MINUTES OF THE MONTCLAIR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

January 19, 2006

Present: Chairman Edward Lippincott, Vice Chairman Ira Smith, Commissioners Denis Orloff, Susan Brady, Jonathan Perlstein, Kathleen McDonough, Frank Rubacky

Absent: None

Also present: Jonathan Mellon, Commission Secretary, and Frank Haimbach, Planning Board Liaison

Order and Announcements: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 pm by Chairman Lippincott. Mr. Mellon called the roll and stated that the Commission had a quorum. The notice of compliance with the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act was read, indicating that appropriate notice was forwarded to the officially designated newspaper of Montclair and also posted in the Municipal Building.

The approval of the minutes and resolutions was moved to the end of the meeting.

New Business

Application 2005-44 – CD Partners, L.P.

18 Baldwin Street (Block 4211, Lot 2)

At the time of the public hearing, David Owen Esq., representing the applicant, came forward, and Martin Dassa, the architect for the project came forward and was sworn. The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as part of the application package included; site plan prepared by Roy Dedeic & Associates, Inc., dated June 22, 2005; partial site plan, streetscape elevation, and building elevations, prepared by Dassa Haines Architects, dated December 28, 2005; cut sheets for proposed materials, including Hardiplank siding, Anderson windows, Therma Tru entrance doors, Midamerica moldings and accents, HB&G columns, and Kichler light fixtures.

The proposed new construction would consist of a 3-story 9 unit apartment building as well as a parking area for 18 cars in the rear of the site. As well a new trash storage area is proposed to be located at the rear of the lot, adjacent to the existing concrete block garage which is to remain. Extensive landscaping is proposed to buffer the site from adjacent properties, as well as a new 6’ high board on board redwood fence along the south west corner of the site. A new fence is proposed for the front of the site, consisting of brick piers at a height of 4’-8” and decorative metal sections. Each floor is proposed to contain three apartments, with two bedrooms, two baths, a living/dining room, kitchen, and porch. The materials for the exterior of the building are proposed to include brick, Hardiplank, precast limestone, Fypon columns and accents, among other materials.

The proposed design calls for the front façade to consist of a central bay clad in brick veneer with a centered first floor double door flanked by columns with a pediment. Pre-cast limestone lintels, sills and stone accents are proposed for the central bay. The bay is flanked by ardiplank clad sections with a brick base. The south elevation is proposed to have a series of porches as well as entrances to three of the units. The porches are to have pre-finished metal painted handrails and balusters. Hardiplank siding with a brick base is proposed for the south, north, and east elevations of the building. The north elevation is proposed to have entrances to three of the units, which will have shed style roofs supported by columns. The west (rear) elevation is proposed to consist of windows for the units, but no entrances.

Mr. Dassa provided the Commission with a thorough review of the proposed design for the building. He went on to state that the design sought to have the new structure be compatible with its historic neighbors, through the use of similar materials and massing. He continued by providing the Commission with samples of the materials proposed to be used on the exterior of the building.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated its concern over the proposed design for the front façade, including the cladding of only a portion of the façade in brick as well as the size of the windows in proportion to the façade. The Commission went on to state that the applicant needed to provide additional detailed information on the proposed front entry porch, and stated that the colonial accents in the façade were not appropriate for the building.

The applicant agreed to have the matter continued until the February meeting at which time the applicant would return with a revised design that addressed the concerns that had been raised by the Commission.

Application 2006-1 – Anca Bejan

403 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 3205, Lot 11)

At the time of the public hearing, J.C. Aviles, representing the applicant, came forward and was sworn. The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as part of the application package included; a completed application for a Certificate of Appropriateness; rendering and layout plan for the proposed sign; rendering and layout plan for the proposed awning, photograph of the building showing the existing conditions as well as a photograph of the building with the proposed awning superimposed prepared by Competitive Signs & Graphics.

The applicant was proposing the recovering of an existing awning frame with a new awning with signage at the property referenced above. The existing awning frame, which measures 150” wide by 48” high, with a projection from the building of 48” is to be recovered. A new black Sumbrella canvas awning is proposed with 6” high white lettering stating the name of the business as well as the address, located on the front lip of the awning. The applicant was not proposing any additional changes to any other part of the storefront façade.

