Historic Preservation Commission, Regular Meeting

1. 0:25Good morning. >> How are you? >> Love it. So like it's in your grandfather. Well, the gentleman live in the house on the alley. Uh, good morning. Just waiting. Oh,
2. 10:32we're waiting. What is it? We do have >> Yes, we do have >> I can't hear. We have Commissioner Stein. >> And we have for commissioners online. Just chair. Uh, we're just waiting Jeremy. Hey,
3. 11:38>> wherever you may be. >> Morning everybody. >> Good morning. Good to see you. >> 103. >> Jan, you have your folks on the line today? >> Uh, >> yeah. Looks good. >> Yes. >> Perfect. Uh, first order of business is the review of the minutes. >> Actually, chairman, we cares. >> Uh, forgive me. Um, I think we're going to start. We We've got two up. Uh, let's start with 26, Warren. >> Okay, Mr. Chap. Yes. >> So, just want me to So I know the public is seeing this for the first time. So I'll go quickly through the presentation and get to and they had a part that I put in after the meeting and
4. 12:40>> Walter, take your time. Where are we go? >> Yes, of course. Sorry. Um, so this is 26 War Street, which is the Mariner Hotel, and the owner and operator of the hotel would like to convince the addict to the use of two additional hotel rooms. In order to do that, we have to make meet fire safety, egress, and light and air requirements. So, the way we propose doing it, we add >> Walter, excuse me, one second. I'm out of order, but I want to introduce uh our new code enforcement officer. Uh Nick, if you could say a word or two. >> Sure. Hi, I'm Nick Fox. I'm the new code enforcement officer. That was the word. Um so yes in order to do this we're proposing there is a resisting stair uh below this area here on the lower floor which we are able to extend up to the
5. 13:43roof and over and to create a kind of new entry from this direction into the space and then we would be connecting to an existing stair. This will give us our two required means of degress. Then the other component there are existing skylights here and a window here at the end which we can utilize for lighting air in one unit but we don't have lighting there for the front unit facing Warren Street. So we're proposing adding three federal style formers to the roof facing Warren Street in order to meet light and arrow requirements. So next please sir. Would you also have some addendum and historic information about the use of dormers in this period? It's it's all coming all this is just an aerial uh shot showing um the area that we proposed putting the curved floor
6. 14:46addition on the roof. And then you can see this is this is the >> there is this is a sorry >> perfect perfect this is the roof with you can see unfortunately Google Earth doesn't do a great job but these are the existing skylights there are four magnificent chimneys which thank God we're not proposing touching chimneys are big of blue of wine kind of taking the soul away from the house if you do it so stay and the dormers that we show would be Okay. Next, please. >> Uhhuh. >> Okay. This one got me in trouble last time. This is a shot from the front and it shows a very um distorted view because it makes the roof looks like it's almost flat. Um in fact, it's a quite a severe, not a severe, but it's 3 and 12 pitch, which is typical of the period. Please go on. Um, this is a kind of shot from prison alley
7. 15:51and I include this because you will see we're keeping that chimney there. Um, you will see the addition here a little bit. Hopefully you're going to hold it. You will see it. >> I wasn't sure. >> This is a nice shot. Oh my goodness. Oh, I see the photos didn't come up. >> Okay. >> Oh dear. Okay. Well, okay. So, u please try to use your imagination crime scene through interior showing the slope coming down and I just wanted to establish that there is a little bit of wall here. So, that actually my head height would be somewhere about here. I don't know if you all can see that. Um, yeah, let's not dwell on those since they're used. >> And then this one needs to be >> We're jumping scale here. So, >> yeah, it's
8. 16:53w >> uh Okay. >> Okay, I can work with this. So, up here, uh, can we make a little smaller? >> Sure. >> Should should be an optim at the top of the screen. where it says eventually. >> Is that better or worse? >> Um, do you see where it's um, okay, let's not zoom zoom out. Can we do it more? Maybe it a couple times because it'll be the problem for all of these. Yeah, that's working. at the bottom. If you hover, I think the the zoom in and out. >> Okay. But now at the magic moment. Okay. So So this is an existing condition drawing and you know I'm so abbled and I apologize. I'm getting older. We were asking permission to build a ramp that I
9. 17:56believe is already there. Um, we got permission to do that ramp a long time ago and it was installed. So, I'm going to say that if that ramp isn't there because I didn't go and check, but it isn't existing drawing, but we do need to have handicap access into the building and we can't put it on the street. So, this would be the um side view. Now, the adjacent building is literally right up against us. So, the only way you'd ever see this one is if you're on Warren Street looking straight at it. So, um, great. Okay. And then these are other existing condition drawings. And I did spot another error and I apologize. This I think I somehow traveled over. You'll see in the subsequent photograph this window is right under this one. That's um everything else I think is asis. And there you see the three and 12 roof pitch which um he believe supports the um the dorma request. Okay, we can kind of slide through the next piece.
10. 18:59Not very just another roof plan. Um please keep going. >> Okay, here's uh here are the renderings with the sorry elevations with the proposal. These are the three dormers we're proposing. This is that addition that I spoke of. Remember we saw the chimney that was there. Um it's beyond and then this is the that's the side view from the west. This is the um rear view facing the alley. And then this is the view that would be facing Phil's house which is to the east. And again this window you'll see in the photograph is actually there. >> So this window is actually underneath the third I I apologize for that error. I just thought that this was not particularly interesting. I think we just included this. Yeah. Because the windows um we're basically asking for Lincoln or equal double hung wood windows um insulated glass but clear. So
11. 20:05something we've come before you with many many times before. They seem to be quite acceptable. Okay. we can learn. All right. And so here are just some render views to give you an idea spatially what this would do. Like Jan, you can go through this at your own pace. There's the addition from again. Yes. The ramp and the edition. That's from the rear showing the edition once again at the top. Right. Okay. And that's that's a kind of useful you I'm going to show you some images buildings throughout Hudson that mimic this so we can kind of remember what that looks like as we move to other presentations for the rest of the presentation. Okay. So I'm not sure what's happen the presentation but
12. 21:10>> is there an image on this? >> I didn't get my scale right. So what this says this is >> where you do this over >> I can work with this. Let's not waste time. >> Oh here. >> Okay. So so these are just examples of federal architecture. The question was raised is this an appropriate vocabulary to bring light onto the top floor of this building. I did do some research and found you know this is the the page when you Google federal architecture by mass every single example has dormers um these are a couple examples in New York including the Hamilton fish house uh again style Peter Styerson blah blah blah so you know we're not inventing the wheel here okay so the Skyler mentioned in Albany um just to kind of show we're getting closer There's the dreaded Albany plaza there. Um, so, so we're getting closer to Hudson, so please keep going. >> Okay, this is just outside of Hudson, a
13. 22:14beautiful house with two two dormers. And then we can keep going. I've got enough examples, I think. Um, okay. Now, everybody probably knows these buildings here. These are on Union Street just below uh above Front Street. I think the significance of these is they're pretty classic federal buildings and they have some, you know, pretty remarkable details on them like these three frets here, these little campus brackets there. But the point is this is very much in the vocabulary of the Hudson and very typical of these buildings. Please speak the language. Um, this is actually a friend of mine lives in this house. A wood wood frame example of the same thing. This house has been renovated, but the bones are still there. You can see, you know, various hallmarks of federal architecture. Um, please keep going. And then I I discovered something fun. There's a whole world of secret dorm in. This is just an example here. Um, let me get my
14. 23:20bearings. I think this is um maybe Third Street here. And these buildings here kind of dormers facing south, but they don't have them on the street. And I thought that was a pretty cool idea because these attics very often are not very large and you would presumably want to face the windows to the sun, which in our case, the dormers do face south. And so that's a you know whether it's significant or not there there seem to be plenty of dramas in Hudson and they seem to be all of the federal style buildings and I think that might be my last slide. >> Yes. >> Okay. So pretty simple case. Um you know curious to know what everybody thinks. >> Okay. So uh we're in a public hearing. The commission will remain uh pretty quiet and we're going to ask for votes from the public in the room and then online to comment or raise questions
15. 24:23about the plan. So, um guys on the uh Walker, we live at 25 Prison Alley, which is the backside of of this the original carriage house for the hotel that when it was house uh we just talked before, but our big concern is the water feed. Our water feed comes through the hotel. So the shut off for our waterers in the basement of the hotel and our cable feed also comes from the hotel comes I mean comes through that lot. um we just talked about um before the meeting about about the scope and it seems like what you're doing won't impact that but right >> we very much want to you to be aware of that water feed just in case um and I don't know just I don't know that I should say about that but um and I brought >> you could apply on the donors and whether they will interfer to our I just read a copy of the there's an agreement between our our sites that was
16. 25:26done that just fills all this out. We just reviewed them together. So, we're we're a little bit in sync, I think, about it. And listen, I want to make sure everybody's aware of this, >> right? And you have the code officer here and I gave you the manager of the hotel info to contact and you have your easement. So I, you know, in terms of this committee, I think we're we're away. >> Yeah, I think so. Yes. >> But could you get it on the record that this exists from my perspective just in case >> chairman? I I do have uh three hands raised. >> Take them any sequence you want. >> Okay. >> Mr. Cop Nikki, I see you have your hand raised. >> Yes. Matt McGee will comment. Thank you. Uh yes, my name is Matt McGee. Uh let us start with the Roman arch surrounding the fan light over the front door of this federal five bay brick house.
17. 26:29Its unadorned roof line is highly visible along Warren Street. The very plainness of this house is a major significant feature of its historical character in nature. Basically the state of this building as seen from Warren Street is unchanged excepting the coating of paint. The need for calling out its brick work for protection cannot be understated. It should not be treated with any abrasive, sanding, etc. to remove paint or coated with damaging finishes. Uh and to the a lack of dormers is a feature of five bay federal houses below third street on
18. 27:33Union and Warren streets. Uh this absence of dormers is the feature of the neighborhood I will point out from Warren and Union Streets the fronts of these houses. In fact, few if any peri any houses few houses of any period in this neighborhood have dormers and I would mention that the three small houses on lower union. Uh the dormers on them are rather interesting. They have Greek keys. Now federal architecture is based on Roman architecture. So I think we may be dealing with Greek revival dormers not federal. Now to end with the statement on the
19. 28:35nature of federal architecture. Its plainness refers to the Roman Republic as the basis for our new republic and the famously understated design and ornament of Republican Rome buildings. One might say that they were as billboards advertising support for a new form of government. And I hope we can continue to do the same and keep these buildings looking the way they originally looked and giving us the intent that they had when they were made. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Uh uh Miss Asterink. Yes. Um, thank you. Um, I will
20. 29:41not be as eloquent as, um, Matt was or as learned, but I I urge you not to allow the addition of dormers to this house. The house was built in the very earliest days of Hudson, like 25 years after Hudson was established. And I think some of you may remember, I certainly do, when um it was when the General Worth House was being restored to its original federal look, what was which, you know, had to be imagined because there had been like Italian8ate elements added to the building. This building was used as the model. So I, you know, I don't think it's appropriate to alter it in this way. And one thing I would like to point out is that one of the examples, the house on Union Street um that Walter used had its gables um had its dormers
21. 30:49rather added within the past 20 years. So it's hardly an example that should be, you know, used as evidence that this is the good thing, a right thing to do. So I urge you not to allow dormers. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Anybody else? >> Uh, no. >> Uh, anyone else in in the room have additional comments? way. >> So my benchmark for historic preservation and I always hearken back to my mother and the great example that I'm aware of is historic preservation is preservation of what was there historically and the Rosin Landmark Society is an example that I am keenly familiar with. So I would argue that preservation means retaining what was the start of so I would not be in favor
22. 31:57particularly of of altering the exterior not even in favor of altering the interiors of these these historic sites but this historic preservation you're the guys in charge your call >> any other comments uh if there is no >> there is a comment in I'm sorry. I didn't see you. >> Sorry. Um I I um of a new owner of the building on Warren Street. I think it looks very elegant and beautiful. I think these buildings require investment if they're going to continue to exist for the next 50, 100, 200 years. I wouldn't discourage this type of investment. In fact, I think it's very much in keeping with a historic character of the region. So, I would um I would disagree with some of the other comments. I understand everybody likes to keep things, you know, accuracy, but that's not realistic with how things live and
23. 32:59breathe. And as long as it I think like retains um you know the proper like really meaningful qualities to it and it's done thoughtfully and elegantly in keeping with the character of the region and other houses in the region. >> Terrific. Uh any other votes? If not, I'd like to go on to the uh uh public hearing discussion of 309 311. >> Okay. Uh there are uh is there anyone else online who would like to speak? Uh yes, I have another hand raised. Mr. Capiki. Oh, could you unmute yourself, sir? >> Uh I'm sorry. I thought I had lowered my hand from before, but I realized I hadn't. Sorry about that. Okay, no problem. Uh, all right.
