MINUTES OF THE MONTCLAIR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

OCTOBER 20, 2005

Present: Chairman Edward Lippincott, Vice Chairman Ira Smith, Commissioners Denis Orloff, Susan Brady, Jonathan Perlstein, John Morris, David Caldwell

Absent: Kathleen McDonough

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 2005-34 – Competitive Signs & Graphics.

428 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 3106, Lot 7)

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; photograph of the building showing the existing conditions as well as a photograph of the building with the proposed sign superimposed prepared by Competitive Signs & graphics.

The applicant was proposing to install a new wall mounted sign at the property referenced above. The proposed new wall mounted signage will consist of individual letters, 4” and 10” tall and 1.5” thick. The letters are proposed to be HDU-High Density Urethane individual letters stud mounted and painted white. The proposal calls for the installation of the letters onto the existing sing band on the facade. The applicant was not proposing any additional changes to any other part of the storefront façade.

Mr. Aviles provided the Commission with a sample of the proposed material to be used for the letters.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the proposed sign was appropriate in scale and design, and noted that the sign would not cover any architectural features on the façade. The Commission went on to state that the proposed sign was of a unique design, and would be a welcome addition to the variety of signage 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 Commissioner Orloff, seconded by Vice Chairman Smith to approve the application, the Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

Old Business

Application 2005-31 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 Lou Cammarata, 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; Existing Site and Demolition Plan prepared by Roy Dedeic & Associates, Inc., dated June 23, 2005; and photographs of the principal building and neighboring buildings.

The applicant was seeking approval for the proposed demolition of the two-story building and accessory structures at the property referenced above. The applicant originally appeared before the Commission at the September 22nd meeting, at which time the Commission requested that it have the opportunity to conduct a site visit of the property in order to better determine the existing condition of the building.

The matter was before the Commission for review due to the proposed establishment of the Pine Street Historic District. The property in question falls within the boundaries of the proposed district, and thus is subject to review as part of the “Moratorium Period”.

18 Baldwin Street is categorized in the 2005 Nomination Report as a “Contributing” building; a building dating from the period of the District’s significance (1880s-1930s) which have some architectural and / or historical importance, or which visually contribute to the cohesiveness of the District’s streetscapes.

18 Baldwin Street is a two-story stucco house with a flat roof that was constructed in 1925. The entryway, accessed by brick stairs, is set within a portico with arched openings and a hipped roof. A two-story porch and stucco chimney are located at the north façade. The property also contains a concrete block garage at the rear of the site. The house is set back over 56 feet from the sidewalk, with a large lawn area in the front yard enclosed by a decorative, historic fence of woven steel wire with brick and concrete end piers.

Mr. Owen reviewed the demolition request for the Commission, and stated that the applicant was agreeable to the idea of preserving the wrought iron fence.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the building had lost the majority of its historic fabric, and could no longer be considered as a “contributing” building in the Pine Street Historic District. The Commission went on to state that although the building had structural problems, which were observed by members of the Commission during inspections of the site, the condition of the building was not would determine whether the demolition request would be granted. Rather, the Commission stated that the historical significance of the building and its contribution to the district were the determining factors.

The Commission went on to note the importance of preserving the distinctive wrought iron fence, and the incorporation of the fence in a new design for the site. As well, the Commission noted that the applicant had made the property available for inspection by members of the Commission on a number of dates, which had allowed for a thorough review of the site.

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 Morris, seconded by Commissioner Orloff to approve the application with conditions, the Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

Conditions:

A) The wrought iron fence is to be removed for its protection during construction, and is to be stored and preserved by the applicant. The applicant is to investigate what portion of the fence can be repaired and reused in the future site plan for the property. The brick piers are permitted to be demolished, as they are not part of the original wrought iron fence.

Commissioner Perlstein excused himself from the hearing on the next item, and left the room.

Application 2004-21 – George Delis.

556 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 2208, Lot 12)

At the time of the public hearing, George Delis, 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; photographs of the existing conditions; elevation prepared by Oasis Architecture.

The applicant was returning to the Commission with a detailed design for the proposed rehabilitation of the commercial storefront facade at the property referenced above. The application was reviewed informally at the September 22nd meeting, at which time the Commission asked that the applicant return at a later date with a more detailed description of the proposed alterations to the storefront. The original application for the storefront rehabilitation was reviewed by the Commission at the September 23rd, 2004 meeting, at which time the applicants stated they would return with a revised proposal.

