are you guys ready to go yes I know we've been mostly waiting on me to kind of get everything together so if you guys are all ready to go I think we can uh call the meeting to order all right so I'm now going to call to order this regular meeting of the Jersey City Historic preservation commission it's March 11th 2024 about uh 6:35 p.m. okay please be advised that in accordance with the open public meetings Act the notice time date and place of this regularly scheduled meeting of the Jersey City Historic preservation commission has been sent to the Jersey journal the Jersey City Reporter and Ellis besito on Thursday March 7th same notice has been sent to the city clerk for posting on the bulletin board outside of the clerk's office in City Hall and on the Jersey City website I have proof of this notice here in evidence that we can Mark as B1 okay this will be1 thank you okay we we do a roll call of Commissioners commissioner amuso here commissioner griga is absent commissioner samp here commissioner Gunther is absent commissioner Lewis Here commissioner sakong is absent commissioner blazak present commissioner Cronin present Vice chair gucciardo is absent and chairman Gordan present okay there are six members of the Commission in attendance tonight five affirmative votes are needed for a certificate of appropriateness next item on the minutes from February 5th does anyone have any questions comments changes Corrections okay hearing none staff's recommendation is to approve the minutes from February 5th a motion second okay we'll do a roll call commissioner amuso hi commissioner San Camp hi commissioner Lewis hi commissioner blazak hi commissioner Cronin I commissioner griga is absent commissioner Gunther is absent commissioner sakong is absent commissioner Vice chair gucciardo is absent chairman Gordon I right there's six votes in favor none against the minutes from February 5th are approved for correspondence all application materials are copied on tonight's agenda through the links on the agenda for announcements um we do actually have an announcement everyone to my right this is Michael he recently joined our office we are very happy to have him um and that brings us to open public comment there any members of the public in attendance tonight who would like to speak regarding matters of historic preservation that are not on tonight's agenda you can approach the public comment mic staff sees no members of the public present and would recommend a motion to open and close public comment motion second all in favor I I okay we have no old business on tonight's agenda so chairman Gordon if you would call the first case in new business please I'll call case H2 23-23 the applicant is Brandon Smith architect on behalf of jasbeer and tarlin Baines living trust owner the address is 147 Grand Street in the Pauls hook historic district and this application is for a certificate of appropriateness for the interior renovation front facade window installation and construction of a three story rear Edition at an altered contributing Italian uh townhouse Construction Ed circuit 1865 you raise your right pleas do you swear or affirm the testimon proceeding the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do and if you could State SP your full name for the uh it's Brandon Smith b r a an d o n SM SM i t right while uh Brandon sets up I will note for the record that Mr Smith has previously been qualified as an expert in the field of architecture in front of this board before okay just pull you up on the screen okay we should be good to go okay all right so this is the uh the property in question 147 Grand uh picture from the next year um this is the historic um 1938 um and then this is it from the rear where we're doing the uh three story addition uh so the top floor um this corn us will stay intact um and that was based on the guidance from staff and from uh the neighborhood um so to I'm not sure like I haven't done this for you guys um to this level for approval so let me know like how you want me to proceed to walk you all the way through the design um plans elevations um so um this is the view uh that was referenced from vanor Street uh so you can only see just a small little bit over the top of the garage area for that um and then this would be the the sideline drawings uh showing that so uh currently it's a three family um that's being converted into a two family uh the addition on the rear uh we're trying as much as possible to maintain the current Courtyard uh there's a tree that's there that uh we're trying to work around and maintain as best we can um so for that the addition um we're not going beyond our our 30ft rear yard set back so no variance is needed for that um so to take you through uh proposed basement level plan uh for one unit uh three-bedroom and then living areas up on the uh The Parlor first FL level then moving further up on the uh second floor uh is where the the second unit is uh living dining kitchen at the rear uh with a small deck where it steps back um and then up to the third floor uh where we're not extending any further back or doing the addition so there's a a roof deck that's above the addition um again the existing drawings on the left uh the proposed on the right uh and trying to work with uh what we can tell best from the 1938 building but also there's a uh building that was just recently redone uh at 137 Grand I believe I'll get to it in a second uh that we like the look of the the windows that were placed for it uh so we're working with that since it's only just a few doors down color swatches and then the rear addition here um again trying to uh to fit with the neighborhood and the the language for it the light for the rear uh and this is it in context the rear sections and railing details for the uh the rear Terrace um and then Riser diagrams and electrical and then what Riser diagrams uh yes sorry these are R Riser diagrams um and then our electrical plans and then this is the building I was referencing that's at uh me double check the the uh uh 139 Grand is the this building that we're referencing okay do any Commissioners have any questions can you go back to the uh full block plan I I just wanted to see then okay yeah you kind of you just uh click through it quickly so I didn't have a chance to really see it but there are other additions back there other other larger additions as well I can see correct yeah so this is ours in this location uh and you can see almost almost every building along along Grand has had some kind of addition on the rear and you were saying that you wouldn't you wouldn't see it because of the garage you can only see the top floor uh you can only see just a portion let me go back to the maybe this portion yeah um and again that picture was also taken in the winter um where is my picture that yes you can see we this red brick building here um so we're not going to the third yeah so you would see just that one floor same level as the uh the adjacent one okay the only other question I had is about the windows um on the front facade um yeah I was going to ask to look at the the taex photo exactly I I I still think it's kind of an odd condition um and maybe Maggie knows more about the windows if they were approved at 13 or whatever um it just seems odd to have a one over one window at a parlor floor when you have multi-light Windows above um but perhaps Maggie can I don't know if you did any Research into that or know more about the condition down the block um I could so staff