##VIDEO ID:Cu18UvDSRV8## [Music] if not staff recommends a motion to approve motion second okay do a roll call vote on these commissioner San Camp I commissioner sakong I commissioner Cronin abstain wasn't here commissioner amuza I uh commissioner gri is absent commissioner Gunther's absent commissioner blac's absent uh Vice chair giarda I and chairman Gordon I right there are five votes in favor none against with one exstension the minutes from August 12th are approved correspondence all copies of Correspondence and related application materials are linked on tonight's agenda announcements so we do have a couple announcements just in regards to cases that have carried this evening um case 8 a h-23 0126 has requested to carry to the October 21st regular meeting and then for demos case 11c 169 to 179 Palisade AV has requested to carry to the October meeting 11d 116 Magnolia AV has requested to carry to the October HPC meeting case 11e the Morris CA and crr um there's no legal address for that that's why that's written like that um has requested to carry to the October HPC meeting and then in 11b which is is the carry demolition cases um 384 Communipaw has once again requested to carry to the October 21st meeting so we are only just to for clarity's sake we are only hearing demolition cases 11a and 11b tonight the rest of the demolition cases have been carried to the October regular meeting any questions on any of that cool right if there are any members of the public in attendance who would like to speak regarding matters of historic preservation that are not on tonight's agenda again this is for not on tonight's agenda um please approach the public comment mic staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comments motion second all in favor I okay we have no old business on tonight's agenda because the case a day carried so that gives us just new business Robert if you'd like to call the first case yes thank you Maggie I'll call case H-24 d015 1 the applicant is Christen Hopkins CLE ra on behalf of Christina Vu and Patrick Fox owners the address is 63 Bright Street in the vanvorst park historic district the application is for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a three-story rear addition not visible from the public right of way facade restoration and interior Renovations at a contributing altered three-story italianate influenced Greek Revival masonry Ro house built Circa 1860 all right Chris where you in can you raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony that you're about to provide is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth may you please spell and state your name for the record sure my name is Christ Hopkins I thank you and if you could just make sure that you're speaking into the mic I think you have to turn the mic on there's like a tap button you'll see it just says push but it's really a tap and as long as the green light is on you're good all right can you guys hear me perfect thank you um all right so um 63 Bright Street the front facade has not been taken care for quite some time so the homeowners are going to um I actually met with Dan on site uh for several hours to kind of go through how we could um maintain what's there and also repair what's there or restore um but the real part of the project that's in question is the full height Edition at the back so um here are some elevations of what we plan to do um again we're um aligning with the adjacent properties both properties um on either side have already had uh additions um some multiple additions over the years so um what we're doing is um we are aligning with the project on the right side um for the height and we are uh aligning with the um the property to the left um as coming out for 19 19 foot6 from the existing property um and then you can kind of see let me go back to the existing property so this is the um exterior facade as it is right now um in the rear um you can see this is um an addition on both sides here so in um in the back what we're doing is we're actually doing stucco um and uh we're doing uh warm hold on let me just we're doing a kind of warm light color um stucco on that back it um does kind of follow with some of the other properties along that area and then it's very much uh relative to the block plan lots of the existing homes in this area are all um added onto a fair amount we are doing U Marvin Elevate windows in the back on the back property here um let me just talk through this so we're adding um Windows all along the kitchen back here um they're all Marvin Elevate and then a Marvin Elevate uh slider at the bottom and in the front we're following all the historic Protocols of having the SPC 26 brick um molding we are um like I said we're removing all the paint and actually going down to the original um lentils and Sills and also uh replacing uh completely replacing and actually opening up the front doorway um as it was already been filled in over over the years so and then we are trying to um restore all the brick and repoint um as needed so let me go back to this sheet that kind of shows you the elevations which I'm sure you guys are most interested in a condition of the existing uh stairs and railings the front um stairs and railing will be also uh restored okay so could you give us some details about how you're restoring them are you are you are you recating the stairs with Brownstone material we we are we're cutting we're cutting back the stone and then all the steps will be um they will be um so like this the side the front let me see if I can show you what the current condition is because on each side of the stair it's actually a different condition let me see if I can show you so we're repointing brick on one side um let me go here uh do I not have so what you can't see is this side is actually brick on um on the stairs here and then this is actually going to be um a the brown stones are going to be Reco here so they don't actually have the same condition on both sides but I talked to Dan and we kind of went through what was the right thing to do there um I'm sorry I don't have that side but then this entire area here will be kind of chi back there's some water infiltration but we think that we can kind of keep what's there and and restore instead of um we're not taking it down and replacing the railing and the gate are actually not being um taken down we are scraping um and then repainting uh with uh like the black Iron paint because it's actually in pretty decent condition there's not a a terrible amount of rust or anything and then we are also uh the gate is kind of um has leaned over time so we are putting new um new posts in that back to help support that is the gate on the window the iron work on the window remaining or coming off um that was going to come off mhm yeah great that's great glad to hear it and you mentioned I'm sure I'm I'm not familiar with s26 it's just the brick mold that we add to the um Marvin ultimate Windows okay because it's more it's more of the ER in historic okay rather than going with the stock brick mold that they provide right okay great thank you will there be any green space in the front yes we are adding some let me go to the um we couldn't actually meet the requirement um but we did as much as we possibly could again I reviewed this with Dan just because we have the steps down and so we're actually adding uh 38 squ feet in this front area so it's more than what was there right now there's a lot of mold on um on Stone but um but or um so you know there's even though it's north facing we can get some great and your color scheme for the front just curious about what you've chosen yes let me see let's go back here um so we're actually uh recoding with this uh with this middle Brownstone color here and then um any accents like the uh the window trim and part of the corice will have the Newberry Port blue the adjacent properties both uh have some of the blue in it so we felt like it was kind of um cohesive and then um also trying to you know do the Brownstone as much as possible like on the water table we're hoping to restore the brick and actually not coat this bottom piece there's uh there's actually the second layer of the brick is actually in really good condition so we're going to try to you know pull push and pull some of the in interior together and you did say the rear facade was stuck oh in that uh a warm a warm gray cream kind of that grayish kind of color thank you mhm do you have the spec of the um the light fixtures the two light fixtures on the front I somewhere in here let me see I submitted them hold on I think they're here looks like I may have submitted them and not have them in the drawing um I do not have the specs on me I think it's there yeah just see one more time 19 what did I do yeah they're not in the drawings I think I submitted them separately which okay if it's not one I don't recall if it was one of the exhibits but if it's not we can just make sure that's a condition can you just describe it would be like the the typical lantern downcast lights that um like there's a Rejuvenation one I I typically use um what what color it it would be black black mhm or the oil red bronze um because they are doing more of the Brownstone and blue so and um in on the existing facade sort of right in that middle Zone I I can't quite figure out what that what that pimple is is that oh it's being removed it's it's like a speaker kind of thing okay so that's just there been a lot of additive okay features um but like everything like the um the they will be replacing psng with um they'll be upgrading amps and all that stuff so we'll get the meters off the front of the house as oh that's great that's excellent thank you okay are there any other questions comments anything else you want to add no I think that's okay um I think we can safely move to public comment if there any members of the public present who would like to speak regarding this application you can approach the public comment mic staff sees none and recommends a motion to open and close public comment motion second all in favor I I okay we can move into staff comments um as Kristen mentioned Dan has been working primarily with the applicant on this but I'm going to cover this application for him tonight um the staff report is very straightforward uh we are recommending approval of this project with conditions the conditions in the staff report are pretty standard conditions um number two is a one that is additive in this case um that the Dan is recommending vibration and crack monitors be installed on adjacent buildings during construction due to the age of these buildings um and then we have the condition brought up during testimony that the applicant shall submit specifications for all exterior light fixtures at the time of construction documents anyone else have any conditions that they would like to see included on this not a condition necessarily but um did we have a material sample board I believe it was is it they're kind of interspersed throughout the plans I don't think we have hard copy samples right no hard copy okay um so we do have let's see if Dan put that condition in here um so in condition three it does say material submissions not submitted to the HPC at this time um should be submitted um at the time of construction documents so we can collect those material samples at the time of CDs and review them to confirm that they match with what's on those plans okay that sounds good what we did all through Co yeah I think we're just um still transitioning back to being in person yep okay thank you no problem Kristen are you okay with those conditions great okay again staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions if anyone wants to make a motion I'll make a to approve with conditions second okay do a roll call vote commissioner seong I commissioner Cronin I commissioner amuza I commissioner San Camp I commissioner griga is absent commissioner Gunther's absent commissioner blazak is absent Vice chair guiard hi and chairman Gordon hi right there's six votes in favor none against with no extensions the COA is granted thank you everyone thank you all [Applause] right yep I'll go ahead and call the next case which is case H22 d561 the applicant is Steven Joseph Esquire on behalf of big Elm LLC owner the address is 3358 Street in the the Hamilton Park historic district the application is for a certificate of appropriateness for interior renovation facade restoration and a proposed roof deck above the rear attached garage visible from the public RightWay and an altered contributing frame and masonry Italian 8 Corner Row House constructed Circa 1885 good evening everybody Stephen Joseph of quickly try for the applicant um this is a full renovation of this building but there's no site plan approval associated with this there's no um variances so there'll be no planning or zoning board it's just before the HPC this evening um let's get our Architects sworn in and when we get up to the materials I'll I'll walk around with the material board it's a little heavy so I could help out with that hello good evening can you my monitor is not pulling up here yeah let's get you sworn first then we'll work on Michael will come down work on the te can you raise your right hand to be sworn please do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes can you spell and state your name for the record Andre corz a n d r e s c o r t s thank you thank you sorry you're good I can use that come thanks I know hi all right still let me try this there we go should be coming up there perfect okay have you testified before this board in the past I have it's been a while and your uh your license is current in good standing this evening yes and maybe just remind the board of your uh just your credentials a little bit school and years of practice sure I'm a licensed architect in New Jersey JY been practicing since 2007 does the board accept uh Andre's qualifications uh we do thank you thank you all right once you walk us through the plans okay great so this home is on the corner of 8th Street in Monmouth I suspect many of you have seen it through the years uh it's been in pretty bad disrepair for a while um and we uh purchased it about a year and a half ago uh the intent is to do a pretty comprehensive and loyal sort of restoration here uh to make it uh align better with uh the rest of the street most of the homes have been or many of the homes are in good condition there and and we did do one home there a couple years ago on the same street so from a use point of view it's it's a two