Mr. Aviles provided the Commission with an overview of the proposal.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the proposed awning would match the color and style of the awning on the adjacent storefront in the building, and would serve to unify the appearance of this understated structure in the Town Center Historic District. As well the Commission noted that the proposed signage complies with the requirements of Montclair Code Section 347-109-.C(2).

Chairman Lippincott, hearing no further questions from members of the Commission or staff, opened the meeting to public for comments on the application. No public comment was offered.

On a motion by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Perlstein to approve the application, the Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

Application 2006-2 – Cope Center, Inc.

104 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 4107, Lot 36)

At the time of the public hearing, Kevin Johns and Roger Nelson, representing the applicant, came forward and were sworn. The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as part of the application package included; a completed application for a Certificate of Appropriateness; photographs of the existing conditions and adjacent properties; existing and proposed elevation, section plan, and floor plan prepared by Lineworks Architecture and Design LLC, dated January 9, 2006; cut sheets for storefront windows and entrance doors by Marvin Windows and Doors.

The applicant was proposing the restoration of the façade of the building, which is in order to address needed structural repairs. The proposal calls for the combination of the two original center storefronts into one, and the repair and or replacement of the original cast stone elements and brick work to match the original. The proposed new center entrance is to be recessed with a painted tin ceiling, and a double entrance door. The new door is proposed to be a Marvin “Commercial” wood door with tempered etched privacy glass. The entrance is proposed to be flanked by Marvin “Direct Glaze” wood frame picture window units with tempered etched privacy glass. The plan also calls for the reopening of the two additional original storefront windows, which will have new Marvin “Direct Glaze” wood frame picture window units with tempered etched privacy glass. A painted mahogany subsill is proposed below the storefronts as well as a cast stone curb where the grade necessitates it. An ADA compliant access control unit is proposed to be located in a painted wood inset panel adjacent to the door. Cast stone panels with raised lettering are proposed centered at the top of the façade for signage; the only additional signage indicated is the street address in the picture window above the entrance to the building.

Kevin Johns, the architect for the project, provided the Commission with a review of the proposed work on the façade.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the façade restoration for the Cope Center has the potential to serve as a catalyst for the restoration and revitalization of this stretch of Bloomfield Avenue, and further that what is now a largely blank and uninviting façade, will be replaced with a welcoming one that will enhance the historic character of this entrance block to the Town Center Historic District. In addition the Commission stated that the proposed choice of materials, wood doors, windows, and subsills, as well as the restoration and replacement of the cast stone elements, will serve to recover the historic character of the building that has been diluted over time.

Chairman Lippincott, hearing no further questions from members of the Commission or staff, opened the meeting to public for comments on the application. No public comment was offered.

On a motion by Commissioner Perlstein, seconded by Vice Chairman Smith to approve the application, the Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

Application 2006-3 – Jarmel Kizel Inc.

295 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 3206, Lot 6)

At the time of the public hearing, Irwin Kizel, the architect for the project, and the applicant came forward and were sworn. The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as part of the application package included; a completed application for a Certificate of Appropriateness; photographs of the existing conditions; and a site plan, existing and proposed floor plan, and handicapped ramp elevation prepared by Jarmel Kizel Architects and Engineers Inc., dated January 9, 2006.

The applicant was proposing the installation of a handicapped ramp and outside air intake grill for an HVAC unit at the property referenced above. Both are to be located along the Bloomfield Avenue side of the building, which also has frontage on Lackawanna Plaza. The proposal calls for the removal of a small first story window to allow for the installation of the air intake grill. The existing decorative grill is proposed to remain in place, with the new air intake grill to be located behind it. The application also calls for the installation of a new 6’ wide by roughly 18 ½’ long concrete handicapped ramp. The ramp is to provide access to the double door entrance on the first floor of the Bloomfield Avenue façade of the building; no changes to the entrance or door are proposed. A simple steel pipe handrail painted black is proposed for the ramp, and will separate if from the sidewalk on Bloomfield Avenue. No additional changes are proposed to the building.

