##VIDEO ID:ypg3nyngoRg## all right I'm now going to call to order this regular meeting of the Jersey City Historic preservation commission it is July 17th 2024 and I have the time as 6:36 p.m. please be advised that in accordance with the open public meetings act the notice of the time date and place of this rescheduled meeting of the Jersey City Historic preservation commission has been provided to the Jersey journal the Jersey City Reporter and Pito same notice has been provided to the clerk's office in City Hall for posting on the bulletin board and on the city's website I have proof of this notice in evidence which we could Mark as B1 good okay all right we'll do a roll call attendance commissioner griga here commissioner samp here commissioner Gunther here commissioner blazak here commissioner Cronin here commissioner amuso is absent commissioner song is absent Vice chair guara here and chairman Gordon present okay there are seven members of the Commission in attendance tonight five affirmative votes are needed for a certificate of appropriateness moving down on the agenda we have the minutes from the regular meeting of June 17th anyone have any questions or comments all right staff recommends a motion to approve motion to approve second okay we'll do a roll call vote uh commissioner San Camp I commissioner Gunther I commissioner blazak I commissioner Cronin abstain okay commissioner griga uh if I read it I could yeah you're good I um commissioner EMA is absent commissioner sakong is absent Vice chair gujarda all and chairman Gordon I right there are six votes in favor none against with one abstention the minutes from June 17th are approved um copies of correspondents are linked on tonight's agenda in the application number that will take you to all correspondents and application materials um we do for announcements we do have a couple of cases that are being carried this evening um case 9B 2624 JFK is going to be carried to a date uncertain at the request of the applicant case 9 C which is the proposed amendments to the local Landmark designation standards is going to be carried to the regular HPC meeting of August 12th that is our next regularly scheduled meeting and case 11a which is the demolition review of 384 Communipaw is going to be carried to the August uh HPC meeting all right any questions on any of those post carry application carries okay all right next is open public comment if there are any members in the public who would like to address the commission 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 requests uh a motion to open and close public comment motion to open and close public comment second okay all in favor I all right that brings us to our first case so we're at the request of the applicant going to be taking uh the old business applications out of order so I'll first call um item 8B which is case h23 d48 the applicant is Steven Joseph Squire on behalf of 88-90 bright SPC owner the address is 90 Bright Street this is in the vanvorst park historic district the application is for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a four-story 4unit residential building and Associated site work this is a recommendation to the Jersey City Zoning Board of adjustment and this was previously carried at the request of the applicant from the May 2024 regular meeting Mr chairman I'm going to be recusing myself from h23 d 0048 and 0047 due to the proximity of my primary residence noted thank you all right good evening everybody Stephen Joseph uh for the applicant um this was carried from the last hearing at the request of the applicant we've made some modifications to the plan after getting some feedback from the board um we do have a different architect here this evening Caroline's getting uh filling in for um for will uh she has not appeared here before so we are going to have to get her uh sworn in and qualified by the board Bridget you Poli is it yeah yes my name is Caroline c a r o l i n e my last name is Grio g r i e c o uh I'm a licensed architect in New Jersey and New York um I have a master's degree from prad Institute okay staff recommends that chair accept Caroline's qualifications as an expert in the field of architecture yes so accepted okay all right great um is the technology working um oh yeah that's my job give me a sec on that um in the meantime while I'm doing that I will attempt to multitask and just State um at the May meeting Commissioners gucciardo and Commissioners commissioner Grio were not present however um it's my understanding that both of you have read the transcript and reviewed the video if you guys would consider affirming as such confirm yes confirmed okay um Stephen is that acceptable yes okay thank you now of course the thing is not connecting give me a sec I'm come over there no it's [Music] not that there we go okay all right that should go there we go all right wonderful all right if you could just walk us through the plans and the and the changes that uh that we've made since the last hearing um okay I have an itemized list of changes by sheet so g00 we have no changes g101 there are no changes g102 we have no changes g103 we have no changes so a100 the rear elevation was redesigned we'll see that better in on the following sheet the rear wall of the proposed floor plans was updated to reflect the new design um the rear elevation was redesigned so basically we reduced glazing at the request of the board so uh a100 there's no changes I'm sorry uh a100 the changes are to the rear elevation again with the reduced glazing by 15% um a102 uh you can see that the changes were made to the um bulkhead so the bulkhead is now um sloped so in order to reduce visibility from the street um on a I'm sorry on a101 there's also a um a call out for the cornice detail which was questioned by the board and you asked for more clarity um uh the brick coursing on the front elevation was also adjusted so there are equal spacing between the windows there's now eight courses of brick between each window um for each story we'll see additional details later in the set so again a a103 shows the sloped bulkhead um drawing a 104 again just slows the uh shows the sloped bulkhead there are no other changes mhm um so on a105 we have specifications for the gate Hardware so there is a an egress um easement from the church um to the uh to Bright Street and there's um an access gate at the front of Bright Street we could see that a little bit better on the front elevation here so the board uh last time had questions about the uh basically the bulk and what that um gate release would look like so the specification is again on