all right Bridget you ready to go okay all right so I will now call to order this regular meeting of the Jersey City Historic preservation commission it's Monday May 13th 2024 at approximately 6:34 p.m. please be advised that in accordance with the open public meetings act the notice of the time date and place of this regularly scheduled meeting of the Jersey City Historic preservation commission has been sent to the Jersey journal the Jersey City Reporter and Ellis balito on Tuesday May 7th same notice has been sent to the clerk's office for posting on the bulletin board outside of City Hall and on the Jersey City website I have proof of this notice here in evidence if we could mark them right and we'll do a roll call attendance commissioner amuso here commissioner Gunther here commissioner sakong here commissioner blazak here commissioner Cronin here okay commissioner GGA is absent commissioner San Camp is absent uh Vice chair gucciardo is absent and chairman Gordan present okay there are six members of the Commission in attendance five affirmative votes are needed for the approval of a certificate of appropriateness all right moving on down the agenda we have the minutes from March 11th anyone have any questions changes Corrections okay hearing none staff recommends a motion to approve make motion second okay yeah than all right do a roll call vote commissioner Gunther abstain okay commissioner song uh I'm GNA abstain as well okay commissioner blazak I commissioner Cronin I commissioner amuso I right commissioner gria is absent commissioner San Camp is absent Vice chair gucciardo is absent chairman Gordon I okay there are four votes in favor none against with two extensions the minutes from March 11th are approved next we have the March 26th special meeting minutes anyone have any changes Corrections okay hearing none staff recommends a motion to approve motion to approve second okay Paul and then I have Dan right uh roll call for this commissioner sakong abstain commissioner blazak I commissioner Cronin I commissioner amuza I commissioner Gunther I okay uh commissioner gri is absent commissioner San Camp is absent Vice chair guar is absent and chairman Gordon I okay there are five votes in favor none against with one extenstion the minutes from March 26th are approved all right next item is correspondence all correspondence application materials are linked on the agenda which can be accessed um by scanning that QR code um for announcements we do have two announcements this evening the first is that case 11a uh the demolition review for 17 van ripen has requested to carry to the June 17th HPC meeting so that's our regular June meeting um and then the second announcement is that uh commissioner Lewis has chosen to resign from the HPC um very bummed to hear that obviously but we do thank her for the four years that she spent on the commission with us all right next is open public comment if there are any members of the public in attendance who would like to speak regarding uh on matters regarding historic preservation that are not on tonight's agenda you can use the ra oh I was about to go for Zoom there and say raise hand function the bottom the screen you can approach the public comment mic and staff sees no members of the public so I recommend a motion to open and close public comments I'll make a motion to open and close uh public comment second all in favor I okay we have no old business on tonight's agenda so we can call the first case for new business I will call case h24 d79 the applicant is James Burke Esquire on behalf of Patricia and core rafos owners the address is 77 Grand Street in the Pauls hook historic district this application is for certificate of appropriateness for proposed subdivision of lot three into two lots 3.01 which would be 77-79 Grand Street and 3.02 which is 82 Sussex Street this is a recommendation to the Jersey City planning board oh do you mind just tapping the mic on or no sorry at the bottom where it says like the push you just tap it yeah sorry it did it turn green all right if it's green you're good Michael's going to come down and look that might be why the public comment mic was there oh there it is there it is there we go I got it I got it um sorry about that I'll just starting in Jim Burke representing the applicant um I just want to emphasize my surveyor is here and he'll walk through this but nothing's being proposed other than the creation of the lot so whoever buys this lot obviously will come back to this board and make a presentation on what will go on the lot but my clients own this property for a long time uh it's an L-shaped lot and they decided uh to um just create this uh two lot subdivision and uh and sell off one of the lot uh so they can actually stay in their home and and live there for a lot longer okay so um I'm going to bring up uh Joe cawfield as our surveyor and he'll just give you two seconds of uh a description and hopefully that will be enough except for any questions you might have good evening do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to given this proceeding will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do and if you could State and spell your full name Joseph Coffield c a u l fi e l d uh dress okay um my name's Joe Coffield I'm a land surveyor I'm the principal surveyor at Coffield Associates LLP we've been in county for since 1933 I was just figuring the math um we were asked to do a survey of this lot three um in preparation for a subdivision so as what you see here is our Subdivision plat the site is located in the paes hook historic district as you well know um it has a situation where along Grand Street we have two three story in basement bricks and on the Sussex Street it goes through into Sussex and Sussex is a vacant lot um you can see the area calculations that we have on our plot together both together Lots as it stands now is 7,356 point3 square ft we're proposing breaking the Lots as you mentioned earlier into one lot along Sussex Street which is going to be 2,280 square feet 2 yeah let me see that again ioke 2,28 square feet and that's along Sussex Street uh the remainder will be along Grand uh Avenue uh Grand Street excuse me and that will be a lot of 5,148 point3 square feet okay um it's it's pretty uh straightforward uh great neighborhood um as you can probably tell if you're familiar with the Paul hook historic district or the Paulis hook area it's a whole series of tow houses as you can tell by our work there is a hole in those series of tow houses um what we were able to after speaking with the client and also going through Paul's hook historic um preservation website information and they have a great Historical Society there it turns out that Colgate Palmolive which was in that area we're all famili with Colgate sign their headquarters their national headquarters were here actually they had gone through the process of buying individual Lots in the Paulis hook District uh up until probably into the 60s and 70s um if you don't mind uh did we enter this as an exhibit um it was submitted AS application materials yeah I'm going to turn to another map that I put together but this we do need to mark this will need to be marked uh exhibit A1 I assume A1 A1 yeah A1 is a 1929 plat map um of the area po area you can tell uh Morris Sussex green Grand what we're concerned about are these areas right here this lot here 47 and 43 and a lot M so that is M and Mary em is and Mary so what I want the reason I put this map together for everyone to see was to see just how all this with a whole series of tow houses along Sussex Street uh what we're looking to do what the clients looking to do is obviously lot three looks like it was merged it might have been by the tax assessor I'm not sure the historical what the historical um reason reason was for why lot 3 became a conglomeration of the Sussex and Grand Street pieces in my experience it's usually the tax assessor when they're doing a reassessment um if it's uh joint if it's the same owner they'll merge them doctrine of merger sometimes pops up you'll see that in subdivision cases um so that's what I believe happened with lot three but we were all individual Lots two along Grand Street and we had the one along Sussex um as I mentioned before Colgate Palmolive owned a whole bunch of stuff this was actually a big manufacturing plant back in hundred years ago and they were looking to pick up different Lots as they became available and if uh based on what uh um testimony from the uh pooke historic group uh some of the old old Tim neighborhood said Colgate would try would buy it and pretty much demolish it within a day or two and that seems to be what happened in this case um I think they were looking at some point to demolish a whole series if you could imagine that um that entire not that entire but a lot of it and make that like a real national headquarters for them long story short they didn't they did not well they call left thank goodness I'm from hobok and we had maille House Coffee down the street for me they left too so it's now a nice neighborhood um but it's I think it's a great idea that historic gets weighs in on this because we have the ability or you have the ability depending on what the next stage is and who you know takes oversight development of this to bring it back to the original um that we had back in the day they're all this whole series along this this block is they're all 10- foot setbacks from the street pretty Gardens in the front and so on um it's a real opportunity I think um for Jersey City to bring back that the character of that neighborhood Joe this will be a conforming lot right this is conforming just based on the area calculations you're looking at in this area 1,00 Square F feet is I'm sorry slow down a little so sorry uh 1,800 square feet would be the based on the based on the the this the plat that I already provided sorry uh we have the area calculations and we're required with 1,800 Square ft feet for conforming in this historic district we're looking at for the Sussex piece 2200 square ft and and some change um it's part just as you look at our work as well you'll see that the buildings on either side of the Sussex property are party wall buildings so there'll be a joining and anybody developing that will have to obviously put that into their calculations in their design but um it's uh it seems pretty straightforward forward um the um it doesn't seem that there's any again this as far as um we seem to be a conforming lot we don't seem to have any major issues one of them or any major issues at all the fact that it's just being subdivided as a vacant lot makes it a pretty easy or easier here because we don't need to go through any kind of development variances that may or may not be needed um all right thank you I think that covers it yeah okay and I'll just I'll just I'll just add before we turn it back um the existing buildings are not being touched all right so I just want to put that on the record okay are there any questions from any Commissioners okay just one um how wide is the uh the lot on the sus on the Sussex side Sussex is going to be 22.8 ft thank you 22.8 okay right and if that and your testimony that that concludes our presentation great thank you right are there any members of the public who wish to speak regarding this application right staff sees none and recommends a motion to open and close public comment I'll make a motion to open and close public comment for this item second second okay all in favor I I all right we can move quickly into staff comments um if you have the staff report open we're going to go right to section five um as the applicant stated this is as straightforward with subdivision as you can get we are getting two conforming Lots out of IT staff sees no adverse effect to the PO hook historic district um and we do recommend approval of this application um and recommendation to the planning board we do have four conditions um for this uh three of them are pretty standard right um we have that they we're not approving any work to the buildings or the site as part of the subdivision it is strictly just subdivision um if any element of the subdivision changes they do need to come back and requested deviation um and then number four is also just that if there is a deviation they need to come back and the last um condition is that the uh Sussex Street side does have a curb cut on it um it is expected that the applicate any future application will not have that curb cut on this as we do not permit curb cuts and parking for buildings with less than 10 story uh 10 units okay any questions for staff no okay are those conditions appropriate and acceptable we accept those conditions great with that staff recommends a motion to approve the COA and recommendation