MINUTES OF THE MONTCLAIR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

MAY 19, 2005

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

Absent:  Chairman Jerry Mosier, Commissioner Kathleen McDonough

Also present:  Jonathan Mellon, Commission Secretary

Order and Announcements:  The meeting was called to order at 7:30 pm by Vice Chairman Smith.  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.

Approval of Minutes of April 21, 2005:  On a motion by Commissioner Lippincott and seconded by Commissioner Orloff, with Commissioner Brady abstaining, the minutes of the April 21, 2005 meeting of the Commission were approved.

Approval of Resolution and Certificate of Appropriateness

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Dennis Mylan, 15 Midland Avenue  On motion by Commissioner Lippincott, seconded by Commissioner Orloff, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Rascals Montclair, Inc., 499-501 Bloomfield Avenue  On motion by Commissioner Orloff, seconded by Commissioner Lippincott, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Wireless Depot, 573-575 Bloomfield Avenue  On motion by Commissioner Orloff, seconded by Commissioner Perlstein, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

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

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Ophia Mapp, 20 Lackawanna  Plaza  On motion by Commissioner Perlstein, seconded by Commissioner Orloff, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Old Business

Application 2005-11 Dmitri Malki.

615 Bloomfield Avenue  (Block 2209, Lot 11)

At the time of the public hearing, Dmitri Malki, the applicant, came forward and was sworn.  The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as part of the application package included; revised elevation prepared by Sionas Architecture, P.C.

The applicant was returning to the Commission with a revised design for the proposed alterations to the storefront façade.  The original application was reviewed at the April 21st meeting, at which time the Commission asked that the applicant return at the May meeting with a revised design as well as be able to provide the Commission with greater detail on the proposed materials to be used.

The proposal calls for the new entrance to be located to one side, which would mirror the layout of the storefront for 611 Bloomfield Avenue.  The new glass storefront is to sit on an aluminum base, which will replace the existing wooden wall.  The new doorway is to be recessed, and is to include a glass and aluminum door with the street number etched into the glass.  In addition the proposal calls for the existing vertical siding to be removed and replaced with a new brick façade at the first floor that is to match the existing pattern and mortar of the brick above.  The proposal also calls for a wood framed, cedar sheathed, incandescent light box painted to match the existing stone band to be located above the storefront.  The applicant is not proposing any additional changes to any other part of the façade.

Mr. Malki provided the Commission with an overview of the revisions to the plan that had been shown to the Commission at the April meeting.  He went on to provide the Commission with samples of the materials to be uses in the façade, including a brick sample.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the applicant had returned with a revised plan for the storefront that addressed the concerns that had been raised at the April meeting.  The Commission went on to state that the revised design had resulted in a storefront that would be appropriate for the building, while adding a modern element to the c.1920 structure.  The Commission noted its concern over the need for the new brick and mortar to match the existing material on the façade.  The Commission continued by stating its concern over the proposed painted light box, and stated its preference for it to be done in a faux finish in order to have it better blend in with the stone band above.  The Commission went on to state its concern over the method in which the light box would be attached to the stone portion of the façade, and the need to have it not negatively impact the original historic fabric of the building.

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

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

Conditions:

A)  The light box will be painted in a faux finish in a color to as closely match as possible the color of the stone band located above the storefront.

B)  The light box is to be installed in such a manner so that it will not impact the stone band located above it; the light box is not to be attached to the stone band, but rather to the new brick structure in the facade.  In addition, the light box is to be angled downwards away from the building so as to not have water running into the façade.

Application 2005-12 – ALPHA MTS USA, Inc.

578 Bloomfield Avenue   (Block 2208, Lot 8)

At the time of the public hearing, Amir Shammaa, representing the applicant, came forward and was sworn.  The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as part of the package included; revised proposed elevation and floor plan prepared by Evan Architect; cut sheet for proposed entrance door.

The applicant was returning to the Commission with a revised design for the proposed alterations to the storefront.  The original application was reviewed at the April 21st meeting, at which time the Commission asked that the applicant return at the May meeting with a more detailed plan for the proposed changes to the exterior.

The applicant reviewed the plans for the Commission, and discussed the proposed designs for the steel gate, canopy, as well as the wall mounted signs.  He continued by reviewing the proposed entrance door, which he stated was to be an aluminum double panel 30-70 door.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the application was still not complete, and that the applicant had failed to return with detailed information on the various elements of the proposed façade.  The Commission continued by stating its concern over the proposed signage on the façade and over the gate entrance, as well as the appropriateness of the choice of entrance door.  The Commission noted its concern over the loss of distinctive curved section of glass in the storefront as a result of the proposed alterations to the storefront.