sheet a105 so basically it's just a push it's a electromagnetic lock it'll be a push release so the uh the pad with the push button will be on the building itself um uh if someone's egressing out and in an emergency out the alleyway they'll press the the push to exit button and there's a electromagnetic lock it's a block you'll see It'll be concealed by the gate itself on the inside of the gate so facing the erass alleyway um a106 um again one of the Commissioners last time asked for full details of the front entry door and the canopy so it was also a wall section was also asked for um so all details are now included the windows were changed to an ins swing casement at the board's request um the uh spec for the Marvin inswing case uh casement hasn't been finalized but we can submit a spec and color sample for staff staff approval um so a107 um at the request of the board we're providing colored renderings so the renderings are to show the materials the colors and the depth of facade um we also have some brick samples uh for your review again the uh cornice design was questioned at the last meeting um there are some historical uh local references to this style of brick work um on the right side of the sheet here uh the first is on 257 Montgomery Street um the one in the center of the sheet is 439 to 442 Jersey Avenue um and then 445 Jersey Avenue so the idea was to uh with the least amount of relief create a decorative cornice and again the the idea here with this building uh 90 Bright Street is to essentially um keep the keep the design relatively simplistic that to highlight and not take away from any of the historic buildings locally in the district um so we do have uh we have two samples of brick that we're passing around this first one is the one that's on the plans um will did ask me to tell you that as he was going through this he does prefer this one which he labeled as an alternate but whatever the board prefers um but as he was going through it again he stumbled upon this one which he thought was more appropriate um so sheet a108 is again at the board's request it's a combined rendering of both 88 Bright Street and 90 Bright Street uh so the um idea is to understand uh the visibility of the head and the approximate color um justif you know looking at the adjacency of the colors of the brick of the historic building vers the new brick there's a distinctive color difference to represent again differentiate between old and new um so that concludes the revisions per sheet since the last meeting does anyone have any questions Stephen you have to turn your mic on um can you please identify since I was not here the last time is the building to the right 88 that I'm looking at here in this image okay thank you sorry I have one question um I didn't see dimensions on the drawing but looking at the elevation and maybe some of the renderings is the the intent that the spacing of the windows on the front horizontally across the facade is equal cuz it looks in the drawings as though the brick Pier down the center is slightly wider I didn't know if that was just an error or if that was intentional it's not Dimensions so I'm not sure what the is um to be honest I would have to defer to the to the architect who couldn't make it tonight um we could follow up it's equal okay and you talk um you talked a lot about the changes to the front um just remind me any changes to the rear again yeah uh so the rear changes were to reduce the amount of glass so on the previous set of drawings the uh there was 15% more glass the uh facade more resembled the curtain wall or storefront now we've basically made the change to you know resemble more punched openings in the facade and and in between the openings it's a fiber cement board um the cladding yes yes um could you show a side elevation I believe you had Windows um fenestration on the side elevation right so is there a separation between the two buildings that is allowing for the fenestration that's appearing behind the lower building uh yeah so you can see in this in the floor plans here the first second third fourth and roof plan that there's the window well it's on the right side of each plan um yes I see it okay thank you okay are there any other questions anything you want to go back and look at the only the only thing I was thinking is I I think the materials are all appropriate at the front I'm just not convinced maybe on some of the color choices for like the cast stone and the and the fiber cement um and I think you were in the in the uh rendering that shows with other buildings on the Block and other other buildings as well I think I think the brick is is a good color both of them um and maybe you can go back to the rendering that shows it on the Block in these other examples um I know the building on the left maybe has some lighter color lentils but I still think it's more little atypical in the van force park historic district so I thinking may be something that's a darker brown color would probably be appropriate for the cast stone Sills um but you know maybe I can take a look at the samples again and and that's also something I could be comfortable with staff working on to get a little bit of a maybe a little bit of a darker finish um and the the applicant is is happy to to darken the colars if that's the board's request and I don't know if anyone else has any any thoughts on that but to me it's reading a little it's bluish a little blue mhm I know there are some blue stone lentils and SS around but not sure if that's the right choice here yeah I had that same reaction when it was passed around actually thank you just cuz you brought up the brick Brian um is there a general feeling on the brick I know that there were two essentially two options here well we have one that is rendered and one that we don't what it looks like so it's kind of hard to say we could change it but we can be satisfied or unsatisfied with the option in the rendering and I guess that's really more my question I mean the the rendering is you know renderings do the best they can to get as close to reality as as they can but they're they're they're always not 100% so I would say to look at the material sheet and then also the actual physical samples maybe you can even hold them up for us um by the Yeah like yeah and I actually I was going to ask if a mortar color has had been uh explored as well I don't believe that a mortar color has been selected but it's something we could work with the staff on I think that that's also important how the facade is going to read if you're thinking a white or something that matches the brick color um um I mean