did approve the windows at 139 um the tax card does show one over one with the four over four above um but there was no real like in the cone it didn't elaborate on um if they thought that that was the historic condition or not um in this particular case the 19 uh 38 I mean didn't we have another 1938 photo uh or was there this is the one that I got from you okay no then that's the that's the one we have um maybe I'm maybe a little yeah I mean a little bit more clear I guess right so the I mean in my opinion the historic condition for this probably would have been a if you're pulling the sales down to the water table it was probably going to be a 4 over 6 um a 1 over one is not necessarily inappropriate but the applicant was interested in pursuing the one over one option um I think the historic condition would have been a 4 over six based on the style of the building and the date of construction that one over one size paint of glass um would have been very difficult and very very very very expensive to come by at that time also show you just a couple more all right so this was 139 Grand down the street uh we also took pictures at 141 um again they have you know the single one over one at the Parlor level I'm aware they don't have the four of four above um and also at 143 Grand so our thought was at least At The Parlor level you know create the same street language uh along Grand Street there since they're just about all the neighbors are a one over one at the Parlor level okay and the only the only other thing I wanted to ask to um yeah cuz I noticed this um you were showing the the view from the over the garage and what might or might not be visible uh you I thought you maybe had pointed to the red building before it but sorry yeah the it's the it's the one to the left of the red building left of the red building correct so I mean my thought is if we would I think the the windows should be consistent like either they should all be one over ones on all floors or they should be all be multi-light that's just kind of my thought but I don't know if anyone has any other I agree with you Brian um the mixed window pattern um certainly would not have been the way the building was constructed okay um in that case we'd probably prefer the um yeah all of them to be the the multi lights yeah we can add a condition that they would just change the bottom Windows to multi lights um and again the my based on my Professional Knowledge I think it would be a 4 over six based on the size of the window um you know four on the top six on the bottom to accommodate the extra length um so we can add a condition to any approval that would recommend that they change it to that okay are there any other questions can you show the rear elevation again I just want to see the windows there just the proposed I'll zoom in so shows up a little better and that third level is going to be visible from the public RightWay correct yes but again it's just from Van vorest and over the top of a garage one story garage have you thought about removing the stucco at the at the top floor maybe maybe look letting uh removing that stco maybe seeing what the brick condition is underneath and maybe would be a little more harmonious with the rest of the facade below if you're going to do brick below we could I'm curious and concerned about the condition of the brick that we'd find behind there if it was you know if it was always stucco then it may be a a poor quality brick um but we haven't done any deep exploration didn't any probes but that could be that could help maybe a little bit with the especially since it is going to be visible and you know can you go I I'm just curious about the view and I I think maybe it does matter cuz I'm and I'm just looking on on street view and I'm looking at the Block plan it looks like it's further in from that that large Edition there but it it's it's hard to I'm just curious how visible this actually is or isn't going to be yeah I mean it's let me go based off of because in this photo you don't see any of those red buildings yeah look for the chimneys CU this I believe were the only ones that still have old chimneys there so I think it's actually less visible than than even you were kind of thinking in which case I probably wouldn't push for you to remove stucko from the top floor and everything else does look stucko on that block so yeah maybe yeah you can see it from this from this view the two the two chimneys of it so it's the white one next to the cream yeah so it's actually not visible at all really oh I'm not sure what that building blocking there is correct okay any other questions comments um I was going to just say on the the windows I could agree that it's probably true that the original condition was the 4 over4 or 4 over six at The Parlor I think the reason why previous applicants who are near are neighbors have conflicting Windows is because they were going to the 38 photograph which we've allowed in the past I I'm going to say that the applicant might want to know that that's why there's a conflict there I think the preferable condition is that they all come from the same period which would mean that like I think my fellow Commissioners have all said that the windows would probably be the same type of Mion wouldn't you agree yes yes okay we have any other comments questions all right does that conclude your testimony anything else you want to add okay all right um that means we can move to open public comment if there are any members of the public present who would like to speak regarding this application please approach the public comment mic staff sees no members of the public present and would recommend a motion to open and close public comment motion to open and close public comment second all in favor I I I okay that brings us to staff comments um I do not have access to the staff laptop so I can't put my staff report up on the screen but you guys I'll have it on the tablets and you received a copy of it on Friday it's all right I'm just going to flip right to staff recommendations and comments um so we do believe that this proposal is consistent with Secretary of the Interior standards and with our historic design ordinance um every like we've gone through every house on this block has an addition adding an addition of this size and scale is not inconsistent with the block it is minimally visible but again many of the additions on this block are minimally and obliquely visible and there is no adverse effect there right now so this likely will not not cause an adverse effect um we do recommend that you approve the certificate of appropriateness um with our standard conditions as listed on the staff report and with the condition as mentioned during um commissioner comments to revise the Parlor floor window to the presumed historic condition of 4 over6 are there any questions comments anything for staff any additional conditions you would recommend okay if not again the recommendation from staff is to approve with conditions I'll make that motion with the conditions as laid out by staff and I'll second okay we'll do a roll call vote commissioner samp I commissioner Lewis I commissioner blazak I commissioner Cronin I commissioner amuso I and chairman Gordon I okay there are six votes in favor none against no extensions the COA with conditions is granted thank you very much thank you I'll send you an email tomorrow with what we do next next steps yep Ready okay so I will now call case h 23-28 applicant is Douglas seula architect