fine. We just ask. >> I I don't know. My engineer says it looks nicer. I just I can find out, but >> I don't particularly want to commit to that right now. >> Okay. But you're okay with both of
those, right? Yeah. You'll provide. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So, um >> and then I believe that So, I mean you've provided the West Elevation drawing. You just showed us all
>> Yeah. I mean there's a couple >> You showed us all of the the drawings including the south elevation. >> I did. Yeah. >> Right. >> Yep. >> So that's you've already provided >> color rendering. I >> you provided that >> right >> stucco color. I mean we can do that at the very end if you want. >> Yeah. So we'll leave the stuckco color
to the end. >> Inspirational images. You have say jug town >> and that was we heard from Jugtown that that was supported. >> Yeah. why certain variances >> right you just talked about that
>> um and 12 was just saying that you did a good job >> as love and then the Washington Hawthorne you're going to be find a replacement right >> we don't have the memo to we've not reviewed the memo when we get to zoning we're going to have a landscape plan >> but but I think the bottom line is yes
I'll replace it and I think I'll coordinate with Dober Milski and my civil engineer to what exact species that will be to replace it to another suitable species. >> That's more appropriate. >> Mhm. >> And then I think you I think Chris talked about the landscape plan.
>> Well, I'm going to have to give it more attention because there's a pretty lengthy memo which I'll work on. >> Okay. Um that's just a scale for >> I'll I'll try to move the arborise if it's viable. I'll do it. >> I'll just say if possible. >> Mhm.
>> Okay. For the arborite. Um the elm tree. I think that we defer that to Dan Doberilski's memo. >> I think so too, but um I quickly looked at his memo. I mean, they're in bad shape, but yes, we'll deal with Dober Milk. >> Okay. >> Um >> it's always good to show the Kings
Highway District line. You'll do that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Uh is Okay. Okay. So, this one number which has to do with the protocol for section 10B 388, architectural and historic sites protocol. Um, that's something
that if HBC is >> is acceptable to including that in your memo so the zoning board is familiar with. >> I just I'm okay with doing that. Um, even with this revised plan, I I would
like to, you can see on that on the slide above, the dark yellow is the actual footprint, the disturbance of the new building, and that's what I'd like to limit the scan and any archaeological
studies to. I mean, if something's picked up in the parking lot that I'm not going to be excavating, I don't want to be digging it up, >> right? So, you're not going to do any excavate. You might just resurface that parking area, right? Yeah. >> Okay. And would you also have them look
at that wall that you're taking down? >> Yeah, sure. They're going to be there and they can if they have some kind of something interesting about it that I can pass on to HPC, I'll be happy to do that. >> Okay. And do you know are you going to uh service with um Richard Grubman Associates? Are you
>> Yeah, I don't. Yes. Okay. Yeah. And are you okay if the um the ground penetrating radar if it's performed by a non um archaeologist that one archaeologist could be on site when they're doing that work? >> It's fine. >> Okay.
Let's see. Okay. Then we'll go to the commission. So this is just uh so this is just asking for HPC to determine if the proposed improvements to property are appropriate with minimal dead gradations historic building. So I think that's going to be when you guys decide
um um and then the other ones are really just kind of going through the variances. Um most specifically I think we want to look at the Dvariances and then go through the other ones independently. So, I mean, I'm just going to put my plug in for the
Dvariance. I mean, again, the existing building is going to function as it is, so there'll be no change to it. Um, and again, it helps the applicant be able to remove the to disconnect the building so
they can preserve the historic house and the existing building on the site. Um, and it allows them to get a few more units into their new building, which they've reduced in size and height. So,
I mean, I would say for that reason for I mean, and I don't think that there's going to be any change as far as parking use, whether it's mixed up or not. It's not.
and you know the use we don't see it from a historic standpoint. So for me I would encourage HPC at least to support those devariances. >> Okay. Thank you. >> What was that? >> I'm not sure I understand. You go to that.
>> Yes. So uh the Dvariances are the ones where um according to the overlay zone you are required to have commercial office building on the first floor of both buildings and then the all the upper floor buildings have to be
residential. The applicant wants to keep the existing building to continue as office and not put apartments on the upper build on the upper floors. The reason that that was a problem previously is because it
um demolished the interior, what which used to be the exterior of the building before the the 1980s edition, which actually preserved all of that. But for them to do the interior changes, they
had to demolish that. So, um, that's a big win for HPC to be able to keep everything as is. Um, and then the other building, which is the new residential building, they want to keep that all residential.
