G hope for the best there we go all right um Bridget you ready all right okay we will try to make it so that we're all good there Robert if you would like to call the meeting to order yes I'll Now call to order this regular meeting of the historic preservation commission it is um 6:35 a.m okay 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 historic preservation commission has been sent to Jersey journal the Jersey Journal Jersey City Reporter and Ellis balito on Friday February 2nd same notice has been provided to the clerk for posting on the bulletin board outside of the clerk's office in City Hall and on the city Jersey City website um I have proof of this notice here in evidence which is on my laptop that I can't get to right now so I will provide Ed after the meeting if we want to tentatively Mark that as B1 okay all right thank you we move to a roll call attendance commissioner blazak present commissioner sakong commissioner Lewis pres pres commissioner San Camp here commissioner Cronin here commissioner Gunther here commissioner amuso present Vice chair gucciardo here and chairman Gordon present right there are nine members of the Commission in attendance tonight five affirmative votes are needed for the approval of a certificate of appropriateness next item we have two sets of minutes to approve we have the minutes from the December 11th meeting um any comments questions Corrections okay um staff recommends a motion to approve motion second okay I'll do a roll call vote uh commissioner song I commissioner Lewis I commissioner samp I commissioner Cronin I commissioner Gunther abin commissioner amuso abstain commissioner blazak I Vice chair gucciardo and chairman Gordon I right there are seven votes in favor no votes against two extensions the minutes from December 11th 2023 are approved and next are January 8th questions comments Corrections if not staff recommends a motion to approve make a motion to approve second okay um another roll call vote commissioner Lewis abstain commissioner San Camp I commissioner Cronin I commissioner Gunther I commissioner amuso I commissioner blazak I commissioner sakong I is that everyone yes okay I'm sorry all right Vice chair uh gucciardo obain and chairman Gordon I right there are seven votes in favor none against and two extensions the minutes from January 8th are approved uh correspondence all corresponden is available through the links on tonight's agenda there are copies of application materials up at the front here um and that should cover everything for our applications tonight for announcements um case 11a 205 12th Street um has carried to an unspecified meeting date so we will not be hearing that this evening and that brings us to open public comment if there are any members of the public and attendance tonight who would like to speak regarding matters of historic preservation that are not on tonight's agenda please approach the dis staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment motion second second all in favor I I okay we have no old business on tonight's agenda which just brings us to new business all right so I am simultaneously calling both new cases this evening which are cases h230 0183 and h23 0184 in each case the applicant is Jennifer bansy Esquire on behalf of Temple Beth L owner the address is 2419 John F Kennedy Boulevard the uh case ending in 83 is for a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of metal metal canopies on the North and South sides of the building at the ground floor of Temple Beth L A key contributing altered twostory five bay Byzantine Revival style Temple constructed in 1925 and the application ending in 84 is for a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of a 6ft tall areaway fencing on the North and South sides of the building at the ground floor of Temple Beth L yep I'll good check thank you uh can you just turn on the mic and so it yeah little tap okay uh for the record uh Charles Harrington of uh conell Foley on behalf of the applicant uh Miss bonsky is uh a member of our firm so I'm here appearing tonight on behalf of our client um just going to give a brief overview of uh why we're here tonight and then I'm going to get out of way and hand it over to our architect but uh as these applications um they both involved in the temple bethl which um I'm sure pretty much everybody if not everybody is familiar with it's located at the corner of uh JFK Boulevard in Harrison Avenue um the the applications tonight as as the chairman just noted is uh it's for the installation of metal canopies uh on on the U the structure uh the reasoning behind that is is really to address drainage issues um this uh the the uh the temple was severely d damaged um as part of hurricane Ida uh and this is a mitigation effect to to try to prevent something like that again in the future um there are uh grants involved uh that would assist uh in in uh installation of this in the event it's approved um there is additional uh approvals as well that that would be required um similarly um the the installation for the fencing around that is that's not a um an Ida related issue but it's a security issue uh and there's a separate grant that that is involved there as well so we're presenting them together um in in one presentation but they're separate applications uh on purpose uh because there there would be separate issues you know for the this commission reviewing them we wanted to have have it so that you you could review the canopy as well as the fencing and if you have you know concerns or issues with one we can address those and if if the other one you know is is fine you know we can move forward with with you know one or both hopefully both um but that is the reason that we have separated them and as you you saw in um in Maggie's report uh there was a number uh of applications for for certificates of no effect uh that were U submitted to to Maggie and and and approved prior to tonight so there's a lot of work you know a lot of uh a lot of damage as a result of of that that hurricane uh and um they've been working out a long time to try to get things in order so what we're presenting tonight as I as I said is uh uh things that that really are important uh to the temple um for uh for you know a number of reasons um so with that said I I I do have um one witness tonight is U uh Joshua zinder he um has a presentation that that he'll walk you through and uh we'll I'll get out of the way thanks thanks Jack good evening everyone before we start we're just going to swear you in and you have you been to this board before I haven't been to this one I've been to the planning board here okay we are just going to qualify you quick but we'll swear you in first ra your right do you swear or affirm the testimony you're I do my name is Joshua zinder that's j o h u a z i n d r thank you okay and if you could just give a very quick overview of your qualifications including if you're licensed in the state of New Jersey sure um I am the managing partner of landow zinder architecture in Princeton New Jersey um I am licensed in New Jersey and seven other states I hold a bachelor of architecture from Syracuse University a master in advanced architecture design from Columbia University I've been practicing architecture for more than 30 years in 2013 I was named AIA New Jersey uh architect of the year in 2021 I was New Jersey um American Institute of Architects president and um I presented to numerous boards around the country including the planning board here in Jersey City great staff recommends that Mr zinder be qualified as an expert in the field of architecture and that chair accept qualifications so AC accepted okay and then I think we just need to mark your presentation quickly that's right okay okay brid if we could mark their presentation as A1 we can just title it board presentation then before before going into it Mr zinder if you could just put on a record a brief overview of what A1 is okay um not actually it's a an email a PowerPoint it's a slide it's a PDF yeah we can just describe it's a um PDF yeah PDF presentation that covers uh some general uh information about the propert property that covers uh specific information about the canopy proposal specific information about the fencing proposal and then a combination of both of them together and Mr zinder this is a supplement to what has already been uh submitted to the board and and um and contains some some information that's already part of that is that correct correct it's additional information and and some additional images for clar thank you and there are hard copies if anybody wants of this and also the uh Heritage uh report which which we brought here I guess I'll begin thank you for having us tonight I'm glad to be presenting in person um I like the the the difference better than the screen uh today we will be discussing 2419 JFK Boulevard in the West Bergen East Lincoln Park historic district in Jersey City it's uh Temple Beth L for some clarity we'll be presenting uh we'll be be excuse me we'll be presenting two projects um that are needed for the congregation for two different reasons both of which are beyond the congregation's control the presentation will be in four parts beginning with some general information about the building this will be referred to as exhibit a as we go through um different from the master exhibit a it's just what we labeled them on the drawings um the second will be referred to as exhibit d new canopies the third will refer to as exhibit e new security fencing and finally we will show you both of these elements Illustrated together we would like to we would like you to approve both projects however we' request that the committee consider them separately so one does not impede the approval of the other here you see the West Bergen East Lincoln Park historic district with the property highlighted within it on on its own uh if we zoom in closer you can see the property on the tax map and the building is a key contributing building within the historic district here you see the site survey of the synagogue on the corner of Harrison Avenue and JFK Boulevard here's the building from above with its iconic gold terracotta Dome and the open yard that extends to Bentley Avenue the building was designed in 1925 in a Byzantine style reminiscent of hagio Sophia in Istanbul and built in 1926 by architect Percy bardis there were many adjustments to the building from this concept drawing the side structure on the right was never built and the three windows on Harrison Avenue became a five window system but the Terracotta Dome and entryway did carry through into the finished building here is the building today as seen from JFK with its red brick facade and contrasting terracotta accents the stone base and the stained glass windows in order to help you understand the work being proposed today we'll be using this reference diagram and another uh of the building and this is the view from the Harrison Avenue side of the building and this is the view from the Bentley Avenue side of the building as I mentioned earlier there are two different projects being considered for these two area ways which are the egress access from the basement of the building this is exhibit D and we will discuss the canopies now during superstorm Ida September 1st through the 3D in 20121 Bethal suffered extreme damage and FEMA is helping to rebuild the building from that damage the loss of their basement space dramatically limits the space for the congregation to have classes and specialist events part of the work which FEMA is looking for is mitigation to ensure that if another similar storm comes through the building will not suffer the same damage and we've put together extensive mitigation plans um we're working through that right now but this canopy is a critical component in that the first canopy faces out onto Harrison Avenue as shown here and the second one faces out toward the lawn and yard towards Bentley Avenue here you see the canopies in plan the plan on the right is the plan of the basement that was damaged in the flood the first floor plan on the left with the canopies highlighted in blue these two area ways effectively act as bathtubs currently when there's rain that comes through as part of this we will be augmenting the drainage putting a new drainage in the area ways and outside of the area ways and these canopies augment that and support the mitigation here are the full building elevations with the canopies shaded in blue we place canopies on the facade in the Gap above the base element and below the first floor Windows please note that due to the gray change on the north versus the south side of the building each of these canopies are at different elevations from the ground despite their common height location on the building taking a closer look at each of the canopies we can see that they are located above the stone base of the building and low enough on the facade to complete any flashing below the windows the canopies are simple structures pitched to allow drainage away from the building with Rod stays to allow the structure to be thinner and lighter you can also see the difference in relative grade on the North and South sides of the building with the level of the lower level window that are exposed the intent of the canopies is to we plan to paint them black with metal Diamond shingles on top uh being a lighter uh gray color which I'll show you as we go and actually I have not sure you want to so that would be a black and zinc color would be the in looking at the details of the canopies you can see that we comply with your design standards and guidelines in addition to the Secretary of interior standards for the treatment of historic properties while still providing the necessary FEMA mitigation effort the anchor points are bolts into mortar joints which could be removed with little to no impact on the historic structure the structure is modern the canopies are modern in form with the exposed beams and pearlins and the diamond pattern metal shingles there are also concealed lights that are integrated into the structure as well that illuminate the area wavs below this was on the original submission on page a62 drawing three and you can also see those lights here um on detail number three we have brought some of the metal samples which you're passing around which are color references they're not the actual um manufacturer materials when we get those we will forward them on uh the black for the structure and the lighter zinc colors are for the roofing please note that there are redundant mitigation efforts being done in addition to these canopies the project will have new drainage in the areaway and additional sight drainage these canopies are to divert the water from the area away into those other drainage efforts the water is collected in gutters and then down leaders and then that ties into the drainage system this is not the only effort that's being made the canopies are not the only effort being made for mitigation there are extensive now we have a series of images illustrating