24. 34:04Uh, oh god. All right. Uh, next up we have 309 reading 11 union. Yes. I believe this is Yes. Okay. Okay. Just see that uh Sorry, the slides are coming. >> Yeah, my but I can see that there's language on this slide, right?
25. 35:06>> Yeah, that's fine. I I own I >> Okay, it's Yeah, >> basically uh my name is Keith Nally. Um I own 309311 with my partner Diamond. Um, just a brief explanation of how we all got here. Myself, my girlfriend Ronnie, her daughter, and son-in-law Kyle and my partner originally came here in 2023 um to look at the Basilica for their wedding. Um, during that time frame, me and Kyle have been in talks about getting involved with an investment property. And while we were at Governor's Tavern, I found a property on a street that was for sale. We went and looked at that property, decided to buy it, and basically for the next year, every weekend, we came back and forth to Hudson and remodeled two floors of the building. It was a labor
26. 36:10of love. We enjoyed it. We got to know the neighbors. We got to know the town. We learned a lot about this city and we really have grown to love the city. Through that period, we rented out all three units in the building and we were content with that coming back and forth visiting, working on the building, doing things. 3091 Union, I happened to be driving by because it's my way out of town and I saw a sign there. I looked like something that I would be interested in because it was run down and it looked like it needed some help. and that's I'm drawn to that. So, we um basically put an offer in on that place with the intent, same type thing. We're going to come in here. We're going to remodel this building. We're going to bring it to life like we did the other one. And through that process, we found that there's more to this building than what meets the eyes. And with further investigation as we were going through looking at it, checking things out, the
27. 37:13further I dug into the building, the more issues I found with it. And as the last uh meeting we showed, our reason for being here is to do a demo and a rebuild. It was not our first choice, but we've kind of been pushed down this path that we have no other choices here in our opinions. So, these first pictures here are the contemporary photos that we provided at the last meeting. Um, you want to go up one more. This is the front of the house as it sits today. This is the rear of the house looking from partition. Um these two buildings here are the two back buildings that are on the property that are also in disrepair. And then at the last meeting um the board asked us and I think one of the community members also suggested that we bring in some photos of the interior of the building. So we went and did that. Actually one of the things the next
28. 38:18photo here shows the engineers report. Um, but I'm gonna I'm gonna leave this till later because I actually have um Andy here from Coffer who's going to speak to the engineers report. So, these photos here, this is a shot on the northwest corner of the building. Um, shows where over the years there's been bricks put in here. All the cobble is falling down. You can see where there's rot on the beams in here. Again, another shot. This is on the south side of the building. Um, again, gobble collapsing, more rod on the beams. There's another shot in here where there's um support um from a different angle showing that full corner of that northwest corner. Um, I don't know if anybody can see this, but there's actually a laser here that comes across and it shows we're in the middle of the house. it's touching the floor and over here we've got about five inches um of discrepancy on the leather just indicating where where the
29. 39:23house is settled over years. Now that's not the worst thing in the world but it's the reason why it's settling. Um, so again, more investigation looking at it. We noticed I cut through the floor to try to see what is what's actually on holding this building up because there's no basement. The entire structure sitting on dirt and I was surprised to find another floor under the existing floor that was there. So this one here is the original floor. We have another 3 in here where this was shimmed. And you can see the shims actually gradually tapered in towards the front um more the center of the house. Again, here's the laser line up here. We've got almost 8 in of drop um on this side. And this is actually the east northeast corner and the northwest corner. So, it's two different showing two different sides where the building's actually flopping from the center. Now in the middle of the building
30. 40:29we have a sister. That sistern is still in it original location. And the reason for that is because these beams are actually sitting on the system. If that system wasn't there, the center of this building probably would have collapsed at this point. And I just wanted to show why it was actually folding on the outside and where the support actually was from the system. Are you good here? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, this is just showing some more framing of the structure again inside the holes and the cavities. These cateers are showing that the actual structure of the house of the beams that were there um are roughly about 3 to four feet on center. Um, you can see where there's old notches that the original structure was probably parts together with old beams from other structures at the time. Um, and again compromising the integrity of the
31. 41:33building. Again, another shot showing how the structure is actually just sitting on the dirt and the old rubble. Another corner shot here. This is showing a bunch of bot. This is above that one beam that I indicated earlier that was showing indication of the rot and where it was shimmed. I believe there's a better picture of that at some point as well. Just indications of framing that were kind of cobbed together over the years. Um the lower board here indicates that that's been replaced. This is actually ground level right here. This indicates where um at some point I'm assuming prior to the aluminum siding going on. That whole area was rotted out. I was not able to get into this section of the floor. But I the beam and support that's underneath there I would imagine was
32. 42:35compromised as well with that rod, but was not accessible or able to be repaired. Here's the rod for that one corner that goes to decay. Again, another area on the south side of the building where this beam is all rotted out. Another beam. You can see where there's some pressuret treated um tubi that was uh supported there to try to gain some strength at some point. Now this shows the exterior views where and again these pictures don't do it justice. Um where you can see this house actually the house is actually leaning towards the west. This side has a big bubble or a bow in it and this side is actually leaning to the west and the gable end is tipped as well. This is the east side which shows an indication where it's also leaning to the west
33. 43:42or deterioration on the exterior of the house, deterioration on the interior of the house where water is infiltrated the roof. And this is an addition that we believe that was put on somewhere in the 50s. Um we don't have actual confirmation of that. Um according to the building department there was a permit pulled um somewhere in the 50s I believe for block. This is pretty much all we can think of. And again you can see where this wall oops hold on. You can see where this wall is bowing and all the joints are cracking. You can also notice that there's a water line here where the water table um has been pretty consistently high um in this area. Now, you wouldn't that wouldn't show up on the other building because of the the elevation of the dirt um under the structure. But this is one of my concerns with trying to jack this building up that if there's water under there, we really don't even have any support.
34. 44:46Pictures from the foundation um where it's the walls are busting in. This is a wall that's caved in as well. Again, these are all part of the addition part from the piece. I'm going to defer to Andy from Crawford right now to basically um confirm the findings and explain a little bit more about the structural aspect of what's going on here. Good morning. Uh Andy Crawford Associates Engineering Professional Engineer, head of the civil structural group at Crawford Associates. Um, we did a an evaluation, you know, prompted by being contacted by Mr. discovered these things, you know, as things began to get into the into the structure, ask us to come take a look at it. As you can see, it's I think it's pretty straightforward that, you know, the principal part of the building is really not sitting on any type of true
35. 45:49foundation, not even, you know, a dry laidup foundation, which in some cases in Hudson is is somewhat of a common thing. Uh whether you go from dry stack to mortar to brick and stone combinations, this has really none of that. It's it's not even uh an organized uh laid up stone and it's more of a hodge podge of just a few stones and a couple of places. Um it's quite out of character for most of the foundations. I've spent probably 100 uh basements in Hudson from Orange Street out to um out to uh many of the side streets Allen those sorts. And this is the second worst foundation. The first one um was already knock was knocked down on worth a and um I I think that this one is a prime candidate uh for needing to be taken down. the lack of foundation for
36. 46:52one. Um, of course that has then essentially uh translated into the wood structure that was placed on top of that which has now been racked to the point where fasteners that was that were used originally are most likely pulled out to the point of even if you were to jack the structure what's left of it, replace any rotted material, try to jack it up. Most likely what will happen is that the materials that have separated will only separate further. And so trying to um write any of the walls or floors, it's most likely going to destabilize the structure even further than it already is. Um and yeah, extensive amount of water fetration through roof leaks. uh you know sail plates are completely rotted. Um there's there's very little uh redeeming qualities to the structure itself. Um, and so that was, you know,
37. 47:59essentially our our summary uh in our reports that think that the building is basically a loss. Thank you. The next screen at the last meeting you asked if we had any cost comparisons. um we don't have true cost because we it it's would require tremendous amount of more effort and um digging into it. But I did some research on what it would take even though it's not in my judgment that there would be even an option but I wanted to give you what you asked for to the best of my ability. And one of the things this building not only needs to be jacked up, it first needs to be stabilized. You can't touch this building without making the structure safe. Some of the cost comparisons that I found to stabilize and straighten a
38. 49:04building of this nature ran from $25 to $60 a square foot. This building's 288 ft. That equates to 52,000 to $125,000. That's what I found. I believe it's more than that. Um, then you would have to lift the building. To lift the building, you'd be looking at 12 to $22 a square foot, equating to$25 to $45,000. Then you need to escape under the building, another $10 to $20 a square foot, which again, 20 to41,000. You have a new foundation, $ 35 to $55, 73 to $114,000. And then you have the additional timber frame repairs along with that which is10 to4 um dollar 20 to $83,000. We're about $140 to $200 a square foot just to get this building on a foundation and we still have a building that hasn't been touched
39. 50:07>> as the remodel. So, we're at anywhere from $300 to $417,000 just to stabilize the foundation on this. We still have an old building that needs to be pulled in and straightened and brought up to code and such. And again, I believe these numbers are low because we there's so many unknowns still in the building that we could find it. it just doesn't seem financially feasible to try to save this building. Um, with that, um, I'd like to go to, uh, Roger Langanger, an architect that I've been working with that has proposed what we would like to put in its place. Um, and I'll let him explain um, what our thoughts are. Mr. Langanger, could you unmute
40. 51:14yourself, please? >> Good morning, Roger Langanger with Greater Living Architecture. Um, >> good morning. >> Obviously, two trains of thought. um we discussed at the last meeting. One is to provide something that is uh comparable and blends in with the neighborhood. The other option is to create something uh distinctively new and different from the neighborhood. Um, some people may say it's the safer choice, but we chose uh initially to build uh design something that would fit into the neighborhood uh not compete with the surrounding buildings. Um, so some characteristics that we chose were to uh keep the gable in the same
41. 52:19position as the existing building and to create a nice uh symmetrical um and rhythm of the windows uh to align uh top to bottom and with the doors below um per the comments from the our last meeting. We did move the doors to the center. Um closer to what is existing on the site now. Um the reason for their kind of separation is because there's a firewall uh separating the two units from each other. So that that structure dictates that the the doors get pushed apart a little better. Um we did have a continuous front porch which the existing structure does not have but uh we've had a freeze board and some dentals. And one change we made from the last um set of documents was that we've uh kind of replicated the the window head uh trim of the existing house to try try to keep it more in
42. 53:25character with uh what was there. Um this horizontal uh hardy plank siding and uh very um discreet and warm uh color. Uh then on the site as well, we have um a carriage house in the back along partition and that structure is a twocar garage with an apartment building above. Um and just to kind of blend it in, it would be some of the same characteristics, but we chose to add board and batten siding on that. uh uh structure. We did choose to change the uh overhead doors to the crossbuck which is what the existing overhead doors are on uh one of the garage structures that's to be demolished. Um the buildings are uh two over two double hung windows. Um
43. 54:33let's see what else can I tell you. Um, that I guess that's it for the the the structures themselves, the exteriors. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks very much. Um, public comment. I'm sorry to be very thorough. >> Um, my name is Ronnie and I'm actually Keith's partner and Kyle is my son-in-law. So Britney was my daughter who came here to find get married to my now son-in-law Kyle. Um and one of the things we knew when we were coming before the historic preservation war, we knew that the history of this building was important. It was significant. Um when we saw what we saw with the actual physical structure, then we wanted to gather more information about who lived there, what was the significance of this building from the past. So, we worked with um the Hudson Area Library Research um organization and we shared this at
44. 55:35the last meeting, but we included this in the presentation so the public had it so we could know a little bit more about who lived there and who these people were that lived in this house. And um so we have this information included in the presentation. There's two slides um of the ownership. So you can slide it into >> um of the ownership. And what we found was that they were workingass people and we wanted to try to think about ways that we could even give a nod to the past in some way even with a new build. So you can um go ahead J. >> Um so this is also another picture um that was shared with us and this is um from image mate >> and it's a it's okay. each other as you find it. And one of the things in this picture, we included it because in the history that we did um and the information that we found from the library, they spoke about the fact that this house was different because the ridge the ridge
45. 56:39line of the roof ran parallel to Union Street. The other houses nearby ran perpendicular. So that was something we thought if we could preserve that with the roof line. And they also said that in this like here you can see um this roof line runs this way where the other ones run perpendicular. This one runs parallel and the other was that the gables run east to west and the other gables of um nearby houses run north to south. So we were thinking are there other things that we could preserve? Are there other things that we could that would be of significance um for kitchen? I'm getting uh uh this information and I can see that that's not what's on your presentation. >> Okay, I'll just apologize. >> Um so basically as we sort of close with everything that we've shared um this slide actually would say a thoughtful decision for the future and what we had on there was we said we know that demolition is not taken lightly but in this case it feels like the most
46. 57:42responsible path for us. Um the second point we had was that the project reflects care, intention and respect for the property and Hudson and that we have been thinking about ideas that we could help preserve like even the people that were here and what would represent the people that walked, you know, through the floors of this house and how could we bring that to to the future. Um, so did you get it backward? I I >> That's okay. I'll I'll just I'll just I'll just set it. Um, yeah. >> So, the one of the last sides actually says preserving aspects of the property. So, one of the things we said was we could preserve the directionality of the roof and have the roof line run par ridge run parallel to Union Street and the gables on the east and the west house. And we found out research originally. Um, when we came to the last meeting, we had a picture and the doors were on the sides and there was a recommendation from the commission to
47. 58:45perhaps consider moving them to the middle. So, we did that in the picture that you see now and we thought that can also represent the door now stays in the center of the house where it originally was. Um, we talked about So, thank you for that suggestion by the way. Um, but we also talked about, and again, I I share this with some degree of hesitation, but we thought about possibly considering the possibility of using any materials from the inside of the house if we could salvage something and actually create something on the porch with them or something like that. So, people who work from inside of the house, now it's something that welcomes people going forward. And then um one of the other suggestions from one of the commissioners was to perhaps put a plaque on the house or do something that would give the past from the people who kind of previously lived here or did something like that. So we certainly would be open to you know those kinds of thoughts or suggestions from the commission.
