MINUTES OF THE MONTCLAIR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

APRIL 21, 2005

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

Absent: Chairman Jerry Mosier, Commissioner Susan Brady

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 February 17, 2005, and March 17, 2005: As the 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 May 19 Meeting in order to allow for proper review by the Commissioners.

Approval of Resolution and Certificate of Appropriateness

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Lashica Levins – New Visions Learning Center, 108-110 Bloomfield Avenue On motion by Commissioner McDonough, 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 Alyson Pardo, 461 Bloomfield Avenue On motion by Commissioner Orloff, seconded by Commissioner McDonough, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Old Business

Application 2005-5 Dennis Mylan.

15 Midland Avenue (Block 2210, Lot 10)

At the time of the public hearing, Dennis Mylan, 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; revised site plan, elevations and floor plans prepared by The Mylan Architectural Group, dated April 13, 2005.

The applicant was returning to the Commission with a revised design for the proposed construction of a new three story mixed use building. The original application was reviewed at the March 17th meeting, at which time the Commission asked that the applicant return at the April meeting with a revised design for the facade.

The applicant was proposing the construction of a three-story building with a duplex apartment over a first floor retail space. In addition, a parking area for two cars would be provided at the rear of the lot, which would be accessed through the adjacent municipal parking lot. Access to the duplex apartment would be from the parking area as well as from the adjacent building on the second floor.

The materials for the exterior façade of the building are proposed to include brick, pre-cast stone, wood siding, and fiberglass asphalt shingles for the roof. The windows are proposed to be of aluminum or vinyl in a dark brown color.

The proposed floor plan for the new building calls for the basement level to be used for storage for the retail space; the first floor is to contain one retail space with a bathroom, as well as stairs to the second floor duplex apartment; the second floor is to contain a living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, two bedrooms, and laundry room for the apartment; the third floor is to contain a master bedroom, sitting area, master bath, as well as a terrace facing Midland Avenue. The HVAC equipment is also located on this level, between the two structures.

The proposed design calls for a structure measuring 33 ½ feet in height, which is similar to the adjacent structure directly to the north, and one story taller than the other adjacent buildings. The front façade would consist of a two-story brick base that would have a ground floor storefront, with a recessed double door entry. An area for signage is provided above the storefront with six gooseneck light fixtures, which is followed by the second story that is to have two openings for windows for the duplex apartment. The casement windows are proposed to have pre-cast lintels and sills. The second level is to be topped by a pre-cast stone cap. The third floor of the front façade would be set back from the two-story base, thus allowing for a terrace area for the apartment. The third floor is proposed to have brick on the front with a wall of windows covering most of the façade, with a large double door providing access from the apartment to the front terrace. The double door is to be flanked by single pane windows, and is to be topped by a triangular shaped portion of the façade that is to be covered in stucco.

The rear façade is to consist of a one-story brick base with two doors providing access to the retail space and the apartment, with a light fixture located between the two doors. The second floor is proposed to have wood siding with two openings containing four double hung windows. The third floor is to have one opening with two double hung windows, as well as the area for the HVAC units, which is to be covered through the use of a lattice screen.

Mr. Mylan provided the Commission with an overview of the revisions to the plan that had been shown to the Commission at the March meeting. He continued by noting that the revised plans called for changes to the third floor façade, including the use of brick and stucco in the façade as well as new windows. He went on to discuss the changes to the windows on the second floor, and provided the Commission with samples of the materials to be used in the façade, including brick samples and samples of the proposed metal windows. He also noted that the application did not propose any signage at this time, but he pointed out that the revised plan did call for six gooseneck fixtures located above the sign location area.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the applicant had returned with a revised plan for the construction of a new three story mixed use building that largely addressed the concerns that had been raised at the March meeting. The Commission noted that the revised design had resulted in an improved third floor façade, which was more in keeping with the character of the façade as well as of the adjacent structures on the block. The Commission stated that the proposed storefront was an important element in the façade, and thus as such the treatment of the details needed to be reviewed in order to have the storefront complement the overall design.

The Commission noted its concern that applications that had been submitted for review did not provide enough detailed information about design elements such as materials, and that the Commission should look at a method of insuring that future applications were more complete in order for them to be reviewed properly.