The applicant’s proposal called for the removal of the existing synthetic tiles and metal support structure on the façade. The existing metal storefronts in the façade are proposed to be retained, and no new signage is proposed; the existing awning on the façade is to be removed.

The proposal called for the installation of stucco on the upper portion of the façade that is to have a metal grid pattern, while the lower portion of the façade is to be clad in slate. The existing metal awning cover is to be replaced with a new metal band over the storefront. No new lighting was proposed as part of the alterations to the façade.

Mr. Delis provided the Commission with an overview of the proposed alterations to the façade, as well as samples of the proposed materials to be used, including samples of the slate, stucco, and metal.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the applicant had returned with a revised plan that was appropriate for the building. The Commission went on to state that the design was simple and modern, and the proposed materials would result in a considerably upgrade for the appearance of the façade.

The Commission went on to state the importance of the front façade treatment to wrap around a portion of the exposed side façade. The Commission stated its support for the choice of the slate material for the lower portion of the façade, while noting for the applicant that the slate could become a maintenance issue 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 Vice Chairman Smith, seconded by Commissioner Orloff to approve the application with conditions, the Commission voted six in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

Conditions:

A) The façade treatment for the front façade is to wrap around the exposed side (east) façade 1 foot in depth.

B) The applicant will make efforts to ensure that the manner in which the slate is laid on the façade is done to minimize any potential spalling.

Commissioner Perlstein rejoined the hearing.

Application 2004-2 – Herod Redevelopment.

56 Church Street (Block 2205, Lot 2)

At the time of the public hearing, William Dahn, architect for the project, came forward and was sworn.

The applicant was returning to the Commission with a revised plan for the material for the roof for the project. The original plan had called for a standing seam metal roof, with the revised plan now calling for a plastic polymer material to replicate the look of a clay tile roof.

Mr. Dahn stated that the proposed change in materials was in order to have the building tie in with neighboring structures that have clay tile roofs. In addition, he went on to state that the proposed material was chosen due to its light weight; according to the applicant the use of a clay tile for the roof would be too heavy for the support structure of the building as presently designed. A sample of the proposed roof material was provided for the Commission.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the proposed material would not negatively impact the appearance of the building, and would help to tie in the building with surrounding ones.

The Commission stated its concern over the durability of the proposed material, how it would age over time, and whether that would include a fading of the color and chalking. The Commission also stated that the applicant should look at the proportions of the roof materials on the neighboring properties and report back on the findings at the November meeting.

The applicant agreed to return at the November meeting with additional information for the Commission on the durability and long term appearance of the material.

Application 2005-29 - Robert Pontusa.

21 Midland Avenue (Block 2210, Lot 2)

At the time of the public hearing, Robert Pontusa, 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; photographs of the existing conditions; elevations and floor plans prepared by Sionas Architecture, P.C.; Site Investigation Report prepared by Preserve.

The applicant was returning to the Commission with a detailed design for the proposed rehabilitation of the commercial storefront facade at the property referenced above. The application was reviewed informally at the September 22nd meeting, at which time the Commission asked that the applicant return at a later date with a more detailed description of the proposed alterations to the storefront, including additional information on the history of the recessed corner storefront entrance.

The applicant’s proposal called for the removal of the existing corner storefront, and its replacement with a new storefront that matches the appearance of the adjacent storefront on Midland Avenue. The proposed storefront would consist of two new sets of French doors on the Midland Avenue façade, and one new set of the doors on the Portland Place façade. In addition, a new corner pier is proposed to be installed that will match the brick and stone piers that are found on the Midland Avenue façade. As well, along Portland Place, the proposal calls for the filling in of a wall mounted air conditioning unit with brick that matches that found in the façade, as well as a new door and entrance steps with metal railing. The proposal also calls for new lighting for the existing sign, and its relocation in order for it to be centered over the Midland Avenue façade. The last element of the proposal calls for awnings over the new storefront that match those found over the adjacent one.

Mr. Pontusa reviewed the proposed alterations to the storefront for the Commission, and provided samples of the proposed materials for the new storefront and awnings. He went on to review the Site Investigation Report prepared by Preserve.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the report prepared by Preserve that the applicant had provided, had shown that the existing recessed storefront was not original to the building. In addition, the Commission noted that the report showed that there was no original brick pier underneath the corner storefront, and thus any alterations to the corner would not result in the loss of historic fabric.