I'm also confident staff can also pointed out that the one on the right is the brick is consistent in color the one on the my right sorry thank you Stephen the one on the one on the left there's more changes in color which you know it's going to be a more active facade no question I don't know I think maybe they could work the staff on the brick selection because yeah the difference is not so great for what we're reviewing today I think either either way it's good I I think maybe having a little bit more of a of a variety actually would be a good thing here because the brick is the body of the facade it's and between that and the cornice is going to be where you're getting the variety from so but again that's something where I could leave that to staff to select in the field as long as it's one of these two okay bricks and did you have an idea of if it would be a light mortar or similar color to the bricks is that um I would suggest a similar color to the bricks I also would suggest the brick with with more variation even just for the sake of repairs late in the future the variation in the brick will assist with not making the repairs as as apparent um so but yes I would say a color to a morar color to match the brick and is the coping the coping above the corners is that the same material as the Sills um I don't believe so the top of the building good question I think on another sheet it was it was called out as [Music] castone castone Co coping as detailed color to match window sills below yeah so if you're changing the Sills you're going to be changing the coping at the top as well yeah and I think that's that's yeah and and the applicants of course fine with that uh maybe going towards more of a limestone or something but working with staff on on that okay all right any additional questions oh and the canopy color is going to be the same as the fiber cement board at the at the main entry uh the canopy itself yes um it looks like it's black aluminum and steel Windows front and rear patio doors and aluminum canopy right the canopy is aluminum and just remind me um how was the canopy reduced from what was previously shown I don't believe it was reduced reduced I believe it was just clarified I believe he uh will just provideed additional details on this sheet at the bottom of a101 yes someone had questions at the last session about uh the canopy and whether it was appropriate or not right I think I think that's maybe the one thing I'm solving just a little bit of a struggle with but it still seems a little maybe a little deep I don't I don't know it's I guess it's just my modern canopy I have no other we can talk about it during staff comments if sure sure I don't want to do my usual thing where I butt in and take over your time to hear myself talk all right so if there are no additional comments or questions I mean we can always go back for clarification if stuff comes up during staff comments um but this seems like a good stopping point to open public comment we in agreement with that yes okay there are any members of the public present who would like to speak regarding this application you may approach the public comment mic staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment motion to open and close public comment second all in favor I all right so going to the staff report so in this staff report I mean it seems after I mean I recognize there are some things we still need clarify it does seem the general consensus is moving towards one um where we think we might be able to approve this so we'll focus on the first section of Staff comments which just confirms that with with the overall design of the project we do think that this is appropriate for the historic district um and we do believe that the Varian is necessary to approve this project again are ones that we can recommend the approval of the height variance being the one that we um I I'll say we typically struggle with as a board right whether or not to go up to that um height in in this case it matches the direct adjacent neighbor this block of Bright Street has a series of varying Heights so I don't think it's going to cause an adverse effect it's not going to break up a streetcape um in fact I actually think this aligns the street scape a little bit better um the design of the building is something we see consistently throughout the historic districts and also on this block there are a couple of similar similarly designed buildings on this street and on York Street just above it they um their construction has not caus an adverse effect and I do not believe that this is going to cause an adverse effect um so we do recommend the approval of this certificate of appropriateness and recommend ation to the zoning board for approval um with the conditions in the staff report I also picked up the conditions that we spoke about um the first one would be to add Dimensions to the front facade to confirm equal spacing at the time of submission of construction documents for HPC staff to work with the applicant to revise the sill and coping color to be more consistent with what is found in the vanor park historic district and that the applicant shall work with HP staff to select uh brick and mortar samples out of the ones provided to the commission um and that the applicant shall uh do a mockup in the field for staff so those are that's the recommendation um I do want to Pivot back to the canopy um it is a modern canopy it's probably I would go so far as to say with the exception of the window Style on this building it's probably the most modern part of this building right that door entry mhm um but I I don't really think it detracts from anything in the historic district I don't think it's going to be an adverse effect uh have an adverse effect um and part of that is its positioning on the building we do not really have a raised entrance here this is not a canopy uh canopy and door entry that it like look at 88 on this rendering right we have a second floor entry there if this canopy and door was there I think it would be a lot more visible it would be a lot have a much stronger impact on how you read the facade going across and also on how modern it looks because this is lower it reads more at street level I I really don't think it's going to have an adverse effect from a staff perspective I don't really have a concern or a problem with it um it does I would say it's a standard projection for a canopy um that being said though canopies have been extending further and further and further as of late um so this is standard for right now but it probably would have been um considered a longer extension