Mr. Kizel reviewed the proposed air intake louver for the Commission, and stated that it would have a minimal impact on the façade as it would be located behind the decorative metal grill which would remain in place. Mr. Kizel continued his presentation by reviewing the proposed handicapped ramp, and stated that the entrance doors would also need to be replaced in order to comply with ADA requirements.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the proposed louver would not have a major impact on the façade, but noted that it should be of a different color than the decorative grill which would retain the visual depth of the grill. The Commission went on to state that the applicant should investigate whether the handicapped access can be provided from the interior, and if not, that the applicant should look at the option of removing a portion of the granite curb beneath the door in order to provide access without having to install the handicapped ramp on the exterior.

The applicant agreed to have the matter continued until the February meeting at which time the applicant would return with a revised design that addressed the concerns that had been raised by the Commission.

Old Business

Application 2005-39 – Benny Chan

561 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 2211, Lot 10)

At the time of the public hearing, John Buchholtz the architect for the project, and Benny Chan, the applicant, came forward and were sworn. The documents submitted and reviewed include fifteen sets of the following items: elevations, prepared by The Buchholtz Architectural Group, P.C, dated January 9, 2006; cut sheets for lighting by LSI Architectural Outdoor Lighting and for the entrance door by Kawneer. The applicant had previously submitted to the Commission the following items; application for a certificate of appropriateness, rendering and layout plan for the proposed awning, logo and lighting, with a sample of the awning material attached; rendering and layout plan for the proposed logo; photograph of the building with the proposed awning and signage superimposed; storefront elevation, prepared by Robinson Architects, P.C.

The applicant was returning to the Commission with a revised application for the

proposed installation of new stainless steel logos, awning with lettering, and storefront at the property referenced above.

The proposed new awning is to be located on the front and side façades of the building, and is to be made of Sunbrella #4652 Mediterranean Blue; a sample of the material was included in earlier submission. White lettering is proposed for the awning, which will be attached to the building with anchor bolts, and is proposed to be located directly above the storefront in alignment with the awning of the adjacent storefront in the building. In addition to the awning the application calls for the installation of 2 matching stainless steel logo plates, measuring 2’ in height by 8’ in width, with the logo in red and blue colors, (a sample of the stainless steel material for the logo plates was provided by the applicant). The application also calls for the installation of 4 new gooseneck light fixtures; 2 above each of the logo plates, by LSI Architectural Outdoor Lighting.

The alterations to the storefront façade, which have already occurred, include the introduction of a new central door with flanking storefront windows on the Bloomfield Avenue façade. The entrance is proposed to consist of a Kawneer 190 Narrow Stile entrance door with sidelight. The revised plans propose to keep existing storefront, which consists of a 1” insulated tempered glass with 1” flush glaze pocket system tubing. The new brick base below the storefront windows is proposed to be covered with stucco in order to have it match the existing stucco façade on the remainder of the façade.

Mr. Buckholtz provided the Commission with a review of the proposed alterations to the building, including the proposed awnings, lighting, and storefront. He continued his presentation by stating that the revised plan calls for the brick beneath the storefront to be cover in stucco, as well as the installation of a new ADA compliant entrance door.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the proposed changes to the storefront were not appropriate for the building. The Commission went on to state that the proposed awning should wrap around the corner of the building, and that different light fixtures should be chosen for the façade. As to the proposed storefront, the Commission noted that the original storefront had been removed without the approval of the Commission, and that the proposed one was not in keeping with the character of the Art Moderne building.

Vice Chairman Smith and Commissioner Orloff agreed to meet with the applicant in order to address the issues raised by the Commission, and ensure that a complete application was ready for the next meeting.

The applicant agreed to have the matter continued until the February meeting at which time the applicant would return with a revised design that addressed the concerns that had been raised by the Commission.

Application 2005-43 – Excelsior Holding, LLC

292 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 3103, Lots 15, 16, 17)

Commissioner McDonough excused herself from the hearing on the next item, and left the room.