on behalf of Donna Pepe owner the address is 647 Jersey Avenue in the Hamilton Park historic district this application is for certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a new roof deck elevator and replacement of front and rear entry doors at an altered vernacular neog GRE italianate multif family building constructed Circa 1860 would you raise your right hand you swear or affirm the testimony your abouts given this proceeding will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do and if you can please State and spell your full name for the it's Douglas d u l suula seeg UL lja a once you get all connected there we'll um just qualify you quickly should might have to wiggle it a little bit you know what brok this this has to okay try that wait for it to pop up let's try this other Port if you have an HDMI port you can also just unplug the white thing it doesn't it just says the USBC there it goes I think that okay yep there we go beautiful all right um because you've not presented in front of this board before if you could just give us a very quick overview of your qualif ations sure uh I'm liced architect I'm licensed in New York my partner who has signed the drawings she is licensed in New Jersey okay and how many years have you been practicing architecture uh approximately 10 okay we can qualify him as an expert in the field of architecture if chair accepts qualifications yes so accepted great thanks and you're welcome to start presenting great um so um there's really three things that we were looking for approval this evening um and that is replacing the front and back entry doors the addition of some lights replacing some existing locations as well as installing a roof deck on the top of 647 Jersey Avenue so this is kind of an overview with a lot of the technical information but to um come in to kind of show you the site plan as well as the um the plot plan how it fits in the block Jersey Avenue uh is running kind of North South in this plot plan and then 7eventh street it's right on the corner lot there you'll see is the the long facade um so you see the stoop coming up from Jersey Avenue there's a little bit of green space that wraps around um all the way around the corner and then you have the the backyard there at the back along the um the the left side of the page um and this is to give you a little bit of context of the the building itself you have um the existing South facade which it sticks out just past the row of the other the other tow houses the main uh entry facade there along Jersey Avenue which is the short facade the facade along 7th Street and then the back um which you'll see the kind of rear entry there at the back which we're proposing to to change out these are plans so this is the roof plan so you have on the far the far left you've got the existing roof plan there's a couple skylights a roof hatch um the middle plan is our proposal which is the proposed roof deck as well as um stair and elevator bulkhead access there um the important thing to note here is that you'll see on the north side of the page is would be Jersey Avenue and then on the left side would be 7th Street so those are the two main facades you'll see the um 10-ft setback that we're doing um um limiting the the size of the deck and and the bulkhead there um and then the the far right plan is the electric plan and shows the two lights up here that we we're looking to add this next plan is it's just a plan of the the floor plan below it's this is all open Living Kitchen dining so the um the the client is interested in having the roof deck um this outdoor space which I think we all learned during Co how nice it is to have that available to you so that's really The Hope here um these are existing facade um elevations um it's really quite a stunning building there on the corner um so we kind of wanted we wanted to preserve that and and and honor that really um so in this next page you'll see the the addition at the top um with the deck it looks fairly visible here um but the reality um is when you come to well sorry let me step back this these are the two main elevations so Jersey AV and then Seventh Street these are the the two other elevations so the elevation from the back and then kind of peeking over um from the south um as I was saying it seems like it's it's fairly visible uh and it is on the corner it's sort of hard to get away from the visibility at all but from both um seventh 7eventh Street and Jersey Avenue you'll see these um these site sight line drawings show that the way we're both shaping that bulkhead and and roof deck as well as just setting it back um really limits your view um limits what you see of that so this is the main the main excuse me this is from Seventh Street and then this would be the view from from Jersey a looking across the street you can see even there how we're we're staggering the um the the bulkhead which is really for two reasons one it's to help with the sight lines but also we have renderings in the next slide you'll see because it is visible we're trying to blend it in with the context the neighborhood so here is a map showing you different viewpoints um and we've rendered it and added it into and so again this isn't directly across it's not visible for those actually number two in the middle you can see that's directly across the street and you don't see it but from these other you do get a small glimpse um but we are proposing a red stucco that would be color matched to the existing brick and then because of the staggered rooftop we're trying to uh mimic the kind of Staggering of the um the tow houses there so it doesn't look totally straight and clean and too contemporary um we're really trying to blend that in the other thing I'll point out is on the railing we are um proposing that it would be similar to the railing let me scroll back up that is on the back deck so you'll see there is an existing porch it's just a really simple uh metal railing painted black so we really are trying to get that to to disappear um when you're looking up um and so that is everything on the roof deck and then the other two items that we well actually here's a section just so you get a sense of how it sits on the building the other two items are um the entry doors as well as the door on the rooftop and then the uh the entry lights or excuse me the exterior lighting um we have the tax photo of the the the front facade we don't have it of the back facade but in this you can see as best we can tell it looks like there's a a panel above across the the entire uh double doors and then in the doors there's um three panels we're assuming is probably glass at the top glass kind of at your viewing height and then a and then a solid panel below and so we've used that to um for our proposed custom door here the door on the right is for color reference we were proposing that it would be of a natural uh wood stain there um for the rear we don't have a photo of that um this is you know you see the existing there and so we're proposing we're kind of um fusing or blending what is there with the tax photo in the front those doors um have some that commonality between those and then at the top our really main purpose is that we want to try to get as much light as we can down into the apartment and so just keeping the the wood grain and simple and you really don't see that hardly at all from from any View and then the light um there's three locations for the light you'll see the one over the existing door we're proposing