want all right I'll Now call to order this regular meeting of the Jersey City Historic preservation commission it is Monday March 10th uh at 6:34 p.m. please be advised that in
accordance with the open public meetings act this the notice of this time date and place of this regularly scheduled meeting of the Jersey City Historic preservation commission has been sent to the Bergen Record and Ellis besito on Thursday March 6 2025 the same notice
has been sent to the city clerk for posting on the bulletin board outside the clerk's office in City Hall and on the Jersey City website I have proof of this evidence of this notice here in evidence if we can mark this as B1 okay uh we will now move on to a roll
call attendance uh commissioner amuso present commissioner griga present uh commissioner blazak here commissioner Cronin here Commission commissioner sand Camp is absent commissioner Gunther is absent
commissioner sakong is absent Vice chair gucciardo is absent and chair Gordon present okay there are five Commissioners present this evening five affirmative votes are required for a certificate of appropriateness uh next up on the agenda is the approval of
minutes from the February 10th 2025 regular HPC meeting are there any questions or corrections to the minutes no since there are no Corrections or changes staff recommends making a motion to approve the minutes as submitted
motion second okay so we got it Paul and Dan okay um I'm going to take a roll call vote uh commissioner amuso I
commissioner griga I commissioner blazak abstain uh commissioner Cronin I Comm uh chair Gordon I okay there one two three four there are four y's zero Nays one abstention uh the minutes from the February 10th HBC
meeting are approved uh for correspondence all uh copies of Correspondence and all application materials are linked on the agenda through their application numbers staff has no announcements at this time if there are any me members of the
public who would like to speak regarding matters of historic preservation that are not listed on tonight's agenda please approach the public comment mic again this is for matters not on tonight's agenda if you could just tap if you just tap on the sorry right
on the base there's a it says push oh sorry right on the microphone base yeah yeah and then that'll turn it on yes hi how are you do you swear or affirm the testimony will be the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth I do thank you your full name and address uh sure Christopher Perez p r e69 Union Street good evening everybody sorry just before we begin uh just want to go through some of the rules um so all members of the public will have three
minutes to address the commission uh I'll indicate when that time starts and ends uh around 45 seconds I'll give you a reminder um oh five minutes yes sorry chair at the is this on you
got at the chair's discretion you can lower it to three per the bylaws so that's on you chair Gordon five minutes is fine if you need it I won't need it awesome thanks for explaining feel free feel free to begin good evening
everyone my name is Chris Perez I'm representing the Jersey City landmarks Conservancy this evening I wanted to let the Commissioners know that the embankment preservation Coalition and the JC LC are hosting a 2025 mayoral candidates panel discussion on historic
preservation and environmental concerns uh this will be on Sunday May 4th from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. uh at this time we have not secured our venue we're debating between three right now but we will have an update on that uh you can
get the updates on um the embankment dorg website or the JC landmarks. org website uh we also welcome the commissioners um to submit uh proposed questions um you can submit those to JC landmarks
gmail.com and we'll forward a form where you can um write your questions for the event and um I think that's pretty much all I have for this evening have a good one thank you thanks Mr pres thank you that was my bad I did forget to make
a motion to or recommend a motion to open public comment um so I don't know if we we want to make that motion now and then or Jonathan I think it's probably okay without a motion right like we already had it yes any any other members of the
public here to speak okay so if we could have a motion to close public comment second all in favor I and chair if you would like to call the first case yep I will start with old
business calling case h-23 d23 the applicant is Benjamin wine Esquire on behalf of Jersey City 3 deals LLC owner the address is 2624 John F Kennedy Boulevard in the Westberg and East Lincoln Park historic district the
application is for certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a new four-story sixun residential building and Associated site workor this is a recommendation to the Jersey City Zoning Board of adjustment and was carried from the February 10th 2025
regular HPC meeting good evening chair Commissioners for the record Benjamin wine of prime to B and melli on behalf of the applicant um as I do at the beginning of every one of uh the time the chairs call it just to correct the record um this was at one point a six-unit building um it is now a 4unit
building and I know that we've gone through that in detail I just you know I know it's still listed that way in the agenda so I figured I would correct it um I won't go through the entire background of the application this is our fourth meeting here before the board um Mr achimov you look like you have to say something I was going to just jump
in uh just before we get further um if I could just bring up uh Commissioners blazak and griger you were not present at the previous hearing for this application uh can you confirm that you have read the transcripts for those meeting or watch the video I can confirm yes I watch the Youtube video Ben are
you comfortable with those two Commissioners work voting on the application if it yes I am great thank you okay so so with that I wanted to go through a couple of items of housekeeping first of all I wanted to uh formally wish congratulations to miss O'Neal on the birth of her baby um you know I was hoping she'd be able to be
here for the conclusion of this application she would be able to be here for the conclusion of this application but uh that's obviously a very valid and good reason please extend her my best and to commissioner amuso it's been a lot of fun over the years and I'm sure
we'll continue to be in touch than you um so with that the before you this evening we've gone through it in detail before but ultimately is for a four-story 4un residential building located at the property we've had our project architect walk through um
several iterations of the plan uh many of which were based on comments that we received from yourselves as well as from members of the public and what we're ultimately here with this evening is what we hope uh collects all of those comments into a final product that this
commission and that we can can all be proud I can tell you we're proud of it and we hope that obviously the commission can be as well um I also wanted to indicate for the record that uh put a correction on the record it was uh I aired at the last meeting and uh I
just want to make clear that uh it was obviously not on purpose but one of the comments that came up from commissioner Gunther one of the requests is well can you lower these floor to floor Heights of this building in any capacity and uh when we began this application it was
under the old R1 zoning standards it has since shifted to the rh2 zoning uh today during that shift one of the requirements for 9-ft floor to ceilings that used to exist was actually eliminated so actually when I went home
that night um because this is what lawyers do instead of sleeping is we look back on Things We Said and and confirm and I I spent about an hour and a half ripping through the ordinance and found that in fact it no longer has a 9 foot floor to ceiling requirement um per