to the planning board with conditions right I'll make a motion to approve this um with the conditions as Maggie read uh and recommended to the planning board also thank the uh applicant for a thorough presentation seconded okay do a roll call vote commissioner blazak I commissioner Cronin I commissioner uza I Commission Gunther hi commissioner sakong hi okay commissioner gria is absent commissioner San Camp is absent commissioner Vice chair gucciardo is absent chairman Gordon I right there are six votes in favor none against with no extensions the COA and recommendations to the planning board is approved okay thank you will thank you good night even have a good day I'll Now call Cas h24 d140 the applicant is Jennifer bogdansky Esquire on behalf of bell fuse Inc owner the address is 206 vanv Street in the Pais hook historic district SL Tidewater Bas and Redevelopment plan this application is for a certificate of appropriateness for a proposed subdivision of lot 30 into seven Lots including 30.07 which is for the existing historic building and then 30 .01 through 30.06 this will be a recommendation to the Jersey City planning board just give me a second has to pop up on my end all right you're good you guys and Rich you guys are good to go okay thank you uh for the record Charles Harrington of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant um similar to the last application uh before this commission this is for a subdivision uh in in the uh Paul's hook historic uh District uh again it it is only the subdivision that's being presented uh tonight uh it's a little unique um and we're going to walk you through that um you know after I give a little bit of a summary but um uh the property right now is a single lot um it's about I think it's 15,000 square ft um the old Bell fuse building sits on it I don't know if you're familiar with it at 206 vanvorst so uh there's that building and then uh directly to the South there's a parking lot um that is used in conjunction with that building now um this is a uh again it's it's somewhat unique and that the property sits in the Tidewater Basin um Redevelopment plan area and then a portion of the paulus hook historic district kind of cuts right through the belf fuse building um you know we had looked at that a number of times to see whether or not that was a drafting era on the map um obviously the belfus building is has historic uh properties and resources um but it was like where is this boundary why would you draw it in between you know in the middle of the building right but uh that being said this this subdivision does affect the belf fuse building because what we're proposing to do is is to carve out uh the Bell HED building as as a single lot uh that'll be um a little under 7,000 square ft uh so that'll be a pre you know existing stand alone a lot for the building and then um to the to the uh South on a parking lot we're we're looking to break that into six uh lots and of those five of those would be developed with with tow houses which would be you know two to three units in each townhouse which is permitted in the Tidewater Basin Redevelopment plan and all of the the the parking lot area actually sits outside the PO hook um historic district that so that is governed by the Tidewater uh Basin Redevelopment plan um so the idea is is to you know um no there's no work uh proposed on the belf fuse uh building as part of the subdivision um or as part of the uh uh you know the site plan that's that's uh that's pending before the planning board division that is all about the the new tow houses that we would be proposing um so um that is uh we're going to walk you through that you know we note that the the uh lot that we are proposing on the parking lot area uh are all undersized um according to the Tidewater Basin uh Redevelopment plan um but I note that they're all exceed or or meet meet the minimum width and and uh and exceed your standard uh width lot in historic districts which is 18 by 100 so you have the 18t width so we're we're proposing five of the six Lots I believe are 20 ft wide and and a corner lot is 20t 25 ft wide so it's really a matter of the depth um that that creates the undersized uh lock condition uh and that's because that's where the Bell fuse building uh uh starts uh as well so you can't make them any deeper the uh as because of the existing condition so uh with that being said I I have Richard Garber is our architect he's just going to um you know walk you through I think this helps explain it the visuals as to what we're uh proposing great thank you Mr I do it's Richard Garber g a r b r great hello board thank thank you for uh having us tonight it's nice to be uh back and quarters um uh briefly as Mr Harrington uh suggested there is uh I'm not quite sure if I would call it an error but there's an inconsistency in the um in the historic overlay here which is the thicker Brown Line which you can see here Cuts right through our site uh which is wholly Bound by Otherwise the Tidewater Basin Redevelopment plan um the belf fuse building is certainly a building with historic um historic kind of um Street front and I've lived um uh a block away from this building for over 20 years at this point you can see here the aerial view uh and the proposed subdivision drawn in red now I'll show a survey here but the idea is that the belfus building is wholly kept as the asset and it's uh adaptively reused with um permitted uses by the way and then there is a subdivision of six lots that per Tide Water are 20 ft wide except for the corner lot which is 25 ft wide now the depth that Mr Harrington spoke about is largely a function of where that building exists as a as a as as an existing condition um you see that here in Tidewater this is the historic buffer District um in Tidewater uh and then we have some photos of the building you probably know this building it's a very handsome um some have said it's a firehouse had been a firehouse some had said Stables I think it might have been even both um but you see that the building was um uh uh uh basically modified a little bit in 1998 um we have the sort of drawings of that and so forth these I should also say that the belfus was a client of ours prior to um the current owner here as well so we've lived with this building not only as neighbors but architectur architecturally for some time um this is the sidey yard and so the thing that I'd like you to take kind of quick note of here is if I can get a mouse up here uh a Siamese connection here that will have to be moved and um Miss O'Neal and I have spoken about this our our preference is to move that from the south lot uh south facing facade to the sidewalk if we do have to put it on the facade of the building we will work that out with um with staff and just for the record that that was uh subject of a certificate of no effect that was filed with Maggie and that's referenced in the report uh this is the uh existing condition survey you see the lots to be subdivided are largely a parking lot you see the belfus building as we call it which is the gray entity here and then the proposed subdivision is as such and as Mr Harrington said um all of the Interior lots are 20 feet wide the corner lot is 25 ft wide as um uh required by Tide Water and then we have a little bit of a varying depth but that depth is somewhere around 65 ft gets a little tighter on the um on the corner um and then just to take you through some key points briefly um uh this is um meant to be subdivided into from lot 30 to lots 30.01 to 30.07 uh the lot area as an existing condition is 15,000 ft the total building area uh that will be left at belfus is 6925 which is the existing condition as is its configuration of two stories and 27t 2 in as I mentioned that existing structure will be adapted ly re reviewed uh reused and then a very modest portion of the overhanging cornice on belfus will be um cut back basically demolished and that was also in your staff report that you saw and um there will be some looking at some window openings to make sure that we are complying uh with code and other than that I mean I can just show very quickly like what the site plan looks like there there are some Town Homes planned here as well as a vacant lot with a playground so you basically see the relationship here where what's in Orange would be a kind of rear yard so to speak um that would um provide a little bit of a buffer between um the existing belfus building and um the tow houses and I think that's pretty much all I have um for this I mean I can get into more Graphics but I think it's fairly straightforward yeah that's that that's really it it's really it's all about the the subdivision tonight and like I said the the townh houses are outside the district um and part of the Tod waterer Basin Redevelopment plan and uh the B fuse building will you know sit sit alone on its own lot what is the belfus building currently being used for it's vacant and you said it'll be adaptively reused for permitted purpose um would that be commercial or residential it'll be uh currently the plan is to make it uh a preschool so more commercial use than a residential use both are considered by the plan yeah I will just note um for whatever goes on in the Bel they will have to file an application with HPC right this is once again just a subdivision application I I understand I'm I'm asking because um well I I'll get there but so the the I know that we're only looking at the subdivision but you you're currently contemplating town houses and did you say there would be three family homes most think it's I think it's two family homes that the we're proposing and how many oh go ahead no that's that's um how many parking spaces are there currently there's no parking proposed no I mean in the existing parking lot how many spaces is that uh about uh 22 20 22 I think okay I I I just a little concerned not so much from a historic preservation perspective but frankly as as a resident uh in the in the area that we're looking at adding 10 to 12 homes and taking away 22 parking spaces also sir that that you have to remember that right now this is a totally underused asset no this is not public parking this is gated parking and it was never public parking right this was only for when belfus um had the fortune of Hosting its world uh headquarters or whatever it was called in Jersey City its employees would park there um the the Tidewater Redevelopment plan which again is a little bit beyond what we here to talk about allows for townhouse development at a density that is less than the R1 standards and doesn't require parking and I I know too I mean if you're live in a neighborhood you're well probably well aware too across the street has has parking uh within the building which I believe is open uh to the public as well not not specifically just for their residents that's right but there it's not yeah it would not be required on on these sites yeah okay thank you was do you know if was the parking lot added um when you said some of the changes were made to the building in the 90s late 90s it was so the there were changes made to the building in 1998 that included an elevator that included some structural steel because they had always contemplated an addition to this building actually the parking lot always existed there I would say it was more codified in 1998 so the striping that you see now um has carried from for these 25 26 years something like that um but it was always used as parking and was there an addition put on the building in the 90s as well is is that also part of what um the addition is the uh the area that looks newish I guess or not but uh the gray part of the building and that's so and then if we look at the front facade it's also presumably that that right section where there's a canopy this little vestule so you see here the can and this was in u m Neal's report that this canopy actually projects beyond what would be the subdivision line so that's simply being cut back and then there's a lot line window that I just mentioned um as well as the relocation of that Siamese and so those windows um in their image on the right those four Windows would be would be blocked up or would they remain I can show sure um so again I not sure ever how far to get into this but basically you can see here this is really more for a an application for the ReUse of the building but basically because that gray portion of the building which is new uh is actually extended back so the if you remember the site the site plan kind of jogs a little bit that that also makes the depth of the parking lot the least deep at that point so those windows would actually be removed um they're not needed and also there's a building code requirement that was not previously considered I don't think that basically allows for a