The Commission went on to state that the proposed alterations were appropriate for the building and would help to unify the appearance of the commercial space. The Commission continued by stating that the existing location of the sign was appropriate for the overall design of the façade, and that it should not be relocated, but rather should have new lighting installed for it.

The Commission noted that the alterations would be successful if the materials used matched those existing on the façade, and thus stated the need for all the materials to be inspected at the site before installation in order to ensure that they did.

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

John Kelly, 15 Midland Avenue, stated his support for the application.

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

Conditions:

A) The existing sign is to remain in its present location,

B) The existing decorative boxes and lighting for the sign are to be removed, and new lighting will be compatible with the existing lighting on the façade and the Commission will assist the applicant in choosing new lighting.

C) The new awnings between the piers in the expanded storefront shall not travel over or cover the piers.

D) The new corner pier will math the existing piers; the pre-cast elements will match those found in the other piers in the façade; and the brick will match those found in the rest of the façade; all materials will be inspected by the Commission in the field before installation.

E) The new French doors and wooden storefront will be an exact match to the existing doors and storefront in the façade.

Informal Review of proposed roof alterations to 295 Bloomfield Avenue

Robert Forbes, representative for the condominium association at 295 Bloomfield Avenue, came forward and informed the Commission that the building was considering replacing the existing roof. He went on to state that the building has a metal shingle roof on the Bloomfield Avenue side, which is what would have been found on the building historically, and an asphalt shingle roof on the Lackawanna Plaza side which had been a later addition to the building.

Mr. Forbes continued by stating that the condominium would like to replace the asphalt shingles with the historically correct metal shingles, however, that the cost would potentially be prohibitive. He continued by showing the Commission a sample of a material that is an asphalt shingle that has the appearance of the metal shingles, and which the building was considering as an option for the roof project.

The Commission stated that the building was one of the key structures in the Town Center Historic District, and thus that the condominium should investigate the possibility of using a metal shingle to replace the existing asphalt shingles.

Mr. Mellon stated that the existing CERP program that funds façade improvement projects might be available to be used to help defray the cost of the installation of the metal shingles. He stated that he would meet with Mr. Forbes in order to see whether the CERP funding could be used for the project.

Approval of Minutes of May 19, June 16, July 21, and September 22, 2005:

On a motion by Chairman Lippincott and seconded by Commissioner Orloff, the minutes of the May 19, 2005 meeting of the Commission were approved.

On a motion by Commissioner Orloff and seconded by Commissioner Morris, the minutes of the June 16, 2005 meeting of the Commission were approved.

On a motion by Vice Chairman Smith and seconded by Commissioner Orloff, the minutes of the July 21, 2005 meeting of the Commission were approved.

As the September minutes had not been ready in order to be included in the packet sent to the Commission, the approval of the minutes was carried until the November 17 Meeting in order to allow for proper review by the Commissioners.

Approval of Resolution and Certificate of Appropriateness

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Omnipoint Communications, INC., 641 Bloomfield Avenue On motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Perlstein, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Justin Forey, 7 Park Street On motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Orloff, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Modern Yarn, 32-A Church Street On motion by Commissioner Orloff, seconded by Vice Chairman Smith, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Public Comment

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

General Discussion Issues - Members of the Historic Preservation Commission

Proposed Pine Street Historic District Update

Mr. Mellon informed the Commission that the Township Council would be holding its second reading of the ordinance to establish the district on October 25th. He also informed the Commission that there had still not been any protests received from the owners of the affected properties.

Proposed Special Meeting

Mr. Mellon informed the Commission that the attorney for the owner of the property at 22 South Park Street had requested that the Commission consider scheduling a special meeting to discuss the proposed alterations to the exterior of the building. The Commission requested that the applicant provide a detailed schedule for the proposed special meeting, which would include all topics to be reviewed, and that once that had been reviewed the Commission would investigate whether a special meeting could be held. The Commission also requested that the applicant bring a detailed set of photographs of the site when it was reviewed.

Discussion of establishment of subcommittees

Chairman Lippincott stated that due to the increasing number of properties under the purview of the Commission, there was a need to investigate whether a subcommittee could review simple applications, such as those for signage and awnings. Vice Chairman Smith stated that he would be meeting with Mr. Mellon to come up with some possible options for dealing with the review of minor applications.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 pm on a motion made by Commissioner Orloff and seconded by Commissioner Brady.

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan Mellon, Commission Secretary