48. 59:47So anyway with that um thank you for your time and for your consideration. >> Thank you very much. Are are you guys good? We open up to comment. >> Um, so I'm Nick Fox. I'm the code enforcement officer. Um, Mr. Nally came into my office last week to tell me a little bit about this project. Um, so of course it caught my attention. I went down there and looked at it with him. Um, and I can confirm everything that him and the engineer is are saying is is true. I mean, I was pretty shocked looking at that foundation myself. There's literally less than 2 ft of stone under this thing sinking into mud. It's been sinking over time. Um, I think demolishing it, in my professional opinion, is the more responsible thing to do. Um, if it's left to its own condition, it's going to fall down over time anyway, putting the the neighbors, the neighborhood at risk.
49. 1:00:51Um, furthermore, building a new structure that up to code, safe, energy efficient is uh what I think would be best for the community also. >> Thank you. >> Anyone here? what Ketting your voice the reason. So I am certainly sympathetic to the hardship nature of this whole thing and there is their worthy endeavor to try and work with it. So it's a call and demo but it's not necessarily a hard and fast rule. So there could be certain situations where it's called for and they certainly have an option of appealing say it was to come out against and they had to preserve it. There would be an option for them to virtually appeal it the hardship and make a case for the hardship. So not really opining on that. All right. I'm sympathetic to that whole thing. Where I get lost a
50. 1:01:55little bit. I don't feel like the argument's been made is the carriage house. So I really don't you know see how that fits. I certainly understand the main structure but that carriage house is a different animal. So I don't know we haven't heard about the two existing structures there and that's really with that I'll stop behind you. >> Thanks. Anyone else in the room? Anyone online? >> Yes we have uh Oh uh how wide is that property? 50 ft wide. So it's Yeah. How deep? >> No, it's deeper. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Because to me, you're proposing because you can't see the houses on either side. How much are you leaving for your neighbors like for
51. 1:02:58>> Well, currently we're on the property line on the west side. >> We want to take the structure and move it so we have 4 ft on both sides plus the distance to the neighboring house. So, whatever they have on their property. >> Yeah. >> So, we're trying to create more distance between the houses. >> Yeah. It is very close to our neighbors. >> Yes. um house. I mean Dway has a lot of college houses that have different styles and what you have is pretty similar to your neighbor that's two or three doors open up the green college house. Yeah. So that's it. Thanks for >> uh I have some a hand raised online. Mr. Copniki. >> Yes. Matt McGee would like to raise a make a statement and then I am going to
52. 1:04:01have a few remarks after he finishes. Thank you. >> Mr. McGee speak up please sir. >> Yes. Uh my name is Matt McGee. Uh this house from all appearances could be an early at at early building at least from the later 18th century. Uh the salt blocks form the five bay front centered doorway and second floor windows right up against the roof line make this a typical style of New England house. in particular Nantucket from the earliest days of our English settlement and into the 19th century. This was an ongoing style. There are two unusual features visible from the outside
53. 1:05:03that are special interest. the large dormer on the back roof and the even of even more interest, the window in the dormer which has a very unexpected division of 16 over two window panes on the interior. A citroen is another feature. >> Sistn of note along with the brick and field which is used to slow the spread of fire and help retain warmth or or cool the building. These features could s suggest an early date. And I think frankly if you go online and you look at New England houses from the 16th century into the 18th and you will see this style of house. It looks just like them. And it's
54. 1:06:10it's really quite interesting that this house has survived. And as far as what's happening with the foundations and the way the building is built, I found it interesting that they mentioned there were old beams which they thought had been brought in. I think they're original. I think the rest other things have been done that aren't. And the house is not unusual that is sitting on the ground. This is not a strange arrangement at the window and uh you know there's been a limited amount of time in order to all uh but this house is likely an important survivor from Hudson's past and was originally a single family house and the 1880s
55. 1:07:13date given and is nothing more than a placeholder used by the city as by the city of and the actual uh records have been lost in a fire around 1900. I don't know. I find that trying to deal with the building itself, especially when realizing that it it's antiquity, that it's it's most likely the case. Uh it's rather hard to try to deal with the new proposal. I think at this point we need to consider salvaging this building, understanding its history more and there should be research made and I I hope there are other people who can help with this. Thank you. >> Thank you.
56. 1:08:14>> Okay. >> I I just want to make a couple of first of all a couple of remarks about procedure. Uh I don't believe that I knew about the the public hearings, but I don't believe that the full agenda for this meeting was posted online. Uh also I I may have I I may have missed it, but I don't uh know if the role was taken. I'm not sure which commissioners are >> second and meeting was online >> and so what are your comments? Well, my co those were my two my further comments were uh having now heard that the code enforcement has had an opportunity to look at the building. Last time it was established that the building had not been condemned but the building at as of this point has still not been condemned. Is that correct? >> I'm sorry. What? >> No, it has not been condemned. >> No, it has not been condemned. and the
57. 1:09:17minutes from the the the previous meeting. I I want to quote Commissioner Barrett from the minutes. He noted that 34th South Front Street was a tear down, but the owner successfully restored the home and raised the foundation more than seven uh inches to stabilize the building. Commissioner Barrett noted that this applicant might want to speak with the 34 South Street South Front Street owner. Uh I take it that that did not happen. Yes, it did. >> It did. >> It did. Yes. >> And And what was the result of that? >> Um, this is just I'm going to say a more extraneous situation than what um he was dealing with on >> Go ahead. I can speak to that. Yeah, >> I did speak with um Michael Wel who's the owner of the building and he indicated to me that the structure was not raised 7 in and that their foundation which has a crawl space uh was intact. Um, I then actually by
58. 1:10:23set of circumstances talked to the actual contractor as well that did the work on the building. And he also indicated to me that this structure was not raised. And basically what happened is they went in there with pulleys and ropes and they straightened the structure. Um, but the foundation was something that was salvageable. Um and they both indicated that they did not feel it was in um keeping with the same set of circumstances that we're dealing here with our current foundation. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> If if you could please wrap up because we we actually need to have a regular meeting as well. >> I'm wrapping up. >> Thank you. Glad you >> I I do have another hand raised. Uh Miss Austrin. Yes, it's me again. Um, I just I really think that, you know, approving demolition is not an appropriate task for the Historic Preservation Commission
59. 1:11:27and particularly given the information that Matt McGee just provided about the likelihood that this is a very old house in Hudson. Um, a very significant survivor. Um, I I urge the the commission not to approve the demolition of this building. That's all I have to say. >> Okay. I would love it if we could close the public hearing and go to our regular meeting. >> Just be clear, this public hearing on not on the hardship application, just on the compatibility regular application. If we go to hardship, he's going to have to come back. We're we're we're not arguing, aren't you? >> Yeah. Just I'm making it clear. >> Okay. Uh the the the case was made in terms of feasibility, safety, and but they did not make our pardon. Uh motion to close the public hearing. You and Eric. All in favor? I public
60. 1:12:31hearing is closed. Uh let's go into our regular meeting. Uh questions of commissioners. While this stuff is fresh in mind, we have a lot on the agenda. Do you go directly to the cases we just discussed for go through other agenda items that we should talk to the people that are here way then we come back >> we're we're going to keep on going guys in this meeting we'll come back to um 2006 and actually deliberate as commission okay so let's go go to our regular agenda, right? >> Okay. >> I think I think that we have the applicants here. >> Fair enough. >> Okay. >> Uh we have two CFA votes. >> Uh yes. Well, first up, we we would need to uh the commissioners would need to uh vote on the draft minutes of February 13th. >> Motion to approve the minutes. All in.