floor and uh and then I consulted with Miss O'Neal the following day and Miss Marion as well of planning just to make sure that I wasn't missing it in my re-review and everybody confirmed and came to the conclusion that during the transition between the R1 and the rh2
that requirement was dropped from the Jersey City Land Development ordinance and so one of the things we've done I'm going to just highlight very briefly the five changes we've made ahead of this evening one of them is that we immediately lowered the floor Flor to ceiling height um of each of the three
upper floors not the Ada the uh Ada floor for for reasons we'll get into but we were able to do so by 6 in per floor to 8 and a half which gets us to about actually not about exactly 18 inches shorter or foot and a half shorter on the building you'll see from our
architect what that does contextually with the remainder of the block I think it's a huge Improvement uh I spoke to my client obviously before making that decision because that certainly affects um you know rentability sellability things like that but he said
at 8 1/2 ft Florida ceiling that is something that is seen in the industry of new construction so he was comfortable to make that change so I wanted to put that correction on the record um this has been going on for a while and that is something that has changed the other four changes that we've made which you'll hear from our
architect in detail involve the door which I know was a large point of conversation at the last meeting so you'll see that and what we were able to come up with uh the other one is the cladding on the bay window which previously you saw a large swath of white cladding um and that has been
eliminated and changed to match the remaining color and texture of the building which again you'll see in detail and there were oh and also the uh the CMU wall that had been proposed and then unprop posed and then proposed again has now been regarding roof leaders and how they
could be you know reoriented um similar to I think some style that she has on her residence uh so I'll have our Architects speak to that we were able to make some change um so I wanted to make sure that we could put that on the record so those were the comments that I believe we were left with coming out of
last meeting I did follow up with Miss O'Neal within a couple of days after that meeting to make sure I didn't miss anything and our list of notes aligned with each other which was always is always a good thing and with that um chair and Commissioners unless you have any questions of me I'm happy to present
our latest design through Mr [Music] Moreno of course all right is it popping up on your screen not yet yes yeah yes I
do Martin Moreno m a r t i n m o r e excuse me Eno dealing with a bit of a sore throat so I apologize I think it's going around all right Martin I know you were sworn in previously as uh the project designer so
if you can just confirm again that everything being presented here um was overseen by Mr leaport under his seal and signature is that correct that is correct yes so Martin why don't you without belaboring the uh the point I know there are a few items on tonight walk the board through the changes that
you've made based on the comments received at the last meeting well good evening everyone good to see everyone again um just to for the record once again my name is Martin Moreno speaking on behalf of T portal architect PC for our project at 2624 johnf Kennedy
Boulevard so as Mr uh wine mentioned in his statement I'm here to present some of the changes that we made from the last meeting uh the three main ones from the board being the height the exterior colors and materials and excuse me
exterior colors and materials and the door so to start off um as it was mentioned before we shaped off 6 Ines from the first second and the third floor just to be clear as you can see my cursor here this floor this floor and this floor we we shaved 6 Ines from
those um and went from a proposed 9 ft floor ceiling height to an 8' 6 floor ceiling height by doing so we were able to reduce 18 in of the building height which Pro which provided us with with a much more conceptual building elevation
in regards to the in in regards to the neighborhood context it matches and flows better with the neighboring buildings and I will recap that once I get to the uh streetscape page but to highlight the materials I think it's best to highlight them now given that we are at the cover page which shows the
revised um exterior rendering as you recall from the last meeting both the bay windows on the left if you follow my cursor and on the right were previously white paneling the reason for doing that was to match or
have some sort of similarities with our adjacent neighbors as you can see in the bottom uh on the bottom center here the our immediate neighbor uh has also bay windows with which are both fully white
paneled bait windows so to sort of match that aesthetic and match that design and have some sort of continuity between um our building and the neighbors we propos white cladding for both RB Windows once we once we proposed it to the boore last
month we felt that along with the board a suggestion it was probably best to rethink that uh color decision so we went ahead and did that and we felt after discussing what the board as mentioned we revised the bay windows to match the green siding of the which the
green color of the predominant building so rather than having overall white cladding on both um these Small Bump outs we proposed green siding to match the predominant and we just provided the large white window trim as we did to the
other windows just to give it some similarity just to help it stick out a little bit and um overall I think it's much better look so I do agree with that uh with those changes um commissioner blazic you were not here at the last meeting but um just something that I
want to recap you really pushed for the red brick in previous meetings um if you recall I had mentioned that we had tried to do the red break but just it didn't really fit well with the with the adjacent buildings and some of the breaks that the adjacent buildings had
there's a lot of tones of beige of of brown so that's originally what we had proposed um but after revisiting that idea and trying trying to mess around with different iterations of red brick that's actually how we landed on the green siding um to find something that
complimented the red break that's how the green siding came about so that's the reasoning behind this uh this overall color change of the building so that's I'm going to highlight that as our first major change it was changing the uh White cladding of the bump outs
to uh more green siding to match the predominant building moving on to our site plan I moving on to our elevation sheet to highlight the changes in the height just to recap no changes were made to the
interior um floor plans or the interior layouts so I'm just going to go to our um elevation sheets so once again as you can see here we change the colors of the bump outs from the overall white cladding to the uh green to match the
predominant material on the building and we reduce the overall structural height overall structure height by 18 in um here doesn't really translate very well um it reads a lot better once I put it in once we get to the streetscape uh
elevation so I'm just going to go forward to that but before I get before I get there I do want to highlight the uh the door so previously as um previously there was a lot of back and forth in regards to the previous
door design that we had we had a sort of as the board put it something that you can just pick off from Home Depot kind of like a I I wouldn't really call it a barn door but it was a very traditional standard looking door um and it was also a steel door uh it was suggested to us
to provide something similar to something that provide a much more grander entrance maybe with more sights with more glass uh and maybe rethink the material so with that in mind we changed the steel door to a wooden door it is now an Anderson wooden door it's a it's