a couple of years ago um that being said though that we have the stoop the intention of it is to keep people dry when they're going into the building so I don't really have a problem with it from a staff perspective does anyone have any questions about any of it well the only other thing is um should do we want the CI plank at the at least at the front to also the color to also be looked at cuz in the rendering it look again it's kind of like this grayish color kind of light maybe maybe that should just be looked at if the Sills and the coping zone is changed I think I think you should add in perfect the hearty plank at the front door entry party plank okay does anyone have any other questions for staff again the recommendation on this one is to approve with a recommendation for approval to the zoning board with the conditions I'll make the motion to approve with the conditions as read and the make the recommendation to the planning board I'll second it okay Stephen are those conditions acceptable including the ones I read into the record yeah conditions are acceptable to the applicant thanks all right we'll do I have Janelle making the motion Cory with the second we'll do a roll call vote commissioner blazak I commissioner Cronin I commissioner griga I commissioner Gunther I Vice chair I'm sorry before I do that commissioner amuso is absent commissioner sakong is absent commissioner samp is recused vice chair gucciardo I and chairman Gordon I okay there are six votes in favor none against and no extensions the COA and recommendation to the zoning board for 90 brid street is approved and I will now call case h23 -47 we have the same applicant Steven Joseph Esquire on behalf of 88-90 bright s PC this is for 888 Bright Street still in the vanor park historic district and this application is for certificate of appropriateness for proposed rear and fourth story addition to an existing three-story building interior Renovations and front facade restoration and an altered contributing italianate townhouse built circuit 1890 this is a Rec again a recommendation or no excuse me this is a recommendation to the Jersey City planning board and was also carried from um by at the request of the applicant at our last meeting in May great thank you for the record Stephen Joseph castano Qui chami for the app uh Caroline you are still under oath for this application and we're going to do the same thing and just run through the plan and talk about the changes um okay for the record Caroline Greco speaking for the um applicant uh registered architect um so again just sheet by sheet I'm going to go through changes since last meeting so uh g100 we have no changes uh g101 is the proposed site plan and again um we just have a a rear soup update to reflect uh a new rear elevation design no changes uh g102 no changes a 100 uh the so the rear elevation was uh redesigned the rear wall of the proposed floor plans was updated to reflect the new design uh the rear elevation um sorry I'm just going to skip through to the we get to the elevation so uh a102 there are no changes um a103 so again the commission was concerned with the amount of glazing on the rear elevation um so we've reduced again the percentage of glazing by about 15% uh the windows Now read as larged punched openings versus a wall of glass the specifications will be the same um it was just the reduction in glass um so a the next few sheets a104 through a108 don't show any changes um could you that's a little fast for me I'm just seeing some of these for the first time the prior to um and the one before that please I'm trying to understand the size of the additions so the proposed building section is above the existing building below I see that um I'm just understanding the fourth floor and how it's interacting with the existing building so I see that's wrapping over the top and and coming towards the front of the building and it includes some type of outdoor space both adjacent to that and on top of the roof is that correct correct yes okay and I believe there was some concern at the last meeting about this building Poss if this these changes were made to this building without 90 bright being built that this would be a visible from the public right away um the meaning the uh yes okay and there's the drawing that I thank you that's the one I was looking for is how the extension W and the additional floor would appear from the street without 90 bright being built yeah yes that's correct and and that's you know I think a concern that we have on on a lot of projects um and I think one of the reasons why we wanted to to get through 90 Bright Street first um so the board wouldn't have to at least here at the HPC struggle with that of course we we do need approvals from planning board on one of these and Zoning Board on the other one there's always that they get denied and then even after that uh that the project doesn't get built for whatever reason or one of them gets built but um I I I don't know how we can uh you know how we can control that um um I'm not sure either but but I was wondering if if the approval of this addition and fourth floor could be conditioned on 90 bright being built is that is that possible I mean we've put conditions on on uh applications before so the applicant is a is agreeable to that the applicant will happily agree to that I'm I'm not sure uh maybe for the board's attorney I'm not sure if yeah I don't know if we can do that I would be hesitant to endorse such a condition yeah um so then how do we prove this if it's a standalone application well stand I mean you have to consider the whole context of the neighborhood right and one of the properties in the neighborhood just got certification from the historic preservation commission to be built keeping in mind of course that there are other boards and things but I mean also they provided a rendering for what it looks like by itself uh right no I I get that I I'm I'm reacting to I let listened to the CR transcript I heard what the issues were with the board when this was heard in May and I was looking for a solution because I think there was some concern about the visibility of the um of the fourth floor without 90 being built right um can I ask is this uh one project that's being built at the same time both 88 and 90 uh the intention is to to build them both at the same time and in fact the uh the church to the rear is also under same ownership um so the intention is to to kind of have all the construction going at the same time right but that you're that's not guaranteed no okay just so I understand what the intention is yeah yeah and and my client