to remove that and just do a recess fixture that shines down um there's no exterior sconces on the front there is we are proposing one you see the two gray boxes right here there is one going on the the rear facade by the rear entry and then at the on the new um bulkhead there's two on either side of the door there and I think that is it are there any questions from any commissioners uh do do the renderings uh showing the different views of the bulkhead um do those depict the where it would be most visible for example caddy Corner corre uh so caddy Corner directly so if you were right here you you'll see that all of these you really have to step back um but when you're right across the street or even right here you really don't get a view of it all you have to we were trying to give you a sense of how you have to get away from it to actually catch a glimpse glimpse of the of this addition you do see on the back probably the place that you see it closest when you're the closest is on the back and that's because the parit doesn't extend across that back rear facade there originally there was a there were two other buildings on this lot in the back but those have long since been taken down so it leaves this back a little bit more exposed but on the main the main streets um we're trying we were really trying to blend it in with um with the context so you just don't it doesn't dominate the the skyline up there could you just zoom in a little bit on numbers five and six sure thank you and that's really it's well it's there's it's sort of a function of two things it is you don't have the parit back here but you also because the roof is the way the roof is sloping the the um the deck if I go to the section you'll see the deck has to be uh actually elevated there wait where's the section we're back one more yeah the deck is elevated back here so so there's really two two pieces to that so can what what is it that I'm looking at in the rendering when I see those black lines it's probably the power lines if if that's what you're asking but you can no the the geom the structure up there oh the structure oh here this would be the skirting of that of the elevated it's on a ped system so which is what I was showing you in the section um and above that is that the rail yes so let me show you in one of these plans yeah so if I zoom in here this is a essentially a wood skirting it's a uh made to look like wood skirting and I can show you that at the bottom and then this is that the railing above that so the the kind of it's really a light gray is what you see here and then the rail is the black above did you consider to reduce the visibility of the railing rather than doing it vertically like that maybe some sort of horizontal cable or something um the problem with the horizontal cable appear here is it um it's a climbing hazard with kids and so the vertical uh prevents that issue and being on the rooftop that was a a big concern I mean it it is from those Vantage points it does look quite visible you see from the back from the back it is um yeah as I was pointing out that's that's definitely the angle you see it the most well I think one of the the positives is that it's it's the rear facade we're not seeing it over the front um yeah my my question actually was and I I was looking at the set that I think we got and um there was originally I think an option a and an option b and option A was a red stucco to match the brick and then option b was a black corrugated metal panel so now it's just the um red stucco then we have the red stucco now we were open to doing the black metal corrugated we we sort of felt like in discussing it probably going blending it in more made more sense there's also the approach of you know not trying to argue with what it is and and make it a more contemporary piece up there let it be its thing so um that was our thinking initially was you know to have those two options to to look through okay and and that's something I was maybe going to suggest was maybe not black as a finish but I think a metal panel might allow it to be a little bit more contemporary and actually differentiate itself from the building below so I I think I wouldn't go with the black finish I think maybe something a little lighter gray or or something like that um but I can we can see what other Commission think as well I think that'll make it less visible um the other question that I had and maybe you can just go back to the section I think it is is where it might show it best um so there's there's the elevator up and is there going to be any elevator override required and is the elevator is servicing the the roof deck correct yeah correct it Services uh it's primarily for the upper duplex um so you access to it on the Parlor level the basement which is shared and then the the duplex including the the the roof and so there's no that that's accurate there there won't be necessarily any overrun or equipment above the elevator that's correct okay yeah CU i' I've seen that in the past where elevators have been improved and then there's all this equipment on top what you're seeing here is the specifications uh the exact specifications from the from the El elevator manufacturer okay and and the other thing I and I'm I'm I'm okay with with the with visibility here but I think we should maybe try to reduce the visibility a little bit so my question is there's a lot of head height there um were're right above where the uh where you see the bulkhead um my question is can the front of the bulkhead I suppose that's the eastern half of the bulkhead be slanted you can still put a skylet in there um to to the whatever the minimum would be for head height I don't know if 68 is is showing that yeah if you see this line here that is the 68 line and if you carry that up it just catches I we really we've tried to we could certainly slant this more yeah and I think if we were going the the route of making it feel more contemporary that would probably make could make sense um I think the the the the rear facade is the that Commissioner Gordon was most concerned about and that when we're really kind of at our limitations in terms of head height we've tried to keep it we're required to have 8 foot on the landing um so there's really not a lot we can do about reducing this but we certainly could reduce this front one if we were going for something more contemporary okay yeah I I think I you know and it might not yeah you might have to you know it might not be right at that line might need more head height where where you have the landing but I think at least trying to SL as much towards the front of the building and that would cut down probably on views from Jersey Avenue looking south or or the opposite way at least a little bit it would definitely from the main so this is Jersey Avenue this is a little bit further up you see so that's down at number one um it would reduce it but again if if we were to make this much more sloped um it is going to feel more like uh this other thing up there other than um you know part of the the original yeah and I think letting it be a bulkhead and and having it read as a bulkhead is is okay with me otherwise I think this is pretty pretty good um doors are nice and I have heard that about the railing too I know we used to we used to maybe not require but we used to approve that a lot those cable railings but I have heard that as a concern for for children climbing over them because of their horizontal nature so um I I have I can I can validate