the canopy on the facade this is the existing condition looking at Harrison and here you see with the canopy on Harrison if we go a little bit closer the existing condition and with the canopy it is important to note that these area ways act as bathtubs and despite the new drain and and despite the new drainage we are adding them because it is best practice to divert the water away from the area ways to ensure proper mitigation now we have the existing view on the north side of the building and with the canopy the existing view from across the yard and with the canopy here's the existing North areaway up close and with the addition of the canopy again these are necessary to divert the water the canopies are at a shallow angle to allow for the pitch so you can't exactly see the diamond uh roof metal roofing that we're putting on here um so we the inset shows that that what that material is now we transition to the proposed security fences the congregation has received a Homeland Security grant for these fences regret y the world we live in today concealed locations around places of worship afford opportunities for people with malicious intent in addition the congregation has been struggling with individuals using the area ws and stairs as restrooms locations to do drugs and other unsavory activities we'll now walk through exhibit e for the proposed security fences here's the diagram you'll see the extent of the fence along Harrison and the extend to the fence um on the Bentley Avenue side on the north side of the building of the building the north side area way here you can see the plans of the building again the red dotted line indicates the location of the fence on the first floor plan and I hope that's coming through it's the left floor plan there's a a dotted line that runs through there the elevation of the building with the new security fences here you see the closer elevations of both sides of the building the fences will be black as black will disappear from the visual plane from from your eye and you'll see that um as we get to the other images as well the fence we are planning on using is a black aluminum picket fence with pinched pickets and flat C apps on the posts as the area ways and stairs are required for erress we'll have panic bars on the fences on the gates I should say um this will necessitate an application of a 3/4 inch black mesh on the inside of the fencing around the gates which will prevent people from reaching around to activate the Panic devices now if we go back to the the existing Harrison Avenue View and with the new fence the existing view up close and with the new security fence you note that we intend to keep the historic railing system uh the fence will be located just outside of this element to maintain its integrity and uh you know we believe this is best practice for toric and the fences are designed to be removed in the future if if that is possible it be a Wonderful World to be able to do that here's the existing north side of the building viewed from JFK and with the security fence it was noted in the staff report that one line of fences is okay and that these might not be necessary but that is not the case uh they are necessary and have a dimin dimin impact on the streetcape as you can see here um safety is really critical and there have been numerous occasions where people have climbed over existing fencing and climbed down into that areaway to do drugs and other things and um honestly in this case having two fences is not really a is not inappropriate as long as it's you know architecturally appropriate so here you see the existing view from the yard and with the security fence the existing North Area way up close and with the new security fence here as well you can see that we intend to keep the historic rail as noted before locating the new fence just outside of it to maintain its Integrity also this is a good place to note the mesh that's around the gate as it does not really show up in the visual plane um you know but if you look closely at the floor just inside just past the gate you can see the diagonal pattern of the mesh that I'm speaking of uh this will prevent someone from reaching around as I mentioned to activate the Panic bar we are asking you for approval of each of these items individually as they're each tied to potential Federal funding from FEMA and Homeland Security but we recognize that it is important to see them together so the remaining images will be a composite of both proposals the congregation asked the Heritage Consulting Group to to review these proposals for their appropriateness and sensitivity to this key contributing structure their findings LED them to note that both proposals met the Secretary of interior standards for the treatment of historic properties and the local historic District's guidelines as well they were appropriately ized non-intrusive and reversible here we see the Avenue Harrison Avenue side of the diagram again with both elements and the Bentley Avenue side with both elements the existing Harrison Avenue View and the fence and the canopy together and then the comp Arison Avenue view closer and the same view with both elements in place please note that there are leaders that take the water off of this canopy down to grade and that is tied to the storm water system please remember that the structure of the canopy will be black it's shown here in a gray and that's really for clarity as the details get lost in the rendering when we go to black here's the other view of the north side of the building as it exists now and with both elements in place the existing view from across the yard and with both elements in place here's the existing north side of the building again areaway four and with both elements in place and you can please note that in the back right hand corner there is actually a leader that goes down next to that window um that ties it into the storm water system in conclusion we believe that our proposal for the canopies and the security fences at Temple bethl meet the requirements of your local historic District's guidelines and the Secretary of interior standards they will provide mitigation for extreme weather and help reduce security risk for the congregation and the community moving into the future as our world changes with climate and safety concerns it is important to note that we should not make alterations to structures at the expense of our historical architectural Legacy and deplete our historic districts these projects we are discussing tonight have little to no impact on the historic district and I would suggest that they actually have a net positive impact by creating a more resilient environment and a safer neighborhood in addition it is important to note that we recognize the as the world changes and these proposed elements are no longer needed they can be reversed if the future permits our proposal is respectful to the historic district and the legacy of this key contributing building within it thank you for your time tonight we hope you find our proposal compelling and approve it and I can certainly go back to any images if you need me to thank you um can you tell us more about the lighting that is being proposed you indicated that there's an element of new lighting that goes along with these canopies yeah there're they're going to be small surface mounted light fixtures that are between nestled between the structure so they will not be able to be seen from outside of the structure you'd have to be in the areaway to see them um and they would provide lighting along that areaway for safety purposes is that part of this application are there any diagrams or well there is there is there is a it's noted back on a detail sorry it's a way back here it's elevation number three yeah well it's a section number three oh there it is so in the right hand corner it's in the middle it's a small surface mounted adjustable light okay and the exact light fixture we will provide um as part of the submission um part of the challenge here is that uh the way the funding is set up the congregation can't get the funding unless they have approval from uh this uh commission and so they're hesitant to have Engineers do engineering drawings and do certain work with without that so um we can certainly Supply that light fixture um to staff um in support of the appliation and the existing lighting just above the canopy um so I'm looking at the moment at the Northeast view um th those existing light fixtures are are just above the canopy so would those remain as they are now or would you be relocating them yeah so there are three light fixtures there and there's one camera um there will need to be um the camera we I suspect one of those light fixtures which currently lights the area away will be relocated the other lights are intended to light the yard um so that there aren't concealed areas and I suspect they will remain um but we can document that and and further clarify thank you and then uh another question on the canopies you mentioned that this would be one of VAR mitigation efforts you're take undertaking that you mentioned it was extensive so could you sort of quantify for us how important is is the installation of these canopies in your overall mitigation efforts where does it factor in um so we originally presented the FEMA that we were going to put drainage in the bottom of the area way we were going to enlarge the drains and I believe they were putting I'm not 100% on this but I believe we were putting two drains down there a trench drain and and a smaller drain and then they were putting additional drainage out in the yard and that was all being um redirected away from the building and we presented that the FEMA and they told us that this is great but we really would love for you to put a canopy or a cover over the top of this to redirect it away from the areaway as these are just collectors for the water and even the water coming down to it we would like to redirect it hence the canopy and we spent a considerable time doing a number of different designs um we spoke to to uh staff here in Jersey City and showed a couple of different variations of designs um and we also spoke to some people at shipo and showed them a couple variations of designs for this um some of them were more I would say historic looking in character and um numerous people advised us against that path um we looked at possibly putting glass on top of this so it could disappear financially that was not going to be in their budget it wasn't FEMA wouldn't cover that and so this is where we ended up we tried to do the structure as simple as possible and uh um even the metal roofing we tried to do as simple as possible in the end we ended up with this selection of the diamond pattern shingles um for two reasons one for cost and the other uh because most of the other systems required a thicker assembly and we didn't really have a lot of space in the in the Gap that we were were looking at to be frank my question is really are these canopies necessary to safeguard the property from future potential water damage or is this more just you know pursuing the best practice I think it's beyond pursuing the best practice I believe FEMA will not want to um I'm not sure what it's called because it's beyond insurance but um insure the property and and and they feel this is a necess necessary mitigation effort toward toward the work that's being done and we're doing renovation work in the basement we're replacing structural elements that were damaged in the storm we're doing the the drainage and uh and this is part of what FEMA has requested thank you you mentioned that the canopies have a gutter system that they drain to plumbed a plumbed system are they draining to the same place as the area drains within the Airways so the actual connection um we have not worked out yet I believe they're not going to come to the same connection point because we don't want it to backflow um I think from the last conversation with the civil engineer they're looking at a distance of at least 10 ft that they want to make that connection um but it's going to go underground um directly underneath that corner but ultimately they're draining to the same place into the same drain system the yard maybe also or no say it again there's like also you said there's yard drainage is that also is all draining eventually to the same place or is it not I believe so um but I'm I'm not 100% Richard do you know I mean I'm wondering if the canopies are draining to the same place as any other drain that would be put as part of your efforts it sounds like we would have to verify that with the civil engineer I I honestly don't know that right now and I I I couldn't really see I I think I see in the photo that you have up now at the far end there is a vertical line but I don't know if that's something holding up the it's right there is that the drain that's the leader coming off of there will I'm sorry one lader and on the other side the south side of the building is one lader coming off yes um I had a question about the fencing and in your presentation you discussed um the need to like security reasons and people you know using that using those areas to do drugs and other illegal activities can you give us a sense of how how often this happens how many times you've had to deal with these kind of incidents with the Years Tom do you want to talk to that he can we just have to swear him in okay Tom is the immediate past president of the car okay on come on up just State and spell your name for the record for Bridget or have Bridget s my name is Thomas Rosen site r o s n s we T you swear or affirm the testimony your vce proceeding the truth truth I do thank you okay Tom can you just put on the record your uh relation to the application please I'm the uh currently I'm the vice president of Temple bethl I'm also the immediate past president I served as president for six years great um as far as the the question um as to how often this is being done um on the the Harrison Avenue side of the building um it's it has been uh an ongoing problem for years of people mostly uh we believe uh mostly using it as a bathroom and sometimes actually living down there for periods of time until we can get the police there uh we have we uh the the gate is there is a gate at the top it's locked but you can get over it um on the the Bentley Avenue side or the north side of the building uh that area is really hidden from the street so um that area seems to be more popular for drug use um we have uh it we've taken some measures to try to reduce it again with locks and with um uh by putting in blue lights which um apparently discourage people from trying to um it makes it difficult to find your vein if you're injecting good drugs yeah uh so that's what we have done and it's it's been helpful and we've had uh reduced um occurrences of of drug use down there but uh it is still going on to some extent okay thank you thank you I had a question about the proposed fencing are you um proposing to fence in the entire north side of the site so that was a