also advised that it's all under the same construction financing as well I see um I I I don't think I could offer uh you know much more that the board hasn't already heard which is you know a vacant lot in in Jersey City especially in this area unlikely to not be developed especially when there's approvals but that that's I think I think the board as Council said does have um they know there there is an approval that just happened for 90 you've seen the rendering both with and without um 90 being constructed and I think I think we should also like I think the the the main thing we should be uh concerned about is the visibility from directly you know across the street um which like a105 has the sight line and it's right there but I think the and I don't know if there is a rendering from directly across the street I think the intention is that it wouldn't be visible over the Cornus and over the primary facade if if I'm correct that that's yeah that that's correct the the visibility we're talking about is the the oblique from the yeah yeah it's perfectly fine from across the street I your your rendering uh shows that and there's no issue whatsoever and I would caution that we might want to consider reducing the heights just so that it doesn't accidentally become visible over the Cornus once it's built yeah because it is it is right the sight line has it right there you know so it's like another inch and you'd probably see something um though the bright and bright street is a very wide Street probably one of the widest and know we've had uh I think it's 89 where we did which it was only a two-story building but we did approve rooftop uh what's that 87 87 um 89 is also new construction yeah um and so this is a block this and the block immediately west of it have a lot of infill on it understood um so I discussed with architect and my client we could take the height down two inches and and we could we could certify the height that's not a problem um the other question I have is you know I think I was one of the Commissioners last go around who had requested that we see this view if the lot were vacant how would this appear and I'm a little disappointed that it's cropped and it doesn't really give us the full effect so we can't actually evaluate what the effect would be right yeah or the scale of the building the mass of the building you can't see it The Bu yeah understood you're right that's all I have for now I do have materials in my hand I was waiting till we got to that page the uh I believe the rear material is the same as it was for um 90 and then okay so this is the it's the bottom and it's circled on the back this is the cornis color and and trim I believe it's classic black right the one on the the palette classic brown classic Brown I'm sorry yes yeah the the the rendering doesn't do a good job of uh demonstrating that color the cast stone looks a little bit more gray um and as well as a stair um it's intended to be that classic brown what color is the cornice now the classic Brown oh the existing the existing color m is it a is it a brown now or is it go back to the first page oh it's like a tan yellow color Y and just remind me is so is there a brick face on this building and that you're moving I know later on there was a brick test patch is that what did we find I don't remember if that was done prior I don't think it was right so what is it what do that show what is what has it shown us yeah that that was done uh at after the last hearing um yeah so it's what we what we learned is it's it's not brick face it's original brick looks like the paint came off fairly easily off the front paint came off uh I think we're going to have to be a little bit more careful with it the next go around but it's uh it it's there um and I think yeah we could Salvage it and then do did you do a test that like the areas that are painted yellow where the uh like the the water table and at the lentils no so in in the rendering it's shown as like a brown but I guess the intention would be to leave whatever or match whatever color is there underneath you're talking about up the water table Yeah the water table and there's some I'm not sure what material it is but at the there's brick uh Soldier courses at the lentils and then some sort of either castone or maybe it's some sort of stone there right so that's the decorative castone at the top yeah so the intention is for all the details to be the classic Brown okay and that includes the water table and the stoop as well uh it does yes oh so this is so we shouldn't go by what we're seeing here the rendering unfortunately that that band at the bottom of the between the um the garden level and the first floor it just didn't render correctly okay are there questions anyone want to go back in the plans and see anything hearing I'm not hearing anything so why don't we um want to open a public comment and then we can move into staff comments sure okay all right if there are any members of the public present who would like to speak regarding this application you can approach the public comment mic staff sees no members of the public present so I recommend a motion to open and close public comment motion to open and close public comment second all in favor I okay so we'll move into staff comments we do have the staff report so this building is a little bit in my opinion more uh trickier than 90 right um sure it's I pref I call these additions Tetris editions because it's the upside down L shape going onto the building um if this was not potenti potentially visible from the public right of way I think it would be a lot easier for the commission to review despite the fact that it does in my professional opinion overwhelm the historic resource um the visibility is the hard part here and I recognize the applicant just got a recommendation to build the building next door and that all of the per per their statement on the record that all the construction financing is together I will also add on the record um the Steve the developer who was sitting there has done many of these projects in Jersey City before right it's not an unknown entity um so I like I do believe him when he says this building is going to be built but the reality is is that they're two separate applications because they're two separate blocks and the commission does have to consider the effects of this visibility if the building was not built um the the shape of the building is not that is visible on the side is not atypical from what we see downtown on something where something has been demolished it's simply just the bulk of the addition I do think that it's something