kind of percentage opening on that facade that would require us to close a window now I think that that's an easy choice because if you actually look at the rhythm of the existing Windows there we actually have if you look P right past the gray on the down here that this is a double uh window here whereas if you see the kind of cap on this side is a double and a single this happens to be a quad and a double with quads and doubles in the middle so just moving this to a single seem to be the best way to kind of make that Code Compliance which is something we're going to have to do anyway and one more question the new lot um that you're creating that's just going to have the existing building on it and maybe this is a question for for staff or something for just to consider but is that that would then create a building with essentially 100% lock coverage on it or excuse me not a building a a lot with 100% lock coverage on it so just is there any concern with that I mean that may be something more for the planning board but that we're creating a condition where there's a building that has full 100% lock coverage so from a staff perspective I'm I'm really not particularly concerned about that it was already a non-conforming building um we already had no very hard setback here um if anything we are actually by uh uh subdividing this we are actually making its sidey yard setback much more conforming by there not being one we're so believe it or not uh Mr blazak we are creating a little bit more uh uh perious coverage because you're removing the asphalt then there's going to be because we're removing the asphalt and there's going to be as I showed in the site plan here uh and this is not approved yet but this has been we've worked through this with staff uh a small amount of drain of of uh area here which would be a little rear yard and then this whole lot at this point is slated for um actually a playground uh so there will be um you know uh pervious coverage there as well I don't know that that that amount off the top of my head um but the idea is that that uh seventh lot and that that I think that that's lot 301 in our subdivision if I'm not mistaken uh would be given to uh a kind of accessory use to the Adaptive reused belf fuse building and that it's a playground yeah and that was going to be it's going to be something for use by perhaps the uh daycare or whatever use that this the new's not going to be like a public park or playground okay just correct it would be in connection with the daycare in the Bel fuse building okay and I I know we're getting ahead of ourselves but on on this particular drawing it looks like the playground only takes up a little more than half of that lot is that yeah I mean we haven't really laid the play out yet but um yeah it wouldn't be right uh and there's some concern about just putting children close to the street I mean I you know I I we haven't worked that out totally yet but yet we're not going to we're not going to run that playground right up to the sidewalk but it's it's not a split lot it's not like you're going to have another use um towards the front of it that's just yeah the diagram for now to yeah because yeah when we discussed internal fencing because you don't want the kids right next to the street right and I think the other thing that should be mentioned is in its current configuration there's a uh an egress point which you can see denot denoted in the um blue dashed line so that is going to be a second means of egress right to Morris Street from the belfus building itself and so that's one of the other reasons at this point why that lot is you know that lot will serve as both a a kind of egress way from the existing building as well as a a playground for the Adaptive use that Eis path is just on a permanent easement is that the idea that's right how wide is that easement I think it's 5 feet it has to be a minimum of 3 feet 8 Ines I think it's 5 feet is what we're asking for yeah I have I have 3.67 yeah okay so it is 3 fo8 there any additional questions Chuck and Rich anything else to add no that's all going be a great addition to the neighborhood great there are any members of the public present who would like to speak regarding this application please approach the public comment mic seeing none staff recommends a motion to open and close public comment I'll make a motion to open and close public comment second all right all in favor I I okay we'll move to staff comments give the staff report up we're going to go right to five um so we we addressed one of the concerns of this which is that you are going to have a full coverage lot with the subdivision I'm sorry I know I'm talking really fast the eye contact is working I [Laughter] promise we we did address one concern of this application during commission comments which is that you will be getting a full coverage lot here the lot is though because slightly more conforming because the setback will be conforming it was this building was never going to have a rear yard setback um and in my opinion the thing that the subdivision does is it fixes one of the last remaining split zoned Lots downtown um we there's only one other one I can think of that is still split Zone Downtown um it objectively makes no sense to have a parking lot in a historic district especially half of a parking lot in a historic district um so we are more than happy to see this belfus building subdivided the uh Historic District boundary will St exactly the same we are subdividing it along that Historic District boundary um and we really see no adverse effect to the historic district as a result of this application um as Chuck did and Rich mentioned um we did work with the applicant on a cone for this um for the work that they discussed the relocation of that Siamese connection the removal of the non-historic awning and the cover um covering of a couple windows in order to meet building code um so the conditions in this uh recommendation reflect that were all of those conditions were remain in effect for this approval and then we have the other three conditions that we saw in the last subdivision application right that no work to any of the buildings is proposed as a result of the subdivision and if anything on the subdivision changes they need to request that as a deviation from us and possibly come back to the board there any questions from any commissioners the only other question I had and I I think this was covered that the lot is bisected by The District boundary it wasn't clear to me is that boundary the building or it because on this map here it looks like the boundary goes through the building does I think it's just an error yeah an alignment thing that has to just okay that's all I wanted to clarify was this building still like half in the district or something I think weird like that which I think I think as a result of this we're all in agreement that this building is in the district what we're subdividing out is not in the district you that think yeah that that's what happens as a result you know you got you got half or full it's like you know you can't be almost pregnant you're it's you're there so um un understanding that the gray bits of the building were part of that '90s '90s 98 98 uh Edition um or or or renovation uh the windows on the south the windows within the existing brick fabric um that face South those don't appear to be historic can you can you speak to since since you're proposing to break up at least some of it can you speak to from they're they're not historic um they are um inoperable aluminum frame Windows painted in a green that basically match matches some of the treatments that were done to the building in the late 90s and 98 were the masonry openings there before or did they just punch new I I I believe that they were all there in this configuration but I'm not totally the when there so there were historic Windows there but the windows themselves are new within the windows are definitely new I'd have to confirm for you the the actual openings mag just from a from a file perspective um we have an application for changes to Windows with exactly no information as to what those changes were lovely um around the late 90s I don't I was like 98 is well even and even if there were window openings there it looks like the whole facade I mean I don't think that's the original brick yeah I think it it looks very late 90s with and then the pink My Ass Stone doesn't 19th cury to you my assumption is when they put that addition on in the front in '98 they redid that entire facade yeah that's what it looks like to me as well thank you okay so I I take Mr Garber your point that the lot parking lot is not open to the public and I Maggie I take your point that a parking lot is disfavored in a historic district but you know the fact of the matter is people in historic districts do drive cars we don't have stables in the area we don't ride around on Horseback so it's a little disheartening to me that we're always adding development and adding to density while removing parking um that's kind of neither here nor there for these purposes I understand that but I just wanted to express that concern because I think it is a concern a lot of people who live in these districts have at the moment okay noted thank you all right that being said if there are no other questions for staff uh the recommendation on this is to approve with conditions and recommend approval to the planning board motion to approve with conditions outlined by staff second okay check and Rich uh conditions appropriate acceptable yes they would be right thank you we'll do a roll call vote commissioner uza I commissioner Gunther hi commissioner song I commissioner blazak I commissioner Cronin I commissioner gria absent commissioner sanap a absent commissioner Vice chair gucciardo is absent chairman Gordon I right there are six votes in favor none against and no extensions the COA and recommendation to the planning board is approved thank you thank you good appreciate it Park 9s okay great I will now call case h23 d47 the applicant is Steven Joseph Esquire on behalf of 88-90 bright SP LLC owner the address is 88 brigh Street in the van vorce Park historic district this applic is for a certificate of appropriateness for proposed rear and fourth story addition to an existing three story building interior Renovations and front facade restoration and altered contributing italianate townhouse built Circa 1890 this will be a recommendation to the Jersey City planning board good evening everybody uh while Will's getting set up uh we'll just go through some of the basics I also want to let the board know the next application on the agenda 90 Bri street directly next door to this same applicant same architect um different project but same same group um all right so this is between veric and Jersey what we're proposing to do here is the fourth story addition to three-story building um in order to accomplish this we do need to get major site plan approval with variances from the planning board we need rear yard setback height building coverage um this is also in a flood zone which could help explain some of that I think Will's ready to to go um I fixed it there we go wonderful all right so Will's our architect this evening uh he'll walk you through the ples right do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give this proceeding will be the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth yes I do and if you could State spell your name sure it's uh William William wenman last name w c k n m Ann thank you okay thank you uh thank you for your time this evening um these are uh two projects that we're we're very excited about and are happy to be here tonight to present them to you um I'm sorry could you could could I ask you to just maybe just make it full screen the the the um Dash show presentation for now let me figure out how to do that I'm sorry okay thank you there we go so um as Steve mentioned uh the project is on uh is located at 88 Bright Street um the building is located on the north side of the block um we have two uh photographs for for reference here uh one is the 38 tax photo and the other one is a um a photo of the of the current existing conditions um as Steve also mentioned we are asking for two variances in conjunction with this project one is for uh building coverage which um is sort of typical as a result of the discrepancy between um the the bulk standards for the historic Zone and the um lot building coverage requirements U the other is for rear yard setback which I'll highlight here a little bit um more closely um the drawing on the on the left here is the existing block plan um this is the project site here it's one in from the corner um and what's unusual about this is is that the all all of the Lots