Vice Chairman Smith, hearing no further questions from the 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 Perlstein, and 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 applicant shall consult with staff for the approval of the muntin profile, with the goal being as thin as possible in order to complement the overall design of the facade.

Application 2005-7 – Rascals Montclair, Inc.

499-501 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 2212, Lots 11,12)

At the time of the public hearing, Gerry Pontones, representing the owner of the property Rascals Montclair, Inc., came forward and was sworn. The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as part of the application package included; revised elevations and rendering of the proposed marquee sign.

The applicant was returning to the Commission with a revised design for the proposed marquee sign. The original application was reviewed at the March 17th meeting, at which time the Commission approved the proposed awnings, while asking that the applicant return at the April meeting with a revised design for the marquee sign.

The applicant was proposing to install a triangular shaped two-sided marquee sign on the second story of the façade of 499 Bloomfield Avenue. The Marquee is to be centered, and will cover an area of the façade that originally had openings for windows. The proposed marquee sign was described as being reminiscent of those installed at the turn of the century, and is to consist of “two backlit manual letter boards, polished aluminum panels, multiple decorative 15 watt bulbs, and 3M faced channel letters”.

Mr. Pontones provided the Commission with an overview of the revisions to the plan that had been shown to the Commission at the March meeting. He continued by noting that the revised plans for the marquee sign included the following changes; removal of the signage for the Green Room Bar and Grill from the lower portion of the marquee; lowering of the height of the marquee; removal of the lighting from underneath the cabinet.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the applicant had returned with a revised plan for the marquee sign that addressed the concerns that had been raised at the March meeting. The Commission noted that the revised design had resulted in a marquee sign that would complement the character of the building, and would serve as a destination point for the downtown area. The Commission also noted that the revisions to the plans resulted in the need to retain the lighting underneath the cabinet.

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

Dick Grabowsky, owner of the property, came forward and stated his support for the installation of lights on the bottom of the marquee

On a motion by Commissioner Perlstein, and 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 proposed lighting underneath the cabinet as shown on the elevations of the proposed marquee sign by Effective Sign Works, identified as Exhibit 1, as part of the application reviewed at the March 17th meeting are to be retained.

Application 2005-8 – Wireless Depot.

573-575 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 2210, Lot 5)

At the time of the public hearing, Joe Vacca, the applicant, came forward and was sworn. The documents that had been by the applicant as part of the application package included: a completed application for a Certificate of Appropriateness; photograph of the existing conditions; rendering of the proposed sign.

The applicant was returning to the Commission with a revised plan for the installation of new signage. The original application was reviewed at the March 17th meeting, at which time the applicant stated that the plan had been changed from the proposal to install a new awning with signage. The proposal is to remove the existing awning and install a new wall mounted channel letter sign. The proposed new wall mounted signage will consist of one channel letter sign, made of individual plastic letters. The sign is proposed to be approximately 13.75’ wide and 17.5” high, consisting of red with black outline channel letters mounted on a narrow panel attached to the façade. The applicant was not proposing any additional changes to any other part of the storefront façade.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission discussed the proposal and stated that the proposed sign was appropriate in scale and design, and that the mounting of the sign on the façade would not result in damage or loss of historic fabric. The Commission noted that the c.1890 building is covered in beaded vertical board siding that is painted white, which would not be negatively impacted by the addition of the sign.

Vice Chairman Smith, hearing no further questions from the 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 Orloof, and seconded by Commissioner Lippincott to approve the application, the Commission voted six in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

New Business

Application 2005-10 – Omnipoint Communications, Inc.

641 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 2209, Lot 14)

At the time of the public hearing, Frank Speyer, the attorney for the applicant, came forward and provided the Commission with an overview of the project. The documents that had been submitted as part of the application package included; Visual Analysis of the site prepared by T.K. Design Associates, dated July 2, 2004; site plan and elevations prepared by Salient Architects, dated July 16, 2004.

The applicant was proposing the installation of wireless antennas and associated cabinets on the rooftop at the property. The proposal called for the installation of a total of twelve wireless antennas in three groups of four on the roof of the building. The antennas are proposed to be located in the following locations on the roof: the southwest corner; the northwest corner; and a location at the middle of the eastern side. In addition three equipment cabinets and one battery cabinet are proposed to be located on the roof. The equipment is proposed to be located towards the northern end of the roof, between the two existing penthouses for the stairs and elevator, on top of a new metal platform. As well, cable trays would be installed on the rooftop linking the antennas and equipment.