not standard it's a very specific type of door with two s lights on the side so the specifications for the door can be found on sheet a202 as you can see here this is the specifications for the Anderson door as mentioned it is a swing door with uh large glass paneling and
two side lights to match on uh both sides this was the largest that we could go given our uh proposed landing and once again we felt that it was a much better look it doesn't have that sort of I don't want to say cheap but it doesn't have that more like a sort of cookie
cutter look as we had before so that was the other uh principal change and lastly going uh in regards to the building height um personally I've looked at this a million times I know it's been viewed
a couple times by the board over the last couple months I definitely noticed a change in the in the height I definitely do tell the difference but reducing it does provide a much better um streetcape overall elevation
in in regards to our neighboring buildings and it does just provide a little bit something that's a little bit more appropriate in regards to scale so again reduce it by reduce the second third floor by 6 in which in return help
reduce everything by 18 in and provide a much better uh streetcape in regards to Elevation and then once again down here the proposed streetcape with the the existing streetscape and then the propos with our building kind of once again
showing the context of the building How It lines up with its neighboring buildings how the windows the accents such as the pitch roof the elevated porch things like that really help create a sort of uniform look across this uh this little stretch of homes on
2624 JFK so those are the um um those are the comments that were made those are the changes that were made I'm sorry based off of the comments from the board and in regards to some of the comments that were made by the public uh regarding the roof leaders uh we were able to rather than
just have the roof leader come down on the front post as it was discussed before we are running it back so we're running it back across the sort of Eve the the porch That's sticking out and it's going to come down the side of the building this will hopefully help limit
the visibility of the roof gutter on the front and provide a much better from an aesthetic point of view a much better gutter location um also something that was brought up as Mr Benjamin wine had stated was the was the argument between the CMU all and the railing um we did go
with the railing as it was shown on our elevation and the um and those pretty much that was pretty much uh about it so just to sort of wrap up um this project obviously started at something
completely different I think with talks from I think from talks with both the community and the board it has drastically changed over time and I think in the end it has been like a very much collaborative effort between both community and board and I think the end result is something that we're very
happy with and something that we're very proud of I hope you are as well and um yeah that pretty much wraps it up thank you Martin I have nothing further for Mr I think the rendering as well as that other one those weren't in the original
plan so if we could just if we could Mark those as A1 and if you could just send those to me when you get a chance awesome I I think you guys knocked it out of the park I mean you clearly took careful notes of all the feedback that was provided and Incorporated all of it
um with the following the intention of the of the commission and and the comments of the public and it's unfortunate that you had to keep coming back but I think this has been an iterative process and it's yielded a very nice final result it looks very
good to me so thank you thank you commissioner yeah I agree I think it's greatly improved um and thanks for for working with us on it I I think the only question that I have is just with the entry door and the sidelights the only
thing to me that I think it's kind of calling out for maybe a transom above the door I don't know if you looked into that or we originally did propose a transom so we did have that we had the one transom at top and one sight and then after discussions we swapped it out
to just two sights but there is an iteration that had to transform up top okay and I'm not you know certainly not you know married to it but um I think maybe it's something where if you you look into it and maybe you can work with staff on it if you think that or if
staff thinks that the trans and the highlights is something that could could work or but I'd be fine also with it as is I would also just like to add that since the ceilings are now shorter there is also limited space from the top of the door to the ceiling for transm so
there might there might be a structural reason why you can't yeah we it'd be a very slim transing to be so maybe it doesn't make sense and you know I think it's just like it's almost like I don't and I don't know what that Dimension is between the top of the door and and the
bottom of the the porch um so if it's not possible then I understand there's a structural or reason for that it just seems a little just with the the rest of the window openings on that parlor floor all being the same height and the door slightly
lower um but I don't think it's going to uh you can also look at the possibility of maybe making the door taller that's also an option too though I think you did you mention something about the max maximum size when you were presenting of width in terms of I just quickly go to
the first floor plan or the second floor plan sorry so right here um in terms of with to accommodate the landing that we have that was the uh the best the largest size that we can go so may maybe it's something where the door the the
door header matches the windows on the rest of the The Parlor floor maybe that makes sense um but I I'm fine with you working with staff on that sure thank you I have a suggestion maybe you want to be up the trim around the entire door
to bring it up to height and make it relate to the trim cu the trim around the door is consider looks considerably thinner than the trim around the windows okay so maybe you know traditionally on
these houses the trim was really Grand MH so maybe just by beefing up the trim it'll do the right thing got it thank you got it any other questions no okay Ben did you have any
other testimony uh nothing this evening so you heard obviously from uh from our planner at the last meeting um and as we had discussed she was not able to come back this evening I don't think she has anything else to add Beyond what's on the record but at this point I would just respectfully request the right to respond to any comments from the
commission the public and sum up at the conclusion of the application okay so if there are no more questions uh we'll move on to public comment um if there are any members of the public who would like to address the commission regarding this application please approach the public comment Mike should we make a motion then yes yes
thank you if we to open public comment second all in favor I yeah same rules as before we have five minutes uh I'll give you warnings as we're getting close and if you could address all questions towards the chair and then he will
Direct them everywhere else good evening Commissioners proceed yes I do Charlene Burke c h a RL NE b r ke good evening Commissioners
um I am very much pleased by many of the changes that have occurred to this project from beginning even with the community group to this point here one of the things that the community certainly um was striving for though was
a smaller unit house overall I don't know whether it's in your purview about how many units can be I think this is a one or two unit property and so you can't dictate to the applicant what the
units are you can more speak to its design but we as the community were willing to go to three which is one more than what the zoning allowed for not four because we still feel that the bulk size at the top