within this block are 100t deep with the exception of this lot which is 90 ft deep so you have the lot on York Street which is 110 ft the lot on Bright Street is is 90 ft deep so we are asking for a uh rear yard setback variance we're proposing a 27t rear yard setback which is proportional to um to the lot size um one other item worth pointing out is that if you take that the the rear yard setback from the predominant uh rear yard lot line you actually have a deeper rear yard so the distance from the from the predominant lot line down the center of the block is actually 37 ft which if this conforming lot would be greater than the 30 30 ft required um my apologies I never present this uh in this format so I'm not quite sure how to go to the next slide pageon not working oh there we go um so on this sheet we have um the existing and proposed site plan um the uh drawing on the left is the existing site plan so uh we're maintaining uh the existing conditions along brigh Street we're maintaining the front yard uh the landscaped area in the front yard we're maintaining the existing stoop um we are removing a portion of the rear yard and then we're also removing removing um all of the uh asphalt Pavement in in the rear yard currently this is a this is a there's a large parking lot here that is um shared with with the neighbor at 90 brigh street so um we will'll be removing all of this uh surface parking in the back here um as as part of the work another thing worth noting is that there is an access easement along the rear property line which extends from the church property on uh Jersey Avenue um extends through this property and then uh out to uh Bright Street along uh the neighbor at 90 ums so moving on to the the proposed site plan we are proposing our sort of standard site improvements new sidewalk new curbing we're proposing a street tree for in front of the building we're also proposing new Landscaping um of the of the front yard and a replacement of the um historic fence that existed there at one at one point but has since been I guess it was removed before before before the uh current owner uh bought the property um so uh the building is a three-story building we're proposing a rear yard addition as well as a fourth floor addition which is step set back from the front facade approximately 18 feet which is indicated it's hard to see here but um this this lighter area in the front represents the Third Floor roof and this darker area represents the the fourth floor roof of the building um we are proposing several green roofs um along with occupiable roof deck areas uh for the for the resident use um we're also proposing glass Sky doors for the roof um so that the the building there will be no bulkhead on this building moving back to the rear yard we are proposing um new landscaping for the rear yard as well as a fence around the perimeter and as well as um a new stoop and small patio area for the ground floor apartment this is just our standard uh site details so I I won't spend any time on this but if there are any questions I'm happy to go through it so moving on I'll just quickly go through the um the floor plans for the for the proposed building we do we also have the existing floor plans here for comparison purposes um the existing building will be um gutted and reconfigured as part of the project we're also proposing that the the portion of the rear facade be removed um to accommodate the the addition that we're proposing so um the basement level there are four units in the building each unit is a is a two-bedroom apartment um the ground floor unit has a small entry vestibule which is uh underneath the existing stoop which will remain as is um there's a bedroom in the front of the apartment bathrooms towards the center as well as a second bedroom and then a living space uh with a patio out to the rear yard the first floor is a similar configuration we're maintaining the existing stoop uh and entry vestibule and um we're constructing a new stair to access the Upper Floor Apartments this unit also is a two-bedroom two bath unit with a bedroom in the front bathrooms in the center and then living space towards the rear this unit does have a small balcony as well the uh third floor the third and fourth floor uh will house two duplex units um the the first unit towards the front of the building has the uh the bedrooms on the lower level and the living space up above on the fourth floor the rear unit has is the opposite it has a living space on the on the third floor and the bedrooms on the uh fourth floor um as you can see here on the fourth floor plan this is the setback that I discussed previously we have a a 10-ft setback uh for a green roof area and we're proposing a small roof deck for this unit directly off of the living space um the stairs continue up to the roof and again there's there's another uh roof deck for for the front apartment as well as the roof deck for the the rear Department um and again those are set back from the from the facade in additional 10 ft here we have the uh existing and proposed elevations um as I mentioned we're going to be reconstructing the uh the the fence um the iron fence along along the uh front of the property um we're going to be um repointing and refurbishing all of the uh existing Brownstone and the brick on the facade all the windows will be replaced to match the uh historic photograph we'll also be replacing the front entry doors um and restoring the transom window above the door as well um we are planning to repair the cornice um and then above that you can see the uh proposed fourth floor Edition uh again this is it's a little hard to see but this is set back about 18 ft from the front facade we're proposing um large glass uh sliding doors and windows for the addition as well as aluminum paneling as the primary facade material uh we also have a glass railing for the for the roof deck above that design is continued around the back of the building where uh we're also using uh large windows and sliding patio doors on the on the lower levels um however we are using a gray fiber cement panel um as the material for the for the rear elevation but the overall design and aesthetic is consistent with the uh front addition as well here we have um side elevation this is the west elevation of the building um the east side is directly against the neighbor um so we just have the uh west elevation to present to you uh we are proposing a few um lot line windows for the bedrooms on this on this uh on this facade um and again we're taking advantage of the fact that there's the access easement on the adjacent property to um allow for these windows and then um final drawing here is the building section of the um existing and the proposed above um with the sight line diagram one of the unique things about Bright Street is that is a is a wider street so it results in a a greater setback for that fourth floor Edition um which will not be visible from the public right away um here we have the uh the proposed in the existing block elevation um you can see that the the proposed elevation is sort of in keeping with with the um the height and general bulk of the buildings along brigh Street and I also have a an additional exhibit which I'll share at the end of the presentation showing both of the two developments next to each other and then finally we have our material selections for the for the building including specifications for uh the the windows uh for the rear and the fourth floor Edition as well as the um the the sky door on the roof and the uh the railings along the perimeter so that concludes my presentation thank you so I it's the next application is for a neighboring building so those windows that are proposed on the lot line will those be in a light well then yeah and they'll be coordinated with the building next door okay and I believe you said on the top of the building there's a glass rail but there's also uh a roof or a a um a deck at the lower level is it a similar glass rail how is that yeah let me go back to the off just go zoom in on the section so for the for the third floor roof deck um we're we're utilizing the parit as the as the railing for the for the deck um we do have a divider which will just be a basic metal railing um but that'll be well below the um the top of the parit and then the for the roof we set the the uh the railing back from the edge of of the of the roof so again it would be not visible from from the public right away very good and could you please show us the detail for the proposed door and explain the the choice there sure actually zoom in on the um not not the the sky door the front there there's a change proposed I believe to the but I do appreciate the sky door thank you sure so um again we're matching the the tax photo which originally had a double entry door um we're matching the same uh style and proportion of the photograph with the divided lights um there is currently um all of the the trim around the opening is original so we're going to be keeping all of that trim and um replacing the um the transom glass as well very good thank you and you sure it was originally a 7 foot door the the transom size looks like it hasn't been altered it yeah that that was a question that we went through that with staff as well um that was one of the questions that came up was what whether or not we thought um that was original and you can kind of see here it it it appears to be the it appears to be proportional in this in this Photograph and and I think that this this trim while again it's hard to see in the photograph I believe to be original um as is as is the frame for the transom above but they they replaced it with something um an opaque piece of glass at some point uh on and the set that was submitted with us um I don't know if the numbers are exactly the same but it's a 10 4 excuse me uh no it is I'm looking at the wrong one sorry give me one second it is yes a104 and it's it's the uh proposed west elevation yeah so it is the same what what I'm looking at in this is so there's a 3 foot6 power pit at the top and it says aluminum coping color to match tucko below so is that a railing up there or is it like an extended parit it's just a parit okay but we we do have uh we put an aluminum cap on on the the parit sort of our standard detail okay so where's the GL where's the glass railing then or the any of the railings is it just it's just on the the front and the rear facade of the let me go back to the so the sides are are parit and then the North and South elevations are railings is that how you're doing okay yeah so we we we extend the parit around the sides in the rear um and then we just have the glass sort of as an as as the center portion and then um it's a similar detail although it's a little bit more um the glass is a little bit more expansive on the front facade but the parit continues along the sides and then the the glasses is provided in the center and is there a reason you you went with that instead of just a railing around the entirety of the top floor um it it was just uh so many conversations about these the railings and the specifics I can't recall specifically um um but I I think it was Steve you may have some insight on this feel uncomfortable I'm I'm sorry were you asking about the side or the yeah just just in general I I think I think one of the things that having a railing instead of a en a parit was that it would cut down on the apparent mass of the addition um I don't know if this is this going to be visible from anywhere on either side I still think it's you know from uh other portions of of the the lot will help um cut down on the apparent mass of it by not having a parit with the same conditions as the addition below sure so on the um and it's it's hard to see in this sorry I Mis I misheard you so I apologize um the so the the building on the corner is significantly taller than than this building it's taller than the addition so we have a a parit condition on that wall CU When be right up against the the Brick of of the neighbor um and well maybe if you could show the exhibit with the adjacent proposal as well yeah I think the idea of the glass on the the front and the rear is to minimize the impact of that upper story um yeah so this this is the com the combined um elevations between with the two projects so again this will be shorter than the neighbor it'll be shorter than the adjacent building so um sorry to interrupt do we have to mark this yeah we do yes we do um A1 so E I guess either way it's going to be up against neighboring buildings on either side anyway so it doesn't really matter except at the front and the back where you have the glass correct you stated that there's no visibility directly across the street if 90 bright were not to be built would there be oblique