that I've heard that before and from a staff perspective we almost never see them anymore not necessarily for that but even on Interiors when people would do like the pipe railings inside it really has switched to the uh vertical rails rather than the horizontal I mean I I always wondered why because I I know how I was as a kid and I would have been climbing over them so they do also match you can actually see the existing um deck here in the backyard because it because this back facade it's you can't see from this angle but um we were trying to be consistent between the two as well so okay so I don't really take issue with um the rear facade but I was looking at elevation um drawing number six um and um or not drawing but um photograph number six and to me it reads more um with the vertical um it reads more like part of the fire escape if I'm I mean clearly I'm looking at that now and I'm examining it but if I'm walking down the street and I CHT my head up it's going to read like part of the fire escape to me right um and it's a it's a rear facade we've allowed minimally visible you know elements on rooftops before in rear facade so I'm okay with that are you going to do anything with the fire escape you're leaving it on there or is it coming off well I as you said that I was hoping I wouldn't have to say it but we are we are planning to take it down um the fire escape yeah and have run that through the fire department and everything okay well yeah but but we thought the same thing that's why I actually didn't say that because I knew we were plenty but even so it reads like a fire escape which is very you know generically throughout yeah it's something that we see throughout the the historic district on on rear facades so you know in a in a quick glance as you're walking down Seventh Street you you kind of feel like it's got that same language is there a a photo of the the railing what that will look like yeah so that is see I think it we had it so here is both a drawing as well as so this is the photo of the existing deck in the back and then here is our our drawing of what it will will look like on the roof is the new railing meant to mimic yeah the dimensions okay correct yes okay yeah and we'll clean this this will get painted and clean everything up but yes that's correct okay any other questions from Commissioners anything you want to close your testimony with I think we're good all right that moves us to public comment if there are any members of the public present who would like to speak regarding this application you can approach the mic staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment motion second all in favor I okay um similarly to the last one I cannot put this on the screen but if we flip to staff recommendations and comments um we came to the same conclusion as staff and it seems that all of you have come to as well this is a standard roof de deck application it does have more visibility than we typically see however it there's really no way to do this without there being something visible here and it is predominantly visible from the rear which is something that the commission has felt comfortable approving before in the past um the most recent example I can think of was the roof deck that we did last year maybe it was the year before at uh 289 veric Street um where it was visible from the rear you could see um almost the entire back of the bulkhead um and that was considered approp and not an adverse effect there we feel similar similarly about this here um and we really have no comments about regarding the doors because both seem appropriate um so we do recommend that you approve this uh application with conditions um we have our two standard roof deck conditions which is um that the lighting on the roof decks need to be downcast and that no added components of the roof deck so umbrellas vegetation things like that should be VIs ible from the public right way we understand that the back is going to be like you're going to see stuff on the back but um just don't put a tree in the front of the roof deck that you can then see over the front of the building it's really where this is going um other than that everything else is a standard condition do are there any questions for staff I didn't hear anything about any new electrical I I know the the applicant um stated he's going to put a put a um a light on the back yeah that was on the back and that fixture that they have proposed is downcast yeah but I'm not concerned about that what I'm concerned about is additional conduits surface mounted or anything like that I'd like to see those buried or yeah and you know it looks like you're treating it as it should be treated and you know it looks like the back of this building in previous incarnations is you know and I know this I from my own buildings that telecom and everybody else is just throwing cables up everywhere right so if you could police that as well would be good I think here absolutely okay and was there any any thought on for staff or other Commissioners on the material and finish of the bulkhead um the the red stco was to propose I I think maybe a metal would be better not necessarily a black finish but a lighter finish and I do think that the at least the front of the slope of the roof should Corr P to the stair and that would help cut down on the visibility but from a staff perspective um definitely slanting it in the front on board for that um I am personally agnostic on the material change um what they have proposed is fine I do think I agree with you that a metal panel I actually go a slightly different way with the metal panel and not that I think it'll read as more modern I actually think it'll read as more utilitarian and just something that exists naturally on top of a roof rather than as a bulkhead um so I think either way it's not going to have an adverse impact it's simply um if that's something that you guys would like to see changed I if if the applicant doesn't mind changing it to metal I think it's probably more of the vernacular of what we would see in buildings as opposed to stacko on the on as a rooftop um a pertinence yeah I I I think that would be fine yeah okay um and Brian I know you had suggested a lighter gray or a gray metal do you want to I don't think I want to tie put that to staff um yeah I'll leave that to St I don't want to I don't want to tie them to a certain color that was just a suggestion I I think a black is going to be too visible though but I I think generally maybe a lighter color but you can work with staff on that okay all right so we have change red Stu the conditions that we would be adding to this to change the red stco to metal panels at the bulkhead um applicant to work with staff on that to slant the bulkhead on the front side to reduce visibility um we're also going to add a work with staff on that just to make sure that we get the clearance that we need to um and then to remove additional unnecessary conduits at the rear facade before we vote on this um I know we had a whole conversation about the rail and how it reads a bit like a fire escape but um is there Maggie anything that you think we could do to reduce the rails visibility further um maybe a color change to make it blend in with the bulkhead um I'm going to be honest with you in my experience the rendering visibility specifically for railings is almost always way more visible than they are in real life I am not concerned about this being particularly visible um if the applicant wanted