In response to the concerns raised by the Commission, the applicant agreed to return with a more detailed application, as well as to address the concerns raised relating to the proposed signage, entrance door, and loss of the curved glass portion of the storefront.

New Business

Application 2005-15 – David Dowd.

460 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 3106, Lot 1)

At the time of the public hearing, David Dowd, the applicant, came forward and was sworn.  The documents that had been submitted as part of the application package included; a completed application for a certificate of appropriateness; and a photograph of the building façade with the proposed window signage superimposed.

The applicant was proposing to install new window signage at the property referenced above.  The proposed new window signage will consist of the installation of new window lettering; “Skateboards”, “Snowboards”, “Sneakers and Apparel”.  The new lettering will be located within the three storefront windows, and will fill what is currently a blank space, as there is not any existing window signage for the storefront currently in place.  The new lettering is proposed to consist of vinyl window stickers, which will be attached to the interior side of the windows.  The applicant was not proposing any additional changes to any other part of the storefront façade.

Mr. Dowd provided the Commission with an overview of the project, stating that the window signage was needed for his business and had been designed to fit in with the existing wall mounted signage.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the proposed window signage was appropriate in scale and design for the façade, and would be in keeping with the style and colors of the existing signage on the building façade.

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

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

Public Discussion:  Proposed Pine Street Historic District.

Mr. Mellon informed the Commission that he had not received any protests to the proposed district from affected property owners.  He also stated that all of the affected owners had received notice of the public hearing by certified mail.

Mr. Mellon provided an overview of the proposed district for the Commission and public.  He stated that the proposed district contains some 102 properties and is an intact working class neighborhood with vernacular style frame residences built in the 1880s to multi-story masonry buildings constructed during the first decade of the twentieth century to the late 1930s.  He went on to state that the proposed district is bounded on the south by Glenridge Avenue, on the north by the New Jersey Transit Boonton Line, and on the west by the rear lot lines on properties on the west side of Pine Street.  The district extends along Glenridge Avenue to include the east side of Baldwin Street, in order to include the Baldwin Street School.  The proposed boundaries for the local historic district follow those of the district that is listed on the State and National Registers, save for the portion that is located in the Borough of Glen Ridge.

Mr. Mellon completed his presentation by stating that the proposed Pine Street Historic District will serve to protect the neighborhood from the development pressures arising from the adjacent Bay Street train station.  He went on to state that as the area becomes increasingly seen as an attractive location for housing catering to commuters, the potential threat to the character of the neighborhood grows.

Vice Chairman Smith opened the meeting to public comment.

Mike Zecca, owner of property at 89 Pine Street, came forward and stated that his family had been involved in the neighborhood for a number of years, and wanted to know what impact the designation of the area as a historic district would have on his planned renovations to his building.  He continued by stating his support for the proposed district in order to protect the historic buildings in the area.

Vice Chair Smith reviewed the existing design guidelines, and stated that the Commission was always available for consultation with property owners in order to provide guidance and advice.

Josephine Norwood, 56 Sherman Street, came forward and stated that her family had lived in the area for a number of years, and that she was supportive of the proposed district in order to preserve the Italian American heritage of the area.

Councilor Sandra Lang, came forward and discussed the significance of the area to the Italian and African American communities of Montclair.  Ms. Lang continued by stating her support for the preservation of the historic area, and suggested that the Commission should look at expanding the boundaries of the proposed district to include the area to the west along Glenridge Avenue.

Lincoln Turner, owner of properties on Glenridge Avenue and Bay Street, came forward and stated that the Commission is a valuable resource that he would like to use for advice on his historic buildings.  He continued by asking about the types of applications that would require the review of the Commission.

The Commission noted that individual property owners can self designate their properties, such as occurred with the Crawford Crews Post building on Bloomfield Avenue.  The Commission stated its concern that the Montclair Connection had the potential to result in development pressures that would threaten the historic buildings in the Pine Street neighborhood.

Mr. Mellon stated that the completed nomination report would be ready for the June meeting of the Commission at which time initiation of designation would take place if the Commission decided to do so at that time.

Public Comment

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

General Discussion Issues - Members of the Historic Preservation Commission

Mr. Mellon informed the Commission that he had spoken with the owner of the property located at 22 South Park Street, and that an application would be being submitted in order to seek approval for the planned changes to the windows and storefronts.  The Commission stated its support for requesting the applicant to return to the Commission as soon as possible with revised plans in order for them to be reviewed, and for the matter to be resolved as quickly as possible.  The Commission requested that Mr. Mellon contact the applicant and forward the concerns of the Commission on the matter directly.

Adjournment

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

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan Mellon, Commission Secretary