is larger than the rest of those on this particular block and given that it is our most visible entry and exit to our historic district we have a great concern about that
because when we were becoming a historic district it was meant it meant to us that we would have development new development that would be complementary and aligned with
what we do have and most of our individual homes are one family homes yes we are intermingled with apartment building but our individual homes are one families typically not two families here
we're going to four families all those houses to the right they're all one family homes they're not multifamilies so it really is out of alignment with what our neighborhood has is even the
very grand house across the street St Peter's president lives in a one family home home and so four families too many pressure on the neighborhood as well but this if it were reduced to three
families that would be great but overall very pleased with the design and how we have worked with the developer and the lawyer Ben wine has always been accessible so we hope to continue to do
that if it's not in your purview that's fine if it's so that we go to next that'll be where we make that argument but I want to thank all the Commissioners for their hard work of working on this because it is a lot better than even we the community were
imparting cuz we're not like you guys we don't know everything about this stuff it's just a kind of like oh well maybe this looks better but so we appreciate how you've gotten it to this point thank you very much thank you
any other members of the community that are wishing to speak tonight good evening everyone do I need to do my name and everything again no right great um so I think this is a really great journey um I love what I see I just had one thought um and it has
to do with the center window on the front Gable I noticed that a lot of the homes of that time period um and Mr amuso you made a notation about the thickness of the moldings on the door I was thinking about that and the arch part of the
window something to kind of highlight that a little bit if you look at the adjacent properties um that usually something happens there there's a little something that goes on so I'm wondering if the casing could be a little larger or something could happen there just to
make it peek out and maybe I'm off there but if you look at the adjacent properties they all kind of have that that molding is a little thicker or there's something that just brings a little bit of something special um to that area and that's all I have to say thank you so much thank
you good evening you swear or affirm the testimon proceed truth the truth and yes my full name is Shireen McCormack um sh sh i r i n MAAC c o r m
k 130 Glenn would have good evening um as others have already said we do appreciate the applicants receptiveness to community and the board's comments um on this proposal and we do appreciate them
lowering ing the unit count I just wanted to note that it is still double what the zoning is allowing um also I just wanted to um revisit the the drawings and I do have a
photo taken from across the street um directly across versus south of all the properties and um quite a bit South so it shows the properties it shows the proposal and maybe um more accurate scale compared to
surroundings so I'd like to submit that as um evidence or pass it around however you wish um I just um you know I know the bulk had been an issue and some of the community from Lincoln Park north had commented on that saying that it was
awkward and bulky and too topheavy um there have been many changes made numerous so I you know I do see them here and they look really nice and I just wanted to to address the scale um the 1938 tax
records show that from 1890 to 2015 the original structure here was a single unit home with eight rooms and there were two bathrooms and the whole structure only took up the northern 2third of the lot so while it is an
awkwardly proportioned lot that's how they worked around that irregular shape they um of a lot that's wider than it is deep they um um basically created a sidey yard for quality of life and airl light and open
space and space between properties which is quite common in the HD um looking at those 1938 tax records there was also a flagstone sidewalk and a slate roof and a low stone wall that
corresponded um visually connecting with the surroundings of the whole block and the property at the northwest corner corner of this block and at the southwest corner still have their original stone walls so I just wanted to um suggest that in fact it would be my
my personal view that um all vacant Lots within the HDs are um considering putting in the flagstone or blue stone front walks and um yeah I um I just wanted to
also I wasn't at the last meeting but I I did want to ask about the um front columns I know that at one of the earlier meetings I believe the first meeting someone had from the Commissioners had said that the front columns could be thicker and tapered and maybe they looked a bit toothpick so I
just wanted to question that and in general I think the structure looks a lot better than it did originally and um just wanted to reiterate that it's been nice to have uh correspondence and collaboration with the applicant on this
um I also wanted to ask if I could just get that um that image and submit it thank you that concludes my comments yeah we can mark that as B1 01 okay great um and if you could just
as1 okay and if you could just hand it to Robert the chair down in the middle oh and Sharon when I'm going to give you my email address if you could just email that to me as well thank you so much he
should certainly get a copy yes and should two so one there you go too for the architect did you for your architect I did not get one we have plenty okay I need one here
you can have mine oh thank you okay the glare there jeez uh I didn't hear any explicit questions within there I think there was a bunch of comments of things we could look at
um maybe if we have a motion to close public comment and then we can move on from there motion to close public comment second all in favor okay great so I I don't know how much of this you want me to repeat rep Mr wine I I
would just give you an opportunity to respond obviously the the most um I think pressing comment or concern that was raised by two members of the public was about the the massing uh the scale the words awkward bulky to topheavy came
up uh comment uh that um other homes in the neighborhood or one family maybe two and you're asking for double that so would you like to respond yeah and I think we touched on it obviously at the last meeting um you know every lot is is
different um this is not has never been an application to replicate what was on the property previously I think if it was this would have taken a much different direction um that's certainly not you know what the Secretary of interior standards are for new development in a historic district um I
think it was the chair who initially said that we could have taken really one of two approaches one is to try to marry our development with what there in the context and the other would be to make it so you know significantly different that it's pretty clear that this is not
you know an attempt to um replicate some type of historic Motif and obviously we chose and stuck with the approach to um you know to try and and marry and contextualize the building that we've developed you know you heard from our planner at the last meeting and I know
Miss McCormack wasn't here but um one of the things she addressed really which is really more for zoning but I but it came up here regarding the massing generally the other Lots as you saw on the plans which I think were um probably best shown on z102 in your package all the