separate um application here I can go to this diagram uh that was part of a separate application and uh it was approved administratively and and that's another thing that's why I said the Redundant fencing it'll help even more to reduce that what's going on just to clarify just for staff that's also the fence that they're proposing for the area ways matches the fence that was approved at the staff level it's a black aluminum 6 foot tall fence and is that fence in place at this point not yet but it is approved are there any renderings showing this entire Proposal with the staff level work included is that this well all of these images I should say all these images with the exception of one thing the where you see the actually I go the basement windows that are currently filled in with red plywood those are going to be restored back to Windows um with the exception of that this this shows everything on the South Side there's going to be an elevator um that's added and so that's access to the elevator on the right hand side and um and then it shows the the fence being added on the other side of the building you can actually see the fence that we're proposing for that side in this image but it's you know it's black it's a metal picket fence and it does fade away from you this currently a chain link fence that wraps around the property there's nothing on the north side of the I guess what I'm asking is the diagram of the fencing was thorough included all of the fencing in the various proposals yes okay thanks have a question maybe for Maggie could best answer this but um is there a maximum for Heights of fences as per zoning and is it is it different for like religious properties and institutions because if someone came in and wanted to put a six foot fence in front of their let's say Brownstone downtown that would be pretty atypical so I'm just trying to wrap my head around on what the you know City's overall standards are the fencing ordinance doesn't actually specify front yard um you're correct that if someone wanted to put a 6ft tall fence in front of their Brownstone it would be a typical and it would be something that would be sent to the commission mostly because that wouldn't match the historic record and that's what triggers the commission review um but there is no difference for religious properties for uh fencing you the maximum height is 10 feet uh 10 feet 6 feet with um an exception for grade so if you want to keep your fence at a consistent grade height and it's six feet in one section but the grade goes down it can technically go up to 10 feet to account for that grade change just if I could add Jack can you just make sure you speaking to the mic it's okay uh yeah I don't have the specific section uh but it is you know the fence regulation section too and and I I can represent that that was a uh specific issue that we reviewed uh with with staff beforehand initially I think it was with Mr reeden and then uh subsequently with uh Maggie so it was we confirm that that's a permitted height okay 34567 is the fences um and I had one followup question about the uh canopy and I guess my question is how is this how is this being say Quantified you know is is there some sort of calculation at saying we're going to install these and we're going to keep so much water out of those sunken area ways or you know and I guess it begs and goes to my question is how effective is this really going to be and is this really going to solve the whatever issues it has and is it mainly from both rain coming down because the facades are whoever many feet high and there's no drain below the parit and so the water's coming all the way down the facade rushing down and this canopy is going to both collect all that water coming down the facade I'm assuming yes that's the intent to collect anything that hits the hits the canopy and anything that comes off of the facade and then there's also um during Ida there was significant water sheeting that came from the north is my understanding and so the additional drainage will capture that water before it gets to the building and so have you thought has something like a smaller leader that would be maybe in in the same doesn't extend quite as far out maybe maybe that doesn't extend as far out from the facade has that something like that been explored we did actually talk about putting a a a gutter um across the facade instead of the canopy and we presented it to FEMA and they laughed at us um they thought that there was no point in spending the money for the for for that because it's not going to be effective um capturing the water and their recommendation was to design a canopy that would be approved right but FEMA doesn't have the issue of historic preservation to have to deal with right so from their point of view you could build a bubble around the whole thing and that would be ideal for them but not so good for us so oh no absolutely and I didn't mean to I didn't mean to short I'm just making a point that the problem we're having is is FEMA then determining whether or not you get this grant based on what you provide them with is mitigation so my understanding is that components of the grant they will still give us but they won't the mitigation efforts It's the Grant is broken down into three parts one is the restoration of the basement area uh one is codes and standards and one is mitigation and it's I don't know that they've actually said that they wouldn't give the money if we didn't do the full mitigation effort I'm just curious under what pressure you are from them to do exactly what they want you know so yeah they they haven't made that clear so I can't talk to it understood so why would why would the gutter option not be effective is the benefit of catching the water cascading down the facade a secondary benefit then from that conversation yes they felt that there was less water that was coming off of the facade at that point then would be coming down into it they they do a I guess the calculation is for horizontal area and that's what they're trying to prevent the water from getting into the areaway I have a question for you um these canopies appear to be about 50 ft long 40 50 ft in length and how how far do they stick out 5T 4 feet 5T from the building what the that six feet I'm just concerned that how one ler pipe is going to take rain from a surface area this large if we were having torrential downpours and water was hitting the north facade and pouring onto the roof how does a four or five inch leader how is it going to be able to handle that much volume of water right so we have I'm really curious that's the exact same question we talked to our civil engineer about and they told us the size of the leader that we would need for the amount of area that we had exposed we will certainly be reviewing that with them moving forward right now they told us that a 4-in leader was adequate um you know we might look to doing a 6inch one I suppose that's it's possible um but uh the storm water data were being given from from our civil engineer and they're providing us that backup information and I guess it's if I understand correctly with the pitch the way the water comes into the gutter in the drain it's very much like a train so the water that's closest to the leader is going to flow into the leader and the gutter first and this and the water that's at the end is going to come in later and so it accumulates as it goes down and this is the size that we've been given but we will certainly be revisiting that to ensure that it performs properly and it will also be reviewed by it'll be reviewed by the local municip ipity and it will be reviewed by FEMA as well yeah in addition to our civil engineer it doesn't make our decision easier I have to say um the other question I have is if you are putting a six- foot fence around what appears to be the entire North lot uh on Bentley Avenue are there any openings in that fence because on the diagram it looks like it's doesn't completely secure the property that there's still an opening on Bentley Avenue is that am I seeing that correctly sorry my monitor in front of me does not work so I'm going through your um okay packet yeah um I believe that meets up with another existing fence that's on the property is that yeah there's another existing fence at that location okay so the the entire the entire property would be secured by this X exor perimeter fence yes okay um so uh with that with that said I do have a problem with the additional 6- foot fence that will be hiding the historic fence that goes down the stairwell where the canopy will be um I think one six foot fence that secures the parameter um is sufficient I don't see the need for another six- foot fence at this entrance to the stairwell here um and I really don't like the way it looks with two fences I mean it just looks crazy um I I don't see it to be acceptable looking at all I I agree with that and I appreciate what you said about keeping the historic friendss there but I think it looks to put it maybe put a nicer VIs visually cluttered or halfhazard with having the two fences there so if we're I think if we're okay with a new fence there I think we should be okay with with removing that and if the temple wants to to keep it on site maybe if they ever do want to put it back in the future but yeah I agree that having the two fences right next to one another is kind of an odd condition well if we I mean we would gladly remove it and keep it on site um we just felt that the path we took was what we felt was most appropriate if that's what you recommend that we remove the historic element we will gladly do that and store it um if that's preferred I don't know if that's what I prefer I I think I'd prefer not to see the new fence where the historic element is I'd rather see just the historic fence left given you're wrapping the entire property with a six foot fence and I can I can understand that argument I would say that um I think visually if you look at the image that's on the screen I don't think that there is a substantial difference between just having the outer fence and having um and not having the inner fence I believe that if you would have told me what's been going on in this particular access way um in a synagogue in Jersey City I would be I mean I would be shocked honestly and we live in uh some times that are what they are and I would say that um that you know preventing people from from doing drugs here and using these in unsavory ways is beneficial to the entire community so I and and the fences can be removed in the future so it's not um and I think the congregation would welcome that the fences be removed in the future if things were to change where where there's this new proposed aluminum fence in front of the existing historic fence what is the distance between them and and how is the new fence being installed in a way that avoids any damage to the historic fence yeah so the uh fence on the north side of the building is uh about 8 to 12 in away it's past the foundation that's holding up the building um on the other side it will be a little bit closer about 6 in away um because we're trying to keep as tight to the building as possible and well is there any risk in with the installation of the new fence causing any damage to the existing no that's specifically why we're locating it where we are while we're on this image can you um tell me is this rendering accurate in terms of where the canopy meets the building at these terracotta Sills on the Windows um actually no the this one is a little bit off there is a single row um like the drawings may show it more clearly but the renderings make like the can I'm sorry sorry the renderings you know may be inaccurate I don't know it just looks to me like the canopies are sitting on top of those Sills yeah let me just go back to the elevations there should be a single row of brick between the top of the flashing and uh and the Sills so they should be complet themselves sorry you can see here that there's a single row of brick um between the flashing and the and the bottom of the sill so the there's a row of brick that's exposed underneath the sill what's the um what's the pitch that you need to accomplish running the length of the canopy to direct water into the into the um the uh down spout well potentially we we would have to switch to a different type of roofing material but we could go a quarter inch per foot and that would achieve the same the same thing but the flat the flat systems inevitably we needed we needed a thicker system to to create that so this is a greater greater than I don't know the exact pitch but we do do you know the length of the the longer canopy I can look it all it's in the package right okay I got that here now 12 in there it is right so 5 North Area is 56 feet 8 in so you're looking at in the neighborhood of over a foot Delta actually that's yeah it's um it's actually not right it's 55 ft because it doesn't extend beyond the it doesn't extend beyond the building that was correct in our presentation today that's yeah so that's a so some so there's a graphic misrepresentation right because because the canopy is so long you're you're talking about 14inch height height differential between one end and the canopy and the other MH which is going to be more than one course of bricks so I'd be curious to see what this would actually look like once you once that pitch is drawn accurately I think the pitch is drawn accurately in the elevations as far as I'm aware the pitch is drawn accurately in the elevations the only thing that was not accurate in these elevations and it didn't get picked up was that the canopy does not extend past I understand that if you're maybe I'm misunderstanding if you're if you're if you're carrying 55 um feet of length of canopy and has to pitch a quarter inch over a foot well that's a minimum that's not what I mean I'm not sure what this is we hold on yeah you could go more but then that would make it steeper yeah right but this is steeper it would make it more efficient if it's steeper not less efficient if it's steeper I'm not I'm not talking about the talking about theut yeah yeah I'm talking about the length from the the one end of the canopy I'm talking about the um if you take into account the length of the canopy and your gutter is at one end right so in order for a drop of water to travel from the far end of the canopy down to the gutter that's 14 in right which means that it now we're talking you know multiple courses of of brick so the the gutter I believe is an eighth of an inch per foot and the and the roofing itself is a would be minimum a/ quarter inch per foot so understood it's less so it's more of a seven in right Delta not a 14 nevertheless more than zero yeah it's not flat right and again and it's an unusual case because we don't typically see canopies of this nature or length um so I'm just wondering because you have especially on the North fa side you have such a tight condition between the underside of the canopy and the top of the fence right it it reads as a volume frankly and that's