At the time of the pubic hearing, Ho Yung, the applicant, and J.C. Aviles, the sign contractor, came forward and were sworn. The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as part of the application package included; a rendering and layout plan for the proposed banner signs, and a detail of the galvanized steel custom banner bracket prepared by Competitive Signs & Graphics; and a rendering and layout plan for the proposed free standing sign. The applicant had previously submitted to the Commission the following items; application for a certificate of appropriateness, Site plan and elevations prepared by Sionas Architecture, P.C., with a revision date of November 29, 2005; 3 photographs of the site; and a rendering and layout plan for the proposed banner signs, as well as a photograph of the building with the proposed awnings superimposed prepared by Competitive Signs & Graphics.

The applicant was returning to the Commission with a revised application for the proposed installation of a new freestanding sign and fabric banner signs along Bloomfield Avenue and Gates Avenue as well as a new metal railing adjacent to a lower level exterior entrance at the property referenced above. The applicant came before the Commission at the December 15, 2005 meeting, at which time the Commission asked that the applicant return with more detailed information on all of the proposed changes to the site.

The proposed new freestanding sign will consist of a wood frame with a cedar shingle cap, which is proposed to have the address of the building in vinyl letters on a plastic panel. The sign is proposed to be 8’-2” wide and 13’-8” high with the wood stained to a dark chestnut color. 2” Douglas Fir panels with plastic panels for signage are to be hung in the middle of the sign structure and held in place by 1” steel tubing spacers and galvanized brackets. In addition a custom dental molding is proposed to be located below the cedar shingle cap. Lighting for the sign is shown as being provided by ground mounted low voltage spot lights; the type of fixture is not indicated on the drawing. The proposed location of the sign is adjacent to the driveway entrance off of Bloomfield Avenue, next to the curb that separates the driveway from the parking area.

The revised application provides additional information on the proposed 8 banner signs that are to be installed on the building. The banner signs are proposed to measure 120” in height by 36” in depth, with a total projection from the façade of 56”. The signs are proposed to be made of Sunbrella canvas with hand painted ivory graphics on a True Brown #4621 background. The banner signs are proposed to be attached to the building at the top by a galvanized steel custom banner bracket that is to include 5” long lag bolts, 3” long lag bolts, a diamond shape base plate, and a 5” custom cut base plate angle. The banners are to be attached to a .75 OD galvanized steel pipe connected to a 2.5” OD galvanized steel pipe with a decorative end cap. The signs are proposed to be attached at the bottom by a 1” OD 39” galvanized steel pole with nylon rope connecting eye bolts to the building.

The proposed metal railing is to be located around a lower level exterior stairway adjacent to the parking area for the site.

J.C. Aviles reviewed the proposed banner signs for the Commission and provided samples of the materials to be used for the brackets. He continued by providing samples of the materials to be used in the metal railing.

Ho Yung provided the Commission with a review of the proposed design for the freestanding sign.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission separated the application into 3 parts; the banner signs, the freestanding sign, and the railing.

For the proposed banner signs the Commission stated that they are a welcome addition to the variety of signage to be found in the Town Center Historic District. The Commission went on to state that the proposed location on the pilasters of the building is an appropriate one, and will not negatively impact the overall design of the building. The Commission also noted that the applicant returned to the Commission with the detailed information on the banner signs that had been requested, and produced a plan that will enhance the appearance of the building.

Chairman Lippincott, hearing no further questions from members of the Commission or staff, opened the meeting to public for comments on the application. No public comment was offered.

On a motion by Commissioner Perlstein, seconded by Commissioner Brady to approve the banner signs portion of the application, the Commission voted six in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

For the proposed freestanding sign the Commission stated that it was neither appropriate in scale or materials for the site. The Commission went on to state that the freestanding sign did not contribute to the overall site plan, and that it was not compatible with the restoration work that had been completed on the historic structure.

On a motion by Commissioner Perlstein, seconded by Commissioner Orloff to deny the freestanding sign portion of the application, the Commission voted five in favor, with one negative and no abstaining votes.

For the proposed metal railing the Commission stated that it would not have a negative impact on the overall site plan and would with the condition listed above be compatible with the restoration work completed on the historic structure.

On a motion by Commissioner Perlstein, seconded by Commissioner Brady to approve the metal railing portion of the application, the Commission voted five in favor, with no negative and one abstaining votes.

The Commission took a 5 minute recess.