to make a change to match it because they wanted the bulkhead material and the railing to match that's certainly something we could do at the staff level I I really don't think this railing is going to be particularly visible um at the end of the day I actually think you're going to see that pedestal system more than you actually see the railing and again this I think the visibility of this kind of falls under things that all of us will notice because we know it's there and that the standard person viewing this from the public right away they're just their eyes just going to continue to go up and over and it's not going to register as a modern intrusion I can live with that so then I would defer to the applicant if they wanted to go with another color choice and that's something we would handle as a deviation if that came up at the staff level okay all right so again for the record we have the conditions in the staff report and the the three additional conditions as read into the record I'll make a motion to approve with those conditions second okay I'll do a roll call vote commissioner Lewis hi commissioner blazak I commissioner Cronin I commissioner amuza I commissioner San Camp hi and chairman Gordan I right there are six in favor none against no extensions the COA with conditions is approved very good thank you thank you all I will follow up in an email with next steps okay great okay all right so I'm going to call case h24 d22 applicant is Kristen Hopkins CLE owner the address is 356.50 8th Street in the Hamilton Park historic district this application is for a certificate of appropriateness for installation of front facade windows and the construction of a full height rear addition at an altered contributing vernacular Italian 8 frame Row House constructed in 1875 do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give this proceeding would be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you and if you st um Kristen Hopkins hyen C so it's k r i s t i n Hopkins h o p k i ns hyphen flag c e GG and while Kristen setting up I do just want to make a note um on the agenda this should have read that they're adding a rear addition that reaches the full height of the building there is already an existing addition that they're adding on to so that's how the agenda should have already just didn't happen for me right um and I also note that Krist has presented in front of this Commission before and has been previously qualified as an expert in architecture you are welcome to start whenever you're ready okay hi everyone um so I'll start with the front facade well really I should start with the back because that's what the um what I'm here for so um currently the back this is the view of the back um as Maggie said we already have um a kind of a two-story Edition there the top floor does not have a bathroom so we're adding um black bathroom um to that floor so um let me just go here's the block plan so um there is a one-story garage over on Brunswick but we're pretty far in and everyone else kind of goes past us we have like larger buildings um along the Brunswick side of the block so um our our structure is right here and um our neighboring buildings are are out almost as far or as far and then they also have additional decks so um what I'm proposing you can see uh to the left here is the existing back condition um we're just adding onto that on top um we're keeping with the double hung because that's just part of the um the this the historic style of that back home um although people have not really taken care of this house uh over the years um and then we are adding casements um this is actually already an existing window but um because um we're adding another down spout from that top roof we have have to make them a little bit narrower and um the 18in casement fits better within the structure so um those that are inside that you can't see really from anywhere are um our casement and then the outside are Marvin Elevate casement um sorry double hung and then um let me pull up and then um right now it's all vinyl siding back there but we are proposing to do a composite siding where the addition is um and anything that you know needs to be replaced um during this during the construction which will probably be the entire back of facade um on that upper part but um so and I'm proposing a gray slate which it looks much darker here but it's actually much closer to the um existing color of the house and then on the front facade um the up the upstairs windows on the front are starting they're um old vinyl windows and they're starting to have condensation in it so while we have a contractor there we're hoping to um do the marvinwood ultimate and um matching our neighbors let me show you the historic photo really quick so um the historic photo does not show any divisions but um as you can see um the other neighbors have have the um two over two um and it seems to be in line with most of the neighbors so I'm suggesting that just because we're kind of in a three um I think it makes sense historically and um and that is the scope of our work does anyone have any question my only question is like is the composite siding like a cementitious fiber board or what exactly is it um right so I'm getting pricing so most likely would be like the Hardy plank um the smooth not the stuff that makes it look like some kind of fun Cedar um but um I'm also pricing out some other but they're all composite not vinyl okay well kind of on that note and also just um based on the comment about the color choice not matching what we would necessarily see on the screen I thought one of the chief advantages of coming back into the building was that we would get you know sample boards and things so oh I have I have a color sample it's just the cedar type if you want to see it I do have a sample I will actually take responsibility for that because I did not remind Kristen to do it and I it honestly in my head I was like yeah composite siding we don't need a sample of composite siding we do composite siding all the time um but if you would like one of the conditions is that they do have to submit material samples so I will vet it in person if it's something other than our most commonly seen Hardy plank sometimes though it's it's also nice to see color swatches especially like when we're specifically being told that what we're seeing on the screen doesn't match the reality it would it would be help I do have one in my bag if you would like yeah yeah I would like to take a look thank you we um you are correct I'm actively reminding applicants to bring stuff back in person um we also again I will take responsibility for this too Kristen was origin I had her on the May meeting and I moved her up because we had time so um so this is this is the color um but not the texture thank you MH it'll be it'll be a smooth finish on yeah I think that fits the style yeah sure any other Commissioners have any questions okay hearing none anything you want to say to close your testimony uh no that's it cool all right um is next is open public comment staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment motion second all in favor I I okay we'll move into staff comments um this is as uh straightforward as a addition can get um just so the commission is aware the thing that is triggering the appearance at the commission tonight is that the addition reaches the full height um even though it is an addition on top of an addition they're only adding one story but it does reach the full