61. 1:13:34All in favor? I. None opposed. Well done. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh next up we have we do have two C's of A uh that the code enforcement officer Fox has said that he will date for us. Uh first up is 43 Allen Street and that was uh essentially an adjustment uh to a previously approved approved application uh to modify the window spec step specs. >> Right. And uh we saw that uh two weeks ago. >> A motion to approve the CA and request. Well, motion double C. You and Miranda. >> Sure. I approve. >> Okay. And um next up is the CFA for the Crescent Garage. Yeah, my computer I don't know what's happening with it, but uh this was the
62. 1:14:38uh crescent garage and the modification was uh for some window uh different windows here and the doors uh if you remember the doors facing this doorway. >> Yeah. >> And then okay on 8th Street. >> Yes. >> Motion fall on favor. >> Okay. 752 Lauren Street. just for the record. >> Okay. >> Um >> 40 43 Allen and 752. >> Yes. >> Yes. Uh next up we have uh three new applications. First up is 27 Union Street. >> Hello. >> Hello. Uh and I will put that This is for 27 Union Street. Y >> uh windows and doors. >> Yeah. Perfect. So, uh I'm rich. I think
63. 1:15:42I've met a few of you before. Um so, uh just to give you some context, my wife and I bought 27 Union Street about two years ago, just under two years ago. Um it had been disused for quite some time. the exterior of the building had fallen to quite bad repair. Um so we've spent the first two years of our uh time there um essentially preserving what was there. So we've uh taken all the faces off the buildings. We've repainted new gutters, you know, all of that stuff to get it to get it to a point where the building's not going to fall down. It's watertight. There are a couple of different um improvements that we would now like to make to the building to make it more livable for us and for anybody that buys in future. Um, and the first of those projects that I'm going to talk to you about is, uh, if you go down, I'll pause for a second is going to be, um, replacing this window. So, um, rather appropriately, this is in a dorma in lower Union Street in a colonial style building if I get
64. 1:16:50wrong. And you see up the top here we have a fan style building, sorry, a fan style window. This is in a disused third floor attic space um that we are going to be converting into our primary bedroom. Um that window is broken. Um there are a number of panes on it. One of them's just completely gone and there are a number of other panes on it that are very very um ropey. So that would need to be removed. Um >> sorry. My computer's not reading this for some reason. >> Yeah. So, there's a number of other paper that need to be removed and as we want to convert it to our um primary uh bedroom. There are um code enforcement issues with that. Um, we spoke to Craig before he left uh that we want to put um uh we need to put a window in there that we can use as a means of emergency escape onto the um the roof of the the uh the the piece of the building down here in case there's a problem and then we've obviously spoken to him as well
65. 1:17:52about um bridge systems design. So what we're proposing with that if you'd like to go down to the next slide chance you can zoom out. I uh can't read it. >> Okay. >> Yeah, you it's you're having problems because you're zooming in too much. >> Um so if you look here, this is the pro state of the building. So we have the fence building at the front. Sorry, it's not you can't see it. Well, um we want to convert that into a long rectangular window. Can you make that slightly bigger? >> Uh It's a you'll get sent the notes through. Um it's a long rectangular style window that will essentially take up the width and breadth of that dorma. Um for two reasons as I've said there's a code issue with there but very selfishly uh this looks over the Hudson and that's going to give us the best view possible over the Hudson. Um and then just to look at what we're thinking
66. 1:18:57of stylewise. going down. You might want to try and zoom out here and see if that looks um so um so we've gone we've gone the style of the window framed um sort of classical styled window. It won't have any >> There it is. >> Yeah. So, we're just trying to keep it as a bit of glass as possible, wood framed, which we will then so as closely resembling the windows throughout the rest of the building as we possibly can. And then we will look to um paint them white to match everything else within the building itself. >> Um and then the second part of the project. So, uh, we currently have, um, towards the back of the house, we have, this is an extension. The house, the house has been extended a number of times since it was built, uh, in the, I believe, the 1820s.
67. 1:19:58And on the ground floor, I'm going to just extension to this area. Rather strangely, we have a kitchen. Then, we have a chimney that's been enclosed within a a drone um, that doesn't go through the house. I don't have that. And then there's a wet room. We're going to be consolidating that kitchen and wet room into um one bigger kitchen and living space. Um we're going to be looking at making sure that the foundations are are correct. Um making sure that the the house is stable. And then as part of that, we want to open up this um back door and window into one uh big biffold window. So again, giving us the best view out of the garden. It's worth noting um when we're looking at this particular point of the project, you can't really see it. >> Um if you go up one slide, I don't will be able to get >> Yeah. So no up. >> Oh yeah, actually down. Sorry, the slide ordering seems to
68. 1:21:03>> this particular project. So this is again what is currently where we wanted to be big by hole windows across the bottom. But if you go down to the next slide, It's worth noting that this particular part of the project you can see the um the fan style window from the street from certain angles but the the the ground stairs conversion to bifold windows is not visible to the public in anywhere to um that's entirely private uh and so that's not going to make any difference to anyone. So these two photos here are um facing partition. >> These are these are from partition facing towards union. >> Yes. >> Um so none of the all of all of this faces in towards partition >> and that's it. Those are the two things that want to get done. >> Any questions concerns? >> It's replacing the fan window with the horizontal window and the weird window with >> normal window. Okay. the fan window that doesn't appear original or is it? We
69. 1:22:07don't believe so. No. Um the whole of that structure that that top room as far as we're aware was converted without authorization into an apartment at some point. And um Whoops. Uh, not quite us. Um, there is a there is a bathroom up there that was again disused. From the exploration that we've done internally, poking a lot of holes in the wall. All of the wood is chipboard. It's relatively recent. It's not the old original oak um like large oak um uh planks that we have through the rest of the house. So, as far as we're aware, that is not original to the house. Um uh yeah >> the um the fan window that you want to replace um with that larger horizontal window is that going to be a casement window. >> Yes.
70. 1:23:08>> Okay. So it will have the means of the degree again you can't see it pretty too well. There would be there's one large paper glass in the middle and then two on either end that will open. Um one of which will obviously open two ways up. the other one that will open over to the roof of the um of the extension to allow some uh eress with this. >> Where's the date at this midnight? >> That's the big like we really don't know. Um the house we believe is 1820s, >> but we don't know when it was converted. Was it plus wood? >> Yeah, it's very simple. Yeah, using your imagination would it be from like 30 years ago from the Home Depot or from like 160 years ago? >> I would probably put it as being turn of the century >> 19th century.
71. 1:24:11>> Yeah. I I don't think it's I don't think it's original to the building, but I don't think it's 18. So, what are the materials for the windows that you want to replace it with? Are they wood or >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. with. So there's again in the presentation it's a Pella um wood frame um modern double >> it's a Pella casement style white clad pine in what is is it bal or is it >> tall? Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And then we'll obviously paint the rest of the building. questions, comments, you good? Sure. >> Um I when I saw your proposal, um I felt like the fan window did not look
72. 1:25:16original to my eye. >> Um it it did I feel like usually that's placed in a gable as a way to um exhaust air. So it's the fact that you cite it as something that's an addiction. I feel like that seems likely to me. Yeah. >> Um the one thing and this kind of goes back to the preservation and to the neighborhood, but I feel like there is a hierarchy. I it's and this is like zero personal apartments, right? Like I I but like that that fan window is creating texture. Um, and your proposal like appeals to architect, but I also feel like it's a little bit disappointed with the time period of the building like kind of the opposite situation of Walters where he was putting the dormers that was like kind of historically relevant. I feel like you're introducing a very modern kind of flare. So, I just bring that to the commission.
73. 1:26:19Like I as an architect like that, but I also recognize that you're using some of the hierarchy that's within the fan or whatever whatever. Like I said, I think that fan is not original at all. It does not look right. It does not functioning. Um, but that's and when you talked about it, I did feel like it I could relate. >> We There's a a new fan window replacing the old fan window, which probably was not original. >> Yeah, I don't think that that should happen for sure. Okay. >> I think that the fan window is just don't think it. >> So, it's striking a different note. Uh, perhaps. What What What about the rest of the aesthetics on that? There. Sorry for that. One more time. >> Yeah. >> It's This one's a tough one for me because I feel like as an architect, I can appreciate the proportion and kind
74. 1:27:23of the choices. Um I feel like looking out for you guys, um I feel like it is a different vocabulary. It's introducing something kind of contemporary into this historic building, >> I think, in a respectful way, but I feel like it's something that um I feel like part of my role is to collect stuff that you guys could think about. >> So, I think it's clear. I mean, I asked about the age of the window out of interest, but that window would not have been there in the original construction, maybe not even the original construction of that addition. say I'm not in front of it, but a ribbon window that runs the full length of the building isn't really in accordance with the rest of what Hudson does. So, while that while you may want to remove that window and while we might think that's a fine idea, I don't know if it placing that entire strip of windows and instead would be appropriate just one man. >> Yeah, >> I think that might be what you were saying to
75. 1:28:24>> Yeah, I think that's what I'm saying. like I I can relate to as an owner wanting that big view. Um and then from the perspective of how this kind of impacts the exterior, I feel like that is a big fan window. Um if you even just replace the window >> square to that size. I it feels like there should be some hierarchy with with that whatever you replace it with so that there's >> not dissimilar from what Ronnie and um he were talking about earlier about kind of having some reverential to the what it was but again I think it's weird because it's like definitely not >> 100% it's not original I think that there's there's the two elements of this right there is the keeping something that's in with the building but also making sure it's code compliant because we actually need that as a means of essence as well. >> So in order for us to keep that centralized and for it to be us to be safe to get out of it, we're going to have to roll the windows in the right the whole right hand side and then bounce off to the left hand side as well. So there are there are two
76. 1:29:27elements that are dictating the width of that building. >> So it's like a bizarre situation where it didn't get code approval, but you're able to get approval for it, >> right? Like you know it's it's a it's a you see that a lot. So you're saying that in order to do in order to have a new replace that opening you have to have it run all the way to the right hand side. Why? So the egress can egress can come out. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> It can't. But what about why is it that side? Why wouldn't you be able to have a case more centrally located than that facade? Why can't you get on? >> Maybe we can't get out. We can't get out onto the the So if we we can only get out like on this side. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. show the picture >> the the the extension. They would get out the window onto the roof of the extension and the extension doesn't go all the way across. >> Is that what requires that you get down to the roof? >> This has to be like I could be at e
77. 1:30:32third floor that you're supposed to jump out of. >> Right. But I thought it was for ladders too. Like does it I guess the question is does it have to be on the right side in order to access the roof or could the case be anywhere on that? >> I'd have to get back to you. >> Okay. >> What What does the attached structure have in that space? >> Yeah. Sorry. The attached >> neighbor. What What do they They're identical homes or similar homes, aren't they? >> Uh yes, but they don't have a dormer in the in the top either side. Have a look. You mean this? >> So, so ours has been converted. So, if you see here, ours has been converted. We've got a door that's been put into the top with the window. Theirs is not. >> Can you go back to the prop? Please go back to the proposal. So, I have it here too, but you so you're what is the what is the delta between the width of the current fan window and the proposed um the proposed windows that you want to put in? Like
78. 1:31:34how much wider you look and probably I mean we don't actually have the measurements here. I would say it's probably four or five ft on either side. It's not it's not huge. >> So it's it's from here to here, right? >> Yeah. >> I mean just the plan do need to note the measurements of the windows if they're not there. I think I mean I've already gor what the architect made. Yeah. >> Right. >> I think you just I mean to be quite honest I think if you if you let the if you g if you had some building on either either side of those windows like it's running to either edge of the dormer. I think that is the modern element that's distracting us. If you want to shrink the central panel and have the casements on either side then leave a little bit of on either side. It's not a it's not a broer building, right? So I think you if you can do that I don't think and you said I don't think you're going to have
79. 1:32:36the end of things world. So maybe you should do that with real measurements and then and propose that. >> I don't know I don't want to speak for the commission but that's too >> I mean if you look at John if you look at the plan it shows you how much bigger the window there's an outline. >> I really think it's about reaching either end of the dormer. That's the That's the difference between um that's the difference between modern and and yeah smaller than you might have but what do you feel about John's disposal that we have to come back >> you might find too much I mean I can understand that too. Every other you know everyone else everybody else is divided light. So you can make a case that these should be case that they should be case and simulated divided by if you could take another look have your architect provide to the axles on the
80. 1:33:40measurement and you can call us in the intro meet again in two weeks. Uh Caris the commissioner architect if you want to work with her on looking at this going forward. Uh that can be held blog. I don't want you to have to run around. So, but just one more bill. Yes, that's fine. >> The plan need the dimensions and the actual specs of the way. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I just want to raise a question about the extension. That's part of your house, right? It's the painted the same color and so forth. And the windows on that part of the building, I don't know if we can get a little closer to them, are rectangular, looks like casement windows. I mean, there's also an an issue about matching the rest of this building >> as well as being compatible with the buildings on either side. And you know the buildings on either side have preserved I clearly there's
81. 1:34:43been a lot of big additions added to this building over the years before you bought it. And so the question I think is whether we want to replace this fan window with something that looks more like the neighboring houses which could be a casement window with false you know with the >> divided >> divided lights or it could be a window that looks more like the other windows on this particular house. >> I think I think just to to hold on to that we we purchased the house and I'm not going to finish my words. pretty in terrible shape. Um half of the windows don't actually work or um this is front and back. They are plasticky, chipsy, cracky. >> Um >> the intention will be as Caitlyn and I sort of hack off different pieces of this project and budget becomes available, um that we will reexamine all of the windows front and back to the rest of the building. And in that in
82. 1:35:47that case it will be you know ideally 606 like you know very traditional buildings to make sure that we're matching everything else. Um >> so if that's the case if you are not proposing right now >> this is the one this is the one place that we want to do something slightly more contemporary. Like I said there are two different reasons for that. There's the the egrets who have some sort of >> PW. >> Yes. But I think you want your house to be consistent when I mean that's a wonderful plan and you're not proposing that to us now so we don't have to. >> Yeah. So that's what it is. >> But you should think about do you want to wind up with a house that has lovely period windows everywhere except in this one spot? Or is there a way that you can create a casement that will give you your egress >> that will be more consistent with the older windows? I think about which >> so we'll see you in two weeks on the communication longer than that in the interview. >> Yeah, no problem.