They don't want to put office or commercial on the first floor. So, that's the two variances, one for each building. >> Does that also include the parking? That removes the question about the office.
>> I I I'm sorry. I don't understand. >> That removes or the the question that I had about parking for the office tenants. >> I think that I think the parking issue that you're
talking about is there no matter which way they go. I don't think it's going to make a difference whether if you're if you're conforming to the HO2 requirement. I think that you're always you're still going to be deficient with this new design because of the the space
that they have now is altered. If you look at that matrix I provided, you could see that the original design had more parking than it does now. But because of the reconfiguration, it loses parking. the the the original
design was conforming to parking in all respects. Uh the trade-off here is there's not as much parking, but this this protection of the Warner House and there's massive reduction in scale to the new building is the trade-off. In
reality, I think like Chris said, the town has taken the stance that like the market really will will push people's hands into how much parking is needed. >> Sure. And and the truth is if as a developer I didn't feel that there was
enough parking for this to be marketable, I just wouldn't build it. Um so from my past experiences with other properties downtown, I do believe there there is enough parking here. Um once this is kind of consolidated down. Um so
uh but the parking variances are bulk bulk variances a little different than the Dvariance and I guess what I'm asking this committee tonight is if if we are approved that in a memo and I
would again if we are approved encourage any of the board members or liaison to come to the zoning board because that's a big hurdle to climb but you know As stated here, I think this is a good precedent for neighbors and developers to come together and come up with a
solution uh preservation of historical structures. And I'm probably going to need a little bit help at the zoning board to get across that hurdle. So, uh but I think it's it's uh well justified given this redesign. >> And Chris, I mean, you can clarify for
me because they have devariances, everything is lumped together when it goes to zoning board. Devarian is required is if five out of how many of the members have to vote affirmative. If they get four, they gets denied. Even if
they might only have eight people there, they have to have a certain amount for a devariance. >> We think they're pretty understandable. You know, we're trading off one floor for the next and then the historic nature of the second floor of the existing building is so important that
it's justified and that's in your realm. So, we're hoping that you speak up on that on that score. >> Right. Thank you. Well, given that um if we're good, >> I guess just just one last one which has to do with just going through all the
variances. >> Okay. >> Do you want to do that? So, we have the um sideyard set back which is uh the front of the building that faces not the front, I'm sorry, the side of the building which faces North Harrison. So, that's considered a sideyard. So
according to the overlay, it's either zero or 10. Um, and they're providing eight feet, I mean five feet. So that's something that HPC should determine whether they support that or not. Um, rear yard setback, which is the property
that's back to the foot doctor required is 15 ft. They're providing 10 ft. And that's for the the the parking, right? Or is that the building itself? No, the if you look here on this slide that the actual first floor footprint is this
dark yellow. This lighter opaque yellow is the second and third floor overhang. So the second and third floor overhang is still considered part of >> but it's the building right. Okay, that's for the building >> but not to the first floor but to the second floor overhang is 10 ft from the rear property line.
>> Okay. And then um third one is parking spaces. 19 are required, nine are provided. Um, and Elizabeth, I can jump in. 19 are required mostly uh out of the 10 residential units, the zoning
requires five parking spaces. Okay. Uh, and it requires no parking for the commercial on the first floor. But where the 19 comes from is because there is commercial on the second floor of the existing, it goes to the underlying zoning which is
>> like three for every 200 some square feet, it's one parking space. I mean that doesn't exist anywhere in Princeton. 200 square feet, one parking space. So those are outdated 40-year-old parking requirements but that apply here
because of this Dvariant. So the actual need here is not 19. I'll just you know it's definitely not 19 but yes that is one of them. >> Okay. Um and then it's the ratio of um compact spaces maximum is 15% and
they're providing 25%. Um parking setback is minimum 4T and I assume that's from the rear yard right and they're providing one foot. And then distance between buildings as Daniel and Chrisa talked about you know required is
10 ft. Um, uh, it's five feet in a certain section, but a lot of it is between eight and 10 feet. And then the devariances I talked about. And then the sign waiver is the aisle width of the driveway. It's required at 25 ft and
they're proposing at 20 ft. >> 24 feet is the requirement. >> What? >> 24 is the requirement. >> Oh, it's 24 is required. Okay. Sorry. >> Okay. So those things left. >> Thank you. I mean it sounds like this
devariance is triggering all these other um parking requirements that aren't necessarily up to date. Um, and so we understand that these this variance
you're seeking is a difficult variance, but it's completely motivated by you stepping away from the historic structures and building an independent building that's not connected. So, um,
and that's something we had asked for. All right. Are there other questions? What's that? Oh, are there other people in the public that want to comment? Um, I don't think so. I think we did that.