height which is why they need to be here um from what we can tell there's going to be no adverse effect for this they are not increasing their footprint it matches the size of the additions on the row um and we recommend the approval of this with standard conditions um just because we were talking about Windows earlier this is an example of replacement windows on the 1938 tax card a 2 over two window on this building during the date of construction would have been what was installed what's on the tax card the time the tax card photo was taken this building was somewhere around 70 years old so those are likely newer replacement windows in this so following the rest of the row totally fine in this case and if no one has any questions for staff again the recommendation is to approve with conditions I'll make a motion to approve with the conditions as read by staff second okay Brian and Dan commissioner blazak I commissioner Cronin hi commissioner uzza I commissioner samp hi commissioner Lewis hi and chairman Gordon I right there are six votes in favor none against no extensions the COA with conditions is approved you you're welcome okay so I do need just before we move on to um the next items on the agenda I do just need to go grab the dongle from over there so I can plug in and present for demos okay can we take five minutes sure okay all right so if we are going to take a 5 minute break it is 7:36 uh it's 7:36 we're take a 4 minute break and we're going to come back at 7:40 record on that know what I did did I do with my agenda all right good oh okay sorry I don't know who I was waiting on all right it is 7:34 so if we want to yep I'll call this meeting back to order and uh we'll move to demolition review I had to do tabled cases quick oh I forgot I I forgot about tabled cases um so update on table cases uh French American Academy got their official submit something or you're being dismissed um I honest to God off the top of my head I do not remember if I told them they need to give me something by April 15th or if they need to give me something by May 1st either way um I have not heard back from them so my assumption is that I will not hear back from them actually that's a lie I did hear back from one of the Architects that was associated with that project and he said he's no longer involved so I'm assuming when kind time comes uh we will be able to dismiss without prejudice and we will have no old tabled cases for the first time in decades maybe them a yeah not yet we they they have some more time um that's if we take action on Temple beell well yeah I mean well I meant like no really old tabled cases right we've had something lingering on the agenda that was at least two years old the entire time that I've worked here so um that being said that brings us to the next two um Temple bethl as you all know did request a special meeting um we are like we are going to be able to accommodate that request on March 26th so this unspecified meeting date will actually be March 26th so um hopefully we will be able to take action on those then all right that brings us to demolition review um so it's been a bit since we have done these applications so I will just remind all of you um the I will we do offer the applicant the ability to appear at the HPC meeting um they don't necessarily have to um the applicants in this case chose not to appear this evening um so I will just present the uh materials submitted to staff and the recommendation um that we the recommendation on the significance of the building and then you guys will take action um in the form of a resolution stating if you um agree with our recommendation to deny the demo or disagree with our recommendation and recommend the zoning officer approve the demo okay so we we do have two on this evening um I just for the record will never structure a carried demo review like this again it's reads very strangely and I think it's more confusing but so we will be reviewing both this evening um the first and the first is 124 Broadway so um just to locate everyone as to where 12 24 Broadway is um it's the red marker here this building is set back significantly on Broadway right across from right AV just by um where you get on the whd pen Bridge so it's it's kind of tucked back there um this is the survey that the applicant submitted again you can see it is set back a considerable distance from the street um oh nope that is not what I want I want want the photo and this is the photo that the applicant submitted of this building um you can see it's relatively intact comparatively to their 1938 and in our report we actually do um we go through our surveys and it is in the phase one survey um it's identified as a former Factory building it was listed as um recommended for phase two in that survey um and the um the building appears to be intact from that survey to now there have been relatively minimal changes and if there have been changes they we really can't tell um so the recommendation for this building is to deny a demolition permit um and we hope that the applicant uh will come back and um likely develop the property with two probably two principal structures on it so they have all that space in the front the property is developable um just without the demolition of this building are there any questions from Commissioners put up the photo again all right so hearing none Jonathan remind me how we're phrasing this again so you just need to make need to be so the log just requires to that help I sound the same the light should be on the light is on okay then you're fine I'll just project you don't yeah the law just requires that you make a written recommendation to the zoning official so I don't I don't know if you recall but in the previous meeting when we did this we did two votes to vote to make a resolution and then a vote for the resolution and Maggie and I were discussing and so it would just be uh streamlined I think if you just make a motion to memorialize your recommendation either to Grant or deny and then you can vote on that and then Maggie will memorialize that board action and for it to the zoning official the zoning officer so this way we're not voting on it twice but it's still captured in the way that is required by um the ml brilliant it is required by the ml okay did we see I was just curious the the tax photo I I was about to ask the same thing I don't think we did it's brick it used to be pain paint it blue I neglected to upload the text photo but let me see hold on I don't think I'm going to be able to log into teams to see it but we're going to try while she does that I will say it's just important that you put the reasons for your decision on the record so that we have something to look back and say this is what the commission considered for the recommendation and can that can that be something as simply as we agree with the findings of the of the memo I believe so as long as you state the findings in the memo okay just to show that it's not arbitrary and capricious that you've reviewed the application and you understand what you're saying right so just to be clear I I mean I do I have the resolutions prepped would we just be Crossing out the word resolution and replacing it with action or I'm not sure if the word that you call it matters so much is the process okay if resolution works for you yeah resol I yeah it just needs to be a written recommendation whatever we whatever we call it okay got it and while we're refreshing our recollection so the the standard is whether it