family currently and it'll be a one family family okay it's a small home you know we're not proposing any enlargement of any kind really the the the time that we've spent with Michael and Maggie the last few months has been uh focused around getting the right um language design language in place uh to be consistent with what is historically appropriate um so just some close-up photos of the existing conditions it's all really you know it doesn't seem like there's going to be much to um maintain we'll see once we remove this aluminum cap that's on the corners you know what what might be hiding behind there uh but there's a lot of water damage throughout and at the inside also and uh you know the previous owner wasn't able to keep it up it didn't seem for a long time so uh you know these are all the existing sort of condition photos uh we had initially when we submitted the initial filings kind of been modeling the uh restoration modeled off of the home directly across the street on the other Corner although I think we were steered a little bit away from that in some ways cuz it wasn't you know accurate so hopefully we've gotten closer to uh to what we're supposed to do here um you know from a site plan point of view if I uh go there here sort of we see the existing site plan on top of the page and the proposed I think the one of the key things probably is that uh we'd like to have a roof Tech here at top the garage there is no uh Green Space on the property outdoor space so just to make it a a usable space for the new users and uh we're aware that there are to be no visible elements from the public right of way so we're not proposing anything there that would um you know do so encroach into that sideline okay from a scale point of view there's you know again we're not changing the scale so the the massing is the same I would point out that the existing sorry let me make sure I'm looking at the right elevation so the existing home immediately to our right what I guess what is 335 and a half e does have a one-story Edition on there and that is visible from public right away and you know for a while we wondered about doing something there that would match that and we were uh ultimately decided not to do that or to try for that okay um we did produce this colored illustration of uh you know what we're proping to proposing to deploy here uh there's a lot of side evidence you know on the street with the ornamented uh porch detailing and the ballustrade uh for from a material point of view it's all intended to be wood painted wood um and we're looking to expose that lower um floor to the original brick and nice mahogany door and lesson learned from previous project it'll be wood steps even though I think you know other materials might be more durable but anyway we'll we we're proposing to do that as a wood steps and all new wood windows let me just move to the detail sheets here and here we spent bit of time developing these details with Michael's help in terms of the the language for the the Portico and all the other the garage garage U Recreations and so forth here's the laps and that would be that's sort of a summary of what we're looking to do I'm going to walk around what is this rough surface so Andre if you can maybe talk us to the material board there's a question from the Commissioners about the why the surface on the W is rough um it is going to be smooth cedar siding I think we we just ask for Cedar and it won't be a rough uh finish siding okay yeah I just want we just ask for Cedar sorry about that and the the piece of blue of of stone what is that for that that's blue stone um we we had uh I think we were looking at the pavers on the rear deck at being some kind you wouldn't see it and then I did not in the conditions that were we to do any work within the area way we would have to work with you further if we did do any work in the area way it would be blue stone as well but the the sidewalk is been recently done it's all that you know that darker gray uh concrete finish yeah okay yeah so on on on the material board you see the the roofing material the aluminum material for the um or the sorry the steel with the painted steel railing material will be at the front and then the two tones of Grays are just the uh the corner gray is different than the horizontal sightings a little bit of a slightly different tone I think the nice thing about the street over here is because there's so much different sort of tonality across the street you could do something that's you know a little bit there's a broader bandwidth from a color point of view on the um the uh the uh open space above the garage the usable uh Terrace or whatever you're calling it word's not coming to me is is that a knee wall in play there um it would be railing height so let me see if I can show a section that explains that I see it okay that that's that's what I needed to see that there wasn't going to be a railing to uh above that and there isn't one so I'm happy to see that thank you okay you just um speak to the window configuration because it appears to deviate from the 1937 tax photo so the let's see maybe we'll walk around the building unless there was a specific facade you had in mind yeah the the primary facade um I think you're proposing to over two and and the photo looks like 4 over4 let's see or maybe I need my glasses yeah um so so it's two over two right it looks like two over two um are the windows longer in the original uh photo do I I was curious as whether any of these step down longer on the facades no The Parlor level they're at the floor I think oh at The Parlor level yeah at the LEL are youning not proposing that you look at The Parting Sash on the 38 photograph on the two side by side buildings you'll note they're in the same place and you can clearly see that The Parting Sash on the adjacent building to the right goes to the deck of the okay good catch uh had not noticed that I is there a have you done any demolition on the the outside of that area of the of the building not well I don't know I haven't noticed this on the inside there is some open wall on the inside um I could but but yeah no I I see I think commissioner Sand comp's Point is probably true I don't know I really don't yeah so per perhaps once you get into the construction some more evidence may be revealed about the True Dimensions of the of the windows and whether it was just covered over filled in and maybe that's something we work with with staffon as we as we get into it right we can just add that as a condition yeah okay side window yeah well right it's a good point that just the the side window at the corner doesn't appear to be full height but yeah the the sash line is different you can see that it's actually a longer window on the porch right yeah the sash the sash matches the the windows match onto the house to the right the sash is in the same place and their Windows do go to the porch mhm am I the only one uh who sees brick in this photo um there were brick asphalt shingles on the house oh that's a street I grew up on so I'm very familiar it used to have uh those brick asphalt shingles oh wow oh we wouldn't want that um can you also speak to the um East Elevation sort of I don't object to the addition of Windows necessarily I'm just wondering if you can sort of speak to how you decided the number and placement of them I think you know we did want to bring some order um to to that elevation let me see if I go to that sheet so there were only two yeah and is that is six I think there was only one in the original oh you right been only one right near the the front the yeah so this is on the bottom is the proposed on the top is the existing mhm um we did key off a bit from the house across the street in terms of the number of penetration M there and just want to sort of rationalize this it is a nice unique thing about Corner buildings that you can have light on three sides it's unusual for town houses uh but it is consistent with sort of the you know the local vernacular for Corner homes it just improves the quality of the spaces at the inside and I think it brings an order to the facade completely um out of those six um how many are bedroom windows uh the bedrooms are on the top floor mhm um the far right and the far left mhm and then there's one uh two bed two bedroom windows on the lower floor and then in the on the Parlor The Parlor is a kitchen and living area thank you are you um working with the existing openings on that facade or or are you altering the dimensions the so the these two existing Windows here I guess where we had the E for existing we we're keeping that same Dimension okay and then that dictated how the other openings should be created yeah I had the one Andre I had a question about the front facade and how the gutter is being addressed The Gutter and leader on the right side okay here we go so look there go so the the the main roof gutter at the the main roof would discharge at the rear in the back right but the porch does need a down spout right right I think you have it in your color rendering you actually have the detail yeah so is that off of a Yankee gutter well it's not a Yan my understanding Yankee gutters is that they're concealed gutters um this is not a concealed gutter so it would be but we are putting it to the inside at the demising wall to the adjacent property as opposed to on the corner side because it's less visible on that side so is there a gutter across the front of the facade oh I see what you mean um it would be a surface mounted cutter I see so let me see if I would draw it right you would see essentially a gutter like that right right that's was my concern is that I don't know how the other properties in a row are handling I don't know if they are are they also doing the same thing everybody has surface mounted gutters okay there you go I have the expert right next know the and each each um each two houses share the roof gutter from the porch right okay okay thank you anyone else have any questions comments want to review anything okay Andre is there anything else you want to add Stephen no thank you no that concludes direct testimony okay if there are any members of the public present who would like to comment on this application please approach the public comment mic staff sees no members of the public presid um and recommends a motion to open and close public comment motion second all in favor I I so moving on to staff comments um HPC finds staff finds the application to be mostly consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic preservation uh the facade restoration appears to be appropr and consistent um with the downtown historic district guidelines uh the proposed window fenestration on the side and rear um facades match existing pattern on the building as well as uh are consistent with fenestration patterns seen uh really throughout the district um and in HPC staff's opinion will not cause an adverse effect uh Additionally the garage proposed um alterations including the slight addition and roof deck um above the garage appear to be consistent uh with the existing block Paradigm and the development patterns of the area the proposed roof deck is consistent with similar roof decks throughout the historic district um HBC staff notes that the curb cut is legal uh that leads into the driveway per a submitted letter from the zoning officer um in HPC staff's opinion the proposed the project as proposed will not cause an adverse effect on the character or Integrity of the historic resources or the Hamilton Park historic district um so HBC staff recommends approval um of the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions uh one of which being added now the applicant shall work with staff to adjust the front facade Windows to match the historic evidence um and then most of the other conditions are are standard conditions except for the first three um we have that they will do all restoration work per the guidelines uh based by Historic Site evidence uh that includes some exploratory demo um and that they shall notify HPC staff and schedule a site visit if necessary of any changes or differences to the approved plans at the time of exploratory demo uh the second one is if any work is proposed for the front yard area except for the fence restoration um which is included in this application an application for review will be submitted to the staff uh that's because most of that outside of the property is actually outside of their property line so that will require a franchise and and stuff like that um the applicant shall submit window and Shop draw uh sh door shop drawings to the HBC staff for review and approval prior to purchase uh manufacturer and installation and then the rest are just our standard conditions I have a I have one last question though um will you be keeping the exterior Garden space and will you be planting any trees on the east side of the house any uh it's it's all grass now I think the intent would be that it could be a nice planting area MH yeah there's no heartscape that we would propose there great thanks also also um on the garden level masonry do you have any um conditions for the mortar um should be that should be submitted I think yeah so I think that that's color submission yeah so I think that's all covered by um number five details specifications and material submissions not currently submitted to and approved by the HPC under this certificate of appropriateness or change during the for construction are remanded back to the HBC um and all that will be on their construction documents that that we will review great all right so uh just for the record the applicant is in receipt of the memorandum the staff report dated September 13 2024 I believe there's 10 conditions approval on there which have been reviewed and accepted plus the condition which we added this evening uh regarding enlarging the windows on the Parlor level based on site evidence as as we do some exploratory demolition and those are acceptable to the applicant great okay so once again uh HPC staff um recommends a motion to approve with the stated conditions um do we have a motion I'll make a motion to approve the stated conditions okay second uh we'll take a roll call vote um uzo I samp hi sakong I and and I just want to make a note of saying thank you for the thoroughness um of the application and the the physical material boards it was a very helpful and easy to follow thank you submission um commissioner griga is absent commissioner Gunther is option and commissioner blazak is option uh commissioner Cronin I Vice chair