So, all right. Is I think we're at a point where we are looking for a motion. Um, >> Elizabeth, would can do you want to do all of them together or do you want to do separate motions for each?
>> I would say um maybe better do it for each. It might just be easier because it must take us long to collaborate everything together. Maybe Yeah, maybe start with just the uh the site plan, you know, the the building. This would be a motion to
support it with the cited recommendations that we talked about. >> Yeah. And and also support the the new site plan and the the building design which would include the material, the height, but not the color.
>> So, do you want to have motions for each one of these? I think that we just just for the variances we might want them individual but for this you know the variance and well so >> I guess I guess the question is
>> we could do them all at once unless there is someone who >> objects >> objects to one of the variances in particular. >> Well we could try the first way and see if it works. If it doesn't pass, then we can bring them up. >> So, would anyone like to make a motion
that involves approving all the variances? >> Well, it's not it's supporting >> supporting them with the um recommendations that Elizabeth noted and are noted in her memo. >> Right. >> Is there anyone who'd like to make that
motion? >> Yeah. I'd move that we support the variances with uh Elizabeth's recommendations. >> Okay. >> And with a special uh boost for the use variance. >> What was that?
>> Right. A special support for the Dvarians. >> Especially supporting it. All right. Okay. So, should we do a Oh, I need a second. Okay, Charlotte. is seconding the
motion. >> Miss Sat Miss Satderfield, um, thank you for your explanation of her understanding and, uh, I know it's going to pass, but my vote is no. Okay,
Mr. Shatskin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Shore. Do you want more clarification on something? >> No, I'll just make a statement that I'm enthusiastic about this project. However, I I think that
I'm letting the other property owners in the district down by not holding stronger to the parking issue. Um, I know that the strong feeling in town is towards creating housing. I just don't want it to be totally at the uh cost of
other historic district property owners who have been for years coming before us and abiding by all the things that we request and that say that I guess I
>> um so Tara I mean in the memo there could also be comments about um >> you know uh there was some concern about parking I mean it >> I I did note that and I always add that in that memo a section of the board.
Here are the issues that the board discussed and one of them was the park. I felt that parking was a pretty extensive discussion so that'll be included. >> That'd be great. Um >> Miss Freriedman. >> Yes. >> Chairperson Capazolei. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, let's see. Do you want to talk about the building color? Let's talk about that. >> I mean, I think we could say that there was a difference of opinion that uh
Shirley, did you care about the color of the building? >> I think the building's wonderful. I just I just don't agree with >> Yeah. But the color, like if the new building were the same color as the historic building, is that something you agree with or do you think the new
building should be a different color? >> The building can be that color. >> You think? Okay. So, one, two, three. I don't know how David feels. David, how do you feel about the color? Oh, originally the color is one of the
things that I don't care about as much. >> Okay. So, there's three in support of keeping the color the same as the historic building. >> Count David as a half. Three and a half. It's a half. >> David is neutral and I think Charlotte
is opposed to keeping it >> the same. I'm going to give a plug for changing the color. I don't think that it should be dramatic. I think that it should be in the same hue and it is within the secretary interiors that says that distinction is important and it
doesn't have to be a flaring distinction and but I think that it's it's true they are distinct buildings and to make them the same color almost makes them the mass larger. So, I would love to see it
a hue slightly darker only cuz it recesses but within that same light color tone. >> So, that's just that's just my plugin. >> So, that can be noted. But I think there were three of us that
agreed with the Jug Town >> Jug Town people and one neutral and then I'm I think Charlotte would like to see a different color. So, it's a it's not that in the me in the memo.