other lots that we've been comparing our facade to because that's what's visible from the street they're all your more traditional they're not traditional rectangles but they're your more traditional narrow width deep lot this is not that this is this is actually the
opposite it's a wider lot and and a shallower depth one of the sides being of our building depth even being as we had said on the record 30 ft deep which is extremely uncharacteristic from a zoning perspective of development really on any lot in any District in in
Jersey City and in most other municipalities so while there was a comment about you know the width I I respectfully disagree regarding the topheavy nature I think you see it well on the rendering I think in the prior iterations with different renderers there was one rendering that was done
compl completely by a different renderer that this commission had said did not they did not feel it accurately represented what the final product would look like I think with the rendering you see on the screen now and you know even the one the prior iteration I I respectfully disagree that it comes
across as topheavy um you know I'm not a historic preservationist but you know you guys are the commission and and we put on testimony that architex this works you you know you saw the top floor plan Al together and it's a very odd-shaped top floor plan which is
indicative of the fact that there are bumpin and bump outs and Dormers and all those things to not make that top heavy so while I think and you know respectfully I can say that during the context of our neighborhood meetings there was a lot of comment I I think the
word topheavy was not used as often it was more this is a wider top and it is I mean it it is but it's a wider lot and if you could turn this this lot 90° um you might end up with a different design but this is the lot that we're dealing with and that's why the variance process
is in place and you know we hope we'll be successful in explaining that um and convincing the Zoning Board of exactly that regarding the density same thing and I said it at the last meeting you know our lot um it sat vacant you heard from 2015 I saw on Google what was there
previously um but clearly this lot has sat vacant and undeveloped and when you look at development generally and I'm waxing a little poetic but as I said at the last meeting you have to look at you know making it so that the developers
actually functionally and and economically able to develop the lot and if you hold developers especially in historic districts where the cost of construction I don't need to tell you I think you know this are significantly higher I mean if this was not a historic
district we could put up a Bayon box those are a lot cheaper to construct there are plenty of them when you drive around Jersey City and they're cheap to construct so developers see that and say maybe I don't need a density variance to accommodate that type of development
when you're dealing with even the amount of articulation um and and bump in bump out it's a significant cost increase so you look at a lot that has sat vacant for at least 10 years and I think this commission is charged with saying okay so we're seeking a density variance we
have to justify that to the zoning board that's not hidden um that's a fact that's why we're going to that is actually one of the two reasons we're going to zoning instead of planning after this um and that's our task and that's our job to justify it but to the commission's uh perspective I think it's
worth noting that if you want a building that's that the chairman said it that it it looks great it fit it fits in if that's the type of building you want absent turning this into a Redevelopment plan that incentivizes developers with things like tax breaks um pilot agreements which are certainly not in
play in a standard Zone there has to be something that's that's in it for the developer to justify developing a beautiful building that that everybody likes looking at and so that's really my HPC response to that comment which which might sound a little different when we
have our planner come up to the zoning board though I think that that's going to be part and parcel um one last thought on that you know this the court has been clear that economics are not in and of themselves to come into play when you're dealing with matters and again
that's more before planning board zoning board but variances but it has recognized that if something is economic inutility preventing development is also not a good thing and there are cases that that I will intend to bring to the zoning board to the extent that that
comes up explaining that that we could be rigid and we could say here's what the zoning says and this lot could sit vacant for the next 10 years and I don't think that the two additional units that came down from we started at 7 ended at up at 6 the request from the community was that
you make these condo which which meant turning them into washer dry unit drier uh in each unit um which meant making them functional and desirable to people who are looking to invest money and not just rent not that there's anything wrong with it but not rent and be more
transient here raise their families here you need to have larger units two three-bedroom units which we have you need to make it make sense and and I think that that's what we've done so that's really my response to to those two comments um unless I missed anything and the the
height oh the contextual with the height right this I I'll admit this is the first time I'm seeing this exhibit um I I don't doubt you know Miss McCormick and and her photography um but I but I'm happy for Mr Moreno to address this I I
know we spoke early on that we had a significant and a very expensive topographic survey done of this area so the heights that you're seeing here are actually exact but I'm happy to have him address that I know this was I know this was B uh brought up previously so just
to briefly recap it um we are working with a survey a license survey which shows accurate topography markers as well as the accurate Heights of each building so what you are seeing here in the streetscape are representative of that these sketches these elevations
were drawn based off of the information that was provided to us by the top graphical surveyor there by doing so we were able to create a while yes it is taller than what is permitted in the zone um I can say that all the buildings are also taller than what's permitted
but it it does show um it does allow us to create a building height that is contextually in line with what's there on the street and in regards to what Miss McCormack said in regards to side yards and open space I also do want to clarify that our side yard here the
distance between these both buildings of 9 ft which we highlighted is more than any other space that is found in between any of the homes so in between this this in this our proposed 9 ft in our much smaller lot is more than what's found in
between the other homes so I just wanted to highlight that in terms of side yard spacing and in terms of the building height comments thank you Mark thank you all right thank you I mean there's no question that the proposed building is larger than the the neighboring
structures um but looking at the historic design standards for new construction it doesn't have to replicate the historic older buildings or structures it just needs to be compatible in terms of size height
um massing so those are those are the things that we have to consider uh as a commission um another comment that was raised was with regard to the um the center window on the front Gable and if
there's anything you could do to J it up if you will is that a legal term it's a term of art not not a legal term of art yeah in this in regards to making it more compatible from a design in material standpoint that's definitely something that we are open to we have no
issue with that what is it is it just like a blank panel now it'll be a sort of clanning paneling to match some of the homes so you for example this one and this one uh the both next door are I believe I believe this one is window and this one is clading let me see if I can