Charles Whalen, the architect for the project, came forward and was sworn. He provided the Commission with an overview of the project, and stated the structure already had a total of thirty five antennas located on its roof. He went on to state that the applicant, Omnipoint Communications, was proposing three groups of antennas, which would measure 4’8” in height, as well as three radio cabinets towards the rear of the roof.

Upon completion of the presentation by Mr. Whalen, the Commission stated its concern over further compromising the integrity of the building by adding additional antennas. The Commission went on to state that the choice of the site was more appropriate than others in the historic district as it already had a number of antennas and related equipment located on its roof. The Commission continued by expressing its concern over the number of antennas as well as the proposed color.

The applicant stated that the number of antennas could be reduced from twelve to six, in three groups of two. As well, the applicant stated that the antennas could be painted to match the colors of the building.

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

Frank Rubacky, Montclair resident, came forward, and stated that the antennas should be screened from public view.

On a motion by Commissioner Lippincott, and seconded by Commissioner Perlstein to approve the application, the Commission voted three in favor; Commissioners Lippincottt, Perlstein, and Morris, with three negative votes; Vice Chairman Smith and Commissioners McDonough and Orloff. As the motion did not receive a majority vote of the Commission, the application was denied.

Application 2005-11 – Dmitri Malki

615 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 2209, Lot 11)

At the time of the public hearing, Dmitri Malki, the applicant, and Paul Sionas, the architect for the project, came forward and were sworn. The documents that had been by the applicant as part of the application package included: a completed application for a Certificate of Appropriateness; photographs of the existing conditions; property survey prepared by William Held Associates, Inc., dated January 18, 2001; elevation and floor plan prepared by Sionas Architecture, P.C. dated April 4, 2005.

The applicant was proposing to replace the existing wooden storefront with a new glass one that will include the addition of masonry, and the relocation of the entrance. The new entrance is proposed 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 a masonry sill that will replace the existing wooden wall. The new doorway is to be recessed, and is to include a glass door with the street number etched into the glass. In addition, the proposal called for a new incandescent light shelf to be located above the storefront.

Mr. Sionas provided the Commission with an overview of the project, stating that the relocation of the door was in order to improve the traffic flow for the restaurant at the site. He continued by stating that the applicant was now changing the plans that had been submitted, as a result of the discovery that the original masonry had been removed. He continued his presentation by stating that the plan would include the addition of new masonry in the storefront, as well as an aluminum storefront.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the application was not complete, and that due to the changes to the plans that had been submitted for review, that the matter should be carried until the May meeting. The Commission requested that the applicant return with a more detailed application that would include: a complete building elevation; an enlarged elevation of the proposed storefront; a cross section of the proposed façade; additional information on the proposed lighting; as well as more detailed information on all of the proposed materials to be used in the façade rehabilitation.

In response to the concerns raised by the Commission, the applicant agreed to return with a more detailed application at the May meeting.

The Commission asked that the staff look into having the packets sent out sooner so as to allow the commission to have adequate time to review the information.

Application 2005-12 – ALPHA MTS USA, INC.

578 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 2208, Lot 8)

At the time of the public hearing, Amir Shama, representing the applicant, came forward and was sworn. The documents that had been by the applicant as part of the application package included: a completed application for a Certificate of Appropriateness; photographs of the existing conditions; elevations of the proposed façade and canopy, prepared by ALPH MTS USA, Inc.; and renderings of the proposed signs, prepared by ALPH MTS USA, Inc.

The applicant was proposing to replace the existing wooden storefront with a new aluminum and glass one, with mahogany or dark oak wood base panels. The proposal calls for the installation of a new 30/70 double panel door that is to be recessed 4’. The glass panels in the storefront are proposed to have a simple decorative etching at their borders. In addition, the applicant was proposing to install a new canopy for the entrance, which is to measure 5’ wide, and 9’ high, and will extend to the sidewalk curb. The canopy is to be of a burgundy colored canvas with golden trim, with the property address on the front, and is to have framing made of dark aluminum.