part of the reason why it's bothersome to me but it's if if it's exacerbated by the pitch being one way or the other um it would be good to know exactly the extent of the visual problem if that makes sense I I I understand we would I mean we'd have to and I guess the question is has that been accounted for and what and what we're seeing here you know is that is that pitch built into this or you know I I don't know that's well it's not because it's drawn as a horizontal line drawn it's drawn as a straight line but we have in in the studies we've done we did account for it because I know that we had a long discussion about the clearance of that um let me go back to the presentation clearance of the canopy at that back window there and in order to ensure that it was going to be below that sill um we accounted for it because the pitch is lower at that end and it does clear the I see it does clear the fence sorry I'm just going to the combined view I see I I'll just note um to me that there's there's the there's a canopy portion um I mean the can I think it's I think it's the right thing that the canopy is is separated out from the application of the fence and to me the the canopy is a slightly different is a slightly different con conversation because it's essentially protecting the historic asset right you're we're we're the the work that the canopy is doing is essentially preventing future water damage that you know I don't think any of us want I certainly don't um and so the the task of like what's the you know what's the right amount of volume to keep out of that area way is it you know is it is the canopy performing the way you're essentially testifying that it will perform um that that's that's sort of one thing I think the the fence does seem to be a um a separate issue that's that's and and and it's not that I don't sympathize with the concerns um that the applicant has outlined I certainly do sympathize with it but it's to me it's of a different character than than the potential water damage from the um that the that the canopy is protecting against and I'm I'm not clear I'm not sure that you've really especially again on the North faad I'm not sure that you've made the case for why somebody willing to climb over one six foot fence wouldn't be willing to climb over two I'm not sure that um the again that the visual appearance of the volume that's created by the by the canopy and this and the fence together I I'm not sure that that's really addressed um so I I'm just kind of letting you know my my thoughts right now uh so sorry if this was already discussed but is there any way someone can get access to the north side of the building um W without going over the perimeter fence once that's installed no they would have to go over well there are Gates so there are Gates that you could go through with on the perimeter fence all right so then so here for example this path that goes beyond Us in this image behind us there's a gate that goes out onto JFK then I I I think I tend to agree with commissioner sakong that there's not really the justification for a second fence at least on you know on this side on the other side there's there's no additional fencing right so there's I think there's a much stronger argument on that side and on the South Side there's much more distance between the top of the fence and the canopy to again kind of prevent the shed reading the problem I'm having Stephen can you turn your microphone on please the the problem I'm having with the fence in particular is um is how to apply the ordinance fairly across historic districts because we could have a residents come to us and say I'm having difficulty with my stairwell people are doing drugs in my stawell they're using we would never allow them to put up a six- foot fence in front of their house house so I'm struggling with how do I make that leap to to do it here for that particular reason and I also agree that the combination of the fence and the canopy create a volume which changes the water table and what's below the water table on a sign significant structure it's not doing it for 10 feet or so it's do doing it for a significant distance in both applications uh so I'm it's I'm struggling with protecting the building and also acknowledging that you have um some safety issues and some water issues I'd also prefer to see uh the mitigation happen in phases where you do the initial phase that handles sewage and drainage and Water Management before putting a canopy on the building because frankly the building's been there since 1925 is that right so so I understand there was a major in uh weather incident but for the most part it's not an issue so why not improve the drainage why not do what you can to mitigate the issue like we would do on any other historic building before putting a canopy up to to to uh it might be Overkill is what my concern is that unnecessary Overkill maybe good from the from fe's point of view I totally appreciate what they're trying to do but from historic preservation point of view it's it seems like a lot to ask so a couple of points to uh what you had mentioned um you know we had the exact conversation that you had about the fence um and we're not putting a fence in front of this building okay right now there's no fence being proposed right you know these are um we're trying to be very pointed um at where it is and and I would make the argument that the two fences do actually two different things okay so yes there is the possibility of somebody climbing over the first six high fence and the question is whether or not they would then pursue to climb over the the next one um I would suggest that that's a deterrent um you know to get to the second one and also because the canopy relation to the fence is tighter it's making it a more difficult situation right um you know as far as the the mitigation question um this is not the first time that they've had water and and water issues in the basement of this building this is been numerous times that they've had this this was I would say catastrophic okay in nature and um and so you know the the conversations with FEMA have that this should be part of mitigation to prevent it from being there recognizing that this isn't we're not presenting to FEMA we're presenting to the historic district so um we've tried to be as sensitive as possible to the the district and specifically to the structure that we think is magnificent um you know it's it's we're trying to balance all these things I think we also have to recognize that while the building may have stood for almost a 100 years we are seeing climate change and we're seeing an increasing fre quency and severity of severe weather events so um I think that helps to justify the need for increased measures to mitigate those events no doubt you guys have any additional questions comments I I have one other question about the design of the canopy I'm looking at page 52 um I understand that the canopy will be black but it looks like um I guess for lack of a better term the beams that come from the building out to the street you you're going to see that repetition of pattern of those beams on the facade of the canopy the ends of the beams are going to be exposed right so that that's kind of a significant design detail it I think it makes it more in my just my opinion it's I I think it has a larger impact with those beams running out it's a repeat pattern that affects the design of the the look of the facade of the building I would like to see some some more discreet uh design uh for that as well yeah we would gladly close that off and put a put a solid Eve along that edge um in our review of uh canopies that are are added to Historic structures um they tend to be or what we've seen um more minimal in nature and exposing the structure um was a Common Thread that which is why we did it here um but if you if you want to improve the canopies and give it and we'll give you a solid um uh Eve along that edge that would be perfectly fine with us it's just one thought and I you know I would like to see it lighter and finer and thinner of course anything to make it less obtrusive I mean we can make the whole thing you know the lighter gray the zinc color we can tone the whole thing down we felt that black again was something that I don't have a problem with the black I have a problem with its its mass and its OB obstruction of the architecture when you say lighter you don't mean color I don't mean lighter and color you mean Dimension a finer Dimension yeah yeah that we were struggling with so this is the thinnest we've been able to get it this is as fine as as you can get is what you're saying yes this is as thin as it was actually about double the thickness and a little bit lower and flat at one point um are these HSS members are they angles they're not angles they're tubes so so they're tues yeah they're tubes with solid end well if one of the concerns is sort of the lightness of the articulation of of this maybe having a solid Edge is maybe not helpful and also there's a sort of like marching pattern on the band course above so maybe I did see that maybe it has more of a relationship if it stays the way it is so so I'll stop trying to design it now I'm sorry because there's always another problem when you attempt to design something so my apologies for that okay with the the me the light fixtures you mentioned um we were talking about the north facade but would that also be the case on the south facade as well yeah they would both be tucked up into the in between the beams in between every beam no no I think there were I think there were seven and we were working out with the the bay system of the windows below I do think um if we vote on the canopy application tonight um I do think at least one condition for me would be for you to submit a a reflective ceiling plan that actually indicates specification and location and dimensions of those fixtures yeah we provide a cut sheet and locations and there's some existing uh light fixtures and conduit on both facades would those be removed um if they're redundant so if they were Illuminating the area way we would be taking them out and if they are like the ones on the other side are Illuminating the yard those would stay and similar conditions with the cameras um if the cameras are observing um the yard they would stay and we would most likely be adding another camera underneath the arway to ensure um that it's not being occupied would you need to remove the conduit the conduit would be removed if we're taking out a device yes I have one question uh further question I is is the uh Temple concerned once these canopies are installed with the potential and how easy it will be for someone to climb up on top of them especially on the Harrison Avenue side the staircase that goes up to the side door buts right up to that canopy roof um you've got multiple stained glass windows that are sitting on top of these canopies that are easily accessible to be smashed to be the building can easily be graffitied somebody could stand on the canopies and have at it um have has any thought been given to that further um potential for vandalism it sounds like like a case for a taller fence you go well I will I will say that as part of one of the other submissions um uh we did submit that we are putting polycarbonate replacing existing plexiglass that are on the stained glass windows and we're putting polycarbonate and blast film on the windows so we believe we're addressing that um in a different way okay um but it's like playground equipment you know you never know what you don't know what you don't know and actually nobody's brought that up until you just did so I I just cuz I see any place where there's a low Ling roof you will see graffiti up above on the neighboring building if there's a way to get up there to put their tag there will be it will be done so just uh another observation I've made we'll take that into consideration and and think of how we can and I mean so we still we're not yet at the staff comment portion but my thoughts at this point are so many of the applications we see are are really at heart profit driven and to me what I see here is one of these applications is is geared towards protecting a historic asset and the other is geared towards protecting the inhabitants or the the people who are within that historic building so you know I think to me I'm very mindful of of that intent and I I think this was approached with great sensitivity towards protecting the historic asset I think the two open questions for me are you know due to concerns about the appearance of having two fences um some of the Commissioners have suggested it may be better to remove the historic fence I don't know that I would prefer that I think it's the original fence it should probably stay where it is but I think that that's open to discussion and then I think having the Redundant fencing on the Northern side perhaps that second fence is not really necessary but apart from those two sort of minor issues on the whole I would support these applications I will also mention that we did have conversations with um somebody from uh staff here in Jersey City and with shipo uh one of the thoughts that we had was to add a section on top of the existing historic fence because it's only about 30 inches um the existing one so we were going to augment it to make it taller and it was pretty consistent that everybody said don't do that the alternative would be to raise it with a stone a row below um the I suppose that's possible the the challenge there is we're trying to make fewer concealed areas and we would just make it more concealed if we were to raise it any other questions comments if not we can um if he wants to add some testimony he can put testimony on Rec sure because we are still in applicant testimony so let's see there is a house back there and is there a view I don't think there was a view that shows it but okay um uh again my name is Tom Rosen site I'm the immediate past president of the congregation and Tom I'm sorry to cut you off can you just move the mic slightly away from your mouth a little bit just push the yeah you could do that too just push the whole arm up thanks um and I'm the immediate I'm uh currently vice president of the congregation the question about access to the yard um there is if if you look on this view you can't really see it but to the right is where Bentley Avenue is and if you go down Bentley our yard continues I don't know how far say 75 fet or whatever it is and then there's a house first there's a driveway and then the house right now there is a fence between the driveway and the temple property but there is I don't recall how how tall that is and that's not our fence that fence belongs to the house next door and there's no guarantee that that would be there forever it's a six foot PVC fence thank you uh it's a six foot PVC fence so it's as tall as as our uh outside fence but again it's not our fence if that were removed or if it were shorten for some reason that's uh not under our control then um or if it