zoom in yes so the one our immediate neighbor does look like they have um a an arched window there and the one next to us has cladding as Mr press mentioned that one has a sort of um a nice designed uh trim
so that's something that we can propose to ours to sort of help match this this house here it looks like there's like a semi Arch and maybe like a a keystone on that on that Center building there and even over to the right that building that's on the far yeah you can see
there's a design the center correct yeah there's even a design there on the on the on the brown uh top floor something that we don't I'm sorry there's even design there on the brown on the Brown building the top floor there is some sort of arched semicircle there so something I
would say you know you can work with stuff on it's not just a blank panel um some sort of Sunburst yeah yeah you see like a Sunburst often that's what it is on the brok house is a Sunburst so something like that to give
it some character would be great sure we have no objection to that that's fine thank you all right we had a comment from Miss McCormick um I believe she referenced the low stone wall connecting to neighboring properties was that a
reference to the retaining wall that we've gone back and forth on repeatedly yes necessarily to retain but just to have visual consistency so the grade on both sides of the low wall that I was talking about would be
the same it wouldn't be like a retaining wall it would just be a low stone wall so that it matches the rest of the entire block yes yeah yeah thank I think that clarifies it yes thank you okay um so don't think we do we have an issue with that well we've been back and forth oh
this is okay the wall right if there was a wall but there we've proposed a wall we proposed without a wall we've gone back and forth and I think at the last meeting we were all um in favor of doing the railing that's correct yep that that is
where we left things thank you um and uh just to clarify let some avoid a back and forth with the public the public comment is closed so um I didn't mean to pose a question to miss McCormick um and then the the last comments were uh about
flagstone or blue stone walk which we are proposing we have blue stone walkways in our property um that's been part of our design for the last couple iterations and it's found on our site plan the reason for that was
because um the sidewalk here here uh on Fair mount in johnf Kennedy has blue stone walkways that's something that was brought up was brought to our attention from the community therefore we implemented that design into our walkway so these walkways here are Bluestone walkways and like I said that's been
it's been that way for the last maybe three or four iterations but this this so just the walkway is not the sidewalk itself though correct sidewalk itself is not I believe we were told to make that Landmark gray yeah yeah okay and and I think I think we just wanted to clarify
that too and I think that's okay we we do approve you know landmark and what is there what is existing there now um to be honest commission I'm not sure okay so maybe that's something if there is any blue stone on site on the sidewalk we should probably try to retain it or
consolidate it if possible um from the site photo it looks like it's concrete concrete yeah which would make sense given that it's it was a driveway like it was a curve cut and finally there was a question about
the columns and that's another one where we've gone through several iterations to arrive at this right and to clarify that one the quote unquote toothpick columns that that Miss mccor was referring to were the ones here underneath if the if the board recalls the reason they were
brought up was because it felt that they were too small to hold up this portion of the house um therefore we changed it to the this sort of like large brick um structure underneath so that was the uh that was the change that we made based off of that but we didn't receive any
any comments on the porch colums as far as I concerned all right thank you can we move into comment please yes so I know this is the fourth meeting we've we've heard from the applicant uh this is the first time we are getting to staff comments um so I will just uh
State you know HPC staff is uh in support of this project um we find the application to be mostly consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic preservation um the new proposed building is visually consistent within the row um and each have a
similar roof shape uh entry pattern Street setback um they conform to the pre predominant uh design standard in the rh2 zone um which says buildings proportions shall be compatible with uh the predominant proportional relationship along the street building
ENT entries windows and other openings shall be compatible in location size and pattern to other structures on the Block to the greatest extens extent possible characteristics of surrounding development such as roof style and Pitch material Window and Door detailing and
the presence of porches shall be consistent with other structures on the Block um the height variance requested would align the building with its adjacent neighbors as depicted in the block front diagram on a 203 and additionally the window fenestration aligns with the block front as a whole
which makes the building very visual visually compatible with the adjacent historic resources um the applicant will need to request and get approval for a franchise ordinance um to construct the front yard as it's currently proposed but uh HPC staff feels that this request
will not reduce the existing pedestrian sidewalk on JFK um so in HBC staff's opinion the project as proposed will not cause an adverse effect on the character Andor Integrity of the historic resource or the West ber and East Lincoln Park historic district um HPC staff
recommends an approval of a certificate of appropriateness and a recommendation for approval to the zoning board uh with the following conditions um so we have the conditions that are in the staff report I am going to add one um so applicant shall work with staff to refine the front door um would we like
to add also the palladian style window up at the top yes okay and uh I didn't know if we would like to add the columns as well I think the columns I think I think the thing that looking at like this rendering the the column on the
left just it's that that's the column that I think needs needs to be worked on maybe that's the one that needs to be thicker even if it's thicker than the rest of the shorter columns I think it makes sense that a longer column would be a bit thicker so just look at the proportions maybe there are other examples in a historic district of a
porch that has two different height U two different Columns of two different heights so I kind of see what happens there but it's and it's twice the height I think at least right so something just seems a little off there about the proportions of those columns so take a look definitely work with staff on that
yeah so applicant shall work with staff to refine the front door plaum window and columns uh we also have all Landscaping including tree pits shall conform with the Jersey City forestry standards uh the applicant shall seek approval of a franchise ordinance for the construction of the front yard
railing and areaway as it extends beyond the property line uh if any component of that approval Alters The Proposal the applicant shall submit a deviation request in writing to HBC staff and provide plans for review showing the existing proposed and revised condition
if necessary the applicant will reappear in front of the HPC to seek approval of the changes and then the other conditions are our standard conditions um and Mr achimov so to be fair we we accept all those conditions I had one more listed as well um I think