gucciardo I and chair Gordon I we have we have six in favor zero in a zero extensions um this motion passes thank you all good luck with the project thank you good luck all right uh I'll Now call case h-23 d188 the applicant again Steph Joseph this time on behalf of 445 Jersey Avenue SPC owner the address is 445 Jersey Avenue in the vanv park historic district this application is for a certificate of appropriateness for the conversion of the former St Mark's Church an altered contributing building constructed in 1888 and rectory building into residential units with work including but not limited to site work interior Renovations facade restoration and second floor Edition visible from the public RightWay this is a recommendation to the Jersey City Zoning Board of adjustment all right good evening everyone Stephen Joseph again for castano quickly trami um 445 Jersey Avenue this is a exciting project for the whole team to work on um we spent a a lot of time on this and we're going to be spending a lot of time on this um it's a it's a house of worship there's a accessory building to the house of worship and it's being converted into um apartment building 10 dwelling units approximately 23,600 sare ft of gross floor area um this is a major site plan approval and it also has a series of variances there's a use variance a rear yard setback variance building coverage lot coverage uh and parking typically do see these sorts of variances with existing buildings especially uh houses of worship being converted into residential um will is here this evening to show you the plans walk you through some of the choices that were made here um and and get some of your feedback so let's get will sworn in thanks s can you raise your right hand to be sworn do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to provide is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do can you spell and state your name for the record please sure it's William wenman last name is spelled w e c k e n m a NN thank you thank you will can you confirm your license is current in good standing this evening yes it is and uh will appeared before this boort many times and then also very recently I would ask the board to accept its qualifications yep so accepted thank you great thank you thank you thanks Steve um thank you for your time this evening um Steve mentioned this is a this is a really nice project uh something that we're really excited about and it's been a long road getting here and we're definitely happy to be here tonight to present this project to you um so uh as as was previously mentioned um this is the Adaptive reuse um of the existing church building at 445 Jersey Avenue um for reference purposes we have the um tax photograph uh on the left as well as a current photograph to the right um as you can see much of the uh historic facade for both buildings is still intact um we do have some minor alterations to the window openings um on the rectory building uh as well as a replacement of the um the main entry door to the sanctuary uh there's also a fence in front of the building uh which which is also not historic um so uh just gives you a little bit of context for for the proposed improvements I'll uh quickly just go through the existing and proposed site plan to um explain a little bit about the project and how we're approaching this um the the current building consists of four uh individual buildings or additions that were constructed over the years um the main sanctuary is almost 100% lot coverage um in the middle of the block uh which which poses some interesting challenges because um most houses of worship have large windows they're easy to convert into Apartments um but as you can see here uh excuse me the uh the buildings are right up against the adjacent uh tow houses as well as the the rectory building to the South um uh you'll notice that both buildings are also built right up to the the rear property line um the the rectory building consists of three components there's a three-story masonry building uh at the at the front of the the property which faces onto Jersey Avenue and then there's also a one and a half story twostory um masonry building along the the rear lot line um sorry apologies for keep hitting these by accident um and then the the third segment of the building is this one and a half story frame addition that that connects both of those um both of those buildings so what's also interesting is that this these buildings don't have there's no existing wall wall on the South Line south property line um they're built right up against the neighboring building so it's it's a little little funky here in terms of how these buildings are constructed wow so um what we're proposing for the project is um obviously our our typical site improvements we're replacing the sidewalk um and enlarging the tree pits uh we are also planning on installing some Landscaping along the the the front of the building uh to serve as a buffer um between the proposed residential units on the first floor and the street um the existing stairs and entrances along Jersey Avenue will be maintained um obviously um but what we're what we're proposing for the for the rear of the building is actually taking off um about was it 12T yeah a little over 12T fet or one Bay of the church to provide a a rear yard for the for the project and this serves a couple of different functions one it allows for Windows on the rear of the church where there currently are none um so it allows us to have units facing the the rear of the property um it also allows us to there's a there's an access easement uh that runs along the back of the property and that's for um egress purposes um so it allows that to be maintained and utilized as part of the completed project and that that um extends it's right here it's this dash line and that extends across the neighboring property out to the street out to Bright Street for the um the rectory building we are proposing maintaining the front masonry portion of the building um and then removing the the the rear building as well as that addition that connects the two the two pieces um and then we we are replacing that with a four-story um I guess you call it addition but it's it's sort of a new construction um but as I mentioned the historic uh the front-facing section of the building will be preserved uh um these are just some of our standard details I'll skip through these um but happy to go back if there's any questions on them um I'll also skip through the side by-side comparison of the floor plans um because I'll I'll touch on them in Greater detail as we go um so uh starting with the um the basement the the building has an existing sort of a crawl space it's about four and a half 5 feet tall it's filled with debris um and construction waste you know the usual kind of stuff that you would see dumped in a into a basement or a seller um of an older building So the plan is to remove all that and create a seller level for the project um we have enough head height where we can turn this into we can put all the utilities down there as well as bike storage and some amenity spaces for the residence um and this is accessed through um a small stair over here which is existing um so we're going to reuse that that entrance and uh um provide access to the um utility areas so as I mentioned previously um we are maintaining all of the existing door and window openings along the front of the church um as well as along the rectory building but one of the one of the um sort of interesting things about this project is that we're we're using instead of having the main access for the church for the building be through the through the church main entrance of the church we're having it come through the um uh the vest building so um we're and that's really a function of the way that the windows were we're working in in the church um you'll notice that um along the the north property line most of these windows are there are no windows so it made using that main entrance um a little bit of a challenge when it came to laying out these units so um what we're going with for the sanctuary portion of the building is a is a front and a rear orientation and then we have the the main entrance uh to the S on the side of the building here which is accessed through a central Courtyard which connects out to the street um and then we have a a a stair at the center of the of the sanctuary that extends up to the the Upper Floor units the um the the bester building um also has access off of that courtyard so it's a similar configuration the units are oriented to the front and the back with a central stair in in the middle um there are six units in the church and there are four units in the vest building um all of these units are duplexes um while the units in the church the exception of the um sorry I should say that it's a mix of of of units in the in the church so um on the ground floor we have um a duplex unit uh in the rear here we have another duplex unit that faces the rear on this side and then we have a a single unit towards um towards the front of the of the building and these are these are large large units large living rooms really nice living space um so moving on to the second floor uh the configuration is similar um we have a unit in the in the front of the sanctuary again nice large living room with you know these these original Windows here which are makes for a really really nice unique space um and then we have the two the upper level of both rear facing units um on the back here and then in the the vest building or the rectory we have the the upper level of those duplex Apartments um the the footprint of the bester building um steps back back as you go up and that allows for some outdoor space for the units um as well as um we have a number of lot line Windows along the neighboring building that we're maintaining so um the building opens up as it gets taller which you know is is great for for light and air purposes this is the third floor plan again the the rectory building building as we're calling it is the same configuration duplex lower level of the duplex front and back um but the um third floor in the sanctuary is actually up in the roof um you'll see when we get to the elevations there's a most of the volume of this project is within the roof line of the building so um we're utilizing that at the third floor level um the these two units also have um so how we're handling this is we're proposing uh Dormers within the existing roof line um and that allows for us to um set the volume of the of that of the living space back um and minimize the impact of it visually uh but also makes for allows us to get additional windows and uh into these units and these two units have uh private Terraces on the side where where the building steps back another interesting feature of these units is there's this existing it's a massive three story Gothic Arch that we're keeping um in the rear I I don't actually know what it does um other than look really cool um I'm sure it serves some sort of structural purpose but it's it's not it's not completely clear um when we did our survey uh but we are keeping this and maintaining it so that that top floor unit has this really cool massive Arch that separates the the living room from the from the kitchen space in the front of the building it's functional it's supports the uh the steeple at the front uh but this also has a very large Gothic Arch which will separate the living space from the kitchen in the dining area we are also using the um the Bell Tower or the steeple of the building as U like a bonus space or a den for that front-facing unit which I think again will also be a really cool unique space within the building um and then um adjacent to that in the rectory or vestri building we have the top floor of those duplex units um and this this is taller than the existing building so we've set the we've set this this portion of the building back so that it's it won't be visible from the street um this there is a very large tall parit that is will be that will remain um and that helps to block some of the views um I think you can see it on one of the sections which I'll get to later again I'm just going to skip through the side by-side elevation um so um this is the the primary facade um as I mentioned all the window openings are existing all the stained glass will will remain um the only opening that we're modifying is the existing door opening of the rectory of the rectory building and we're basically just lowering that sill so that we can provide um Ada access to those ground floor units um and we're also replacing it with a with a gate instead of a the stairs um instead of a typical a solid door here right so that's that'll be completely open um for the V building we're proposing repointing all the brick um and uh repairing the facade where required um we are also going to be replacing all the windows with 2 over two wood windows uh that match the historic configuration and as you can see here this is the uh addition which is set back from the from the parit for the for the church itself um there are existing uh this these door openings have the original wood uh wood frames um and original leting glass windows which will be remaining we are replacing the doors with a new wooden door um with a glass with a window uh again that's a that's a bedroom on the interior so um we're we're proposing a a glass door here just to get some additional light into that apartment um same thing on the opposite side for the um even though the the um main entry door has been replaced with a storefront um the existing uh the existing wood is still present so we're going to keep that repair it and then provide again matching doors um that that follow the um historic openings for the um stained glass windows which are remaining um we are proposing um an aluminum window as a um as a thermal window here and it to serve as uh protection for the stained glass typically we we would probably recommend we would specify a wood window um but in this case um there's there's no existing wood frame around these windows they're set directly within the M masonry so um we felt that introducing a a wood frame for those windows would be introducing a uh a new material that wasn't historically there um these aluminum windows are also extremely thin the profiles are extremely thin and these are all custom made to match the opening size so again compared to a wood window it's about a third of the thickness for the frame so um and I'll I'll show a photograph of these windows on a on a later