>> While we're discussing Stuckco, what is the treatment around the windows on the second floor? >> Right now, it's just kind of a Are we going to see a detail on that or is that by going through tonight it it gets approved for what it looks like? I think that there was something here about uh
details about the window, right? The casement, the lower panels, um the trim. >> Yeah, maybe Marina can help us. >> The architect is here. If you want, just raise your right hand. >> Um yes.
>> Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth to the best of your knowledge? I do. Uh so the question is on the second floor treatment of windows. I think the best way to look at it is if everybody could find the picture of the inspirational
image. >> No, we don't know that. >> No, the >> the inspirational image that was part of the package >> in your package the stuff that they save Jugtown folks gave us. It's >> Let's look at that and I will walk you through the exact particulars
>> on the screen. Uh, I don't think we have it on the screen, but >> it's in the packet. >> Yeah, >> it was a color. >> Why don't you go ahead? >> Yeah. Nope. >> So, the the way that it works, it's very
similar to the picture that's on the screen. There are different Yes. Thank you. Yeah. The picture looks like this. Yep. So, as you can see in the bottom, um, this is a progressive change of more
detail to less detail as you work your way up through the building. So, as you could see right here, it's a relief. It's where the stucco is in relationship to sort of forward and back. And as you could see in this drawing, there are
portions of the stucco that are forward and that they're recessed, what are called rustications. Yes. So the same treatment is around the second floor window. It is >> you're saying something.
>> Go ahead. >> Yep. So the same configuration where the stucco is recessed. It's still stuckco. There is no wood or trim or anything. It's a recess. So as you could see exactly in the um inspirational image
provided, it's a relief. So, it would be recessed as it says right here, 7/8 of an inch. >> That to answer the question, >> so the the detail that's provided, is that sufficient to also for the window
or do you need one just for the windows? >> I understand the detailing on the base on the first floor. Mhm. >> I don't get it from the drawing, which I guess this is top little piece over to the left. >> So, it's this. What is it?
>> I as I understand you're saying >> we can't hear you. Sorry. The rustication is an insized >> exactly >> line and the the line that we're seeing around the windows is the same. >> Thank you. It's just insized.
>> Yep. >> Score. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> As exactly as Charlotte described. Yes. >> Would you require a detail or do you think that that's sufficient for it to >> I think I think that's sufficient. I'm
not sure it'll be as visible as on the drawing in real life. But I I think you're right that when you draw a line on the drawing, it's substantially more prominent when it's a same material, but it's a different relief. But we have to use a line on the drawing in order to
show it. >> So, got it. >> Thank you. >> Absolutely. >> All right. Are we is there anything else that we um I guess we still don't know do we know the
date of the zoning board >> no >> meeting yet? >> It'll be early next year, >> but we'll we'll commit to having either myself or another member hope hopefully maybe two of us attend. I did hear that
they that the position was accepted by somebody, the new historic preservation officer. >> Wow. >> Yeah. But we can talk about that after we do this the variances. All right. >> Maybe Elizabeth can come out of retirement. >> Yeah.
>> All right. So, um, >> so you voted of any of the variances, does anyone have an objection to any of them? >> I think we we already took the vote. >> We already voted. Oh. Oh, you did. Okay. How about the design waiver, the aisle? Was that all included?
>> That was I thought that was all >> together. Nobody said they hated one of them. >> And then we did weigh in on the colors. So, I think >> we're all done. >> Done. Everything. >> Okay. Thank you everybody. >> When I'm going to try and I want to commit to getting this to you for your
review because I don't think it makes sense to leave it for whoever your successor is. So, if I get it to you by the end of the week, is that enough time for you to look at a memo? Okay. >> Yeah. >> I just want to make sure your eyes will be on it. >> Yeah. Yeah. I don't think the person is
She might stop by one day, maybe just to get the lay of the land, but I they believe she's not going to start until after January. >> Do you Do you have a name? I don't have a name, but supposedly she was an applicant who worked in Jersey City and
then she was doing section 106 FEMA reviews. Um, and I believe that uh the planner and zoning officer interviewed her. >> Okay. Well, >> I did invite her to come to the party.
>> All right. >> That way everyone can meet her. >> Everyone here can come to the holiday party. >> Right. So, we're reading again on the 15th. I believe that's the end of our business. Um, would someone like to make a motion to adjourn?
>> Okay. Thanks, Roger. A second. Okay. Charlotte, thank you everybody. We really appreciate