visibility then of the addition um yes there would be and if uh if the commission feels more comfortable reserving voting on this until hearing the second presentation as well we can certainly do that are there any axonometric or render views of this no not at this time do you have an existing pH photo of the rear facade somewhere do um I think one was submitted with the application one yeah I have it helpful if the agenda he's trying to pull yeah it's in the portal maybe you can I'm looking at it now I need to borrow your dongles if I'm going to put this up this whole piece you need Maggie yeah okay it only comes out as one piece although you know the website loading would be helpful you never had these issues on Zoom did it go all right great it's still loading maybe in the meantime uh you could ask a separate question um uh what's the plan for the painted brick on the front um the uh idea is to to to remove the paint and uh repoint the brick as necessary do you have any have you done any probes is there a sense of what condition those bricks are in and um we haven't done CR colors like is there a uh we haven't done any probes at at this point in time but the brick is in in fairly decent shape um and I I believe we've had conversations with with staff on submitting uh samples of of the grout and and doing test probes as part of the as part of the future work thank you photo of the rear facade is up I didn't hear that photo of the rear facade is up okay thank you and this just shows that yeah there's not I was curious of there's any or tal features or anything the only thing I see is Maybe original window trim but I don't see anything that would be uh lost by removing this essentially um maybe that does get me to the to the rear facade um the proposed rear facade the amount of glazing seems a little excessive to me um there just seems to be a large amount of glazing on on this proposed RAR facade and I think it's pretty much the same at the new building next door um so I don't know if you have any other photos of any of the adjacent buildings perhaps the ones that are uh the buildings that are the roof asids that the buildings on York Street within the block um but I think generally this block is more punched openings and and masonry um I that I think you would need to totally recreate that but um it seems just like a very large amount of glazing at the proposer facade sorry and then in between it's fiber cement clotting in between the floors and in between openings yes that's correct so while we're working on the technical issues um Maggie do you have any concerns that because we can't count our chickens before they hatch that there would be visibility if 90 bright were not to be built oh no that's a huge factor in this decision yeah it's absolutely visible from the public rway it's a very very large Edition it is uh a what I like to call a Tetris Edition looks like the upside down Len Tetris um Michael if you want to try maybe try the dock camera Port um but yeah I visibility is a huge um factor that the commission should be looking at here it's Absol think that's why I want would like to see this rendered or an A axonometric drawings of it because it just feels like I don't know how much of this building is left once this Edition is built is it just the facade cuz that's what it seems like a facade and maybe a chimney going on so I just don't have a sense of what this could really look like um yeah I mean we typically don't do renderings for historic applications but um I guess something we could consider I think that would be helpful do we want to hear the presentation for 90 Bright Street yes I think we should yeah okay sounds good so um we don't typically do this do we do you want to call that application Robert and we'll take a pause on this just put it into the record that we're also going to hear the presentation for that sure um if we don't need a motion Jonathan do you think we need a motion to we don't typically ask for motions to call cases right no it was more take a motion to again I don't think we're going to call a case in the middle of hearing another case yeah that does seem interesting but then you're not combining the cases right no just more putting it into the record that we're about to call the other case so yeah couldn't hurt okay so why don't we make a motion to take a pause on 88 Bright Street to begin the presentation for 90 Bright Street is that what the exact motion would be take a pause okay this is the only time in my life that I'll remind everyone I didn't go to law school so I don't actually know all right I only pretend like I'm an attorney emotion is just the will of the body right so if that's fair enough we want to call it then okay and and do we have the applicants consent to that of course if if it makes it easier I'd like to request that we take a pause on on 88 Bright Street uh and you can move on to the next case while we're while we're taking that pause well I motion that we take a pause on 88 brigh Street and we're going to hear about 90 Bright Street the the next case and then I guess we'll be voting on both okay second all right all in favor I hi all right Robert go ahead and call the next case that being the case I will call case h23 d48 the applicant is still Steven Joseph on behalf of 8890 bright splc this address is 90 Bright Street and this is for a certificate of appropriateness for the the construction of a four-story 4unit residential building and Associated site workor this is a recommendation of the Jersey City Zoning Board of adjustment thank you all right still Stephen Joseph for the applicant um this is a minor site plan uh with variances to the zoning board for height and coverage um Will's going to jump right into to these plans yes um okay so we're all very very familiar with the location uh of this project um this this is a little bit more of a straightforward application because it is for a new building on the vacant lot as opposed to an addition uh which we we just talked about so um again I'll start with the block plan um with the proposed and the existing uh it's currently a vacant vacant lot uh it's a parking lot that serves the church on Jersey Avenue um and we are proposing uh a new four-story uh building um with a 30 foot rear yard um on this property um we are seeking a a building coverage variance again because of the the discrepancy between the bulk standards and the and the building coverage requirement um and then we are also seeking a height variance for this application um and that is due to the um the the flood zone so there's a this this this both properties are located in in the flood zone so the the first floor of this building is elevated up a couple of feet from the street level and that results in some increased um uh increased height with this building um so that all of the the residential living space is is uh one foot above the the base flood elevation which you'll see on the um elevation drawings um again we have our our site plan drawings here uh again I'll just point out the the location of this easement um on the east side of of the property um and what we're proposing uh for for this this property is again the standard site improvements we are proposing new curb new sidewalk as well as a street tree um we will have a a a new stoop for this building um in order to uh get access to the first floor which is about 2 ft above street level um and then we're proposing a a landscaped area in the front yard of the building um the building is sort of a uh sort of an H shape flattened H if you will so we are providing a um a window well a cutout uh on the east side of the property um the uh the top floor units again this this property has two duplex units on the third and fourth floor Each of which have have their own uh roof decks on the on the primary roof um we're also proposing a balcony for the second floor um and then we are providing a new uh landscape uh rear yard with uh plantings along the rear property line we are maintaining this uh access easement egress easement um so we're providing a sidewalk uh that connects uh from 88 Bright Street and extends to uh to the uh Bright Street public right away um this this dash line here in plan is the location of the first floor wall so the building actually steps out as you go up so we're we're providing a a passageway through the building um to to maintain that that egress that ease and you'll see a little bit more clearly on the floor plans again these are standard standard details U happy to answer any questions on the specifications so starting with the uh first floor I'll just walk you quickly through the floor plans um we we're proposing a new front entry stoop as well as a an entry vestibule on the first floor with a a small building Lobby um the first floor unit is a two-bedroom two bath unit and it's configured with one of the bedrooms uh facing the street uh the bathrooms and the second bedroom at the center of the plan and then um a living space with access to the rear yard uh in in the rear of the building um moving up to the second Flor floor the configuration is again similar we have bedrooms towards the front um bathrooms in the center with the second bedroom and then living space towards the rear this unit does have a small balcony as well as I previously mentioned the third and fourth floor uh house two duplex units um with the entrance on the third floor both of these units have living space and a small Powder Room on the lower level with the uh bedrooms and bathrooms on the up on the fourth floor these two units also have uh private roof decks um with the required uh 10-ft buffer on the front as well as a secondary buffer in the rear with some green roof space uh we also have the mechanical space located at the center of the of the roof um and this project does have two stair bulkheads heads um that that access the roof decks from the fourth floor um the El the proposed elevation for uh Bright Street is is fairly uh fairly simple um it's a it's it's a a brick facade as the primary primary material with uh punched openings that match or or similar to uh the proportions of of the buildings found along the block um we are using a a brick cornice here which is inspired by some of the other historic buildings in this immediate vicinity um if you look at uh the building on the corner of Brighton jersey as well as some of the other buildings um they all have these uh decorative uh masonry parapets so that was the inspiration for for this design here um the ground floor we do have uh the the main entry door which is is recessed slightly and we're proposing a uh blue stone or stone cladding adjacent to that door with a small canopy and that design is also reflected on the other side of the building uh where we do have a a gate um to to access the uh passageway to the rear yard that connects to 88 Bright Street uh we also have a detail on the on the cornice as well as the railing and the uh the first floor canopy moving on to the the rear elevation um you can see here we're leaving a the um an opening on the first floor to access uh the street um the primary facade material is is uh glass um large glass windows um with a again a fiber cement um spandril material uh that design is carried up through the all four floors of the building here we have the East Side elevation which is AB buts uh 88 Bright Street um which is you can see the outline of the building here um this does not reflect the proposed application but everything everything in this drawing set is indicative of the existing conditions um since these are sort of the filing of these is a little bit weird so um but I do want to point that out that this is the the the outline of the building next door um again pretty straightforward um we're proposing a a stucco um for the prim primary s material and then we're extending the brick um along the along the side elevation uh and you can see here on the on the roof level are the is the location of the the proposed bulkheads for the roof deck this is the uh West Side elevation again fairly straightforward this hatched area denotes the approximate outline of the building next door um again we're using stucco as the as the primary facade material um let me just go back to the I forgot to mention it the um so the base flood elevation for this um for this property is 11 ft and um the the first floor is at 12 feet uh which is one foot above the base flood elevation so you can see here um where the first floor is in relation to the to the street level and also why again why we're we're pulling it up as opposed to having uh the entrance right at grade here we have our uh sight line diagram again the um uh the bulk head for the roof deck is set back so where it won't be visible from the the public right away um and we are also