83. 1:36:48>> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> What's up? >> Um >> sign 362 Warren. >> Yes. 362 Warren Street. We have our African people here in person. >> Hello. Uh my name is Shayla Bradley. I'm speaking on behalf of the um owner of Mexico Real Estate. Her name is Rachel Hyman Rouse. Um we originated in Finbeck and recently have expanded up to Hudson. Um uh so residing in 362 Lauren. What we are currently requesting is to add uh wording on to the existing canopy that is uh out front of the building. Um which is essentially our logo that we'd
84. 1:37:51like to add onto the front. Um and then on the right hand side there you'll see that that would be on both sides of the canopy as well. Um, additionally, we are just requesting to add the same mortage onto the front of the door there. Um, and yeah, you agree the application complete. >> Uh, that would be you and Cara. All in favor motion public hearing request the city and we'll go with you and car again. All in favor? Yep. I You'll have your seat. >> Thank you. >> Good res. >> Next up, >> Mr. Ch >> 1660 South Street. >> I I apologize for my help for trying to be funny like Louie in um Pasano where they say here are your winnings. I don't think I've ever been into a house that didn't have illegal occupied my father. Anyway, um I'm here on behalf
85. 1:38:57of um 60 Front Street. I see Shaq is here. Shaq, do you want to say anything before I start? >> No, I'm I'm here uh to help with any questions of anything, but otherwise Walter, I'll I'll let you uh take it away. Thank you everybody. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, um, we were here before you in November and anticipating to extend the canopy on the south side and got permission to do this. >> Yeah, I'm trying to do >> some technical issues. >> I don't know. >> Yeah. I don't know why I am not reading this stuff today. I think it does have to do with the zoom. I have I have the one I'm looking at is from the chat. The email is from the chat 64. >> No, I have a new application. Uh Walter sent something this morning or yes last night.
86. 1:39:58>> Yeah, I apologize. I thought I'd sent it before, but I couldn't find it. So, it was a big file. So, I sent it >> if needed, I could uh if needed, I could try to uh share my screen as well. I have it on my computer. >> Yeah. Great. >> I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. >> Oh, that's great. Thank you. >> Let me try this. Um, >> that's perfect. >> I believe uh chair for sent it to the commissioners. I think You can see that.
87. 1:41:02>> Okay. >> Wow. Okay. Um, thank you Originally, we asked for Dr. Commission to extend this canopy on this side and add a ramp. That was granted. The owners have since made a important business decision. Right now, you go in to uh both the market and the restaurants for a single door. That's caused a lot of problems, especially when they're busy. So they came to the conclusion that what would really make sense would be to retain the center entrance um for the restaurant which would then have two means of aggressive handicap access and to add a new window up sorry door up at the corner adjacent to this existing window. We take out a window and this is actually the sidewalk comes up. So this would be anra entrance allowing him to have access there. So they simply
88. 1:42:05partition off the common entry here and that would become the restaurant entry and then that allows the market um to function separately have separate hours etc. Um so we can move on chat room control. >> Yeah. Just go down. I'd probably go right to the elevation. Walter, is that where there's a service window now on the side of the building? >> No, that's around the corner. >> Okay. >> Right now, there's a window like this here. So, the proposal is simple. We would remove one section of the window and replicate the existing door. >> Okay. >> And also this, right? And we'll come back to signage when they decide what they're going to do with signage. But for now, very modest. This was already approved. This is the app here. So, what is the door? Is it wood? Is it >> It's wood. It's It's absolutely identical to the existing handed wood door. Two divided lights. Um actual, you know, recess panel and there's a transom
89. 1:43:08above and the only difference is this door is in a lower grade and doesn't come up. So, we this one the whole assembly to line with the top. >> In other respects, it's the twin of the existing door. Twin of the existing door. Uh I think they're fine. Uh motion to find the application complete. Miranda and Paul. All in favor? >> I motion to wait public hearing and ask the city attorney to prepare CV. Miranda and Paul. All in favor? Uh do we want to go to um even or uh back to the the two presentations for uh that were part of the public hearing? 30 union is a continuation for the
90. 1:44:11>> that was the demon garage proposal and is there anyone here from 30 >> okay >> oh no no 30 >> is there anyone online to speak to 30 Union Street >> the one that we told them to go back and do >> yeah they had a proposal that uh that was an alternative, I think, to what they presented the first round. >> Mhm. >> Uh we asked them if they had something in their pocket. They did indeed. And we asked if they could come back with the owner and finish this up, >> which didn't happen. So, um >> there was no one here speak for 30 unions. >> Okay, great. And I I have not received any new packages unless >> let's let's go back then to the public hearing and uh >> we started with I think 26 Warren Street >> the addition and the dormer. Uh let's let's go to that and see if we can deliberate on that. >> Maybe I can ask a question. This this
91. 1:45:16application there's a lot in here. culture. There's the you're you're seeking all of it like the there's there's a there's addition there's alterations to the rear and then the and then there's the front. There's nothing else. You're not re you're not requesting anything else to be altered to the front other than the rear. No, >> other than the joers. Are you changing the pitch of the roof? >> No. >> Okay. Um, I mean, I'll just give since I have the floor. I I I don't think we ought to approve those front dormers. I simply believe that that it changes the building. Not that it's that not that there are not federal style buildings with with dormers like that. You've shown them plenty. But I just think that alteration to this building is too much for this for for given its history, given how historic it is. I would have no problem with any anything else that we saw today in the background >> and does the net concern be infinitely less than those three. >> Okay. Okay. Other folks good reviews other
92. 1:46:19>> I would agree with Don in the way this building is described you know in the in the document from 1985. I can appreciate that some of these homes were built with dormers or had them added on. I think what we're looking at here is preserving one in its original form that doesn't have the the dormers added on and and it is considered a contributing structure which you know it's a little bit you know it gives it additional strength as a structure. So I I I don't think I have any problem with anything else you're talking about on the side and the back, but I think those windows >> I'll check their dogs and >> Walter the the piece on the back. It kind of relies on the dormers working in the front, right? >> Well, there'd be no point. >> You can't It's one or the other. You can't say you like this part but not that part. They all work together. That's the >> Why is that? We were just shown donors buildings that have that don't have
93. 1:47:21donors in the front and do have them under here. Why can't you have >> because the depth to this allows us to put the tow up there on the front and in the back. So we would think that would be a logical ask. >> Okay. So it's you don't have a viable project then. >> Yeah. I mean there are skylights there that are operable. We you know we can get um you know the expense of putting the second means of egress up to legalize even one room it's kind of questionable. So um you know I may may I make a small statement? >> Sure. >> Okay. I want to get noted against this board but I do have uh a lot of anger about our current um comprehensive plan and I actually extracted something that I think is worth meeting from the now going into effect comprehensive plan. I don't know how many of you went to those
94. 1:48:22workshops. Mary and I went to all of them. We argued unsuccessfully that historic preservation and the historic character of downtown Hudson was absolutely essential to the economic survival of the city. And the only mention that I can find in the entire comprehensive plan, which I'm sure you've all read, is at the very beginning in the preamble, it says this plan is not a refresh or an update of the existing effort. The foremost goal of the previous 2002 plan was to protect the traditional character of Hudson's downtown and neighborhoods with objectives focused on historic preservation design and waterfront access. Over the course of this new plan's developments, residents consistently expressed concern with housing affordability and the overall cost of living. This observation bore out for residents new and old across a range of socioeconomic backgrounds. Whereas the prior plan was chose to center on historic preservation and design, the imperative of Hudson 2035 is to ensure that the benefits of a
95. 1:49:24received surgeent and thriving Hudson are shared among all community members. Now I'm sure everybody sitting here shares my this is totally outrageous that it completely misses the whole point of why Hudson is unique and how how we have any kind of an economy is based on this. So I am here partly as a bridge between this commission and a business community. That's point one. Point two, which also kind of wrangles me, is there are a lot of demolitions that take place in Hudson and they happen for legitimate reasons, but maybe the motives are people let things sit there for a long time, they fall down. When things are replaced, they're replaced as contemporary buildings with a nod to Hudson's past. I won't embarrass any of my architect friends by calling out which ones I think are most outrageous, but my personal feeling is this is going to a party in the wrong set of clothes. Okay, that's point two.
96. 1:50:27Point three is when Notradam burned. This is my favorite. The great chancel of the crossing, that amazing thing that collapsed. They had a competition to replace it. People went insane. The French government interveneed. There was no question that they were going to do anything new. The thing was destroyed. It's a 19th century design by my hero Leuke, who realized there was no chancellor there, but thought that the building needed one because other cathedrals in France had them. And I've quoted him to you guys before because we have fabric and we have objects. We have very important buildings that anchor the community and represent civic importance and tradition. And we have a lot of buildings that are in various states of disrepair. Um, I've seen some other examples today. And when we make decisions that are based on a feeling that things are not right or they don't strike our taste or something is too thrilling, I think we overlook the fact
97. 1:51:30that these buildings have had up until being subject to historic rules almost endless changes. Now, I'm going to take my two cents here and say that I did more research because I never understood the resistance to that big window on the Algeria house. And we showed you, we had a site visit and we showed you historic evidence that there had been a lancet window there at some point and the commission ruled against that. Well, it turns out that Second Street didn't exist when that house was built, and the carriageway started down at the corner by the Rick, wound up through the property, and came up and dropped people off there. And that, of course, would have been the grand entrance to the house. And of course, it would have had a window. That window was closed in when Second Street became a commercial street. It led down to a very rowdy port. And I would have closed it off at that finally was up to me. But you know, the commission does a disservice to
98. 1:52:33itself and others, but it fails to recognize the dynamism that is a part of the historic fabric. The buildings that are built today, whether we like it or not, be the future historic building. So, please, please, please consider not only personal taste, but functionality, the usability of spaces, and the need to find somebody who's got pockets and the willingness to just not only restore these buildings, but keep them in good condition. I think, you know, these guys, >> I'm on their side. I've been on their side. >> So, if I could go on and you know, I can I won't. >> No, no, no. You can you can go on or or come back into the conversation because we got to have this conversation. Uh I think that uh the Alger sealed wall in a space that I think they wanted a bedroom for a kid or something. Uh based on somebody saying one of the great painters like blank walls, I believe justification at the time. uh
99. 1:53:38still speaks in my head as as a uh blunder. Uh I think that uh our responsibility is to do multiple things at the same time, which is why there's a commission. Uh if it was easy, they definitely wouldn't need us and people could move on. We're always in conflict against legitimate premises of preservation and livability. I think that we've established from our own chapter 169 uh that uh our key word is actually compatibility. The uh windows we're talking about on Warren Street uh I think are called freight. They are period compatible. You don't have to do them, but they are period compatible and they make the space inside uh livable and they make the extension
100. 1:54:41in the back where the owner is trying to add some room uh workable to get hung up on anything else other than I I can't think that there needs to be another test because these buildings are plastic. They change all the time. They're different issues. In many, many cases, we don't interfere with livability. We allow people to have HVAC units. We allow them to have cable attachments to their home and so on. Uh um I do not believe that the arguments uh on the windows on the wall are persuasive. I think they're actually going to look great. Uh but they also make that space usable, breathable, livable, and bring light to it. And why shouldn't we? Is that we're that's that's our contribution the community to uh to impose livability and this is historically appropriate to the period here. Am I right or wrong?