that we see consistently downtown it's something that the commission has approved in the past um and I do think it is an approvable project but it it's it's a lot of bulk um and that's just something that if like the the commission has to be comfortable with that level of bulk I can't I I would not recommend that we go into it thinking that it's going to feel less bulky because we're building something next door cuz that's not true um but it is not going to be visible from the front facade looking over the building which it has historically been our most concerning Viewpoint um where else would it be seen from well if well I'm talking about if 90 wasn't built right right if 990 wasn't built it's a large structur right yeah but historically we've also our most important Viewpoint for visibility has been the front of the building and it's not visible from the front if you need something to weigh it against considering the bulk that is visible on the side um and again we see again while we see additions this size consistently and they are constructed in the historic district and they are it is big for this building but it's not this the bulk that we see here is consistent for the block right we have on the Block site plan you see there's many buildings that even exceed this bulk especially the one directly adjacent to the right um of course yeah it's just coming to terms with the bulkiness of this the staff report does have conditions where the commission to approve this um I do think it's an approvable project I do not think it's going to have an adverse effect however if the commission does believe that it's too bulky there are also citations if the commission wanted to deny it the recommen my my professional opinion on this is that it's not going to have an adverse effect and that I do think it's approvable and I do think the commission can make a recommendation for approval to the planning board with regard to the bulk is it I guess as of right no so there's a variant that's a variance for sure okay um if we want to go up to the first page it's yeah let's review the various please yeah there is a rear I know for a fact there's a rear yard setback variance because it is an undersized lot slightly um but they did a proportional setback um which is what we say zoom in on that I feel like and Maggie if if I may while I agree with Council we can't have a condition about the adjacent building being built uh this is a recommendation to the planning board um so this board could recommend to the planning board that that this application not be approved if 90 Bright Street is not not approved um that's kind that's kind of what I was that's kind of what I was saying but right it still doesn't guarantee when 90 would be built right the construction we don't have control over um but but I'm I'm sure chairman Langston would take whatever recommendation this board has and and but you're suggesting that it would be all right with the applicant if this did not get approved unless 990 was approved is what you're saying absolutely yeah mhm is that something the planning board could consider I don't see why not the the board would can disregard or not disregard this board's recommendation and decide however they they want so I can't see why uh they can't take take into account suggestions and they definitely could take account the recommendation but wouldn't the planning board still be confined to the restraints that they review the application as it is before them or do they have more latitude in reviewing I I think they have more latitude in reviewing this board's recommendation um and especially since there are there are variances associated with this project I think they would be able to deny this uh based on this board's recommendation um without necessarily specifically referencing another approval trying to get a a little creative here to make the board a little bit more comfortable here's a couple things I would suggest if we were looking at this in in just in case um what is the other one 90 this is 80 I'm getting confused um I'm looking on a104 and just a couple things that would make me a little bit more comfortable if we did end up seeing this side facade would be if the um Pitch of the roof were kept up to where the addition the the fourth story Edition is which I think wouldn't be a massive change um at least from the front behind the cornice to where the addition pops up and I think the other thing that would help reduce the mass would be if the 3 foot six um parit or reduced or just put a railing there um it's required by the ordinance at the parit 3 foot 6 so uh we couldn't reduce the parit but we could consider when has that been done I don't think that's true is that a building code or an ordinance you could have a 42inch railing there I think and that I think I just said that maybe you just jumped in before I finished oh sorry sorry so I said that the the parit itself right by ordinance end code has to be 42 in high the it could be a guard rail instead of a parit um but the you know the height has to be the 42 in yeah I think if if that were changed to a railing metal railing perhaps that would be I think cut down on the visual mass that we'd see potentially over that vacant lot if it would so I think that would help maybe to make people a little bit more comfortable and I don't know how we I mean if if 90 gets built it doesn't really matter doesn't matter right you wouldn't even need a railing there at that point so I don't know how a brilliant suggestion is there any reason why this couldn't be heard as one application they're separate Lots ah I'm not so brilliant but that is why they're presenting them here at the same time and not at separate meeting exactly it would certainly make things simpler um Maggie if if we if 90 were to get approved uh and a railing were were approved here at 88 would we have to come back to the board to change the railing to we could do that administratively yeah we could do that administratively so since we have to review the application with the existing conditions is there based on the proposed design is there any way to distinguish the existing historic fabric from the addition on the side facade or could we adopt one something just to delineate so you don't conflate what is the original historic Fabric and what is being added on after the fact I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand distinguish the materials being used on the side facade what is original and what is being added so with uh under the assumption that 90 doesn't get built um it would be preferable to be able to make that distinction sure