deteriorated then people could get into the the yard at the temple and then go down into that areaway um I would just like with as far as the canopies go I I just like to uh say I appreciate the the Chairman's comments about the need to protect this historic structure and I'm sure you're all concerned with that and just a matter of how best to do it and um you know we we are going to improve the drainage that's down in that areaway uh uh we're going to in each of those area ways those are emergency exits from the downstairs and the downstairs was described as the um as the basement of the building but it's it is below grade you might call it a basement but it's our social hall it's where all of the temple activities other than the religious services are held in fact some religious services are held there at times and so it's really where we we go gather it's it's a place where we can have um uh social events fundraisers and Community meetings we've uh We've there have been numerous Community meetings there in the past right now well you saw pictures of what it looks like now it's totally been gutted there isn't even a floor that you can walk around on safely um so as a board we feel a fiduciary responsibility not only to our congregation to preserve that space But to FEMA which is paying the majority of the bill and to the American taxpayers to ensure that it doesn't happen again we and and we really feel that we need to take every step possible to not just to protect that social hall from the last 100 years storms but also from the next hundred years storms which will undoubtedly be worse um so that's my main comment the the other comment I would like to make is that um I I I feel that this the the canopy and and fence on the North areaway sorry I keep pointing uh toward you uh commissioner Gunther but I'm pointing at the picture um that whole area is not really so visible from the street this is this picture is taken from across the street I suspect from an elevated angle if you're walking down JFK Boulevard from Bentley toward the temple walking South it's off in the distance and it's behind some trees it's behind the fence it's behind the bushes along the fence as you get closer and it's far away as you get closer to it there are still these barriers the the trees and the bushes and the fence but now you're closer so even though it might be more visible you're now just seeing it from The Edge and you're not seeing it straight on so I just feel like that whole section is far less visible than it appears from these pictures and by the way these pictures are taken with Barren trees most of the Year there are leaves on the trees that further um uh mask that whole area so I I just feel that the visual impact of it is is not as great as it might appear from some of these pictures including some of the other pictures they're masked off where I noticed in some of these pictures the area that's being focused on like the the the canopy is very clear and the rest of the picture is uh sort of grayed out and so your eyes go right to this canopy it goes right to this Vis visual uh uh uh structure that that I would contend is far less Vis visible than it may seem from some of these pictures so I thank you thank you um just a followup that was done intentionally we did shade areas to well I think it's important you know so we wanted to draw your attention to these issues um I'd also note that the PBC fence in question that Tom brought up is actually in the right side of this picture um in the back you see a white element behind the fence that that fence extends all the way to the front of their property thank you so so Mr Rosen s sort of made the case that because you have no control over this 6 foot PVC fence it could come down and you have no control over it that makes a stronger case for the the new fence on that side of the facade so Maggie I'm just trying to understand the you said the the perimeter fence that isn't yet up but has been approved that was approved under a certificate of no effect yes and if the applicant wanted to build a fence around the whole perimeter on that side like next to the adjacent to the PVC fence could that conceivably be done under a cone as well as long as it's within their property line I'm happy to approve it under a cone or within their property line so maybe that would be a more acceptable way of addressing the security concern yeah I mean I wouldn't necessarily say it's a common condition to see two fences directly abing each other um in this case I think it would be um it could be appropriate in the sense that the two fences are different styles and the aluminum fence would allow water air everything to pass through so you wouldn't get a condition where there's two fences up against each other negatively impacting holding moisture anything like that that would be my only concern with two fences up against each other and I don't believe that would be an issue here and that's also something that if the neighbor ever takes down that fence that they could say okay we're going to put up our own fence too and kind of complete complete it yeah okay do you guys have any other questions comments and actually I I appreciate the statement too because I was actually wondering where the area way goes down to and erass emergency exits as well and so that those if someone is coming to an event that's down and in the basement they will use one of the two area ways to go enter that area instead of coming through the front entrance of the synagogue yes so the building code um says that 50% of the people who come to a space will leave through the way they came and the other 50% would find other paths out of the building so in theory 25% of the people in this space you know would go to each of these area ways so it is an assembly space so that that gate sorry I'm just trying to find the image of that North facade actually it would be it would be true for both facades this one right so this would also have um emergency uh Hardware right like a push bar and it has a device right here right has a panic device right here and that's what I was mentioning before that's why we have the the smaller mesh on the inside is to prevent somebody from reaching around and activating that Panic device right anything else thank you there no further question and that that completes our presentation cool sounds good um Bridget how are you doing break wise I know we usually break every 90 minutes long think you're take yeah well let's I would there's no members of the public here so I would like to open and close public comment um before we take a break and we could take a 5 minute break after that if anyone wants to make make a motion I'll make a motion to Second all in favor all right um we are going to take a f minute break it is 8:00 we will reconvene at 8:05 remember to turn off your microphones I am recording again if we want to call the meeting back to order yep calling the meeting back to order at 8:07 okay and that we are on staff comments unfortunately I cannot put the um staff report on the screen so there's a couple more copies here if you need to look at one mag before before you go into staff comments can you just confirm one thing are are we uh 100% sure that the fence um on site uh is in fact the original historic fence there is no reason to believe that that is not the original historic fence it does match from what I can tell in historic photos can't guarantee the green is the original color right um but stylistically it is consistent with what would have been there unless you guys have the answer to that uh just one point of clarification the the fence that's around the areaway and up these two stairs um those are original the fence that's in the front of the property the picket is not and that's that's um in heritage's uh historic report they found that CU they have photographs of the front without that front picket thank you for that clarification yeah um I I should have clarified that yes um and just for the record to the um sidey fencing was not the historic fencing either the one that they replaced and uh applied to replace under a cone okay so bunch of things that have been brought up this evening that are discussed in the staff report um so couple of things I just want to point out to begin with first they are two separate applications purposely the commission can vote on them individually I would recommend that you vote on them individually in section four for the requirements and standards for consideration um we do have a we included the fences and walls section Blasio for you guys to if there's anything in there you would like to review um also just the West Bergen guidelines as well although all of the GU everything in the guidelines is covered in the ordinance so for staff comments so um I will begin staff comments by saying um as staff we don't take an application like this lightly um we understand that there are two proposals here as part of a larger project for a myriad of concerns that the temple has um we take all of those concern concerns very very seriously which is why um the applications are split up the way they are we did recommend that they divide up each component of this very large project so that not only um the commission had the opportunity to look at things individually the stuff that we knew would have to go there but also so that we could issue cones for the work we could do under a certificate and issue them as quickly as possible um there were by my count I believe seven cones for this applic seven applications for this project um five of which we did under cones we did um the basement restoration under a cone we did the window replacement at the basement floor under a cone the fencing under a cone um we did the security upgrades so they had mentioned the polycarbonate on the front on the Windows as well as the blast film on all of the windows as well we approved security lighting under a cone um and the replacement of the front doors under a cone the doors that are front doors that are on this uh building right now are not historic um the front doors that they were approved under a cone match the historic doors but are of a stronger material than wood specifically for security concerns um we also approved the installation of an interior elevator under a cone um it does not penetrate the roof just so the commission knows the full scope of the project in addition to the fencing as well as the Canon P something that was brought up tonight that was to my knowledge and if that I'm recounting this correctly please jump in that was not approved under a cone that to my knowledge I have not seen an application for is the drainage um I don't believe that was included on the basement which is the only application I think that that would have been included on um I will say the basement approval we did much earlier because there was a specific FEMA funding scenario with that that I wanted to get that cone out faster and that was the first one they applied for um so while I do not doubt the applicant's commitment to putting in a drainage system I have not seen any additional drainage or water mitigation proposed for this building aside from these canopies um which is why in the staff report I discuss my um concerns for the canopies as this seems like a last resort rather than a first step because I haven't seen any applications for drain um we would welcome them and in my mind that would be the first step if you can jump in here CU I again I so so um we recognize that the drainage would have to be submitted to the city and and there would be numerous other um paths to go down not just through historic um for approvals um but the condition um for FEMA was to get um historic and since the historic commission was the first path we didn't want and the congregation didn't want to engage the engineer to complete the the work unless we had approval and we understood the full scope but you have to get historic approval for the drains too okay it was we felt that well you were going to be able to see them from the street so but we will submit them that's not a that's not an issue yeah think Chuck in the mic please Chuck in the mic please I'm sorry it doesn't record unless you talk into the mic it's not like council chambers got it okay so yeah essentially this is the first step we understand it we have to take that next step and and whether it's a certificate of no effect or or back it would be a cone yeah right that uh we didn't want to essentially put the cart before the horse uh let's let's get you know hopefully get this approved and then and then get the drainage squared away uh with uh staff may I make a comment sure for me it would be the other way around um for me if I knew that everything was done on the drainage side everything that's not visible uh that does not affect the architecture if every step was taken to achieve mitigation by doing that first that's what I would like to see happen are pump have pumps been considered has additional uh sewage Lines been been uh considered anything to not go to what Maggie says the last resort which is you know infrastructure added infrastructure to the building so that would help me make a decision so to clarify the the the concept documents you know the conversation we had with the civil engineer were Concept in nature and and I don't remember the exact figure um but there it wasn't a lot of money um it's roughly $30,000 to get the next level of civil engineering done and um part of the work that they need to do to size it is dependent on whether or not they have the canopy or they don't have the canopy and so that changes their impact their cost and their work right and so that's why we took this path right and I I recognize um that that it's an issue and our goal is to provide belts and suspenders we're not looking to hold our pants up with just one and so to that end the canopy is providing you know redirection of water and the other elements are equally as important the yard drainage and the drainage in the area ways my problem is how you quantifying what's actually solving the problem and so without the information about the engineering and what could be done without a canopy to solve your drainage problem without knowing that it it makes it more difficult for us to then say yeah sure put a canopy on the building so forth I I'd rather see every possible step taken as long as it's reasonable to do it without the canopy obviously and I don't know whether it's possible or not right yeah that's just I'm just sharing with you where I am at as as one of the Commissioners right and I think that was getting to a question I asked earlier was it was like how much water is the canopy actually keeping out as opposed to say a gutter and I know there's FEMA considerations that might be driving this and maybe you could talk about that too and I don't I know if it's even possible for you to do this drainage work first and then you know what how that affects your FEMA Grant and and and all that so like I think ideally we'd even say you know that drainage work would be done and