Application 2005-36 – Thomas Jones

5 Grant Street (Block 4209, Lot 21)

At the time of the public hearing, Thomas Jones, Sr., the applicant’s father came forward and was sworn. The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as part of the application package included; a completed application for

a Certificate of Appropriateness; elevations prepared by John Jay Boylan, R.A.

The applicant was appearing before the Commission in order to follow up on an informal review that that was conducted at the December 2005 meeting. The work on the exterior of the building has already taken place with vinyl siding installed on the side and rear facades, as well as the replacement of the windows with aluminum clad ones. The front façade has also seen the removal of the stucco façade, however, the mansard tile roof and cornice is intact. The revised proposal calls for the cladding of the front and side facades with hardiplank siding. As well, all of the windows are proposed to be trimmed with 1x4 pine surrounds painted white. The new vinyl clad windows that are in place are proposed to be retained. A new panel door is proposed to replace the existing door and new lighting is to be installed on either side of the entrance. In addition new limestone front steps are proposed for the entrance, and the mansard roof and cornice are to be repaired.

Mr. Jones provided the Commission with a brief overview of the proposed changes to the façade, and provided samples of the materials proposed to be used.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the application was incomplete, and stated that additional detail needed to be provided in order to allow for a proper review. The Commission noted the need for a detailed drawing and proposed material list for the treatment of the recessed front entry way, as well as accurately scaled drawings of all of the facades that show all of the architectural details on the building.

Commissioner’s Orloff and Perlstein agreed to meet with the applicant in order to address the issues raised by the Commission, and ensure that a complete application was ready for the next meeting.

The applicant agreed to have the matter continued until the February meeting at which time the applicant would return with a revised design that addressed the concerns that had been raised by the Commission.

Application 2006-4 – BRH, LLC

30A Church Street (Block 2206, Lot 4)

At the time of the public hearing, the applicant came forward and was sworn. The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as part of the application package included; a completed application for a Certificate of Appropriateness; layout plan for the proposed sign; photograph of the existing conditions and photograph of the existing condition with the proposed sign and lighting superimposed; cut sheet for the proposed gooseneck fixture.

The applicant was proposing the installation of a new wall mounted sign and three gooseneck light fixtures. The proposal calls for the installation of dimensional letters mounted to the building wall, with a painted would sign board also mounted to the wall. Three gooseneck LSI angled reflector fixtures are proposed to be located directly above the proposed signage on the façade.

The applicant provided the Commission with a review of the proposed sign and lighting.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the proposed gooseneck fixtures were not appropriate for the art deco structure. The Commission went on to state that the applicant needed to provide a more detailed plan for where the sign would be located on the façade.

The Commission separated the application into 2 parts; the sign, and the location and lighting.

For the proposed sign the Commission stated that it was a welcome addition to the variety of signage to be found in the Town Center Historic District.

Chairman Lippincott, hearing no further questions from members of the Commission or staff, opened the meeting to public for comments on the application. No public comment was offered.

On a motion by Vice Chairman Smith, seconded by Commissioner Orloff to approve the sign portion of the application, the Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

The applicant agreed to have the matter continued until the February meeting at which time the applicant would return with a detailed layout plan for the proposed sign as well as a new proposed lighting fixture.

Approval of Resolution and Certificate of Appropriateness

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of First Montclair Partners, 22 South Park Street The Commission carried the approval of the resolution until the February 16 meeting.

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Sheldon Clarke, 446 Bloomfield Avenue On motion by Vice Chairman Smith, seconded by Commissioner Perlstein, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Sylvia Brooks, 100 Bloomfield Avenue On motion by Vice Chairman Smith, seconded by Commissioner Perlstein, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Sylvia Brooks, 108-110 Bloomfield Avenue On motion by Vice Chairman Smith, seconded by Commissioner Perlstein, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Approval of Minutes of November 17, and December 15, 2005:

As the minutes were not ready to be reviewed by the Commission, the approval of the minutes was carried until the February 16 meeting.

Public Comment

There was no public comment offered during this portion of the meeting.

General Discussion Issues - Members of the Historic Preservation Commission

No matters were discussed by the Commission.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 pm on a motion made by Commissioner Rubacky and seconded by Commissioner Orloff.

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan Mellon, Commission Secretary