it was Mr blac's comment regarding the height of the door um or something to do work with I don't know refinement of the front door I would include that refine it and I think I was fine with either you know the architect talked about maybe changing the size of the door okay
so I think I think yeah working in a trim I'm I'm okay with staff working on that okay then in that case we we have no issue with the comments great so again HPC staff's recommendation is uh approval of a certificate of and a
recommendation for approval to the zoning Board of adjustment with the red conditions do we have a motion I'll make a motion to approve I'll I'll second it approve with conditions of course Paul it was you who seconded it
right coryy oh it was Cory oh sorry that's okay glad I said something okay so I will do a roll call vote commissioner Amu I commissioner griga
I commissioner blazak I commissioner Cronin I uh chair Gordon I we have five in favor no against no extensions uh the certificate of appropriateness with conditions and the positive uh
recommendation to the zoning board is approved thank you very much everyone and appreciate your time over the last several months you're welcome you're welcome thank you appreciate it thank you so [Music] much all right moving to new business I
will now call case h21 d349 the applicant is John easterling AIA applicant on behalf of city of Jersey City owner the address is 54 Journal Square aka the Lowe's Jersey theater in in the Journal Square 2060 Redevelopment
plan preservation Zone New Jersey state Register of historic places the application is for review of design deviation request for the proposed exterior screening that is visible from the public RightWay at the Lowe's Jersey theater an altered Spanish Baroque
influenced Wonder theater completed in 1929 just as a note before we begin um this is a referral review so this one actually doesn't require five affirmative votes uh this will just be a majority just a majority good evening Commissioners and
chairman thank you for your time this evening I'm John easterling principal with otj architect could you raise your right hand for do you swear or affirm the testimony your about given this proceeding be the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth I do John easterling E a s t e r l i n G and you it otj yes um so this evening I would like to
just uh run through some of the images that we umed to sorry John one second staff will note that uh Mr eing has previously been um uh approved as a um expert in the field of architecture
before this board thank you continue yeah we met virtually a couple years ago but this is first time in person so thank you um so we're here uh to ask you to review the uh screen wall that we're
proposing enclos the generator that is going to be added to the rooftop of the uh new elevator Edition I will Orient you here on the plan um this is the plan of the Lowe's Jersey theater JFK is uh
here on the the right and then Magnolia comes up uh from the bottom here and there's an alley which connects the two which is part of the theater property there exists a uh one and twostory addition adjacent to the theater along
the alley and uh currently we are um going to add a elevator in this location where you can see my cursor which is a two-story Edition and we're proposing to look the emergency generator in that location and as you see here on the
enlarged plan enclose it with a um champagne anodized aluminum screen wall and these exhibits show um first uh elevation from JFK here on the left and
you can see the uh previously approved uh two-story Edition which is going to be uh New Brick and um we have brick samples here for what that is and while we're not kind of here to necessarily review that we wanted to show you what
that brick which is going to be complimentary to the existing theater um is going to look like with the uh sample of the champagne anodized uh metal which is what we're proposing for the screen
wall um so as you look at the uh elevation here what we're showing first is the elevation of the addition with the emergency generator on it um from
JFK as well as the elevation along the alley and go to I'll flip to the next slide which has the proposed screen metal screen wall on there to hide the
uh emergency generator from view from JFK as well as Magnolia and along the the alleyway there the screen wall is proposed to be 8 ft above the uh coping
so this area here is the brick that you just looked at and then there's a pre-cast coping that would go on top of that and then 8 ft above that would be the top of the screen wall the top of the generator um from the previous image
is 7 ft to the top of the muscle which sits a top the generator so we're going up one foot higher than what that would be uh as measured from the top of the coping this was a previously approved
elevation um just to kind of give you an idea of of materials again and the location used to be uh above a vestibule um and we had the emergency generator there um that has since
changed and has since been approved to change where we are no longer building a new vestibule uh there so we needed to find a new location for the Emergency generator and the most logical place was a top the elevator uh two-story elevator
addition there and again this is a larger image without the screen wall to show you what you would see uh with the generator and the muffler on top as I mentioned is the highest point there and then with the screen wall and the screen
wall is a um we have details here as you see on the upper right it's a series of vertical uh blades that are 3 in wide and uh it is a sight proof design for
the uh screen wall air can circulate but you can't see through the screen from any angle because of the overlap of the blades we will install the screen wall on the roof and not on top of the coping so it will sit back a little bit so that
you can see you know have a distinct line there for uh the coping on top of the brick just refer back to that real quick and then we had a couple of images of the existing site um this image on the
lower left is a view from down the alley kind of as you approach it from Magnolia The View number two here is from JFK as you're walking down the alley uh the existing one story Edition
is here on your right and then some views from across JFK and this particular view on the lower right we [Music] used to create some uh sideline studies so that you could see kind of the
massing of that approved uh two-story elevator Edition and then what that uh what you'll see um this Viewpoint here uh in front of the theater was actually kind of in front of the alley there on JFK looking up without the screen wall
you would be you'd be able to see that uh emergency generator and then even the Viewpoint from across JFK um you would easily see the the generator so Our intention with proposing the screen wall is to hide
that in a way that is consistent with the secretary of interior's um standards and guidelines for treatment of historic properties thank thank you it's just a wall so there's it's
open on top yes it is open on top okay thank you and just remind me the when did the change with the the lack of the new vesu come in again uh we we submitted that to Staff Pro probably before my time to be
honest so was that something we I just don't reme quite remember that if if was that something we you came to the board with or I don't think we needed to come to the board um think it was approved at the staff level yeah it makes sense CU you're therefore there's going to be more historic fabric left with that
exist the existing doors right without adding the vestibule you see more of the historic facade that's correct and I guess the trade-off then is that with no so the previously the gener was going to go on top of that it was going to be lower down on top lower down so we're
saving some historic fabric kind of in the back there and on that side entrance we are going to see this a little bit more from across Kennedy Boulevard that's correct okay okay any other questions y okay then I