yeah I mean a material yeah I mean it it could be uh by color or and we happen to have two brick samples well that brings up a good question how is this how is this facade being treated it's being stucked right all the way across yeah correct right so I understand what you we've done that in the past where we've shown the line of the original building in the facade to to show this you know to make that distinction the question is what's appropriate if if there's no building next door I will just point out that the existing side facade material is stucco it is and I think that's why the applicant was choosing to just restco everything well also because it'll essentially be a party wall yeah when the other building's built in my opinion it could just simply be some some line it doesn't have to change in color it just should show show just indicate where the old building was in some type of relief or an inise or something like that okay to honor the existing structure that might help I agree yeah okay like a just a a relief line within the stco I'm sorry or relief line in the stco of the okay that would be great it's good good suggestion okay all right any additional questions for staff any additional questions for the applicant do we feel like this is something we can approve yeah um maybe just go over exactly what the conditions would be sure so in the staff report we have more or less are standard conditions however the first condition on the staff report reads no portion of the roof deck or accessories um umbrellas vegetation Etc shall be visible from the public right of way any portion of the roof deck Andor accessories or if any portion of the roof deck or accessories are visible this approval shall be considered null and void and subject to zoning violations I would like to amend that resol that uh condition in here and I'll just add in rooftop addition roof deck and accessories right I think that covers Us on some of the height concerns um everything else is a standard condition um what about the parit wall I I will get there I'm sorry it's okay um and then we also have conditions that were discussed um the first would be to um reduce the rooftop Edition height by 2 in um that the HPC recommends that the planning board deny 88 Bright Street if the zoning board does not approve 90 Bright Street just want to make the distinction that planning board is not reviewing both projects zoning board is reviewing 90 planning board is reviewing 88 did we definitely know the other one is going first before this based on the scheduling for planning board yes um I think planning board right now might be scheduling into October wow and Zoning Board is not having the same quite backup um but that is an excellent point I was going to bring that up is that that's that does make it a little tricky and in terms of if something happens but um not something that any of you have to be concerned about to be honest um that the roof deck parapet shall be changed to a railing and that the applicant shall add a relief line to the side facade facing 90 bright sha Bright Street to indicate original building outline okay um if we just because this is up if we wanted to add an additional condition just because the rendering is inaccurate in terms of the coloring of the water table and stoop we could also just add a condition just that just says um the the proposed color for the water table and stoop shall be classic Brown yeah and I was just going to ask about that do we want that are we should we want that painted I mean if it's it's currently painted okay can we just go over the color of the stucco for the side the lot line not sure if that's rendered accurately or not also we have the Hardy is that it's not the stuer I think this is the stuer the second one down there it's always so light reflect so much light right I don't think we have the uh a stco sample it said so the panel there's a note on here that says the second will match sorry we will match this panel so then I guess I'm wondering if you know we're grappling with this potential facade being visible the potentiality that this facade could become visible if the other building isn't built which we know is not extremely likely but possible should we think about a different color for the St e in the event that it is visible do we have the photo of what it is now yeah looks like a gray now yeah you can just see a little bit of it do you have a suggestion I mean maybe just something that darker or warmer that goes with the brick or the corn and not such a stark like color I didn't know if it was like a rendering issue like with the stoop yeah and during our our site visits it's I mean it looks not great it's it's like a concrete that's painted in person it looks a little bit more yellow but um you know we're we're happy to agree at whatever if the classic Brown board feeli is I mean I just think even though it's a slim chance it would soften the effect if if need be and and the condition can also you know if if it's visible that you know staff approves the final stucco color yeah that works for me all right the applicant shall work with HPC staff to determine final stucco color on the facade facing 90 Bright Street if it is visible I don't even want to add if it's visible in there because if we're doing that it's it's it's implied that it's ible okay uh yeah so all of those conditions would be acceptable to the applicant okay okay right any other questions for staff or does anyone want to make a motion I'll do the motion okay the again the recommendation is to approve a COA and make a recommendation for approval to the planning board with conditions so motion with approval and conditions okay is there a second second all right commissioner gria and commissioner Cronin all right uh commissioner griga I commissioner Gunther hi commissioner blazak I commissioner Cronin I okay commissioner amuso is absent commissioner samp is recused commissioner sakong is absent Vice chair Garda I and thank you for accommodating some of our concerns and chairman Gordon I right there's six in favor none against and no extensions the COA and recommendation to the planning board is approved thank you all have a good evening you too thank you uh suggestion with made a big difference want to take five minutes or just power through do you want uh do you want to take a break or are you okay yeah okay let's let's power through I think we'll be okay all right so I am moving into new business and uh we have the uh return of commissioner s cam welcome back to the day um and I'm calling case h24 d147 applicant Tom L Esquire on behalf of 1292 Hancock LLC owner