slide but um we felt it was a better match for for this particular building sorry just uh so moving on to the rear elevation um one of the things that we wanted to do with the design of the rear of the building was to accentuate that that cut that that intervention that we're making by removing the back section of the building so um what we're proposing is an a thick aluminum frame that extends around the um uh the perimeter of the of the facade um it sort of frames frames the glass opening but it also again serves to accentuate the fact that this was this building was cut and the section of the back of the building was removed so um a lot of glass uh on this project but it's something that um relates to at least for the especially for the for the church building relates to what we're doing architecturally um this is the rear of the uh V building the addition um and again it follows that same that same language um although instead of framing it with a with an aluminum frame we're using a a masonry uh brick um as the uh complimenting material you can also see the um outline of those of the Dormers that I spoke about um they're they're fairly minimal it's a little bit hard to tell in this drawing but they are set back from the um from the roof Edge so this is uh this is the side elevation of the of the church uh South elevation so this is cut through um there's interesting cutting sections through this um this is cut through the building to show um what the exposed areas of the South facade how they will be treated so um this is also one of the this is really the only new mason opening that we're proposing on either the side elevations or the or the front elevation um and it's just to again to um serve as the main entrance to the building um we are proposing um wood windows for the um existing side windows um and we've gone with a more traditional um Style with regards to the how the The Divided lights and how those windows are working um in a couple of areas too we also have some outdoor Terraces and we're providing uh French doors to to access those those balconies um the addition uh on the at the roof level the the new Dormers that we're proposing um are are fairly simple we're using kind of a a board and Baton design here um for the uh for for the for the panels themselves and then we have a a a rectilinear um rectilinear window uh repeating window across the side um and the idea here was to do something that kind of mimics um what you would see on the sidewall of a church where you know there's individual openings that are more um that are more vertically oriented so but just done on a smaller scale um so you know you could take this this window let's say and then divide it into and so the the scale of the um the windows at the at the Dormer sort of reflective of the the proportions of what's Happening down below same thing is happening on the um North Side um it's a little bit simpler U because we don't have the the addition um again these windows are existing we're just replacing them with um with new wood windows and then the design of the uh the Dormer um is is the same as on the south side and you can see how that's this is situated with respect to the um the front facade and the rear facade so it's it's pulled back um roughly to the level of the of the the rear of the steeple here and again that's just kind of to reduce the bulk of of this addition when you see it from the Street um and also to kind of sort of works well with the way that the Living Spaces are designed um so here we have a sight line drawing this is taken uh at a slightly different this is cut at a slightly different location than the uh previous elevation so this looks a little funny because of how um because of where the cut is in plan so um but this is the the rear Edition um and then this volume here is the um uh front addition at the VRI building um and again just a sight line to see um how the the proposed fourth floor is working in relation to the existing parit um and its visibility from across the street and uh this uh this is the on the opposite side of the building looking looking South so similar similar exercise um again just to show how the visibility of the uh of these Dormers in relation to to the street um it will be visible it's just the nature of how these buildings um uh the height of the adjacent buildings relative to the height of this building um but we uh took efforts to to minimize that so it's it's obliquely visible um and then finally we have our um um material page here um showcasing our window colors um proposed Windows the bricks um as well as the color for the um uh the the wood material on the the front elevation um here are our typical uh window details um and what I'll highlight here is the um this is the what we're proposing for the stained glass um this is a little bit not not a it's a much larger window than than what we have on this project um but what you can see here is that the the sight lines of the of the frame are very small I mean it's almost invisible so again this is why we we went with um an aluminum window as compared to a wood window um in this instance finally um we have our proposed rendering um it's a little bit we didn't we eliminated the trees so you could see the building a little bit more clearly we also didn't model all the power lines and everything in front of the building um but it it gives you a sense of um what the addition will look like relative to um relative to the front facade as well as a little bit more information on you know how how we how this is this will look at the street level so um that concludes my uh testimony um happy to answer any questions and go through this um you you've talked a lot about materials uh one question that was standing out for me is how are you dealing with the roof materials are you replacing the roof on the project yeah the the roof is a it's currently an asphalt composition shingle and we're going to be replacing it with a um same material um and there's a steeple at the front how are you addressing that same thing the whole roof is has uh asphall shingles currently what might it have had uh in its original uh condition because I have a concern about that steeple being covered in Asphalt Shingle it doesn't seem appropriate sure that's a really good question I don't know what would have been there probably slate slate yeah and and likewise um since you're you're indicating that your Dormers are going to be seen from the public right away I also have concerns about the materials that will be used on those if indeed the commission uh accepts uh that that structure sure you um I think we would agree to um use a a slate or a slate um there's there's a number of different products out there that look like slate I think we would be agreeable to changing the material for the roof would you consider um reducing the size of the Dormers further back from the from the front facade so that they'd be less visible let me go back up to the plan um or not visible at all which would be ideal yeah um we do have a little bit of um wiggle room to reduce that um it seems like that from the quick review of the floor plans of what you're trying to accomplish it looks like you might have the ability to get them out of the public view sure we we can look and see what that what that would uh what that would look like and how it affects that top floor plan and on the public view discussion what about o from other other parts of the street is any of your project visible from anywhere else other than from the front facade sure let me go to the so um it it will be visible you know further down Jersey Avenue in either direction well um as as you go towards to the to the north and it's just a function of the fact that this building is taller than the than the surrounding buildings um so the roof will be visible um and also from York street is that a um can you see through from the um from the uh south side of York Street looks like that's open yards to the project y this is it will be visible through through the rear yards on York Street so so you know as a commiss I would like to see those views um that the one you mentioned from further down the street and then also what you'd be seeing from York Street sure just up telling after Comm um off of commissioner guo's comments um generally we as a commission have said that especially on adaptive reuse like this if if it's not visible from the primary facade from directly in front um there are many applications that you could find if you look historically that this commission have approved that had obliquely visible additions but primary no not from the primary facade directly in front of it sure and then I think also as Mr commissioner gucciardo said I'd like to see appropriate material on there and it may be may be metal doesn't have to be um syn thetic um slate it could be a metal material sure we'll uh we'll do a little bit of research on the roof and and also uh the treatment of the I would call it a rose window or oral window I just wanted to know a little bit more that about that and then I noted the louvers in on the tower um appears you're maintaining them are they going to be operative are they going to be hinged out so that someone there can operate them or are they going to be they're going to be fixed these these louvers are they're existing they're going to remain what we're proposing is putting a window behind the louvers fixed window behind the lures so um as far as uh views the then the other question was the rose window yeah so again we're treating it the same way as um the lower Windows MH um the only difference is it has this metal Grill in front of the window mhm um so we would would just put the window the protective window in front of that um and is that that was historic that that was original that grid um it's hard to tell see here if I have it what is that maybe yeah so um I guess uh Dan had indicated in a prior meeting with the client before we came on to the project that that that those grills were not original M so um we could certainly remove them if that's the preference if it looks like that it's not historic I guess I think Dan would be the person to find out um the other question was the treatment of I'm going to say the residual Foundation where you've removed the back of the building can you talk about that a little bit what you're going to do there because I think it might be more appropriate to leave some of that foundation so future um researchers can see aha this is where the building was interesting um we were planning on removing it in its entirety but um I mean as much as as you're using it as egis right um but um something that doesn't impede egis but still maintains some some sort of evidentiary kind of aspect to the building at that where that's been modified that's that's I didn't even think of that that's actually a really interesting idea especially because we're proposing a fence around the perimeter so it's a no-brainer it could be the base of your fence yeah right maybe cap it yeah yeah the the client really likes this idea and has some thoughts about how to treat this so yeah I just want to say that you know typically my instinct is always sort of to protect historic um uh materials and fabric but I I just want to take a moment to commend um the applicant for sort of a pretty ingenious uh reimagination of this structure I think especially it's you know the sort of entrance from the side through the vest building um not kind of sticking with the Nave um party um and and kind of slicing off the back even though it you know I I I struggled with it at first it it seems to me a very creative um solution especially if there is a way to kind of have uh remnants of the original structure kind of remain and and legible um I have a couple comments um and questions uh with that said that I think can improve um the design um so so first of all the Dormers I I I agree with my fellow Commissioners I think the less visible those Dormers are from the public right away I think the better I think M the materiality this the this the fiber cement boards feel off but not just the materiality I think the the the design language on them uh seem inappropriate as well right that you have this kind of like baton language and um it it it somehow doesn't I don't I don't think it does honor to the to the structure of stone and and heavy masonry that that the rest of the building sort of evokes um typically also when you have elements like that in traditional buildings there's a very strong sort of um geometric and Order relationship between the you know clar story openings and the larger openings below right now the two so your your two lines of Windows don't even align to each other let alone to the big window those below and I think there's just like one more study of of order and alignments and sort of geometric rigor that I think could really bring um bring those Dormers into a more I would say acceptable um configuration I you know that's a good comment in terms of materiality do you have any um I don't okay um but I I would suggest to you that somehow the the the fiber cement and Baton language evokes some something more like wood and I think either it wants to be you know modern like the like the rear slice um or something more differential some language of slate seems appropriate but I I I don't want to I don't want to kind of design by commission right like I I want to I want to just note my discomfort with how those Dormers are designed right now um I have I also have a um sort of question about the insertion of these aluminum protective layers aluminum glass protective layers in front of the stained glass um it looked from the drawings that those um the stain glass remains and then you have sort of the aluminum window in front but um when these are bedroom windows don't those windows have to be operable um interestingly no they don't with the um changes to the building code that have happened last year um these buildings are required to be mechanically ventilated got it so you don't have to open the window right correct so there's there's this requirement for mechanical ventilation that yeah I I I think I think that's interesting that's that's fortuitous the one I I will say the one thing that um I'm not saying I'm I'm I'm rejecting it or anything but something that again kind of I'm I get caught on is when you um when you bring forward the plane of glass as thin as it may be you're you're shortening the depth of shadow in the in the reading of the me masonary opening and especially if it's just kind of like a