think uh if we could have a motion to open public comment to open public comment all in favor okay there any members of the public here great thank you uh Commissioners just
I'm just curious why can't the generator be on the roof I mean it would be totally hidden then from seeing it from any point of view so so I mean why couldn't it be there I know they're building an or
accommodating an elevator with on the exterior I understand that but the generator I don't know that's just a question thank you thank you and any other members of the public that are wishing to
speak no okay so if we could have a motion to close public comment motion to close public comment second all in favor I okay would you like to uh Mr easterling you heard the lady yes um we did look at alternate locations for the
Emergency generator but um given it's a theater you don't want to put equipment on top of the roof we have some equipment going on uh a new uh Chiller going on the roof of the stage house um so there's no room up there for the emergency generat
and we did not want to put it on the uh lower roof um above the lobby um you would see it from other locations down along JFK and this was the most
uh beneficial to the project the best location and there's nowhere like along the back or anything that that you can put it on either yeah that's correct okay okay then no more questions we will move into
staff comment I I I feel like it would I would have if if you would LED with there's no room that would have been the end of it but you led with because it's a theater we don't want to put it on the roof I didn't quite understand so you don't want to put equipment on the theater
house roof itself for acoustic reasons as well as right so you need to isolate all your equipment we have no new mechanical equipment on the house roof at all that's why it's it's in the back so there is no other um good location
for the Emergency generator okay Acoustics got it thank you okay we can thank you for no problem uh yeah just just a little bit of background on this project you guys did review um the original application as a referral from
the planning board on a section 31 review um they then came back in October uh of 2021 and then they have since reappeared July 17th of 2023 for an amendment to the loading dock configuration which kind of brings us to
today um HBC staff uh has reviewed the application and um we uh support it um after reviewing the proposed deviation request um to utilize the new architectural screen wall reest to utilize the new
architectural screen wall at the alley side of the building uh that is visible from the public Right Way um this will screen the generator it will also as you mentioned uh insulate some of the noise from the surrounding area um which will be helpful generators tend to get loud
um so reviewing it per the Secretary of the Interior standards for his treatment of historic properties and the standards outlined in zone six of the preservation zone of Journal square6 predevelopment plan uh we find the application to be generally consistent with both sets of
Standards uh and believe that it will not have an adverse effect on the historic resource uh to this end staff of the historic preservation commission recommends the following items on the plan set be updated prior to the submission uh to the NJ HBO and the
national park system um we would like updated construction documents um detailing the new architectural screen um we would also like construction details to be included for the AR Cal screen wall I know we have a little one
uh just to be consistent and then just a final note that all previous recommendations for the plan updates that were provided to the applicant either in writing or during testimony at any of the four prior public meetings uh July 14th 2021 September 14th 2021
October 25th 2021 and July 17th 2023 remain in effect until considered complete by HBC staff um again uh as this property is not locally design not a locally designated landmark and the applicant is seeking uh the
hpc's recommendation if the proposal is satisfactory to the commission HPC staff recommends that the commission make a motion to have staff prepare a memorandum stating the commission's recommendations to the to be distributed to the Jersey City planning board njpo
MPS and any other relevant parties it's a mouthful on that one so I I'll make a motion to whatever you said I'll second it Paul and then Cory was that you yep okay I'll do a roll call attendance
just to clarify it's a motion to for Michael or the HBC office to issue a recommendation to the planning board yep I gotcha uh commissioner amuzo hi commissioner GGA yes
commissioner blazak I commissioner Cronin I and chair Gordon I we have five in favor no against no abstentions uh the recommendation is
approved and thank you for the sample boards and the sideline drawings and everything really was thoroughly prepared appreciate that thank you very much have a good evening take care how you doing Bridget good okay we we only yeah we only have a demo
left and then just a little bit so do we want to just keep keep moving along yeah okay uh do you have any updates on taed so yes tables cases um we we do not have any updates on the tables case um I will
reach out to the staff that is working on that and see if they have any updates um and then I guess we lost the commissioner so why why don't we take uh he's just he
went to just blow his nose okay all right yeah we'll take a f minute yeah why don't we take a f minute break and then we'll come back at uh 753 sounds good on the record uh calling the the meeting back to order it's
7:54 um next up is demolition review uh we have 892 Summit Avenue this is B-24 d2478 um commissioner amuso I believe has to recuse himself from this demolition review leaving us without a
quorum to review it this evening um and with that in mind I will make a motion to carry this review to the next regular meeting second that is it a motion or do you just carry
it oh I I assumed we need an em motion talking commissioner amuso can't vote on a motion concerning okay so they'll just carry it then but if you yeah there's no five I I recall you said the only thing that we
can do without a quorum is adjourn yes or uh or take another break to try and get a quorum which I don't think is going to happen today soit till next I I would suggest just carrying it yes okay so it's just carried then great um so
that's that and then we do not have an update on the carried demolition review case uh still waiting to hear from them um next up after that on the agenda um is the results of the nomination committee for
the April election of officers chair Vice chair and secretary um during the February 10th 2025 uh HBC meeting uh There Was An approved motion to appoint chair Gordon and commissioner Cronin to the nominations committee for the April
election uh do you have any results that you would like to share we've been looking far we've been looking wide been looking all over the place goinging for the best this fine city has to offer no one has steep forward yet okay so stay
tuned so then we will hold on should clarify that we did have a discussion oh uh I was nominating commissioner Cronin for chair and there was a vice chair nomination I
believe oh okay so I will nominate uh commissioner GGA to be Vice chair then okay we are not going to take any formal action on this until next month next week yeah um but what's the date on that by the way uh it is April 14th perfect
but you can still be nominated and elected if you're not there so yes well no I I plan on being there my wife just had what's called a baby moon scheduled apparently that's a thing so I just wanted to make sure that
wasn't running into that great okay um so we do not have any resolutions um h no discussions uh no memori memorializations of resolutions we do not need an executive session uh and
that just leaves us with adjournment I'll make a motion to adjourn thank you second uh it is 756 all in favor I hi thank you what's a baby moon it's like a
honeymoon but you go on a truck okay appar