then be like you know what we still are not getting enough water out if if there's a certain storm that brings in so much water we still need to add this other piece to kind of give us get us over the hump and make sure there is no more flooding and water getting in set of area so I think that's what we're trying to figure out as well is how that and and how that plays into your FEMA Grant and and the timing and such um I I can't I don't actually know I mean the way the FEMA works is um work has to get completed and then it's reimbursed to the congregation so um you know they they've been approved for a maximum amount of money which um should cover all the components that we're talking about you know the the multi-layers of drainage and the canopy um in addition you know with regard to mitigation codes and standards and the the repair of the basement of the multi-purpose room is um is separate there as I said there are three separate Financial buckets um but I don't know how um how they're going to look at it if we don't provide the canopy it was part of their recommendations okay I don't want to get too far ahead with everything I mean if you guys have more comments I certainly don't want to prevent you from them I just don't want to get too far ahead of everything so we have the canopies which are part of the FEMA future mitigation and then you have the fencing which is part of Target hardening also from FEMA so making the building more secure pre preventing the building from future water damage keeping those in mind there are different sections of the ordinance that we can evaluate this application under I'm going to start with the fence right so the first section of the staff report the most appropriate section of the ordinance to site when reviewing the fencing will be 345 d71 l6a which is iron work um this specific fencing is coming to the HPC um because that section of our ordinance states that a certificate of appropriateness is required for the installation of a fence or railing in a location which historically had no iron work I understand that in there is historic Iron Work located here but this iron work is new right we have the historic one there this is new historically there were not two fences were asking to install a second fence that is the trigger for this coming to the HPC um I think all of you covered staff's concerns um with this specific proposal pretty adequately most of Staff concerns for this fence are the ones on the north side of the building the south side of the building honestly I really don't have a problem with the fence here um it is directly exposed to Harrison AV um is installed in as appropriate of a manner as they can propose here um I do think that the security I while I again I say we're very cognizant of all of the Temple's security concerns I think that the installation of offence here is really not that big of a deal um and any adverse effects are can be can be tolerated I don't think it's going to cause any detriment to the historic district or the historic building for the installation of just the fence on the South Side north side I'm in agreement that the installation of a fence there to me appears redundant um I don't necessarily think that two six- foot fences are going to deter people I think if you're going to climb over one six foot fence you're going to climb over a second one um I do also think that the proposal on the north side of the building when combined with the canopy because even though they are separate applications they do need to be reviewed together I'm sorry I know it's not my highest though anyway um it is when you combine the fence and the canopy on that side of the building it creates a mass that I think is detrimental to how you view this building I think it Alters the design of the building to a degree that creates creates an adverse effect um I I truly am having a hard time with if like framing this in the context of someone's backyard if someone wanted to put a second six- foot fence inside of their backyard surrounding the their patio that's something that we wouldn't approve it's inappropriate it it's something that is just exceeds what is reasonable and appropriate for a historic district I just I struggle with recommending the fence on the north side of the building I think if the commission wanted to they could approve the fencing application for the South Side conditioning that the north side fence is removed from the scope if the commission was so inclined just turn your mic on and you can can I ask a question yeah um the uh Southside fence and fence and canopy doesn't create the same kind of concern I'm just want you to explain why it it do no it does I'm just saying the north side like the Southside fence right is a compon is when you if you break this application down into essentially four components right you have the Southside fence Southside canopy North Side fence North Side canopy the part of this application that I have very few concerns with and think is frankly easy to approve is the Southside fence got it understood that's clear yep and would that be removing the existing historic fence or the the way that they showed it where there's the keeping the existing fence and adding this six foot fence in front of it I I can't speak for the advice that Dan gave them prior to me taking over the application them keeping the historic fence on site where it is was my advice um and it was something that the state agreed with MH um I agree that it looks a little silly um but at the same time I don't again I don't doubt that the temple would be willing to do this or Avail have space available to do this the concept of storing something on site forever is when you have it would be one thing if it was a rail uh piece of fencing that was not original to the building but was within the period of significance like a replacement fence fence was within the period of significance I would feel a little bit less concerned with that but this is the original fence so I don't think we should move it okay do any Commissioners have any questions about the fences into the mic and on please can we request that the green fences be painted black so that you don't see green behind black I would have no problems with that as a condition okay thank you so I I'm in agreement about the redundancy of the fences on the Northern side um but I am curious you know I think some of the Commissioners and and you Maggie have made comments about how we wouldn't allow this in with somebody's personal residence but I do we distinguish between a personal residence and a commercial property or in this case a house of worship and I mean no okay I just use personal residence because that's honestly where we see fence applications most often mostly right I mean in particularly because at the beginning of the application we a lot of our time was spent talking about concerns of vagrants or drug users but there are also concerns about people who mean harm to the people who are worshiping here which is frankly in light of current events that is significant concern so I think those are concerns that are unique to a property that has this type of use as opposed to a residential property MH um but I I I suppose I'm quibbling over nothing I think I think that's a very valid point right um I don't think that there's anything incorrect with that statement um it's more of a my professional opinion on this is that very rarely do we as a commission and frankly in preservation of as a whole throw every single option we have at the problem as the first step right um and I'm not also not implying that this is the first step that the congregation has taken to their issues on this clearly they have made numerous steps but in this particular case we very rarely say okay we're going to do put every single fence that we possibly can up right away um I also think that your approval of the six foot fence F and support of a 6ft fence on the southide is an acknowledgement that we are treating this a little bit differently than just a residential application because we wouldn't have allowed it on a residential property I don't think a sixun fence excuse me at the property line is something that we wouldn't allow except for this particular use I think and and this site of course as well but I think that is an acknowledgement that we are treating it a little bit differently all right um move on to awnings okay so for the review of the awnings the most appropriate section of our ordinance is ordinance is have um so this section of the ordinance states that the installation of a Comm a commercial awning requires a certificate of appropriateness uh full stop that's why they're here for this awning um it also goes further to say that the certificate of appropriateness should meet the following standards and the um I'm sorry L8 A2 states that the awning frames are attached to the building in such a way um that they do not destroy seal from view or cause irreversible damage to significant architectural features um in staff's opinion the awnings as proposed do cause um a distracting architectural element to add I'm sorry adds a distracting architectural element to the building that changes the entire way that you interpret the building it adds a horizontal element along the ground floor of the building that draws your eye down which is not the original design intent of this building um as I said earlier I do think there's other mitigation methods that we have not seen I know that they're coming I acknowledge that um that can be taken before we start putting things on top of a building um I know that FEMA requested that these awnings be installed on the building but FEMA's very specific guidance for this which I did cite in an earlier section of Staff comments specifically says that any measures need to meet historic preservation compliance they don't cite which historic preservation compliance specifically but they do this project is reviewed by us the state and feem as uh preservationists as well in my opinion I just I'm I'm really struggling I understand we are trying to get water away from the building I understand that the storms that were happening throughout history are very different from the storms that we are having now I don't this is again the same scenario as with the fencing very rarely do we take every possible solution to a problem and apply them all at once I am struggling with how huge these awnings are and how effective they will actually be at pulling water away from the building I don't disagree that they will prevent water from getting into that area way but similarly to what Paul said I do when we get these large storm events ever when you have a normal roof the water is falling off of the gutters it's not making it to the leader when you have that much water I I I'm not an engineer I'm not pretending to be an engineer I just do question how this is part of the first step that we take um does anyone have any questions on any of that so far getting a little rample um shipo has been mentioned a couple of times what was shippo's uh opinion about these applications to my knowledge uh you guys have not applied for shipo yet shippo's formal review yet correct I believe we've had three informal reviews with shipo and um they have guided our process in in this in the creation of these canopies and the fences um but they would not comment on whether or not they thought it was approvable until your approval I see thank you appreciate the clarification thank you they want your your vote before they comment understood thank you any other questions about the canopies based on what I've said so far sure yeah sure thank you um there's been some discussion about um whether we should take certain mitigation steps first and maybe see how they work out and if they don't work out well maybe we can measure uh in some way uh how much water we need to remove from the from that those areas and then maybe we do or maybe we don't need the canopies um of course I would argue that that if we wait to see what happens it might be too late aside from that um with the FEMA grant that we have to pay for this for the majority of the cost of this work um we can't just really do kind of one thing and then wait and see and if we sort of get a scare a couple years down the road we can't go back to FEMA again this grant will expire and I think we have um I I think uh we can we can extend it up to a point but within uh another year or so we won't be able to extend it anymore and so we won't have time to go back and then uh we will we would lose the the funding that would pay for this the the FEMA timing aside um there's the the FEMA timing aside the the impediment to getting a site civil engineer um to quantify the measurements that commissioner blazak was was inquiring about and kind of completing the picture of these canopies relative to a Hol istic system that has to do with site drainage and existing storm water infrastructure in a more let's say quantitative way as opposed to um kind of intuitive way um the only impediment to that is is the hiring of the engineer right that's not waiting for because as you're saying female won't you know pay for steps AB andc until um until they have this in place but in fact the congregation could hire the engineer now is that true well uh yes well maybe you should talk we certainly have into the mic please sorry the Agreements are in place to to get the civil engineer going forward um we were waiting for this evening to pull the trigger for that we're supposed to have a meeting with them tomorrow to tell them what the scope is um whether it has the canop we don't have the canopy because that's going to affect the size of the drains and so on and so forth so um I would I would simply posit that if if you come back with the SI civil engineers quantitative analysis of how the of how these canopies are are performing I think I think you would have a more unanimous I mean I'm not speak I understand I understand the the comment I think that the way we were looking at it was um this is a aesthetic issue with regard to the the the buildings um we recognize that there is the need um you're questioning how much is it going to improve is it going to be 25% Improvement is it going to be 50% Improvement um but you're asking us to approve an alteration not just on Aesthetics but driven by a real life need of you know based on climate change and storm events right you're you're you're correct it is the need for it is driven by climate change by the storm events the design we've come up with We Believe meets the standards and we've certainly have had the review from Heritage that that provides that information that you know they believe we meet the standards um and I think we're hoping that you're going to believe we meet those standards and I I've read the report and I I can appreciate um Maggie's response um but I think it really comes down to whether or not you feel the design that we've created meets the standards we believe it will meet the mitigation need okay and we can certainly provide that data and we will have