101. 1:55:42>> Yeah, I mean I agree with what you're saying. I but I find it interesting for sure to hear the different perspectives because it's something that um I was thinking about mindfully because I really respect the perspective of everybody and and I don't you know coming into a historic commission there's different ways of approaching architecture. Um, my feeling kind of to the point that Walter was making like the the viability of Huntsman as a place people come has to do with the the way the architecture is. And I feel like the um allowing businesses to flourish um is something that we shouldn't be opposed to if it's >> like a compatible >> architectural solution so that it adds the additional hotel rooms and then it looks >> appropriate. But it's it is like I get you know like from my perspective >> there's legitimate >> well let me just one thing
102. 1:56:47>> in in terms of our role and this is in I want to clarify my my point is not aesthetic. I think the dormers are very attractive and I also understand that if the original o owner of the building who built it decided he wanted more space in the attic, he put dormers on it and no one would say that's a terrible violation. The issue here is the fact that this building has been unchanged for such a long time. And I think we have to consider within the historic district and in fact in the core of the most unspoiled except for across the street part of historic district. um whether it's a value to maintain this historic building which hasn't been changed since its original construction >> even take it and I also I completely understand the business argument I
103. 1:57:50completely understand the the you know it's not that it would ruin the building it's that it would ruin the integrity of that part of the historic district I think is my concise >> I think I also I want to just fill to your point. These buildings aren't all plastic, right? They're not plastic. They don't change all the time. And some of them, some of them were here to preserve. And so the argument for keeping this roof line as it is to me is compelling. We vote for many things on this commission that alter many things every time we meet. But there is the occasion where an important roof line or an important element should be preserved. And I think in I I believe this is one of those that I and it's not a question of aesthetics there. I've I've seen many things go through this commission that would perhaps not meet my aesthetic uh interests, but these those are beautifully designed dorm rooms. I don't even think that's a question. I think
104. 1:58:51your building will look would look great if it weren't already this building that survived for this period of time and you weren't a preservation commissioner. >> Why are we pulling down just one lever? If if those dormers bring life to that building, they enable that owner to uh succeed more rather than less. They are aesthetically pleasing and welldesigned uh and they are compatible with the period. The lever that we're leaning on now for justification is well for reasons unknown probably because nobody liked or cared about a lot of that space for years. I've been a neighbor there for a long time and until uh David moved in and tried to fix it up with his own two hands. That building had not seen love in 70 years. So, we have a hotel year comes in uh whether it's love or money, they're very similar in experience with money
105. 1:59:55uh and tries to make a go of it. And this is part of that solution for Pete's sake. That is now that we what we oppose. That makes no sense to me. It is only by accident that that building was not raped and pillaged like the entire block across the street. >> But it wasn't. >> And here we are. But whether it has >> but it's not an act of God, it's an act of humans. And another act of humans is when they take over a building and they own it, they want to make it work for them. Both are acts of humans. Not God did not determine that that was pristine. The owner has a chance to give a go at his business. >> To change your words though, why do we why do you need us? Why should we >> because we deal with our cases? These are our >> if if it if it's if it's if it's if it's period appropriate and it serves a business interest, we should just approve it. I don't think so. I think
106. 2:00:57the fact that this building has survived and is a remnant, it it is in of itself a reason to preserve it. Like there's no reason to change it. >> We're not unpreserving it. We're doing something that could have been done at any time that's totally compatible. >> There's a there's that that goes before I >> killed the whole floor of the alter house by not letting that window cut. >> We're going to do this to make up for the alter house mistake. I just want to call out like what like when you say what are we doing here? What Walter's proposing like that's why we're here, right? Is because what he's proposed is actually an elegant solution to an existing historic structure. The ship that's out there, right, is atrocious. Like it could be so ugly, but he's done an elegant job of matching an extension to the existing building. So that's one of the things that like this group helps make happen. >> Well said. I'm going to answer that. We understand that >> we're here to help people get their projects done. >> The building's never been touched. >> We're not here for preservation as an
107. 2:02:00abstraction. We're here because this is a lively, robust city. We want people to get their projects done, get their businesses run, get their homes built within the context of the code. And that's exactly what Walter's agree. I agree with that. Well, can I just procedural question as I >> you know I'm usually more on the liberal side but in this particular case I feel dark >> a case for preservation we are on the preservation commission this is it you know there are a lot of things that are sort of p iffy but I I want to ask because I also think there's two responsibilities here our job is preservation as I see it and I do think we should help people get their projects done and for the most part 70 a year and we help people get their project done >> and almost never do we say no. So I I agree with that >> preservation and responsible land.
108. 2:03:02>> Yes. Exactly. But >> the business issue here which I think is very very important. I'm not you know setting it aside. If we were to deny this application, could Walter appeal to the common council on a hardship basis saying the business needs to be able to operate this hotel and it's not viable without two extra rooms and let the let the city decide the business question. >> Eager to deal, but I think that would be damaging to everybody. Why? >> We would be doing our job as preservation. >> Well, I don't think we're doing our job if if if we can't tolerate uh some windows that are totally appropriate. I I don't feel that's our job. I really don't. Anyway, shall we uh we both got we want to differentiate the uh I
109. 2:04:07agree with Phil, you know, there's doing nothing because that's the way it's always been and then you know Hudson's growing and it's moving forward and it has to evolve and if it evolves responsibly which I think and I think these dormers would be appropriate I don't. >> All right. So is Jeremy allowed to vote if he vote and he's still on a panel. >> All right. So, we want to take Jeremy, do you have thoughts or feelings? >> Yeah, I mean, I I'm equally pulled in both directions here. I understand both sides of the argument. Um, I was leaning initially towards saying no to the dormers. Um, but after hearing some of the other arguments, I I feel like I'm I'm kind of sitting somewhere in between. Um, I don't know. I'm going to have to make a decision when we vote. But I think I think my challenge here is that what is our remit as what is our remitt as a group to make these determinations and we have different points of view on what our responsibility is. >> They're not that much apart there. I
110. 2:05:12think this unfortunately we're at an edge case which is where these things happen and they happen sometimes once a year and some but they seem to they're about to happen twice in a meeting. Um, but I but I would say, you know, before we vote on this, should Jeremy decide to vote to approve these dormers, they will be here for the next hundred years. And Phil, I completely agree with you. We are all and Q, I completely agree. We are always looking for sensitive ways to adapt these buildings to the uses that they require. But this as for a hardship application, I don't know how this how that'll run because this has been a functioning I understand not optimized hotel for many years. >> So I like it's this building has existed granted survived um some ugly some ugly opportunities to be destroyed but that doesn't that isn't a reason to change it today in 2026, right? like it's the building will be viable and and loved on for for as long as Hudson continues to
111. 2:06:14thrive. And let's not forget why it thrives. For 10 years, we've sat here, Phil, and we have said no to alterations that were unnecessary, no to alterations that that that will change the character of these neighborhoods and these blocks. And I my my instinct is if the building is viable and can be and can be used for a purpose without adding these dormers don't have them. So that's just one magic. >> Do we not owe any difference to the owner? >> Of course we do. But there's there have been 100 owners and there'll be 100 owners subsequent love. I knew that building before David worked on it. It was >> and that's not the question before us. This building this building already is ext, you know, we're talking about like value and time and and business. This building is already extremely valuable and will continue and will be more valuable when we walk out these doors because of the nature of Hudson. That doesn't mean we should approve something just because it looks like the period
112. 2:07:17we're going to we're going to glom it on. >> No, you don't. I don't. I'm not a glom. >> I understand. And you know that I'm not against people making a living with their building. So I just again as an architect looking at the plans that Walter showed like the dormers make sense architecturally. they they make that third floor work and if the hotel benefits from that it is the right type of intervention in my opinion as an architect like but I think it's being able to just look at it abstractly and like I like the front or I like the back is very superficial in terms of like actually evaluating what's working and I feel like it's a complex challenge to say to be a business and to say we need to have x number of more hotel rooms to generate that much more finance and then to work out the solution that works both internally and externally. And I realize we can't look at the internal part. It's not really what we're supposed to look at. But like as an architect, I that's what's working about it. And that's and I just think that part of what it seems to me the commission's about is preserving that character and making sure that we don't glom on,
113. 2:08:20right? So that we do an elegance. So, I do think that like if it were to be approved that the dormers and I trust Walter, but I will keep my eye on you that that the details of those windows are are, you know, >> verified. >> Yeah. Because I mean, the minute that proportion gets off >> like it it'll feel >> not right. It needs to be like really really refined to make sure that it >> and if if you're lucky enough to get approved at home to work with car to make that true so no one will be embarrassed about >> for sure if it gets approved I'm going to make sure no one's embarrassed >> I have two hands up >> yes >> thank you again your voice the reason uh so I don't know that the economic development argument has been made. How many rooms is already in this hotel? 26 or 12? >> It's I think it's currently 12.
114. 2:09:23>> 12 rooms. So, you're telling me that this hotel will not be economically viable if you don't add these two rooms? >> That's none of our business. >> I do understand that. But I will say that one of the issues with development in Hudson is the developers overreaching. We had parking problems and I know it's a separate issue but the developers overreach has been you know a problem in the city and I ask you to consider whether this is an overreach or if it's necessary and I understand what you're saying is the economic viability but that seems to be the argument that you're making it it I'm not I did not say it was about viability I say it's what triggered this was an opportunity to to So, um I I assume it's the Bible. It's sort of not the point that >> I'm curious just from a philosophical standpoint because I kind of walk this line. >> Is your issue that it's replica of the
115. 2:10:26history? Like would you like you would you would want to not intervene at all? >> I don't want to intervene in this building when this roof in front of >> Okay. cuz I feel like there is and again I come from contemporary architecture so where the the line of what's new and old is very clear which I tend to love but is definitely not what this team does but I feel like that's the other thing is that there is a way to do it where you preserve the old but you do something very contemporary as interact we had that discussion many times as you can imagine here and and and we've and we've approved um contemporary additions to historic structures. I don't think we could approve a contemporary dormer to this structure but yeah I don't have any issue as I told Walter I think the dormers are lovely and >> I have one more hand also >> I was just thinking from a safety standpoint as well you know 50 years
116. 2:11:29down the road if this isn't a hotel anymore or anything like that and somebody decides to bypass the code enforcement and bypass the historical society and make that into a bedroom there anyway. Um or if it is still a hotel and a fire breaks out up there and people are up there or run up there looking for a means to escape whatever type of emergency is going on. Maybe there should be some ways some means of egress within this third floor. >> But Nick, we can't we cannot approve alterations to buildings based on what could happen in the future or how people will use the inside of these buildings. >> I'm not trying to in terms of anybody's part. I don't think I get to vote on this. destroying that a little bit more further involved into that. >> We have to consider safety anyway. Jen, I'm not interested if it unless it's a new commissioner speaking. >> Okay. >> Can I just ask one other thing of the commissioner? Um, this is Jeremy online. Um, is it really about it that it's a facade that we're talking about and that it's been untouched because we've we've done many many alterations to other
117. 2:12:31flanks of the buildings, >> but is it John? Is it is it the facade specifically that's the issue? It's it's the fact that it appears that this particular facade on this particular very very old building uh has had virtually nothing >> done to it since uh since birth. Mhm. >> Uh so we're we're looking at what is probably relatively unusual and may maybe it's a lie but relatively pristine facade uh that's been unaltered for quite a long period of time. I would also argue the building has not been terribly successful for quite a long period of time until uh until the last 10 years. However, um you think that question was to me and I completely agree with what Bill said, right? It's this building, it's this facade, it's this roof line, it's
118. 2:13:33through the historic nature of this. It's not every building. >> I actually think it's going to look better than those >> that I was just going to prompt you, John. >> Do we are we voting on the front and back? We might as well. >> I guess we are. Yeah. >> All right. We have a motion to find the application lately. >> Yeah. >> All you all in favor? So be it. >> Uh yeah. Or nay. Uh >> so motion to >> put in let's just look at we can figure out the vote. Uh who's in favor of proceeding with the plan as proposed by Walter? I gota say we want to do it by name. Let's go around uh with an I or a N. Jeremy.