has historic Integrity yeah so in this particular case I will pull up the memo so the law requires us to review um if it's in our master plan element if it is in any of the surveys that the city has done um and if it has historic Integrity so Integrity of location setting design workmanship uh workmanship materials feeling Association took me a minute um in this particular case it is on the phase one survey um at this moment in time it is not in the master plan element however in the revised element that you are going to get um it is in there so it will be in the master plan as soon as that is adopted um and in the memo we specifically outline that the building appears to have integrity of design materials workmanship feeling and Association um I would actually expand this to include location as well this building has not been moved um and it I would also say that it has some integrity of setting obviously the area around it has been developed but it does maintain its setting within the lot itself being far back okay if I don't know if teams is going to load for us and that was beware the tax card photo lives for the record they only added that stucko facade recently mhm it was brick painted blue and white all right yep and it's not here so that is that is my error do we want to move on to the next one and see if teams will load or do we uh do any of you feel comfortable taking action I can also see if it'll load on my phone I think it's just an internet problem not a teams problem hold on and it's not loading here either okay it is a teams problem okay um would you guys like to take action on it do you want to wait carry it till the next meeting for 1938 I'd like to take action yeah I'd like to take action okay not to take all right so I think we can see from this Photograph the existing photograph that it has all the elements that we need to be able to make a determination okay I mean we know it has sight and setting but it's also got a a lot of original you know material on this facade procedurally is is the memo or report that we receive is that evidence itself yes so like that's submitted for your review so we don't have to defer to it but we can rely on it yes of not because we don't at this moment have the tax photo but we can on that evidence in okay cuz then I thinko does reference the tax photo and the the tax photo was consulted at the time of the preparation of the memo um I mean even if we had the tax photo there's there's limits to what you can make out in these photos and I think the the memo or report describes it in much more detail okay yes I would agree for the same reason also too that the survey is referenced in there but I'm not like carrying around the binder from the survey okay so the motion is to deny the application the motion is approve or deny so the motion is to um recommend to the zoning officer to deny the demolition I'll make a motion to recommend to the zoning officer that we deny the application okay I'll second all right we'll do a roll call vote commissioner Cronin I commissioner uza I commissioner samp I commissioner Lewis I commissioner blazak I and chairman Gordon I okay there are six votes in favor none against no extensions the um recommendation to the zoning officer to deny the demolition permit for 124 Broadway is approved okay that we means we can move on to uh 205 we discussed this when it went on in January it's not 12th Street it's 15th Street um but the block and lot referenced are accurate so it's okay on the agenda all right so 205 15th Street this uh is just North of the Holland Tunnel in between Grove Street and Eerie Street on their survey they actually have a lovely little location map so you can see it's on this black box here um and this is the survey that they submitted um it is believe lot five it is lot five right so it's the one just in the center here it is a um full coverage brick building the photo that they submitted um is admittedly not great so I did pull it up on street view on Google Maps for all of you to say so it is this building um if it would not be blurry that'd be lovely but oh there we go um there are additional resources on either side of it as well um and in our review of this this building was also identified in the phase one survey um as a eligible resource within the eligible St Lucy's historic district so this property is directly surrounding St Lucy's that was identified as an eligible historic district it is not a historic district that the city is interested in designating but this would be an eligible resource within that District um so it is identified really just as a vernacular um they called a Coach House stable in here um that went had some alterations when cars um became more popular in the early uh 1910 U sorry had some alterations to accommodate cars after its construction in the 1910 um it does appear to have um Integrity of design materials workmanship feeling and location so we do recommend that the demo permit be denied we have also been in touch with the applicant for this and the applicant um does intend to incorporate this into a development at the site that's kind of why it was carried on the agenda for a bit but they um have solid ified their plan have confirmed that they will be able to incorporate it into a future development so we're okay they were okay with us proceeding tonight was this the one where they wanted to come and and they were excited to show us what they were going to do yep okay okay um but they they were kind of at the point where they wanted action on their demolition permit um but we also not in a place where plans were going to be ready anytime soon so I recommend it to them to just proceed with the demo permit and if they ever wanted to do a courtesy presentation to the HBC they are certainly more than welcome to okay anyone have any questions um could you bring could you just bring that um memo back up I just wanted to see what it um does it note like what what it still has in terms of the site setting feeling association yes okay I see it down there yep interrogated design materials and workmanship feeling or Association so I should say and and Association that's me with my classic typos um and it also that paragraph also details what is intact appears to be intact on the building versus what has been altered so we can guide the applicant as to what needs to be restored on the building as well okay does anyone have any questions if not the recommendation is for a motion to be made to I don't know why I can't remember what the motion is supposed to be to the zoning officer yes denial to the zoning officer thank you okay I'll make a motion to recommend to the zoning officer to deny this demolition application M second second Paul all right roll call vote commissioner amuza I commissioner samp hi commissioner Lewis hi hi commissioner blazak I commissioner Cronin I and chairman Gordan did we see the tax photo on this one no I for okay I I promise I will make sure they're there in the future this was okay well okay like this all right um there are six votes in favor none against no extensions the recommendation passes okay just for just for our knowledge of the future in case there's ever some sort of split Vote or something how many is needed to approve is that simple simple majority right simple majority yep okay um all right that being said no resolutions to do no executive session needed so that just leaves us with adjournment I'll make a motion second okay it is 8 o'cl on the dot um all in favor I I okay