single light of glass in in front of what is normally a very textured modeled uneven stained glass plane it further flattens the the reading right so I don't know what the solution is um but that's just one of those things that I'm I'm I'm not as comfortable with either um and maybe finally um the in the rear facade like I said I think I think the reading of the architectural section is a smart one right it kind of maximizes glass in a in a otherwise constricted uh area um but the thing that that Mudd muddies that is these projecting balconies um that I think returns it back to a more conventional modern building language as opposed to cuz what you're trying to go for is this is not a you're not trying to say this is a a modern building you're trying to say this is what you get when you cut an old building right and I think the the cleaner that plane the the fewer ins and outs and and the fewer balconies I mean you know the upper bedrooms have the have the um dorm balcony so you don't need them and I think the lower ones too if if it's possible to eliminate them and and really just make that read as a clean plane I think it would in fact if you could even align the back of the V building right so that it aligns with the back of the church again kind of to reinforce the cut idea I think I think that would strengthen the the the design move yeah um and have have fewer fewer distracting elements I think that's that's a good good comment um we have no issue with removing the balconies anyway I'll I'll uh let my fellow Commissioners sway in it's a lot to digest and there's a um I would concur with a lot of what uh commissioner sakong said uh what is the color of the back of that building where the slice is made in the GL all that glass I wasn't even sure from your drawings what was glass and was what wasn't because of the way it was rendered it was hard to tell so could we review that a little bit further sure um I think we'd be happy to provide a a colored elevation of that or or rendering or something that helps illustrate this idea a little bit more clearly because I think what you might be hearing here is um kind of um more a a simplification of everything that you're doing to the building so that it's more cohesive it seems like there's a lot of different materials and a lot of different approaches in that often with historic buildings shows up as distractions and things that really really don't need to be there so if there's some way you can reduce the language of all those to something that's more common with each other I think that would be helpful especially on the Dormers I think the comments that were made are correct and I would I would suggest that they' not be seen at all it shouldn't be minimized but you have the opportunity there's no reason why they should be seen so why not hold to that um I thank you you have the uh rear facade up so is that is that glear uh is that glass from one side to the other straight across with some operating doors where you have balconies right yeah that's correct yeah okay I have that now that's um and then right now we have this as a as like a black or a gray uh for the for the cut um but admittedly color is one of those things that that's why I'm not an interior designer um so if if there's any comments on the on the color you know we're certainly happy to again with commissioner sakong said if it could read the color of the glass so that it feels like it's a slice and not this this this bordered shape around the glass in another color if you I know that's not easy to do because glass is reflective and all that but sure but it's something that I would study that to to to get that modern effect off the back of the building sure I I think that we can discuss that I I think that there's going to be um just because of the thickness of the wall um as well as the thickness of the roof assembly that this is going to be a somewhat substantial for sure um uh frame if you will so I I don't know if if glass doing it to match the glass would would work um but we we could certainly look at it I I think that from a from a uh architectural standpoint that there's really two things happening here there's the cut which is the thicker panel and then there's the infill which is the glass right so um I think we're highlighting we're trying to highlight both of those um right but that being that's that's right now metal and it's in segmented panels right it goes around you know well again I I don't want to get into designing it but I think it deserves it's a major architectural treatment on the building and it probably deserves a really excellent solution sure and like I said I think if it's helpful to have um u a rendering or something so that you can see the depth of this we could certainly provide that that would be helpful and the South facade where you have all those uh I I think they were arched windows and they had multiple pains I mean as many as 12 12 or 15 pains I think you're dividing the lights to that degree are those divided lights or those simulated divided lights or um I know these are not on the facade so you have a lot of leeway we're just curious how you're dealing with it um I mean typically we would do a simulated divided light simulated divided light with a spacer bar right um wouldn't be a true divided light right um expected that on the first floor does unit 5 bedroom 2 have a window five yeah so the these bedrooms have um uh doors the the side doors to the the the church are in those [Music] bedrooms so okay so no no natural source of light in there well there's um glazing within the door that we're proposing um that's one of the reasons why we we went back and forth with a few times on the design of the door um with Dan and whether or not glass was appropriate but given that this is a bedroom that there living spaces behind there um it it's would be really difficult to have these rooms with no no glazing so is the yard that's open from above yes um go back to the site plan oh okay I see yeah it's it's um this this the tower sticks out from the main sanctuary a little bit so those yards are the space between the property line and the um and the step back I see okay so that's um the door to the street okay um and I don't know if you may have addressed this earlier that um sign on the front facade the uh the church sign is that I I didn't see it on the existing elevation drawing is that consigned of the scrap peap I don't know if it doesn't look like something that has historic value but it's just curious no I think we we would remove it um perhaps there's creative way to repurpose it gra okay thanks okay thanks I have a question for the uh about the rectory building uh Gothic style windows in your rendering they show as red but it looks like they are squares in the what um Gothic shape Square Windows Red Square Windows in your um drawing of the completed project um we would do Gothic arches to to match the the profile of the window openings okay cu the rendering shows squares in the uh in the in the opening let me just make sure that's our intention let me just make sure it's shown correctly yeah these are okay um yeah these are it might be it just just might be an issue with the the way it's reading but that the intention is to do a uh Gothic Arch and the um the additional floor is also visible from the public right of way correct it's not from not from directly in front right but again it's because of the way that the buildings are situated and the step back that you kind would see it slightly from over here but as you can see see this the mass of it the roof line is hidden behind the behind the the parit again I would be S and what is the material that's covering the part that's seen from the public right of way um it's a fiber cement again the the additions are done with this same fiber cement material but if um we're going to be looking at a different material articulation for this and we'll apply it to to that addition as well okay great consistent um that would I think that would be helpful where are the mechanical units going um assuming you have condensers we have them sort of placed um along the the the roof um yeah divide or something Steve do you guys need a minute because we are technically around the time where we would normally take a break uh no okay that's fine just wanted to ask sorry could you point out where the mechan units would go yeah I'm sorry um so we have them sort of scattered throughout the the project um they're on the roof areas concealed by the parapets um a couple of them will be in the rear yard for those back units um can you point them out in plan yeah so the the units for for the V building yeah yeah this is only a three three story section here so all of that equipment will be tucked in yeah back behind there um the other units um sorry um we have them on The Terraces that are um off of the individual units um and then we also have some in the rear yard uh I don't believe they're all shown here I see so can you just confirm that none of them are going on any church roof surface or Dormer roof surface correct okay thank you or in any front yard or in any front yard importantly yes can you tell me the condition of the stained glass windows um they're in fair condition um they they seem to be they're all intact so we're not dealing with a situation where there's large number of missing Windows or missing panes um there's a ton of paint on them um we haven't done a full assessment of the windows um uh it's we just the reason I'm asking is because I see that the current um State they have protective probably um what's the word I'm looking for acrylic plexiglass in front of them and um one of my clients is a stained glass restoration person who restores most of the stained glass windows in all the churches in Manhattan and Brooklyn he gets some of the top jobs in in the area and he said one of the main reasons for the stained glass windows failing is because they've got plexiglass in front of them yeah and the heat that gets trapped in between causes the lead to start deflecting because they can't it can't uh withstand the heat that gets trapped in that little space sure so that was the reason why I'm asking if there was some other you know uh potentially putting the protective or glass behind so that the stained glass is open to the elements the way it was intended to be yeah I mean we could we could change the position of the protective glazing um in fact it might not be a bad idea to protect it on the inside um I will say though that the the windows that we're specifying they have um ventilation built in for that for that reason oh good so but there's there were other issues that were raised about it being on the outside it takes it and creates this flat plane uh it's reflective you really don't really see the the detail of the stained glass it it might be a good option and it is uh a practice in historic structures to put these um these um insulator panels on the inside sure yeah we we could we could certainly accommodate that we've thrown out a lot of ideas here how do we track them and want to make sure which ones you're good with and which ones you're not okay good thank you Maggie well I think they all notes as well I feel like I'm back in architecture school it's uh it's all good I mean I think I think they they Point towards all these comments at least in my mind Point towards a very exciting project that that you know I think all the comments were were reasonable and we're all good suggestions so you know we have no problem going back and spending some more time on on these areas can come and visit us again yes absolutely before the applicant steps away and goes back and everything and we carry this um I do just want to confirm that the because we've given the the applicant a ton of notes and changes for features on the building and how they're addressing certain things but this is a use variance to the zoning board I do want to confirm before we send them back and do all of this work that this is not like I'm not doing a straw poll I just want to confirm that the general consensus is that we are okay with the proposed use of this building before we send them back we can find a way forward absolutely absolutely would be good to hear what the variances are though so we they can run through that quickly Steve sure as we give you something to do uh yeah so so we do have a use variance here um what's technically permitted is a townhouse uh what we're proposing is a multif family so it's it it is residential um but it's it's technically not a townhouse um we are also proposing a rear yard setback variance um that's due to the nature of you know we have an existing building and and we are modifying that there is some demolition of the rectory building so that does create a a little bit of a discrepancy but it's largely existing so 30 FTS required we have uh 12.17 ft um we have existing non-conforming height there's a bunch of different heights with this building um obviously the the tower is far above what is permitted in the zone um building coverage and lock coverage uh both existing nonconforming um what we have uh being proposed is 81% 60% is what's permitted existing is more though so there's uh 96.4% is currently existing for building coverage we're reducing that so it's closer so most of the variances are existing already in the in in the condition of the building is not that you're asking for variances in addition that are increasing the density or the height or any of that that's correct with the exception of of the use variants um they're all existing right yeah and there's a parking variance parking would be we didn't talk about the parking at all how is that being accomplished we we not able to provide and you have nine units uh 10 10 un 10 units it's because you have 10 that you're required the parking right correct yeah and it's uh half the space per unit right you know and we see this um often whether it's in a historic district or adaptive reuse in a non-historic district you have an existing building that you want to preserve you can't put the parking on site and and even if it was off site it would still be a variance right understood okay all right the only other thing I'll say is that the the density is is actually even though we're asking for the use variants the density is below what's permitted so we're allowed 14 units here we're only doing 10 so um yeah if you calculate it as units per acre understood thank you for that review so this is going before zoning before it would return to us no no no we yeah the we've given the applicant