using the parit as the um uh as the as the railing or enclosure around the the top floor roof deck and then here again we have the um uh the proposed and the existing uh Street Front diagram um so you can see how the proposed building fits into the uh existing streetcape um another thing worth noting is that we are matching the height of of the adjoining neighbor so we're sort of continuing that um uh the that elevation across with this with this property um so again even though we are asking for the height variance here it is in keeping with the with the massing of the building next door and then finally um we have our material selections um we're using a um an orange red Iron spot brick as the as the primary facade material with the uh blue stone accents on the front facade um and then again um uh large Windows um as well as um fiber cement panels for the rear facade and well if you could if you could bring up that uh the exhibit from the last application I'd like to enter that on this one too so A1 um elevation showing the proposed uh block plan for 88 ends 90 Bright Street together yeah again you can see here the the parit line the roof line is sort of consistent with um the adjacent buildings on the Block so uh with that that concludes my presentation on this project thank you um the first thing I wanted to ask about was uh the cornice um I think the brick cornice is an interesting idea it just seems especially when I'm looking in section on a 102 it's because and I think you would need I think you only going to need to show us the examples of the brick cornices that are on the Block and you know within the area the cornice the all the cornices project a lot more than what you're showing I think it's a good idea but I think it's a little underdeveloped at this time yeah I think um one of the things I'll say on that is you know this is a detail that we've we've used on other projects in the past and um particularly on on south facing elevations um even a minimal amount of variation between the depth of the brick creates a shadow line so um I think one of the things we would do is um do sort of a mockup of this section of the facade so we could see what it looks like once once we get into construction um but but we do feel that between the the the undulating depth and then the changing of the of the the rhythm of the brick coursing it would be sufficient to to be noticeable but to go back to commissioner Gunther's point I think having a a rendering that prove that out um and and and seeing the effect of that shadow from the point of view of the street would have been helpful um especially in lie of especially in the absence of even rendered elevations typically um for for new construction especially um I think we're used to seeing a little bit more um uh a little bit more on the on the representation side sure um and do you don't have a full building section do you uh we do it's combined with the sight line diagram okay well I think I think one of the things we need is just a facade section I know some you have some of it sprinkled like the cornice but and then on a105 there's a window section but one of the things you want to see is you know the depth of the Sills the exact setback of the windows um and how that all plays together so I think that's that's something that we really need and I would need before I kind of take a vote on this uh the other thing is the the thing that projects most from the building is the canopy at the first floor which is something that I think that's it's kind of an odd condition to have like that type of a canopy uh projecting in in in new construction the historic district um and then on a on this a102 again it talks about thin brick veneer to match the primary facade is that just on the side facade or is that just on the side just on the side facade okay and again I still think oh and why is it why is there just balconies at the second floor I'm actually okay with that I I think less balconies in historic district the better but I'm just curious was to why uh it's just because the Upper Floor units have access to the the top roof deck so it's sort of a redundant okay that makesense sense um I I still think it I still think metal railings are preferable to Glass um in the historic district it's the normal vernacular more like fire escapes and just something it's more typical that that we see um as well as again the amount of glazing I think might be a little excessive here at at the rear facade but I think and then I think generally the you know the size and placement openings at the front facade are seem generally seem appropriate um and then so that's just and then on the for where the uh easement is that's just a metal gate that's going to be and that's going to be open or the area at that is going to be open and people are going to be able to walk in and out it it it's just a it's it's an it it's for it's for emergency egress only so it's required for uh a fire erress code egress from the church so that people just going to be able to leave and not not come in that way then correct it's it's a one it'll be like a one-way gate um and it's for emergency access only so it's not people can't just use that as an exit um emergency only okay um just want to see if there's any other comments um okay I could defer to any other questions for Commissioners I have a follow up on the building section um just the sort of shape and height of the bulkhead is that as minimized as possible cuz I'm also looking at the profile and I'm wondering if the the Florida ceiling height could be reduced there or the profile could be lessened because I do have some concern without having rendered views um if 88 for example isn't built upon what could be visible in ter for the bulkhead because it's quite tall um I think that's a that's a good point uh and I think it's just it's sort of a representation issue with where the sections cut um but I I do think that we would consider sloped roof here um if that's preferable sorry consider sloped roof um over the the stair bullcat if that's preferable I just think that that's something to look at because it just seems quite tall and boxy in and not it doesn't it's not necessary um if it's just access to the roof um and then you know I agree with commissioner blaz act that there's a good solid to void ratio on the front facade and I'm have the similar concerns about the detail on the Cornus because I don't know that we can really see how that's going to look um especially relative to these other cornices that are adjacent um I slightly disagree about the amount of glazing on the rear I think this is a new building and maybe it can withstand a little more in a way that 88 cannot um but overall I think this is generally something I might be able to support just one question on the solit to void ratio on the front which I agree with my fellow Commissioners I think it's an elegant um and appropriate seaming facade the only thing that I'm puzzled by is the change in floor to floors between the lower two floors and the upper two floors um and because that change I I think it's 8 in or so because it's absorbed by the brick area as opposed to the glass it has the effect of looking squished between the second and third FL I was just curious why that why that shift yeah it was just a function of the of the varying floor to floor Heights but uh that's a good point um and I think we could pick it up with with the windows to minimize the I think that might make it a little bit more elegant um and and keep having the the Brick banding be consistent in to my eye to my subjective eye I think that would uh feel better but um but I I I do want to um just reemphasize sort of the that front door kind of awning I'm I'm not convinced but I'm not not convinced I I would just like to see what that does to it in three dimensions um The Brick cornice the color of the of the window frames right the jams the um uh the color of the steps the railing I think it just there needs to be I think a a rendered View and a three-dimensional anticipation of what this is actually going to look like um before I I I feel comfortable voting on it on on this particular application um the addition is separate separate can is the front door and that there's then there's a castone veneer there is that set back it is set back okay like that's something that's kind of hard to tell from the drawings um and I don't know is there a section of that or like a close-up detail of that or even a plan yeah well I guess can you see it on the plan probably it should show up on the plan so it's a it's a slight recess so um and you can kind of see it here in the section through the canopy and is the the frame of the door is that black aluminum and steel yeah it would match match the adj Windows yeah like here I think we better understand it like if we had a a an elevation just of the door entry um to to show us how that's going to work sure like what are the side I guess I hear this there's brick on the side but is that both sides so just to clarify you're requesting at elevation of the side of the door or I think we would just need an elev Elation like a a partial elevation that just like a closeup of the door and the entry there okay would it would a would a would a 3D view a rendering be preferred I mean if we're going to if if if we're going to be doing a rendering we could do um if that shows us what it's going to look like but I think you can work with with staff on on that um you were talking a little earlier about the gate to the um easement so would that be outfitted with a panic bar then yeah some sort of a of a an interior device that would allow for erress in the event that it needs to be utilized but it wouldn't be open from the from the street side we had another application involving a panic bar recently and one of the concerns the applicant had there was that with the um slats or or with the um rails someone could cons conceivably reach through and just push the Panic bar so they had put some sort of like almost a chicken wire or mesh to prevent that I don't know if that's something that would be necessary here sure we there's also um like a an egress device that could be placed on the side wall adjacent to the door so it's not actually on the door itself so maybe you could flush that out as well and then at the roof there's the so there's the open roof and you talked about the green roof some sort of setback that was required just can maybe talk about that a little bit more sure we just we the the the 10 foot setback from the primary facade to the the occupied roof deck that's that's the area where we're utilizing the green roof okay and so does the railing have to be at the setback or where's the railing here the there's a railing right at the edge of the deck but then again the the parit is serving as the as the railing or the enclosure for at the at the facade so there's not a a railing but there's a 42 in parit correct and is that is that something that's require for new construction or is that what what is that I guess maybe I haven't heard that come up before or haven't been paying attention the 10 foot setback or oh the 10 foot setback has been um in supplementary Zoning for roof decks for historic districts uh since 2018 so every roof deck in a historic district that we see um or that that you guys have seen since then with the exception of one which was 11 Eerie Street um has all been set back 10 ft from the front facade okay thanks okay are there any additional questions I have uh one question um in regards to the entrance Door how wide is the door to the new building uh 3 feet 3 feet I was just wondering because so many of the buildings on the Block have double doors why you chose a single um door yeah that's a good question um it it's it's just a little bit more more functional um as as composed compared to the double doors and since we're not trying to necessarily rep replicate the historic entryway here we we decided to go with the single swing door and my other question is are the windows on the front facade operational or are they all just sealed you know do any of them open yeah all all the B panels are operable the the lower panels are fixed uh but the upper the upper section is a is a casement window or swing window okay can you zoom into that facade a little bit which area specifically uh just into any typical window would it the wouldn't the operable window have an additional frame um that the fixed window would not have um typically yes um but I these are going to be um typically yes but not not in this case so it's these are just these are so there's is there a false um set of uh metal frame for the for the fixed light light it's it's just it's just a consistent the this particular manufacturer the casement window and the the awning