119. 2:14:36>> Nay. >> Seriously, you're public. I don't mean to jerry or interfere coming into the election process. >> Okay. So >> Jeremy, >> who's calling the role? Are you sure? >> Mr. Stein is a nay. >> Okay. >> I'm a yay. >> I I nay >> n >> nay. >> I think it does. We have four. No, the motion fell. >> It's not an appropriate score. >> Should have been Jeremy. >> You should have done
120. 2:15:38>> I know. Do you want to change? coercion. >> Shall Jeremy change his mind? >> That was a good question. >> Were you texting Ser. >> Okay. So, motion file 34. So you can decide, the applicant can decide whether they want to come back with a hardship application, whether they want to tweak it and come back with something different for consideration. >> It was the best solution. All right. It was the best solution. Moving right along. Uh let's go back to where are we going back? >> 309 311 Union Street. That's what I'm >> Wait, can I just remind everyone that they might need to update their parking >> by phone now? >> Uh, where are we on 309 311?
121. 2:16:45For those of you who remember, >> um, >> this was the demo. >> Yeah. >> And there's a few issues. There's you can consider the carriage house and the house separately if you want. Right now, it's fall one application. I think we can handle this one application. The the critical piece is actually the house. >> This I think there's a difficulty here that we just need to put out on the table which is as I think the applicants mentioned all too often people do demolition by neglect. So we have a we have a responsibility to discourage people from just allowing buildings to get to a point where they have to be told. On the other hand, this applicant has shown that they're really interested in renovating old houses and they went to great lengths to find out the history of
122. 2:17:49this house to have it checked by an engineer. It still hasn't, but it's possible that the code officer could go there and condemn the building. I don't know. That's a possibility. But I really do think in this case that we shouldn't force them to to go to the end of the earth to restore this building, which I also think is less of a contributing building than the building we were just talking about. But that that makes a difference in my thinking. >> It was work. >> Yeah. >> And they're doing something that is within that genre and pretty consistent with what we see all crafts. And uh my read of what corporate engineers were saying and what uh code enforcement was saying is not hardship which usually means financial. >> Uh it's uh doability and safety. Uh, and there was no indication that there's a
123. 2:18:52safe way to work with the space. So, yeah, look, we all get it. You know, we're pretty passionate about preserving Hudson. That's what we do. You know, we're the preservation commission. Taking land house is not our first choice. Taking Fourth Street, you know, the hotel to say those two buildings are not going to be taken down the road. because they can be saved. >> But from a safety issue, you were, you know, this is not just your engineer. >> Yeah. >> It's our own code enforcement. The house is not safe. It was built probably not safely and uh financially would take half a million dollars just to make it not fall and then start the project. You know, as old and original as this building may be, you know, it doesn't seem viable, you know, this is one of those big black
124. 2:19:53states >> where the house is at a point where sanding it is probably not an option. Uh, so I would probably, which I don't usually do, you know, lean to the side of taking it down because you don't want to see something happen. You know, remember the uh house uh on March Street next to Acumen. >> Yep. >> You know, they were trying to stay alive. You know, they propped it up with beams and steel. And then one night it just felt likely nobody was in there. you know that was a very real so that kind of went down by neglected haven't had been touched and so that's where I am on this um motion fin discussion there county um I think that but the issue I I I
125. 2:20:59don't think that buildings in this condition are are particularly viable for multiple reasons, but it is, you know, it is it's the simplicity and elegance of its facade is undeniable. I guess my greater concern is the scale at which the which it replaced in Congress because I don't think we're going to be particularly thrilled, especially if we live on Union Street, to all of a sudden find a lot line to lot line. I understand that that addition on the left is is is reaches a lot line, but it scale is not the same as the rest of the house. So I think what we're going to lose here by both de by not separating the issues of the carriage house and the issues of demolition from what's replacing it. I think more time needs to be spent as a talking about what's replacing it. I don't I was not offended by that uh because it's it was not a great rendering because it shows it in a field, right? But I think that I think I I I think that it's the applicant has come to us with a very thoughtful
126. 2:22:00presentation and that bit on history was extremely thoughtful. Thank you. I never get that. So really nice. >> But I just I don't I think that we're going to lose we don't just lose that that's it's so hideous, but in its current condition, but the the elegance of that of the of the existing facade set to the right, we're not just losing that. we're gonna also lose any kind of massing massing bearings that that exists on that property line. So I just think that that's something to consider. Yes, >> I didn't say that it was going to take up the whole lot line. There's they're shifting over to center. >> Is it just going to be so if that's it that I miss I couldn't tell you. If I can speak to what Dre here saying and again this a conversation that happened when we were thinking about um the building and height actually came into play um where if you actually go back to the contemporary photos and the this house right here
127. 2:23:05>> wait just a This house right here is a pretty much a threetory. We did not want to see that intentionally. We did not want to have this because I agree with you. That photo looks huge without anything around it. But that's deceiving. It's It's not that big. And again to one of the comments about the window being up high, we're trying to maintain all those elements. We have basically a one and a half story building. That second floor in there, the ceiling is like right here. And so we're going to just make two stories. We're not doing like huge foot ceiling. And that other house, this house here will probably be about the same height. And then this one's actually going to be taller. So we're not going to have this massive >> and that is I am comparing it to what's around it. But I'm also comparing it to what is there. So how much is bigger is
128. 2:24:07this structure than that structure? That's what I can't see on the >> width is identical to identical to the right hand side or to the right the whole building over that addition is that the edge of your building like >> this is the property line include the addition and this here is the other side we're going to take that and just shift it 4 feet so that we're not right up against his house so his gutter can run into our house which is like he is that is that little addition that's next to it is that what you're including as part of the width >> so that's why it feels a lot bigger >> that's that is really actually my I think it's great that you're going to give some some breathing room on the right but you are going to take up more volume and it's going to be the same height because this is getting infilled more or less it's it's pretty much the same building. Just bring this over.
129. 2:25:10That's it. >> So the width of the central building, forget the side building, is identical to the existing building. >> Overall structure over that on the left to there's no width argument on this. >> It's a mass. It's a it's a mass. That's a singlestory position which which is quarter to a third of it. And then it's that's going to become two stories and reach out to the rest. You know there there it's going to present very differently. It will have some it will have breathing movement that has on the right and it's let me ask this the peak of the Duke structure is it higher than the peak of this structure? Yes. Only because of the pitch. Um I don't have it exactly. Um, but I wanted to increase the pitch on that because of um, snow and ice damming. As a contractor, I'm not a fan of more pitches. I like to have a little bit
130. 2:26:12more pitch so I don't have the ice daming build up on my roofs. So, if I I couldn't tell you. >> I just know that we were pretty intentional in keeping it talking about two things here. is the final design of the house that you're showing >> or is there discussion that can be had. We're really talking about are we demolishing this property and then we can talk about the nuance of what you're building. >> Maybe you want to I don't know how we do that right now, but we haven't talked about the replay. We can we can vote on the demo. Vote on the demo and then vote on the designs. We're going to talk about the design. What are the windows? What is your lighting plan? all of that. So, I think we really have to talk about first things first >> and also the carriages. >> Yeah. >> I didn't >> for you to make a an elevation that
131. 2:27:16includes the houses on either side so we could see what the proportions would be >> instead of setting it in the middle. I know Walter's done that from time to time. Tell you how how the software. >> Sure. I think it would also >> we should need to see the house side. >> No on our property on the east side and actually the other neighbor is on our on the property as well >> on your property. >> Well, that's fine. But I was just saying is there actually four feet to move it over? >> Yeah, there's like seven or eight feet. >> Okay. Just it's on Google. >> Oh, well it's on the survey. >> We the survey is in the documents. >> It's it's >> it's on the original docu. So if you move this entire volume to the
132. 2:28:20left east, you would more center it on the property is what you're saying. >> Exactly. Center it. >> Right. And I think the the I believe the request is to show the rendering in context of >> the adjacent buildings. >> If you can even drop it into Google or Sure. and you'll be able to see it in the scale and that will give everyone some sense of just the rhythm because I I agree also with the to me the demo argument is very compelling. I mean listening to the engineers and reading it the other day um it was shocking to just see but also not shocking because it's past. Um but I do think that it's two different conversations. I think that it's a race to try to approve a design in a historic district if there's an approval to get rid of the structure. I feel like there needs to be a thoughtful and like kind of how this group engages with what the replacement is feels like it needs to be mindful. I get the feeling that you guys are very
133. 2:29:22sensitive to that which is great. I feel like if it does get green lit to be demoed, I think whatever you can salvage from that structure to reuse in a meaningful way. Um there's cuz some of those images while it was disturbing from a foundation standpoint sitting on the ground. >> Um but some of those timbers are quite beautiful and could be Yeah. >> But they need it. >> Yeah. I mean, just seeing like the way that it was going to >> fail and continue to fail, >> which I did think about in the code where it talks about >> there being issues with people neglecting, which clearly this was one of them that you bought it. And I also feel like from talking to you guys last week that we bought it with that genuine love of Hudson and were very disappointed with the condition of of the property. I mean, I feel like that to me was um made a big impact. >> Can we So, that being said, can we entertain a motion uh specifically to uh approve demo?