a laundry list of items that we would like to see revised so I would recommend that we carry this to the next HBC meeting um and then and the applicant will work on addressing all of those items it'll come back to us before we make a recommendation to zoning board same as usual for most any of our zoning board applications I'll make that motion um I'm sorry do we want to open to public I'm not sure if anybody's here for this uh just in case there's additional comments yeah I mean sure um if are there any members of the public who would like to speak regarding this application okay staff sees no members of the public and recommends a motion to open and close public motion second J I'm going to revisit I I'll make the motion to carry to the next regularly scheduled hold on all in favor to open and close public comment I okay got you for the motion okay anyone want a second second okay all in favor I I I right sounds good and with that it's right around the time where we take a break so I would recommend that we take a short break before we finish out the agenda okay thank you very much thank you thank you all right it is 88:18 like 8:22 8:23 5 minutes are you good with that y okay we down with that I am ready if you guys are all ready I'm ready ready okay want to call us back to order did all right and call the meeting back to order it's 8:24 and moving to oh hold on I'm sorry let me just do uh tabled cases because that is in the way of the demos I always forget about those all right um so I have met with the people from Temple bethl they um do have they have retained a structural engineer they are working through um some calculations and they are going to be back before the HPC either next meeting or the meeting after it depends on how much space I have on that October meeting um and then the one on John uh the other one on Kennedy that new construction finally um set a date to meet with the community so hopefully that community meeting goes well and they will also be on the October meeting pending space and that's the update on table cases okay so moving to demolition review we're taking these out of order uh was it Maggie was it 223 yeah we're going to first move to uh 223 Palisade Avenue which is B-24 d134 okay so 223 Palisade Avenue I have this up on Google Maps just for us all to locate ourselves we are on the southern end of Palisade Avenue you can see we are just north of Christ Hospital in between Waverly and Jefferson this is the exterior of the building it's a 3 and 1 half story Manser roofed building the original porch intact when you review the um demo review so this building is in our master plan inventory it is in individually listed in the inventory it's also mentioned in the phase one survey um where they discuss not only the intact elements on the building but also um the maned shape in this case I'm going to bring up that front building we don't typically see a maner a of this slope B of the single uh window in the front most of the Manards in Jersey City that we're used to and I lost my second photo here are like the guy next door right where you have the double windows so it highlighted a couple of unique architectural features in addition to being in the master plan um here is the 1938 tax card photo right right where you can see the porch intact we did lose that upper cornice but aside from that the general design is intact we have materiality intact location intact setting is intact um so we do recomend commend that the board um recommend denial to the zoning officer there any questions from any Commissioners you are the applicants for this just thought you just wanted to hang around I mean at this point it's a typical Monday night for these guys um any questions from commissioners before I turn it over yeah is this a solid brick building Maggie it it looks like I see Brick on the side the little side profile that's sticking out but so yes it is it is Brick right found on the 38 tax card Foundation is listed as brick walls are listed as brick obviously the building like it's it's these tax card photos are the bane of my existence sometimes it's it is difficult to tell if this has was stucko at some point in this tax card photo but you are correct Paul that it is a Mason rebuilding okay okay any other questions okay we do have an applicant here to present so we can hear from the applicant great uh Stephen Joseph of Cassano quickly tramy for the applicant um so just I'm here this even to give you a little bit of context about what's going on um obviously the owner of the property wants to demolish the building that's why he submitted the a demo application um was caught a little off guard by the recommend to deny the demo and and I just want to give some context with that you're going to hear from will a little bit about his thoughts on the building and uh in the event you um approve the the demo denial we would also ask that you give a little we leway the staff to work with the applicant on development of the site uh and possible Creative Solutions to this so um the applicant here owns all five of the properties on this this block Frontage on Palisade it is five separate properties um forly I believe in the R1 Zone that was recently uh in the last zoning change was rezoned to the rc2 which permits five stories um of course the applicants lock the one building that was denied denied demo is right in the middle of the entire site so completely scraps the plans for full Redevelopment of the area um it it's it's again something that is not ideal the applicant is exploring different options here in terms of working with the building um and in terms of working with the building but because of the roof line and the porch and the location on the lot it does make Redevelopment here very challenging um let's hear from from will about his thoughts on the building and about some of the adjacent buildings and uh and then we'll go over to Maggie uh before we get to that just I want to make sure I'm understanding so the demolition was approved of the neighboring buildings including others with maner roofs that that they just didn't have they just had the the standard double Dormers so less intact yeah less intact so the the staff reasoning behind this is that the building in question 223 has historic um site evidence like intact like right that porch is intact and the roof shape and window location are distinctive whereas the building adjacent to this one 225 which we did approve it was the example I showed with the double window did not have any historic fabric that was visible right um I am sure it's there right it's but it's covered and we do things only by what is visible from the public right of way for demos and it's a roof shape and building type that we see throughout the city and there are better preserved examples of it not only throughout the city but also within the heights so we approved that building for demo and off the top of my head I cannot tell you if we did the other ones but I'm going to go ahead and oh Michael is telling me that we have which is great so only this one in the middle of the set so the other buildings have been approved for Demolition and this one has not correct remind me what you you said I think you mentioned the porches there other historic fabric that you see on this building and not the neighboring building um what do what do you have in mind so in this case the so the design of the building is attacked right so we have the entrance to the how you physically enter the building the window fenestration inclusive of the roof shape the chimney locations all of that is intact on this building we also have the historic fabric that's on the porch um we have the setting is intact the location is intact you have materials and workmanship with that porch um and I I really try to avoid using the feeling one right because that's the one that's ambiguous but it's the combination of all of these elements giving a sense of History to the building right that's the definition of it but objectively doesn't matter and I don't to our knowledge no one associated with history list here so that one's tossed out Commissioners I would encourage you to have your discussion about the application on the record thank you I plan to do so just getting Clarity what that was was getting Clarity of what buildings are on the Block that have already been approved for demolition we were reviewing those images of those buildings to understand the context of what we were looking at you okay are there any other questions or should we jump just to continue on this note so I think the neighboring one is 225 you said um did that originally had a porch instead of I it's blocked by some Shrubbery or that's all enclosed now the fenestration is changed how you enter that but like there's more intact on this building okay and I I do while the entire context is important here I do want to remind the commission we are considering one building right part of that consideration is considering the setting right but that is one element of consideration it is important in this case but you know one element okay thank you please proceed right uh all right well you you've been previously sworn this evening you remain under oath um and just confirm that understand that yes record yes of course thank you so William wenman um yeah I I don't actually have a whole lot to add here um we don't necessarily disagree with anything that Maggie said about the um intact fabric of the the building itself um we uh inspected the building on September 12th of last week we conducted a site visit with the owner um as well as his colorful super who lives next door um and uh we uh looked at the front of the building the porch um as well as the the rear yard um uh generally speaking um the building is in average to poor condition um much of the uh masonry especially on the side walls is in in in poor shape uh requiring substantial repointing and replacement um many of the um surviving decorative elements that were referenced in the um uh the memo are also heavily uh deteriorated uh the column capitals the decorative corness at the the porch level um as well as the brackets um interesting to note um um is that this building was in the 1984 historical survey um but many of the features that were outlined in the survey have since been lost uh that includes the two over two sash windows um the original porch columns uh the railings the stairs um as well as uh the bracketed cornice at the the roof line um you can see that these El Els were intact in the 74 tax photo um and apparently they were they in 1984 they've since been since been lost so um you know really we're we're talking about the um facade the fenestration uh the mansard roof and the porch um one thing that I'll say about the porch um is that while the um the form of the porch is intact um it seems to be um similar size and footprint to what was there historically the entire porch has been rebuilt um and that in that's everything from from grade up to um the uh fluted uh capitals at the at the columns so everything below those column capitals has since been replaced um mostly with uh substandard materials such as plywood um and um uh brick that is uh incompatible with the the um the existing historic masonry um and uh the porch has a ceramic tile as it's uh as it's uh walking surface um so while we agree that the um the feel the form of the porch is intact and reflective of the historic um historic photo um it it's really a uh a poorly constructed replacement for what was there historically um even some of the fluted capitals have been replaced with plywood it's a little bit hard to see from the photo um from from the street um but some of those decorative elements have been have been replaced as well um um so that's that's really uh and it's not really in great shape that's that's really all I have to say about the the front facade um I don't have I mean I could touch on the sighting um a little bit um you know the memo states that um this building is heavily altered and um um the historic Integrity of the setting has diminished with the presence of modern intrusions in the Med area report also says that any removal of 223 Palisade would negatively affect the historic character Jersey City and the surrounding neighborhood um so again looking at this on an individual basis um that is certainly um an argument that can be made um but when you when you look at the change to the underlying zoning uh change to higher density Zone District as well as taller taller buildings um the historic Paradigm on the block has been uh fundamentally altered as a result of these uh zoning changes um so when viewed through the context of of the zoning and um the uh I don't know if and the proposed uh plans for the existing building um you know removal of this this one building um will not have a substantial negative impact on the neighborhood uh at large certainly not on the this block uh in particular so yeah yeah this is a you know this is a hard one I this is a you know not a intentional situation that was created by anyone just a bunch of factors that kind of came together um you know if if this building is not demolished the likely development scenario here is a fivestory building on either side of of this uh of this home that's what the that's what the zoning calls for um so it's it's it's challenging again all all I would uh ask if the board does adopt this uh memo is to give staff some leway to work with uh work with the applicant did you say that again I'm sorry I I said all I would uh all I would ask the board if if the memo is adopted is to give historic staff some leeway to to work with the applicant on Creative Solutions just to add to the mix is going on in everyone's head um as you all know our standard uh resolution language if the commission were to recommend denial of this does include language um that encourages the applicant and HPC staff to work together to incorporate the building into an appropriate development that could mean the building itself into an appropriate development or um in a case like this my first recommendation is typically relocation of the building within Jersey City or I thought right not always feasible I don't know if the applicant has explored it it's typically a very expensive option to explore it's not actually as expensive as you think to physically do it but the structural cap like that stuff is more expensive than you think so it ju it's just like that is one way to do it it could be incorporated into a building or the commission could say I don't think there's enough here and