window or the the transom or the fixed panel the the design is consistent I see so and that's to maintain that that so you don't have that condition where there's like a a fat line and a thin line can you go back can you go I'm sorry you you showed it already but can you go to that window section again just so so this is W1 is the thank you are these outswing casements or in swing um these will be in swing and what's the dimension of this castone sill both Pro both the projection and the um vertical height uh it's 4 in um 4 inch depth or maybe it's I'm sorry I think it's a 5 by five it's the total total dimension of the the Brick of of the sill um I just want to go back to the question about the casement swing because looking at this section the screen appears to be on the interior which suggests this is an outswing casement um this is this is detailed as a as an outswing casement but I I think okay since this this was submitted we just we Chang it to a European style in swing so I mean we can update that that detail as well okay so um I don't know if there's any other comments but I I think you know I think the feedback here is that you're probably heading in the right direction but you know I definitely want to see some more details and some different reviews and renderings before making a final uh vote on this if any everyone else agrees or does that carry over to 88 as well maybe we did we ever really have the discussion on that no we just maybe we should go back just to give some comments on that too unpause so maybe why don't we why don't we uh finish up 90 and and carry it so we don't have to come back come back again and Maggie if you don't mind uh what's the next HPC next HPC is June 17th June 17th okay which is fine we can we can do June 17th okay wonderful so so I just just want to just a quick question just to clarify what um we're happy to do a rendering of the the facade from from street level um so we we can we can provide that easily um but there was some questions or comments on an axonometric sort of view of of both projects um I'm just trying to figure out what would be the most helpful graphic to provide in order to to to get you guys what you need to I mean given that these are two separate applications I need I think we need to see the renderings for each as if the other were not built and maybe one where they are both in the rendering so we can really get a sense of what we're dealing with here to make these decisions sure but again is it would a street view suffice or something overhead I just want to clarify um what would be the most helpful I think I think maybe I think an axon kind of um implies the like a bird's eye view but I think I think we need both that to understand you know where the bulkheads are um and I think we also need views from the public thorough Fair too sure I my only hesitation with providing an an an overhead view is that you know with these the way that the bulkheads and the additions are designed they wouldn't be visible from the public right away so um I feel like a an axonometric view might be a little bit deceptive in terms of how the projects yeah I wasn't necessarily suggesting an axonometric in place of sort of a street level view just there are no 3D renderings of either of these buildings and it's making I think it very difficult for all of us to wrap our heads around what you're actually proposing I understand I just wanted to be clear on on on the I agree I agree in the way that an elevation drawing is very deceptive about how tall the Upper Floor will appear with maybe the axonometric is not the way to go but whatever number of views I think you need to thoroughly describe this especially from public thoroughfare I'll leave that up to you okay and and I sorry I say I think you need um like you talked about other corn brick Coral cornices on and the immediate vicinity I think you should you know give us photographs of them and I still think you should maybe take a second look at the cornice that you're proposing and to you know um probably give it some more depth and and variation we'll prepare an exhibit yeah and there was one other thing I was going to say um that up my mind sorry oh I was gonna say Maggie maybe you can provide him with other examples of new construction presentations that we've seen y so that he know you know the level of the renderings and detail um but I think things like a full building section would be very helpful mhm oh also you had said you had built cornices like this before if you have as built photographs so we can see like how it's turned out that'd be great sure so I I don't know what the different types of renderings are called but uh I can tell you that you know from what's been discussed and from what I think I would like to see it would be helpful to have a rendering that's not just a straight on you know full-on View maybe a 45 degree angle or something to that effect just to get a sense of the um effect of Shadows and depth when it comes to the the door the Sills the brick cornice all of that so we could see how the Shadows might give it a greater sense of depth in reality that would be very helpful okay thank you all right and with that staff would recommend a motion to carry uh what is this case number um h-23 0048 to the next regular regularly scheduled meeting of the HPC I'll make that motion second all right all in favor I I I all right and let's go back over to 88 shouldn't be more than 5 to 10 minutes I think fast well actually I was saying I think I think I had already made some comments on this um so maybe I'll let another commissioner start I think we left off with the glazing at at the rear when we when we paused yeah and I I think actually I think this could probably apply to the other building as well but um you know photographs of the rear facades of other buildings on the block would help as well just to understand the context um I I will be my characteristically unhelpful self here and and just say for my my personal taste I don't mind the amount of Glass on on either the addition or the new sorry while I'm ated um uh the what I what I am concerned about though is the amount of Glass on the front of the addition in the case where the new building is not built because even though it's clearly out of the view shed when you're directly perpendicular from the property I do think with the empty lot if that's never developed that amount of light spillage you know at night um might be problematic um so that's for instance because you have this odd condition of not having the building next door uh a rendering from Street you again as as my fellow commissioner noted showing what that would look like without the without the new building there would be helpful to me um so that's I for me I'm more concerned about the the the front facing glass than I am with the rear sure sure I I do think that you know the the glass is sort of a as on the front facade facade in particular it's sort of a nice uh it's a nice feature that helps to further differentiate between the exist uh Mason re faade and the um uh and the new addition so uh as a design Outlet we we we do like the glass um but it's something that we will indicate clearly on the rendering so you can get a sense of what that what that looks like that's fair is is there a reason you can't do the sky door at the new building like this so at this one it has the sky door and is there is there a reason you couldn't do that instead of a bulkhead on a new new building with this building uh a bulkhead I mean a bulkhead is the preferred way to access the roof it's much easier to get up and down and um it it's it's just it's the preferred method for accessing the roof in this case a bulkhead would be visible from the public right away so we in these instances we use a the sky door so that it's it's not uh it's not visible I mean again in theory we could use the sky door on the property next door but because of the location of the of the bulkheads it's they're not visible so um but I guess that's a conversation that we can have um as to how we intend to proceed with that in light of looking at this without having the the neighboring property there were also some questions about painting the facade are we or the the removal of the paint from the facade do we want to see anything clarified with that if you can do a test and see if the paint can easily come off it would be very good for us to know that um or if you find out that it can't be removed actually this this points to a larger thing and and Maggie or anybody else if we need to if this is something you know more appropriate for executive session um shut me up but in my mind that we're back in person right we're we're here now physically I would like to start seeing like samples again like metal samples Stone samples grow samples paint samples um so and that's just a general comment um like today is a good example even if we didn't have renderings if we if I had physical even if we didn't have renderings had we physical samples like that might have I'm not I'm not saying it would have completely um gotten me there but it would have at least helped me visualize what this thing would would be like so um just regards to the pain thing I think just um have just if we can start now bringing back physical things physical samples um to these meetings I think that would help me for sure noted that's totally by fault for what it's worth no no no it's I'm still on Zoom anyone else have any other direction and comments on this mostly just more information about visibility how it will look okay I have one last question about 88 what color will you be did we discuss the color of the cornis and windows and trim on 88 sure let me let me pull up the elevation just so I can um yeah so the the the cornice would be brown um we have the paint paint spec color here that we intend to use um Windows yeah the windows would would also be brown so the Cornus and all the windows and the wood trim would would be brown um the the Brick obviously would be uh repointed we can get you some more information on that and I think we're also proposing to provide uh a new uh par at the at the face of the of the stoop so we can would also be brown but I I think we can get you some more information on that if it's helpful okay I I'm assuming because it's an Italian eight that that brick is hard fired and I'm sure that the paint will come off fairly easy yeah that's my uh that's it for me okay any other questions comments anything like that great I think we have a lot of good information I you know appreciate it sounds like we're very close here um all right and with that staff recommends a motion to carry case h-23 0047 to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the HPC on June 17th is is that at the request of the applicant at the request of the applicant at the request of the applicant I'll make the motion second all in favor I I I all right the application's been carried um and why don't we go ahead and take a five minute break it is 8:27 all right are we all back ready good to go y all right Robert if you want to call us back to order I will call the meeting back to order at 8:34 great and the next item on the agenda is review and recommendation of proposed amendments to the Luis Munos Marin Boulevard I.E Henderson Street Redevelopment plan this is a recommendation to the Jersey City planning board and before we jump into that I know we do have a commissioner who's going to be recusing himself yeah so for this I will be recusing myself um and so I'll come back later thank you all right so this is going to be a staff Pres presentation I will go ahead and put up these proposed amendments on everyone screens okay so great um so this Redevelopment plan Amendment mostly concerns block one of the embankment um so this is that first block between uh Marin and Manila um and if the commission will remember from our previous embankment Redevelopment plan presentations block one is the block that is proposed to be developed as part of any future work on this site right so we get blocks four through six as our public open space in exchange for Block one being developed um we are going to be reviewing the historic preservation changes within this plan um there are other changes proposed but they they don't really concern this board um so I have up here um just the preservation sections of this plan right so you can see there are you know other sections description land use whatever but we're just going to go through the historic preservation requirements and we're going to go through the Amendments that are proposed here um for clarity's sake the new language is in yellow and any stricken language um is crossed out so there are no changes to the general requirements um as a reminder the general requirements