to come back and and provide the storm drainage data to Maggie and and the city as well um so you know we were looking at it as an aesthetic and we are looking at as a path for the congregation to save money until it was needed so well you know I think it's a delicate dance if you if you came in and you just said that we just want these canopies because we want them purely for Aesthetics you know we we don't we we're not we're looking at Aesthetics but not fully you know and and if we were to reprove these it would kind of be a trade-off and we do want the long-term health and safety and integrity of the building but I think we want to know that this is this is the right thing to do and that it's not as I think some other Commissioners may have said is kind of Overkill so and I think for me it's like I think I would like to hear from an engineer and to kind of say this is absolutely what's necessary or we can we can move this amount of water out and this is where their leader has to be and it's going to plug into that drain and and we we we can and we will be providing that information I think um with regard to the canopy and the fences I think the the the notion is um do we want to take the you know because these are you know security Life Safety you know um sort of other kinds of environmental concerns um do we want to take the risk okay you know we don't do it and then two years from now God forbid there's another storm or we don't do that extra fence and two years from now there's another is an incident so the question I need answered by the engine is can they design a system that will manage the water without the canopy that's the question I'd like answered conversely I could see that question becoming harder and saying actually the canopy isn't enough in the fact it needs to be a bigger canopy and there needs to be two lers you know like but but that would compel the them to come back right so without without in the absence of that information it seems a little bit like um a placeholder vote waiting for a more substantiated verification yeah I have another question for the applicant if if the engineers could actually accomplish water mitigation uh without the canopies would that be something that uh Beth temp Temple Beth L would would appreciate I mean as as as a as a reasonable solution I mean you can you know you can you can set out to prove anything but I I'd like to know whether uh the engineers could could solve the problem I mean we have had that conversation and it was deemed that the best solution was to prevent the water from getting into the area to be areway to begin with I mean that was part of the discussions um and you know they talked about can we enclose it with a solid enclosure and that way it'll reduce it even more so we backed off of that proposition um so we're you know here listening to your concerns uh so the our thought and I would I would imagine that you'd be in concurrence is if we could take the canopy U application maybe move it to the next month so that we can go and speak to the engineer as you um as Josh said they're lined up to be hired um and hopefully we can get their reports done quickly and then come back you know with the engineer so he can answer your questions he or she uh so that uh you have the better information to to make that determination um and then tonight you know move forward on on on the fence application and this is actually you know one of the reasons we did bifurcate it in the event there were separate issues um and on that subject um have you given any thought to uh removing the northern element of that fence that's currently proposed I have a wrench that might throw the timing in here um if we are talking about discussing what it would look like without the canopies I do think a reasonable compromise that the commission could make is I I recognize that I spent quite a bit of time saying that the double fence might be redundant but the visual impact of the double fence is significantly lessened without the presence of the canopy I think if the canopies go away the commission could as a compromise approve the fence application as is if they were inclined to do so but Maggie and then when this engineer comes back with we need canopies well no that's well that's why I'm saying this is a wrench in it I I suggest that we that as a commission we don't put our thumb on you know no and yeah yeah I I think we we we let the engineer come back with their analysis okay and if if they recommend the canopies I think we should take that seriously and if they say in fact they don't need it then we can take that but but I don't think we should depend on that I I agree with you I'm more of a if the applicant would like a vote on the fence application tonight I yeah that's where I was going with this so my two sense um I I think personally I am prepared to vote on the fence tonight okay but I I would like to see the removal of the northern fence um as one of the conditions um in that regard can I make one one comment yeah so um you know homeland security has a series of guidelines for houses of worship and they use those guidelines to um to provide uh backup for congregations that are applying for the homeland security grants to the hardening grants to secure their properties um in in that information they talk about how um acts against houses of worship are typically um acts of opportunity and um when somebody looks through an open fence and sees the ability that they can easily get to a concealed area they might cover that fence um if it's a series of options obstacles um then they're less likely to um take that because it's no longer that clear opportunity and I suppose I mean I personally don't agree but I can understand the notion that you feel it's a redundant piece of architectural element on the property um but I also keep having this feeling in the back of my head that you know everyone says you don't really need that somebody who's going to jump over the fence is going to jump over the fence and I think maybe that's a maybe that's true for the common drug user but it might not be be true for the person who's looking for the opportunity to do harm to the building and the congregants so just well two fences are better than one three fences are better than two I mean you can take that argument all the way if you I I get it but I think the point is we just don't we don't want to just leave it open completely and that's why I at the at the staff level you were able to get one six foot fence but uh I think that takes away you don't really have the case for two I do also just want to you guys are keeping the historic fence there now on on that area way so it's not as if yeah and I recognize that is a much shorter fence but it's not completely unguarded and I recognize people go over that fence now but I don't want not a fence let's be clear it's not a fence it's a 30in railing okay it's not a fence okay you can you can easily step over it if you wanted to um it is aesthetically fence like but it is 30 in tall I would say that our preference would be for you to approve both fences um if you are only amable to approve one then certainly any additional security elements will be better than none so just to Circle back to all of this truck you guys want to carry the canopies is that where that this conversation started and then we looped around something else and now I'm to return this back to yes we could carry they do if we uh yeah carry the canopies to the to the next hearing okay and we'll we'll look further into that okay I will just um mention on the record the the uh master plan presentation is at the next hearing is it possible that we go before that in theory yes I cannot promise that that it it will depend on how entirely how many people are in this room well let U if I could I could talk to you offline we can figure it out I just want to make sure that it's on the record that there is a planned Public Presentation with expect did public comment that evening yeah cuz we're going to make we're going to have to make sure that we have our engineering uh study and and Report done in time for the hearing regardless and if yeah no we'll we'll talk about it again just want to put on the record that there's a meeting a public hearing that night okay all right so would we like to do the easy one first and make a motion to carry um h-23 083 the canopies application to the next hearing date motion motion second okay I will do a roll call vote um I believe I'm on commissioner samp I commissioner Cronin I commissioner Gunther I commissioner amuso I commissioner blazak I commissioner sakong I commissioner Lewis I Vice chair gucciardo I and chairman Gordon I there are nine votes in favor none against no extensions h-23 d0 183 is carried to our March 11th HPC meeting okay so let's move on to the fence application so if the commission is inclined to approve this application tonight I can go through um some conditions for approval I do just want to note for the record that the staff report does contain um uh applicable citations if Comm Commissioners are interested in recommending not recommending um denying the certificate of appropriateness for this um they would be 345-7120 uh 71 h2a site and setting 345-7120 recommended citations if um the commission is inclined to deny the application but I don't think that we are so sorry Maggie before we before we vote on the railing the fences um I think there's another question I have about the canopies and I want to make sure to close the loop before we move past it entirely so in your report you indicated that there was nothing on the plans about whether the installation would be done in a reversible manner is that the most current information we have do we also need additional information when the engineer is taking a look at that do we need information about the nature of the installation I I I I thought that that was addressed uh during um the testimony that yeah we didn't I didn't quite get that far but there were question there were things in the staff report um that I had questions on that were addressed during testimony for example um one of the recommended condition if the commission were to approve it was that there were no lights proposed for the canopy but I miss those on the plant I really don't have a problem with them they're fine there um and the while it is not on the plans themselves um except for in one um section that says metal flashing and masonry joint the applicant has testified that the canopy would be installed into the masonry joints so um we will take that at face value and condition if the commission is so inclined to approve it at a later meeting date so in in terms of the lights the only information we need there is the location proposed locations so Austin had requested a reflected ceiling plan so if you guys wanted to prepare that for the next meeting that would certainly be helpful and a cut sheet and a cut sheet cool yes okay um for the fence so if the commission is inclined to approve this tonight we would recommend adopting commission uh conditions of approval um the first I heard mentioned repe that's not on the staff report that I heard mentioned repeatedly this evening was to repaint the historic fence to match the new fence so that they are closer in visual appearance Steph has no objection to that um I I'm sorry guys no it's okay I paused I'm just speaking for myself I I object to the condition of leaving the fence like doing a double fence leaving the old fence um I I I I don't think that's helping I I think the new fence is changing the way the old fense is reading I think it's going to look like a mess I think it's you know it it's it's it's the wrong end of the telescope so in my mind I I would I would advocate for the fence simply to be removed safely stored I know there are practicality issues but and just to install the new fence um in its place sorry to open that back up but I I agree with that okay anyone else have any comments on that because what we could do on this is could do two separate motions with different conditions I just have a question about that scenario M does that mean the fence as currently designed and drawn and where it would be installed is acceptable is that up to code is that opening like can we actually vote on that do you understand what I'm asking vote on what's proposed or vot if we're if we're walking down a path of this scenario where the historic fence is removed does there anything about the installation of the new fence that needs to be adjusted to accommodate for that change I I would actually I mean actually the applicant should speak to this my my guess would is is actually the inverse given the the the the path the eress requirements on the Panic Hardware on the new fence you would probably have to modify the old fence anyway and looking at the site plan it looks like part of the new fence if it's a foot out from the old fence it's it looks like there might be a portion where it's beyond the property line so I'm I'm actually wondering how hold on where on the plans is that cuz I actually very specifically looked at that cuz there's a property line issue with the canay cuz I the one I look at h four all right and it looks like you know right where the steps coming up from the area way meet the plane of the meet meet the line of the sidewalk you know that's really where the property line is so if you're putting a fence a foot out from that you know my question would have been how does that work franchise franchise ah but my I guess my question is is it feasible is that a feasible condition the way that this new fence intended to be installed in front of the existing fence like is that a feasible condition to put on this is that like you work it out later with staff kind of yeah I mean it would be a franchise which would be some we condition franchise we condition franchisees frequently we did one in December a lot of fence you asked if there were other opinions about whether the fence should be removed well yeah I just said like we have we not to single you two out we have two Commissioners who say they want the fence removed um yeah was opening that up for discussion and the way I'm looking at it is kind of like with um historic uh stained glass that you're trying to protect and you put uh you know storm glazing or something in front of it I mean obviously that has less of visual impact than a second fence but I think you know it's it's the best most minimal minimally obtrusive option under the circumstances I I'm I'm I'm inclined to just keep it in place personally have we do you know if we've done that elsewhere or we've we've put another a new fence in front of a historic fence I can't think of a time where we've put a new fence in front of a historic fence but I can think of times where we've put new materials adjacent to Historic materials the just to just to close the loop on the stained glass window I I would propose that putting a fence of the density and character that's being proposed it's not like putting a you know a new big open pane window in front of a St