we're okay with this going right all are viable paths yeah we did we did explore some of those options and we could touch on that a little bit Yeah so we have engaged um uh General Contractors to provide pricing for the larger development and obviously when this came up one of the first things we did was looked into the um feasibility of of relocating the building um which uh we feel is is viable with the plans that we have um for the proposed building um the estimates that we got were roughly $450 to $500,000 for the the relocation um it was either 200,000 for the move uh 250 for the foundation site work um or the other way around I can't remember offand but um that's something that we we did look into I think if the um board were to consider relocation I I don't think what we would I don't think it would be realistic to Simply move the building forward and then kind of incorporate it into the facade that that looks uh really cheesy and um you can say bad it's hard with a maned roof it looks bad with the maned roof yeah particularly with this with this building it's not like some of the more successful examples that we've seen throughout the city where it's you know small you know masonry building um this is very challenging this would be a very challenging relocation are are you talking about creating a uh one building on the length of the block that's that's the intention that's the plan right yeah what with the building before it would be a a mixed use building so we would have uh below grade parking um retail commercial spaces on the first floor and then residences above and uh 10% affordable 10% affordable and it would it would the proposal does have uh it would be an asof right development so we wouldn't be asking any variances right associated with it so I will remind the commission that all of the decisions on demos are to be made by the standards in chapter 1057 and not on any proposed uses for the property right right it's simply informative part of discussion have no problem being part of the discussion but understood liking or disliking a proposed use regardless of if it's as or right as of right is not kosare to me I would agree that that's not a reason to just context for what's in front of us correct and this is the first time we've had an applicant coming here I think it is a valid part of the conversation I just want to remind everyone of the standard that's clear Maggie I have a couple questions for you so the buildings that were approved for demolition to the left and to the right of this building how did those approvals take place and just so I not I don't remember why didn't it come before the commission because those buildings were evaluated to not have historic fabric on the building and they were also not in the element of the master plan they were right so this only this one building in the middle of the block was on the element of the master plan MH and this building was in the master plan because of its inclusion in that phase one survey um if it was individually identified as some Community note from our community meetings on it it was not listed as such doesn't mean that it wasn't it just wasn't listed as such however any buildings that were individually brought up as part of community feedback are indicated as such on our internal notes so so a question about that if if we were to uh approve the demolition of a building that was listed in in the master plan it doesn't set any precedent for other buildings it's not going to come back and bite us that we did something like that right no so if you guys were to approve this right I we of course I have a resolution that I prep just simply on the hopes of being able to sign it the same night and get it to them the next day but you guys can add to a resolution right so if you guys are looking at this and you're saying I think we want to approve this but I want to be very clear on the reasons why we can add to the resolution right you can say the building is in the master plan inventory because it's in the phase one but we found the differences between the phase one and the current condition to be so Stark that we don't agree with the assessment right right that's a perfectly reasonable thing to add and that would cover any concerns that you have about this becoming a standard practice right and the standard practice would be you're evaluating the building before you and if the commission doesn't find any of these historical items or values then that's what the commission finds can we just take a moment to revisit this idea of relocation because that's kind of a New Concept for me the idea of putting the building out to pasture um when we look at the the demo standard 1057 um I mean I think number one is location yeah so I mean that seems to me as a last resort preserving the building somewhere else would be better than losing it entirely but it's not a good situation that is correct okay just wanted to be you're 100% correct right like there first of all there's a reason that on almost every building in the city with the exception of a handful almost every single building in the city has Integrity of location right most people are not in the habit of moving buildings it was something that was done a lot historically really up until like the 1960s when they started just demolishing everything right for example the oldest building in Jersey City is actually in Westfield um cuz they moved it there but it it's not a practice that is commonly done because you lose that Integrity of location um and it's also not particularly easy to do and even if it were moved not you know sort of off location but within the lot it completely changes the no of course but I'm just responding to some of the speculations being to Loop it I changing the sight and setting of the building of eliminates the the reason to do it where are you putting it where is it going well that's of course the other element of this again Guys these are all reasons why this is not done very often so the other thing that's kind of driving me crazy a little bit is the buildings on either side of it were approved for demolition because there was no visible historic fabric but from my personal perspective the forms are there for the historic structures um and I wouldn't have expected that the buildings on either side would have been approved for demolition so there's a little confusion for me there and the applicants architect has stated that although this one looks better A lot of that fabric that we're seeing has been replaced by other materials so it's really not it may look little better but it's just as bad in some ways as the other two structures that were approved so yeah that's if we were in a position where those other two buildings were denied demolition then we'd have three buildings together on Palisade Avenue that had a future you know right so no and this is again like very much in like the weeds of these demo conversations right like there is we we have done our best to create this solution that applies to a bunch of buildings throughout the city and it's it is not as black and white right it's not as simple as us sitting there and saying has historic fabric does not have historic fabric has his right and that's why you have is it in the master plan is it in the surveys does it reach these aspects of integrity and that's all done on an evaluative basis based on the information we have at the time right so I was not aware at the time that the porch was a replacement when we made this evaluation if we had known that I don't know how we would have Factor that in right there have been buildings where we know everything on that building is a replacement right and that it right it factors one way or the other so so based on the testimony we've just heard does that change your assessment I haven't seen the building that part of the building in person to evaluate it myself so I cannot tell you if it would change my assessment but that is not the responsibility of the commission to like like that is not it Will's testimony should not like mean well don't need to sit here and argue back and forth on if we think it's original materials or not right that is something that you guys should take as testimony from the expert right but if if this were an application to restore the building or renovate the building or you know do something else to it and the question of the porch came up and if the argument were posed well the porch wasn't you know it's not original materials anyway so we're proposing a completely design completely different design we wouldn't accept that argument we would ask for the porch to be restored because the original form is still there and because it's the pathway towards restoration is possible so in my mind if we're since we're since we're not evaluating some hypothetical plan we're not we shouldn't be considering I mean I I hear the applicants sort of plead to kind of allow leeway and all that but we can't in in the question of demol demolition of this structure we can't consider hypothetical Alternatives that we don't have in front of us so if we see the possibility for this building to be bettered than kind of the abuse it's taken over the years and if we see that the the structure of the building allows for that faithful restoration I don't I don't really see the I I don't I don't really see the black and white I I think this is a clear case to deny Demolition and just because neighboring buildings were held to a lower standard or you know could have been saved but weren't I think doesn't set the president to then also let this one go I think if anything it it makes more clear the need to save this last piece so so just in in response to that the I just want to keep in mind that this building is not in a historic district right so development plans uh renovation plans for this building would would not would not come before the board we're we're just dealing with complete demolition here um that's a fair point and and just one question maybe to advocate for my a little bit um the company that that does the initial research on these they don't do site visits right Maggie not unless it is specifically requested but they it is I it is written in their contract that we have um a fee allowance where if they wanted to if they felt it was necessary they could they did not request to do one for this building and we did not request for them to come up and evaluate it I will just expand on what Stephen said on this build not to you know like dig my grave a little bit deeper but um this build is not in a historic district so um there is no requirement for the applicant to restore this building right um and furthermore if their application is as of right for stuff on either side of the building um and they are not utilizing this the retention of this retention restoration of this building as positive criteria for a planning board application I don't have any review right so if they're just building something on either side there is no review it's normal permitting process right so denying it does not where I'm trying to get here is denying any building for demolition not just this building any building the hbccs ever does not guarantee restoration of course we have not in this Zone we have built um certain incentives into different zones throughout the city that are not the historic district to encourage preservation and adaptive reuse um but it is not guaranteed in any way shape or form so the the memo that we have that's from staff and and Hunter research this is based on a comparison of the 1938 photo and a more contemporary photo MH and also the what's in the master plan element and what's in the phase one surveys right and and ultimately this memo is making a recommendation for how the HPC should proceed so I think my question would be again you know based on the experts factual testimony which we have no reason to doubt I I think you I I accept that testimony so again I think it's worth asking if if that you would revise the the recommendation or assessment in light of that testimony I would likely revise the SE I'm sorry third paragraph where sorry my hair tie broke I have to adjust this um where we discuss what is intact on the building the second paragraph where we discuss if the building is in the phase one survey and is in the inventory and everything like that that it would stay intact um Additionally the assessment of what is what retains Integrity would mostly stay the same with the removal of the materials and workmanship standard right so that would leave design location um setting and failing intact so that's four out of seven for anyone keeping score not that we we do not creade them am of location would remain intact your well in this particular case yeah we're not we are not evaluating this on what could happen on the site exactly and for what it's worth that was simply just an option they could say we actually want to incorporate this or they could say we're or they could say we're going to develop on either side of it that is not a first of all it's not a decision that the HPC renders nor is it a decision that staff has any part role in either the only time staff gets involved in these is if the applicant is saying we got denied for demo we want to restore the building in order to restore the building as part of our project we have these variances that we need positive criteria for and we're going to use the preservation of this building as positive criteria that is when the planning board says let's bring in our OnStaff expert in this MH it's a very un situation really really appreciate that everybody seems to be struggling with this a lot and and I think one thing that that Maggie said is is very true here is that there in the new zoning there was an incentive built in for for a lot of these cases where building is historically significant there's a there's a bonus but this particular block was up Zone to the point where that bonus doesn't matter um that's that's where my clients's challenge being feeling some pressure here um that's just you know further context and and background well I mean speaking for myself I think my gut feeling was to be more sympathetic to the applicant understanding how this particular site factors into the larger develop plans but I also feel that our role is to consider this specific property and we you know not to be willfully blind to the surrounding property but also not to necessarily take that into account in in evaluating whether this property is fit for demolition so that doesn't make it any easier but I can't um was any of this