are pretty straightforward it's just um that they have to F the Anyone Who develops block one has to follow the Secretary of the Interior standards they have to follow applicable National pres uh National Park Service briefs bulletins and treatment of historic properties uh preservation briefs and bulletins and the treatment of historic properties and the um historic design standards that we are not going to sand blash P sand blast power wash Etc any of these stones and that prior to any work being completed the developer of block one does have to document block one to Habs hair and house level two standards we start to see some of the proposed amendments in the historic design standards for this section um the first one this embankment Stones um is replacing the word blocks there that's just for consistency with the plan um the next change that we see is in C um this is echoed elsewhere in the plan but it just says for any stone that is removed um as a result of the development that stone does have to be reused Elsewhere on the six blocks so when we develop those as Park maybe they'll become benches maybe they'll become something else we're not sure but we do get the option to reuse this um and that any um of those stones that are being removed have to be that documentation has to be filed with us and shipo prior to any work being undertaken right so we're not going to start removing blocks and then document things like that you know common sense but we put it in the plan the main bulk of the changes come from uh come into these two here when we're talking about the actual treatment of the stones um these changes honestly were things that we had assumed were going to happen right um they're just being codified here so in this case um when the developers started to flush out some of their plans and some of their for the tower um again things that we understood to happen as staff and I believe the commission understood right which is that some of the interior of some of these Stones might need to be cut to accommodate construction we're just writing into the plan that we understand that that is going to happen right um the embankment structure itself is you have that outside side wall that is straight but the inside is actually built on a diagonal for structural purposes right so great when you're having structural purposes for um drain lines but not so great when you're driving pilings for buildings right so we understand that we are going to have to cut some of those stones um on the inside we're not cutting the ones on the outside to accommodate that construction um you'll see in section two um we because we know that that depth is going to be altered um we have set a minimum depth that the stone shall not be either 12 in or the average depth of the stone at the top of the wall whichever is greater right so we're not going to see any of these Stones being less than a fo foot deep in reality I think they're going to be deeper than that um we couldn't in the time we had to complete this we couldn't get someone up there to measure so that's why we set that minimum but I anticipate it's going to be greater um and then the last thing in that section is that um again things that we understood as staff and I believe the commission understood to happen um but just codifying them in the plan um is that them in the plan um we a stone or tomb might need to be temporarily relocated to accommodate driving those piles for construction right because if you have a wall that is losing some of its structural support when you drive those piles or do some of that construction we might need to temporarily remove those stones and put them back again things we understood to as the course of like these are things that just happened during the course of construction just codifying it in the plan and again all of those stones and their locations will be documented prior to any work being undertaken at the site the rest of the changes here so are mostly just clarification so you can see at f um we replace the word Podium with parking base I don't know how it made it through so many revisions the first time e e and f are talking about the same thing just talking about materials that are encouraged versus materials that are discouraged and we called the base the parking base two different words so just clarifying that there and then in G and H we changed um language that said would to shall just to make it a little bit stronger are there any questions from the Commissioners yeah like we said it's all pretty straightforward um and to be honest I am happy to see this language clarified in the plan I think it makes it a lot easier for us to review later down the line okay I'll make a motion to approve second okay do a roll call commissioner Cronin I commissioner amuza I commissioner Gunther I commissioner blazak I okay uh commissioner griga is absent commissioner sanap cap is absent commissioner zong is recused vice chairman gucciardo is absent ENT and chairman Gordon I okay there are five votes in favor none against with no abstentions the amendments to the Redevelopment plan are approved with a recommendation for approval to the planning board okay we can go ahead and call our oh wait actually I'm sitting here saying go ahead and call the next thing but in reality I get to talk more um okay that brings us to the end of new business and we're having commissioner song rejoin the fold yes um for tabled cases we have no update on this but looking at what our June agenda just became I would imagine that if they did want to reappear we would not be seeing them until July so no update so far there all right for demolition review like I said 11a 17 van ripen has requested to carry to the June 17th meeting so that leaves us with 37 van ripen if you want to read what I just said into the record as cherit I will call K uh 37 van ripen the B 24-11 okay so this is a demolition review oh where did that go okay then by the way I was worried that Gerard was here to like argue to demolish this or something and we were going to have a fight on our hands no yeah so why were they here for all this time oh they're uh Gerard uh because he his firm represents um the developer at block one of the embankment and Matt who is here as well is also a member of the development team they were here just in case there were any questions on it okay from their perspective okay well why is this not going now we never had this many Tech issues on Zoom okay this is 37 van ripen um so we reviewed this proposed demolition um it is this building is within the phase 1 historic site survey where they recognize it as having architectural significance this building is also in the newly revised historic inventory of the Jersey City master plan um we I can pull up a go here is a side view of it you can see this directly a but one of the um new buildings on Homestead Place um and then if I pull up a let's do actually oh come on they're all in the same place all right I'm like afraid to touch anything on here all right um the red triangle here is the location of of this building and then numbers 49 through 69 are within a preservation zone of the Journal Square 2060 plan and the the Journal Square 2060 plan and the gray roofed building directly below them is the Stanley Theater just for location purposes and then if I pull up an overhead oblique of this property as well so this time it is the blue arrow you can see that there's quite a bit of consistency within the row um not necessarily all of the buildings between this and the preservation zone are architecturally of Merit but they are all constructed of a similar time period as well as the ones across the street and yeah I do have up the um determination where we did state that this has architectural significance if any Commissioners have any questions um my only question is what would be what is permitted here as per the Redevelopment plan what zone is this in four and that allows for what off the top of my head because there's one slightly down the street that is also in zone 4 I believe they're allowed like four or five stories um in the past I've seen people combine B Zone 4 for different bonuses that allow them to go higher like for example that Homestead um bonus but I I don't believe that they're they're not allowed to go like super tall here or anything like that not to mention that if even if they wanted to do something like that they would need a combination of lots um to create a larger lot size Maggie I have a question sure um all of the buildings uh the the next three or four to the right are all boarded up mhm um have they been acquired by the same entity I do not know okay my understand I mean I've sold 37 van ripen twice in my real estate career it is a magnificent house um inside it's got dual staircases it's got tons of space a lot of original fabric um here it's always been a beauty and it's always been well cared for yeah I this some I will just State for the record um the level of care as of late on this building I don't believe is as high as it has been in the past I could see that the boarding up was there was there a fire there yes there was a fire um but not enough to um my understanding is I mean like no one has submitted any paperwork to me that state that there's any structural instability in the building as a result of that fire but there might be who knows I do have up the so um the tax card file this photo here where you can clearly see this this is the what is it the 1975 um where you can still see that architectural detailing up the top the 38 photo admittedly is not great however if I could rotate up at the top here um but you can still see its general form right you have you can just make out that curve up at the top there and that little guy over here and you can see that the window fenestration is more or less the same right are there any other questions from any Commissioners on this if not um the recommendation is to I forget how we did this last time motion to deny motion to deny via a resolution is that how we did it last time I I think we have this we no Jonathan we have the discussion every time and this is just one of those I have many things in my brain that stay there for the rest of time this is one of them that just refuses to stick just need to make a give a report to okay the a resolution to authorize staff to provide a report to the zoning officer to recommend denial yeah I think a resolution recommending denal would be sufficient and then that resolution can be provided to the zoning officer okay because the important part is that the commission is making a recommendation to the zoning officer and that within that resolution or that recommendation is showing that you have reviewed the application and specific reasons in this case commissioner uzo's description of the historic resource that it provides is what the court is looking for if and we could also say we could also say we just agree with the um memorandum yeah the determination okay I think it would probably be better to have specific reasons rather than just a proforma I agree with Maggie's memo but both are the principle just to show that the commission has reviewed the application okay well yeah in this case we had the benefit of a commissioner with personal familiarity with the property but often times s we don't and all we have to go on is the memo because the app they don't show up but and like a discussion of the of the pictures and in this case we talked about the building and what you can see and in and also that it's in the master plan and in the phase one survey in the master plan or in the phase one and in the phase one survey Okay so staff recommends a motion to prepare a report for the zoning officer recommending the hpc's action to deny the application for demolition anyone want to say they make that motion and someone else second I'll make that motion I'll second say it though no no no that's that's why I that's why I said it why no one was saying it and I'm going to write it down and I'm going to put it on a posted note and it's going to live in this binder and we'll never have this discussion again okay um that being said I have a first I have a second I second it yeah yes all right we'll do a roll call vote commissioner amuza I commissioner Gunther I commissioner sakong I commissioner blazak I commissioner Cronin I okay commissioner gri is absent commissioner samp is absent Vice chair Gucci Ardo is absent and chairman Gordon I okay there are six votes in favor none against no extensions the motion passes all right we have no resolutions to introduce or discuss no resolutions to memorialize no executive session and that just leaves us with adjournment I'll make a motion to adjourn second okay who had the second there awesome okay it is 8852 all in favor I I