the address is 94 wne Street in the vanor park historic district this application is for a certificate of appropriateness for interior Renovations and a proposed roof deck at an altered contributing transitional neog GRE townhouse built circuit 1875 sorry trying to find the right one yeah there's a whole mess of dongle inputs no that sorry that good let's see sometimes it dangerous they do to be there for there we go you be the best husband ever uh good evening Commissioners for the record Tom lean of conell Foley here on behalf of 1292 Hancock LLC who is the owner of 94 Wayne Street uh as mentioned this is an application for a certificate of appropriateness uh seeking approval for um or seeking a certificate for uh a proposed roof deck and interior Renovations uh we only have one witness it's Barry wood uh who is our architect he has not appeared before this board before so I will ask that he be qualified uh we have to SAR wear in first oh yes I do Barry W wood uh Mr wood if you wouldn't mind giving the board the benefit of your qualifications um I've been a licensed architect since 1999 um in three States including new Jersey and your license is uh up to date is current yes okay and the plans that were submitted to the board were prepared by yourself yes sir okay could you please run the board through the proposed Renovations and addition recommends that the chair accept uh Mr Wood's qualifications as an expert in the field of architecture thank you so accepted uh this proposal is to add a roof deck um to The Brownstone um you can see on on this title sheet the existing roof on the right hand side and the additional roof deck um if I move forward to uh first to a301 you can see the sight line from across the street the roof deck and the stair bulkhead um from the fourth floor are um not in that sight line uh is it possible for you to make it full screen I didn't bring my glasses I would love to but my trackpad is not working okay if if there's a keyed thing for me to do that I certainly would if anyone happens to know that key stroke my apologies uh so here's a larger um drawing of the of the roof deck um with a 10 foot setb in the rear um and a 12T setback from the cornice um all of the materials are composite um and uh the the stair bulk head um has a stucco finish um which we had submitted which matches the front facade of the building by the way maybe try control command command control F yeah command control F there you go boom nice thank you look at us technology wizzes sure here you do all of the skylights are existing so this is no there's no visibility of this roof deck from anywhere correct no you guys have any material samples you want to show the board uh just the one that we had submitted yeah the Commissioners haven't seen that so yeah Mr wood before I pass this around would you uh please describe what this material is and where will be located on the building that is a uh stucco finish that is on the stair bulkhead the decking material is it you said it was a composite um yes um this is the material it's a tile Tech um just the rear safety railing but the screen around this deck is also a composite that safety railing is for the purposes of the compressors in the back for maintenance only and and they're the existing fire escape probably should have a safety rail next to it and it doesn't so Sten mic you got to put your mic on you got to put your mic on you have to turn your mic on my apologies the uh is it a six foot high fence that you're putting around the area the roof deck it's 5 foot high and then the safety rail is is 42 in high why such a high railing the safety rail you're enclosing the deck with a railing correct uh no it's a screen it's a full full planked screen that's 5T tall yeah that's just unusual we've never I've never seen that before presented it's usually I know it's not seen from the public right away but usually it's just a safety railing never seen a 5 foot high fence I I the intention was this will be the first roof deck on this block mhm um and looking at all the roofs I thought if these were all just railings in between that it would then kind of seem like not privacy um so that's that's why we had wanted to do that and and understood that that the screen has to be finished on the outside as well okay thank you uh Maggie do we normally get these applications when there's no visibility yep every roof deck comes to the HPC because that's what the ordinance says that any rooftop Edition has to go to the HPC something we can discuss at a later date when we uh get to those guidelines public comment okay uh so does that conclude your testimony great uh if there are any members of the public present who would like to comment on this application please approach the public mic St 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 moving on to staff comments um this is very standard uh consistent with sector interior standards um the proposed roof deck is also consistent with similar roof decks that we see throughout the historic districts and the the commission has approved in the past uh staff's opinion is that it will not not cause an adverse effect on the character or Integrity of the resource uh for the van Bor Park historic district um so staff recommends approval with our standard conditions um and just for the record we are in receipt of staff's uh July 15th memo with the conditions there in and they are acceptable to my client do you guys have any questions for staff I'll make a motion to approve with the conditions as set forth second okay we'll do a roll callot commissioner s Camp I commissioner Gunther hi commissioner blazak hi commissioner Cronin I commissioner griga I uh commissioner amuso is absent commissioner sakong is absent Vice chair Garda I and chairman Gordon I right there's seven votes in favor none against with no extensions the COA with conditions is approved thank you thanks guys you're welcome all right moving down on the agenda as we state ated in announcements both 9B which is 2624 JFK that is carried to a date uncertain 9 C uh propos the review and recommendation of the proposed amendments to the local Landmark designation standards also carried that is carried to the August HPC meeting I have no update on the tabled case our table demolition review 384 Communipaw Avenue is also carried to the August HPC meeting at the applicant's request any questions on any that cool we have no resolutions to introduce or discuss no resolutions to memorialize we do not need an executive session so that just leaves us with adjournment motion to adjourn second all right it is 750 all in favor meeting aded