discussed with the community were you at that phase yet no no usually you go before the community when you have a new project that you want to present we have I wouldn't even describe them as concept plans uh the typically our our first step is doing uh like a block plan of the site and then getting these demo determinations um before we client spends a lot of money with Architects and Engineers because this would be a major site plan so a lot of professionals are needed before we meet with the community we even talk to the city about um we hav even had a pre-application meeting about potential project here the demo determinations were applied for so we the re the reason I'm asking Joseph is because in the past the community up here up where this is located has been extremely protective of these typ of buildings and I just know that it could be uh cause you major problems down the road um so I was just curious um because I know that the minute something goes out there it's going to be all over the place you know um I I would say that's not an expectation that we have of any of these demo applications and they're strictly in a due diligence stage I was say to put it where we are in this stage right is we're for the demolition application they need the construction official to sign off and the planning director needs to approve the construction official to sign off and so we the commission you are offering a recommendation to the planning director to sign off or not on the construction official eventually issuing the construction permit so I don't know if that's help or not but that's the process yeah I don't want to appear that we intentionally didn't meet with a community group or something that wasn't assumed just some more observations if I may I know we're going on about this but but it's difficult for me to I'm not sure where I'm where I am um you know you you could Envision a project going the total opposite way I mean the difference between this building and the ones to either side in my point of view the forms are there if these were in a historic district we'd be looking to save all three of them yeah right you know it would be a whole different context for how we're approaching this this whole block could be could could be developed as a as a as a historic set of buildings it has the potential for that so you know the developer could be looking at it that way it has parking has this immense building on the corner it has these that could that's a conceivable development of of of the site um and it's almost like this if we deny this approval of a of the demolition it's almost like this building then Wags The the whole block in terms of what it should become you know if you can go the the other way but we're not deciding on potential for the building right I I know it's guys you you are in my head our heads every time we review no and I Stephen I'm not chastising like you in particular sing demo we get right and it's this internal struggle of like oh I know this person's having that conversation I know I someone to PL but like that it is quite literally and I'm going I'm actually going to put these side by side right that might help yeah right the we are looking at the building and we are saying is there enough intact on that building to say no you can't demolish that and and the answer to that question in in historically what we've done already and is uh yes there's enough intact to to to deny the demolition that's what's come before us before that's clear mag um uh denying this um demolition application doesn't pose any hurdles for the applicant for future plans that uh propose alterations or even significant partial demolition to to the building were they to try to incorporate it into some future development not that we're considering the future development but no it does not yes this this demo denial denies the application at hand right denies they applied for a demo permit we are saying Noe we are denying you we are we are a prior approval for that demo permit so essentially they are not getting their prior approval so the construction docu officer will not sign off is it because they don't have their prior approvals it does not hinder the applicant from doing anything to the building in the future right I mean frankly in a year they could come back in with another demo application right but it does not require them to come to HPC staff for anything it does not if they go to the zoning officer and say hey we want to take off the back half of this building and build a fivestory Edition we have no review over that right right it does not hinder anything like that it does not make the building historic and and to be clear I don't think any of us are are suggesting in any way that we would be amenable to any of that right we can't aine on that what what I want but but what I wanted Clarity on which I got thank you was that this is this procedural um the the procedure of denying this demolition doesn't hinder any future proposals no um yeah well I I don't if we're really struggling with making a decision I hate to propose kicking another can down the road but I wonder if it would be useful to have you know because right now I just have the two photos up on the screen and it's not a whole lot to work with it would it be helpful to have additional photos of some of the more significant elements that are visible from the public right of way to because some of the things that are being described you know the deterioration and the substandard materials are I mean at least not evident to me from the photo on the left so excellent question we happen to have some photos that will took at his site visit late last week that we could enter as exhibits if that's okay with the board sure I think you will probably need this dongle though there's a there's well yeah oh okay thisly I also have a iPhone connection cord and yeah it's a whole bunch of them um not right now but honestly I probably all right cool all right how many photos are we entering into evidence two three four five six six uh six six photographs of the subject property uh that were taken by um the AR okay and we can Mark those as A1 I think this is the first exhibit for this um so uh this is so this is what I I was referring to in my in my testimony um see that this portion everything from this point down has been reconstructed these are built out of plywood um uh but these uh these these brackets here the brackets along the cornice Line This beam and then these column capitals are um original um although this this one here has been um altered um it is worth noting that you can see what they originally looked like because you have the pyter here at the end so um while the the main porch has been um uh rebuilt the the pyter remains at the up against the building um go back tax photo um here you can see the the um portion of the side facade side elevation and then the the construction of the of the the the the Reconstruction of the porch with the differing brick um I think the the super who lives next door was the one who rebuilt this so um uh just a general uh view of the side sidew wall um just to showcase the condition um another view of the porch yep um and then the the the rear facade so there have been several additions that have been put on the building um um sort of a hodge podge so pretty early ones too yeah to me that the fact that the original column capitals and the brackets of the cornice are original and that only the shaft of the porsch columns were replaced I think that's significant I think the fact that you can read original masonry openings in those side walls and you could see that those were the original brick I think that's significant um so the again just in the spirit of collective deliberation really uh I I I seed the the point about elements of the porch not being original and having been reconstructed but I also think there's enough of the porch and and and certainly the sidewalls in poor shape as they are the fact that you could read the original um walls there I think I think these are significant elements worth worth saving yeah it also looks to me like the porch columns have been laminated with a one by as well as the the top part of the bracket you could see there's a piece of plywood that's been added to the top of the uh yeah where the decoration is to cover what was there it's a tough one I agree with commissioner song that there's significant historic fabric on the building still ex extent there and um I think that it's actually while while some of the material work manip subsequently is is not up to standard it's pretty typical of almost every building we ever see that comes before us and if you and looking at the back of the building the additions are almost the most it's just incredibly typical of every building that we ever see come before us so it's hard for me to say no I can't I can't say that this is worth saving so I I would lean toward denying an application for demolition any other Commissioners have any comments questions just as a reminder because it has been a second um this because it's a demo review and not a certificate of appropriateness we just do need a majority on this right so it does need to be four not five um and for any path we take is um the recommended motion is always I recommend to approve or I recommend to deny demolition of this building to the zoning officer uh I concur with Commissioners sakong and S camp i' like to make a motion to deny demolition I'd like to make a motion to recommend recommend denial of demolition to the zoning officer anyone want to Second it and again that's I'll second um we need a citation uh no or well so yeah it would be for the reason stated on the record and in the memo provided by staff okay I'll second that okay right we'll do a roll call vote commissioner samp hi commissioner song hi commissioner Cronin no okay commissioner uza I Vice chair gucciardo I I given the parameters that we have to follow I have to vote I okay and chairman Gordon I okay there are five votes in favor one against no extensions the recommendation to the zoning officer to deny demolition is passed thank you guys so much I really really appreciate uh you know your sympathy for the applicant here and absolutely taking this very serious not an easy one for us yeah really appr and thank you for coming to make the case I mean it it's nice to hear the the context all right thanks guys all right we have one more demo oh so the next demolition rubber if you want to call the next that's JFK all right so the yes uh demolition review for 2748 John F Kennedy Boulevard it's number B-24 d193 okay let me just pull up yeah thank you put this on everyone's screens so so this is honestly kind of a similar case um this is a building that has also been altered but not as much as the other building right so let's situate everyone so we are on the east side of Kennedy in between Bond and stent although sip is probably a better mid block this is one of the longer blocks on Kennedy just south of Journal Square um and this building is also it's yeah they gave honestly not great view of the adjoining homes but um we have a bunch of similarly designed homes um all single family larger homes each in varying States um of course the one to the left has been very wellmaintained um and we'd love to encourage the other property owners to maintain it as well as that one but we are considering this building the second one to the right um that has a combination of Stucco and brick so this building is also mentioned in the inventory individually it is also in the phase one survey um the phase one survey for this building is actually much closer to its current condition and tax card photo so the tax card photo here is not great this is why I really dislike these scanned tax card photos however you can pretty clearly what the things that you can see in this right is that the shape of the roof line is intact um the window penetration is intact the porch shape is intact it is the porch shape the port materials on the porch themselves have been altered but you have those elements of location design you definitely have setting intact here um and you definitely have feeling intact you do also have a garage structure on this site which is also intact although I don't have photos of it now in terms of materials on the building we do have to utilize um my favorite section of the tax card which I think is everyone's least used favorite uh section of the tax card and that would be the description for what the building is so even though the stucco looks like a a modern material in this case it's actually the original historic material right you have stco on frame here with some face brick on the second floor with a brick Foundation let's bring up the photo of the building again right so you still have the stucco on the top floor with that brick below and the brick Foundation right so you do have you do have at least some materials intact here um that the type of Stucco here has a distinctive name and I don't remember the name of it but that style of Stucco has a name um pancakes is it pancake stuck up right so again because of its inclusion on the master plan because of its inclusion in the phase one survey and because we do believe that the building is mostly intact we are recommending denial of this one as [Music] well any questions no I would just like to comment that these are former clients of mine and the house is a fortress okay um I would make a motion to uh deny demolition I'll second motion to recommend denial uh I'll make a motion to recommend denial Paul you want to Res second that second yes thank you all right we'll move to a roll call vote commissioner Cronin I commissioner uza I commissioner samp I commissioner song I commissioner gri is absent Gunther's absent blaz X's absent Vice chair guara hi and chairman Gordon I right there are six votes in favor none against no abstentions the recommendation to deny demo is approved all right let's very quickly on the meeting agenda we all right so just the other cases uh 169 to 179 Palisade 116 Magnolia um and the Morris canal and Central rail Road applications have all been carried to the October meeting at the request of the applicant uh 384 Communipaw has also been carried to the October meeting at the request of the applicant I do genuinely hope they come to a meeting soon um we do not have any resolutions to introduce or discuss we do not have any resolutions to memorialize we do not need an executive session so that just leaves us with adjournment motion second okay it is 9917 all in favor I I okay