134. 2:30:28>> I mean, I think it's I don't think we've ever approved a demo without knowing what's going in this place and we've only approved maybe three demos since January. So, I think if we don't have the answer to the first question, I mean, the second question, it's a mistake to vote to approve this demos. I don't know if that's a difference out of the way. >> Yeah. And we can I think it it for the applicants. I think it it makes sense to give them some sense of where we're going. >> And if we need to to discuss in a little more detail should have an idea permission. Otherwise, why are they going back and spraying around the building strategy? >> And ultimately, we have the as a commission, they could do a design on this house or the current design. I say, you know, that's not really >> appropriate. >> We haven't really focused, frankly. I mean, there are some talked about >> we've approved or disapproved a lot of
135. 2:31:30houses over the years that we've been together. This is taking down a house. We We rarely do that. You rarely do. Have you seen houses in a similar condition? Like is it comparable to other properties or >> we try to we probably try to save one house. Usually something in this shape or close to this shape would have been caught by Craig. Yeah, that's the yellow >> because it's usually from by is it is it Nick who's who's renovating the street with that stunningly poor condition Allen Street. >> Allen Street. So we have but we've seen two things. We have seen something in this condition >> and we have seen someone re renovate it
136. 2:32:32and restore. >> Well, that but that I mean that's renovating the foundation. >> Yeah. >> They're there. >> I think I mean and it's terrible that this is your first meeting and we're dealing with a very rare exciting point to it. We almost never we almost never do with demolition. >> But I would say this usually I would prefer us not to rule on demolition. In other words, I would prefer us not to vote to demolish a a a thing where we have three pe members of the public speaking about why why it has significant please. >> Yeah. from a like code standpoint, the life safety does seem like it's a a like a code a cold call versus >> But that's not what you're voting on today, >> right? But can I just clarify what I'm saying just because we are talking about demolition like that's kind of what's
137. 2:33:34come up and that is a life safety issue which should be figured out by building code. like to me that the building code should >> declare the building >> uninhabitable >> uninhabitable not this >> because >> but I feel like that but just to be clear I think they've made the case and I would imagine that but I don't think it's this team >> but you're asking me to make a call >> right and that's what we've usually done in the past >> we've done this in the past >> we've asked the to decide whether >> if you were to make I don't know if this allow to say it anyway Well, thank you. >> Would you condemn this act if you were? >> Um, yeah. No, that's something I'd have to look further into. Uh, you know, I already told you my opinion on uh how it should be handled from a construction standpoint. There's no way to rebuild the foundation on that house. It it is. I'm I don't don't get I don't
138. 2:34:37want to put you on a spot. Yeah. >> But I mean just because it was just because somebody was living there >> doesn't mean they should >> doesn't mean that they should have been there. >> Yeah. So >> because it was I'm sorry. Because it was inhabited Craig never went in there because >> Right. >> Right. So it's just it's tricky that that that >> word is a very tough one to use. I just want to explain that in the past. If Craig has found something to be condemned, then he would allow the demolition on his own without going through HC because he safety issue, guys. >> So that's that's why they're asking these questions. >> I understand a big step. >> Oh yeah. No, I understand. I just wanted to understand that's that's the premise for these questions. And then >> well that's the premise for their argument. But in the absence of that, you know, this board is considering whether there's anything left retaining on this house. Is it >> a statement since and you know me, I'm falling my sword for this document, which is the historic natural districts inventory um uh form from 1985. And
139. 2:35:44there has been a significant alteration to that building that somehow slipped between them. That house used to have chimneys on either end. And some at some time a new roof was put on and obviously those were >> wrapped in aluminum too. >> Yeah. And I didn't understand originally when I heard what might be the new foundation, you know, but I think what once what I've seen today with everything that's going on with the rotten chambers and really the >> support of the house really does seem quite >> I think it would be fair for the applicant to assume that we're not going to stand in the way of demo and maybe we don't have to tell it further. What I'm not clear on is what the hell we're asking the applicant to come back with and we need to iterate that if that's what's happening. >> You mean in terms of demo? >> No. building. >> Well, you know, if whatever happens with the demo, we vote on that today. >> Highly likely that
140. 2:36:49I'm saying whatever the >> you can come back with the exact design that you're doing or we can have that discussion later. But, you know, the first thing the first thing that has to happen is we make a decision on them. Yeah. You know what what happens with the existing problem? I hope we don't have to make that decision. >> I'm hoping you guys do make that decision. >> I mean, honestly, it would be much better left in my opinion to be put up for a vote for that demolition than such a harsh decision on my part. >> Well, I think though there's another factor on the demolition point, which is that anything could be saved, right? If you're willing to put a million dollars into just stabilizing and so forth and and this is your dream house and you want to build it back exactly the way it was, there would probably be very little in the finished building that was there in the original building, >> but it could be done. But that's not what these applicants are asking about.
141. 2:37:52It it we have a motion uh on predicate that contingent on approval of the building plan >> and simultaneously thereof we move that the demolition will be incorporated into that program. goal we're saying. >> Yeah. I'm not >> It's a reassure. It's a reassurance to the applicant that we're not screwing, >> right? I think the applicant needs to and honestly I'm saying this also to you because >> you're not deciding whether or not it's possible to save this building. You're just you're >> deciding >> deciding is it safe the way it is right now >> and is it even safe as a construction site or could it collapse on the construction team? But but also that's not the report from the engineer who's who's analyzed the structure. So that's what you and you've been in that position.
142. 2:38:54>> Yeah. >> So he actually usually it's a two-phase process. The first phase is condemnation. Yeah. Occasionally the building is not safe for occupancy. Then we give a public notice. give everybody six months to say oh my god it should be safe or four months or whatever the period is and then if the condemnation stands building can be get a permit to demolish. So it wouldn't put it on you building is demolished it would only put it on you to say the building is not safe to >> that would also make more of a waiting period for the applicant. True. >> I guess my question is what does the applicant need to move forward? I mean that that's really what and and it is a wholesome proposal. We're acting as if it's not. It has all the pieces. The question is do we want to approve part of it >> or all of it but he there is a proposal for the building and for the whole campaign. So >> So that's a question I have actually for
143. 2:39:55Carol because the plans that I have I only have the former set >> they don't have details like the size of the windows details of the windows. What are the doors? From my perspective, I feel like um they've made the key like if I do think it's typically the condemnation comes from someone else, but if it means to me the engineer report as an architect, I get it. It should go. Um, I don't think there I think this is an unusual situation for this group because it means that there's a new structure and that's a different responsibility to figure out what that building is that you've done one of three demolitions in 15 years. And I'd be like, so the next steps to me would be initially at least looking dropping that building into three and kind of looking at the scale of it in relation. And then I think there's a a a couple different reviews that are similar to what you guys do for all the projects. looking at the specs for the windows,
144. 2:40:57looking at the materials for the outside, looking at I mean because I feel like one of my concerns um is that like that type of drawing could be very Home Depot. It could be very bespoke. >> And I think what you want, what I would imagine this group would respond to is more bespoke, less Home Depot. >> Um but you can't tell that from what's here. That's so for me there's that >> speak to that in our original proposal all those specs and the applications we provided those specs. >> No I mean they're not in the packet I'm looking at I don't see that >> in the original it shows what the windows are the side >> that's fine to see >> no no no I think fair enough. I think that um it seems like this is very unusual right the the approving a demolition. So I feel like just for everyone's mental space, I think there needs to be that gets approved and then the team needs to address what the project is, which then needs revisiting. No one was looking at the specs when they were considering demolishing the
145. 2:41:59building. So if the materials there are great, >> but I feel like the next step from my perspective would be looking at the context, understanding what you're proposing. I think it's super easy to do. >> Google Earth, just drop that three level you've got in there. Um, and I think I would show comparisons of this is what it is and this is what you're proposing. And I think even in that exercise, you may find stuff that you're like, "Oh, we should do this a little different or this is an interesting way to refine it." Um, and >> yeah, >> and I think you said earlier, Carara, are there elements of this building that can be retained? I think your decision to put the doors in the center, for example, was a very good one, and it helps. It's also the style of the rendering that's that makes it look Home Depot, >> but um also the out buildings which we really haven't looked at closely. >> Um you know preserving some sense of those wonderful barn doors that you had and that and the shape of these buildings is
146. 2:43:07so generic. >> Yeah. Um, and is there the possibility that you could just, you know, tweak it a little bit so it's it's a little more in keeping with the feeling of age in the rest of the I know you don't you know it's new it's been >> right >> but just take another look at the details and see what if there's anything you would like to change. I think we don't >> necessarily from the house that was there >> pulled everything we can from that. You're you're saying go outside of that and try to >> Yeah. And think about in in context with the surrounding buildings. What would really make it feel feel like it belongs in that spot. Um and it could be you come back with the exact same proposal and that's okay. You're allowed to do that. But I think we have been so focused on the demolition question, we haven't really
147. 2:44:10had a chance to analyze the rest of it. And I think it would be great. >> I think we're talking about demolition or saving. And then the design and execution is another subject that we're not even really talking about, >> right? And that's what we came prepared for was to bring we were told bring rendering site. You don't have to design but We have as a group have to come down to >> you guys get the demo on approved by the Houston to change the window sizes. Sorry, let's fix that. No, we can do whatever you want. >> Exactly. So, >> uh um I'm not sure how to how to move forward. I I still think it see I understand people are not not now public is uh out of it until we figure out what's going on. Um what do you all think? I don't have a
148. 2:45:12problem with saying that contingent on uh a proposal being agreed to that that we will agree to them on. I don't think it's fair to hang a skeptorter over these people's head and say there may be another hurdle code. >> Why not just approve the demo? >> What does the demo applicant service by hand? Would it be excavators to esc that back building have to come down so we have access? >> Mhm. So, so you would need to take down the carriage so you can get an excavator in there to pull it down. >> Yes. >> Talking he talked about weakening them inside so that we can get the one side to the neighbor to collapse in to limit any um damage to the neighbor's house. And and did I and just remind me the the two back buildings, the garage and the
149. 2:46:17storage whatever that other building is, were those looked at? >> They're in the engineer. >> Yeah. It was a similar >> I didn't I didn't go inside them though, >> but it was a similar report. I I I would just say I think we've in in some ways we've got done a slight disservice by this meeting which has got so much packed into it that we're you know some of us are going to have to peel off myself included. I do think we c I I cannot vote to demolish a 150 plus year old structure and president so we know what's going to go instead because I think they go hand in hand. That's just my opinion. >> But we're asking we're putting all the risk on them. We're saying that uh we're not going to tell you whether we'll approve demo or not, but please go ahead and spend another month on the plans. >> I I I think we I think we I think what the applicant came to get is a fullsome review of their current proposed building, right? And we're not giving them that. >> I disagree with him. I disagree. Nothing can go forward at all without a plan to
150. 2:47:22to condemn, demolish, save. We have to make that decision and then you know you understand that the general you know feeling about the current design of what you want to build is probably not there yet. Mhm. >> I don't I don't think it is, but you really I mean, if I were you, I I wouldn't want to be spending more on architectural. >> Go back to the proposed language that contingent on an approved design, >> right? Contingent. Yeah. >> We will not interfere or block demo. >> Perfect. >> Fine. >> I I agree with that as well. And John, that should address what you're talking about. I don't see why it wouldn't. >> I mean, I I don't know why you can't make it. I don't understand why you can't make a decision on part A without knowing part B. >> Let's see if we can get a vote. >> Okay. Uh I'm going to make a motion as follows. And I'll ask for a second contingent on an approved design for the space that we've been talking about. The commission will not oppose demo as part of that process. I I
151. 2:48:26>> I and a second. All in favor? >> Good. The demo wishes out of the way. >> Wait. I think he is. >> Wait, I'm sorry. Uh, Commissioner Stein, did you have a chance to vote? >> Yes, I said uh, yay. >> Great. >> Barry, >> my concern is that it's contingent on what we bring to the table. So, you guys are taking responsibility about what dictating what you can build. >> No, I'm not. It's it's it's it's otherwise it's an abstraction. If we approve demo and you do nothing for a year and just leave a hole in the ground, that's there's got to be a a second step. >> I guess can we get ready to take it down? >> That's I guess we go for a permit for >> based on the way that vote was worded. cannot do anything until you come back
152. 2:49:27with um designs for the house that are in the form. >> That's the >> that's the way >> this will get done. >> We'll get I >> do it will be able to take it down when we get approval. >> It will get the concerns that that that John had in in terms of a better understanding of the volumes and shapes in the space, >> right? and how much area is occupied is totally legit and can be done technically. The concerns that other folks had, which is we really didn't pay a hell of a lot of attention to the outb building, >> right? >> Uh and is there a way of showing that a little love is absolutely legit and then there's physical specs and materials? It will get done. >> I I feel like you guys got such a win. You should really feel that >> I'll say that
153. 2:50:34>> to give an opinion not today but to visit the place again about it because that really is the construction the house Now is that me and Johnny because I have to >> Yeah, we'll we'll talk. >> Uh John said you're leaving. >> It is I >> Are you taking Jeremy with you or is he staying at >> his still with us? I >> motion to adjourn and I'll second that motion. Turn off pleasure.

Timestamps link to the corresponding moment on YouTube. Auto-transcribed, contains speech-recognition errors. Not an official record.