it's like putting another stained glass window of a different design in front of the old stained glass window of their old design and I think that's just a visual cacophony so I I think what this speaks to is the inappropriateness of the fence that's being proposed right we have a historic fence in place we're talking about removing historic fabric to put in a tubular aluminum fence that has is going to fall apart in 10 years it they happen everywhere throughout the city they they start horizontal uh members start to fail I I just can't see I think it's we're pushing in the wrong direction I think it just speaks to the inappropriateness of the fence from a staff perspective um I struggle with removing original historic fabric from a building right this is is this is not a of the period replacement this is the original fence um and I actually think that the retention of this there's no structural reason right there's no for the fence to remove the historic right it's not like the historic fence will impact the new fence will it look a little funky yes should we remove original historic fabric to make it look less funky no that's my professional opinion on it but well there is going to be some of the original fence left somewhere on the at at that stair right that's going to remain is that correct yep so we're going to have part of it left I just I don't I that's just a condition I don't think we've ever seen I don't I don't I think it I think we're already pushing it with the six foot fences um I think we're going to make it a worse condition by adding a six foot fence in front of a so I will just add to if it is something that if the presence of two fences is something that is causing such a large visual impact the removal of the historic fence in this scenario based on this commission hearing is likely something I could do as a cone down the line that and something like that wouldn't require FEMA funding so it's not something that has to necessarily be built into this project can you say that one more time right so if let's say we're talking about like the visual impact of the two fences if the visual impact of the two fences is so great that it's causing an adverse effect on the building which I in my professional opinion I don't think it will we if it's so Monumental the presence of two fences there they can come back and ask to remove the historic fence they can do that as a as a separate application and that wouldn't be tied to the FEMA funding so it's not like everything needs to be looped together here can I make a suggestion sure how about if we remove the historic fence and put in the new fence but take the historic fence that we remove and replace the non-historic fence that's in front of the temple with the original iron work because what the picket fence that's in front will there be a pony too just I'm sorry just to clarify there originally when the building was completed there was no fence at all no picket or iron work in front of the building right well I know you're not going to remove the non-historic fence from the front of the building but I just thought it would be an easy way to get the best of both worlds I think they would be they would love for to have a higher Security Fence in that location as well but right you to protect the bushes I'm not sure why there are there are reasons to protect the front of the building but we felt we felt that that because of the um your historic guidelines that it did not really represent that putting a fence in the front of the building was appropriate at this time I I could point out where this happens and where I've seen it is Washington DC there's a lot of historic fences with 10t 12T fences that are inappropriate in front of them and they didn't remove the historic fence because they were hoping it someday the inappropriate fence would disappear right we're tying ourselves in KN here are we are yeah all right well let me continue down with the rest of um conditions that I would recommend for this um before we can potentially revisit this all right the next one would be to remove the proposed fencing the proposed area fencing on the north side of the building um and then going to the staff report the conditions that were here were meant to be adopted for both but we could um strike the ones that would be relevant to the canopies which would be number three three uh number two and then number four would have to be slightly revised to reflect the fence so number four would read this is one we would keep um if necessary the applicant shall she the shall shall seek the approval of a franchise ordinance for the installation of the fence on the south side of the building as it extends beyond the property line if any component of that approval Alters the design or means and methods of installation of the fence the applicant shall submit the request in writing to HPC staff and provide plans for review showing the existing approved and revised condition if necessary the applicant will reappear in front of the HBC to seek approval of changes that phrasing is standard for our uh any franchise um that is requested in a historic district just reflects the fences here um and then conditions 5 through n are our standard conditions so again for the record the uh recommended conditions of approval on this application would be to repaint the historic vents to match the new vents to remove the fencing on the north side of the building from the project scope and to revise condition four in the staff report to reflect the fence and to adopt conditions 5 through n in the staff report as part of our standard conditions anyone have any questions do you look confused any of the Commissioners can you repeat sorry can you repeat the conditions one one more time sure repaint the historic fence to match the new fence remove the fencing on the north side of the building from the project scope to adopt conditions 5 through n in the staff report and then to adopt condition four in the staff Report with the correct language for the fence that the condition for in the staff report says the canopy um it just replace the word canopy with fence did you have a question if anyone has any questions I'm happy to answer them if we would like to we can take two separate motions so if you guys would like to make a motion to include conditions to remove the historic fence we can make a motion for that and take a vote and then do a separate one to keep the historic fence if we want to get that in the weeds with us well I think the application is presented has the historic fence remaining in place so I think we should see if we have the support for the application as presented okay is that what we're and then and then the other I just wanted to confirm did any of my fellow Commissioners support having the new fence on the North side I I don't support it I do okay yeah and actually on the North side I actually think it's set back far enough from the street that I don't I think perhaps maybe maybe with without the canopy would make a difference I actually probably would be okay with the fence on the North side because of the distance from the sidewalk both on JFK and Bentley or whatever that is gford Bentley Bentley so I actually don't necessarily have a problem with that fence on the North side but I'm I think removing it is is less intrusive so I'm I'm okay to go with that but that's for you it's contingent on the canopy installation whether that's being added or not and we don't have that information until they come back yeah I I think I'd probably be okay with it um even with the canopy because again because it's set back so far but I'm just looking at what we have now yeah with just voting on the fence tonight I'd probably be okay with it but I'm I'm not advocating it for it by any means so frankly moving the canopy application makes it more difficult for me to approve the fence because because now I don't know what the outcome is going to be on they they they're so in relationship to one another I think the impact you know is is uh still undetermined what it's all going to look like so it makes it harder for me to vote Yes that that's important that's important to note because I if they wanted to hold off on us to hold off on taking a vote on the fence they might have if they really want the defense on the North side you might have a better shot if you hold that we just discussed that and we heard your comments well why don't we just table both and then you have everything in front of you to make you know your decision on both and can I can I ask one other question if we're going to table this because of a comment made by commissioner gucciardo talking about the material and it being this kind of Steel tubular material have you looked into uh a different type of metal more solid stock to use we have looked into steel um right now it was just a budget um concern but we can we can take another look at that before the next meeting and they have the approval of that same material on the fence around the rest as a as a certificate of no effect so that kind of sets the stage for the choice that's been made yeah but I think you know and then looking at it in closer to the building I think as well part of the reason why we were looking at aluminum instead of the RW iron is because we didn't want we felt that RW iron might give a false sense of historic presence on the building and we felt that the aluminum was clearly something that was was different and was later and I think I think usually we don't do that type of fencing because like new construction we've made people do actual iron work um because that tends to age poorly um and I think I'm okay with it being done to stuff on the other side that's the the grass lot where there was formerly a building so you're kind of experience it differently yeah okay all right so is there any other item you would like to just bring up to the we I just want to make sure that if we're sending them back to review everything we're having them get the documents from the engineer possibly but I don't never mind documents from the engineer addressing the storm water and the canopy um a reflected seiling plan of the proposed canopies specification for the light having them review the material of the fence okay so on on the material of the fence if money were No Object which is typically how we treat these applications what would be the preferred material not if not aluminum are we talking about steel iron I mean I admittedly it's a modern fence I don't have a I I don't think it's appropriate for me to say what I think is the preferred material because that's not my role here right you guys are the ones decid on the application but I also think that one of the conditions we're talking about is painting the historic to match the new and if they're going to appear different because of their different materials or they're going to age differently that's something we should take into consideration okay I mean in in the in the past we've had applications where for for new construction where people have wanted to use this material and remember commissioner matus is saying he would vote no on the project just based on that and we made them do real iron um it's different because we're talking about a 30 probably 36 or 42 inch high fence so maybe it's because it's a 6ft fence we're okay with it but something for us to think about till we meet next month okay yeah I don't know the answer that's I'm putting it to to the Commissioners who are experts subject matter experts because um if we are sending them back to to take another look at this I would like to give them guidance on what we would like them to come back with well I would just like to comment that given that we all know what the experience of the aluminum fencing is and how short of a lifespan it has I think it would be in in the Temple's best interest to try and put something that's going to stand the test of time and not be able to be kicked over or you know um broken very easily because those Aluminum Fences there there's one along the Newark Avenue Cara on the on the cemetery that the state replaced a rod iron with and it's all crashed into and falling apart and it they just don't last they it end up looking worse say we appreciate the comments and we will provide additional information on the longevity of Defence Andor alternate materiality wonderful great did I miss any additional item we would like them to address when they reappear I think we hit them all or at least the ones I wrote down okay hearing none um staff recommends a motion to carry h-23 d184 to the March 11th regularly scheduled HPC meeting motion second second okay I'll take a roll call vote commissioner Cronin I commissioner Gunther I commissioner amuza I commissioner blazak I commissioner song I commissioner Lewis I commissioner San Camp I Vice chair Guera I and chairman Gordon I right there are nine votes in favor none against no extensions this item is carried to the March 11th regular meeting thank you thanks guys thank you okay moving on on the agenda we um have no updates on tabled cases um as we mentioned in announcements earlier um 205 12th Street has been carried to an unspecified meeting date at the request of the applicant we have no um resolutions to introduce or discuss so that just brings us to memorialization of resolutions for 591 monomer straight um so I believe uh most of you remember from our June HPC meeting the applicant for 591 Montgomery Street presented to the commission um the commission ultimately voted to recommend uh denial of the application to the Zoning Board of adjustment um that motion was phrased as the commission would create a resolution recommending denial um so we have that in front of you this evening uh just for housekeeping purposes because we don't do these very often and this matches the format of the planning board denial resolutions um and this resolution as well as a staff memo and likely staff testimony will be provided to the zoning board at their review of the application does anyone have any questions comments concerns about the proposed resolution okay if someone wants to make a motion motion second okay all right let's do a roll call call vote just to keep it Saye all right um commissioner gther I commissioner amza I commissioner blazak I commissioner song I commissioner Lewis I commissioner San Camp I commissioner Cronin I okay Vice chair gucciardo I and chairman Gordon I okay there are nine votes in favor no votes against no extensions the resolution is memorialized right we do not need an executive session so that just leaves us with the samples your samples guys sorry uh and I don't can I can I say I forgot to mention something and maybe but you guys might want to have an example of other sites and how they've been hardened um like other synagogues or places of worship just how they've installed fencing and security measures Etc I think context and other examples are always helpful okay thanks Brian all right just leaves us with adjournment if anyone wants to make a motion motion second okay it is 912 all in favor I