As well, the application called for the installation of two signs, one of which is to be mounted above the storefront, and the other above the gate to the garden area. The proposed sign for the storefront is to be of mahogany, at a width of 6’ and a height of 5’. The proposed sign is to have gold colored four inch deep three dimensional letters, with the applicant stating a preference for the letters to be back lit with internal non-visible neon reflecting on the back board in a yellow color. The proposed sign to be located above the gate is to be located at the same height, at a width of 9’ and a height of 5’. The lighting for this sign was stated as being the same as for the other sign.

The last proposed change in the application is for the replacement of the existing metal gate with a new one. The proposed new gate is to be located in the same location as the existing one, and is to be of the same height, in a black color. In addition the gate will contain a panic bar so as to serve as an exit for the business.

Mr. Shama, provided the Commission with an overview of the project, stating that the changes to the site were needed in order to open a new Middle Eastern restaurant at the site. He continued by reviewing the proposed signage for the site, as well as the proposed outdoor dining area.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated

that the application did not provide enough detail relating to the proposed changes to the site, and that the matter should be carried until the May meeting. The Commission requested that the applicant return with a more detailed application that would include: a detailed building elevation; an enlarged elevation of the proposed storefront; a cross section of the proposed façade; additional information on the proposed gate; as well as more detailed information on all of the proposed materials to be used in the façade rehabilitation.

In response to the concerns raised by the Commission, the applicant agreed to return with a more detailed application at the May meeting.

2005-13 – Ophia Mapp

20 Lackawanna Plaza (Block 3206, Lot 10)

At the time of the public hearing, Ophia Mapp, the applicant, came forward and was sworn. The documents that had been by the applicant as part of the application package included: a completed application for a Certificate of Appropriateness; photographs of the existing conditions; rendering of the proposed sign.

The applicant was proposing to install a new wall mounted sign and lighting at the property referenced above. The proposed new wall mounted signage will consist of one sign, made of either wood or sintra; a plastic material that simulates the appearance of wood. The sign is proposed to be approximately 9’ 7” wide and 3’ 6” high, with red lettering on a white background, and is to be attached to the façade with nails. The application also indicated that two light fixtures are to be installed above the sign; the applicant stated that goose neck style fixtures were proposed. The applicant was not proposing any additional changes to any other part of the storefront façade.

Ms. Mapp provided the Commission with an overview of the project, stating that the sign was needed for day care center that she was opening at the site.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the proposed sign should cover the entire wooden area above the storefront, in order to not have the wooden area exposed which would further degrade the appearance of the first floor façade of the building. The Commission also stated that efforts should be made to remove the metal box above the entrance door, and if it cannot be removed, the sign should wrap around it, with the box painted the same color as the sign. The Commission went on to state that the proposed gooseneck fixtures were not appropriate for the façade and would not adequately illuminate the sign. The Commission noted that any proposed lighting for the sign would have to be approved as a part of a future application.

Vice Chairman Smith, hearing no further questions from the 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 McDonough, and seconded by Commissioner Lippincott to approve the application with conditions, the Commission voted six in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

Conditions:

A) The sign is to be of a rectangular shape and is to cover the entire wooden area above the storefront.

B) If the metal box located above the door cannot be removed, the sign is to wrap around it, and the box is to be painted the same color as the sign.

C) If the applicant should seek to have lighting installed for the sign, the applicant would have to return to the Commission.

The commission took a short recess.

DMR Architects – Pine Street Redevelopment Project

Advisory Review of proposed residential building

El Taller Colaborativo, P.C. – Pine Street Redevelopment Project

Advisory Review of proposed parking deck

Vice Chairman Smith provided the Commission with some background on the project, stating that representatives for the firm that is designing the residential building and parking deck for the Pine Street Redevelopment Project would be providing the Commission with a review of the proposed design. He noted that although the site is not located in the TCHD, the developer for the project was seeking the input of the Commission.

Neil Zimmerman, the attorney for the developer, came forward and provided the Commission with an overview of the project. He stated that the site was to be developed by Lincoln Properties, and was Phase II of the Bay Street Redevelopment Project. He continued by stating that the plan called for a parking deck with 225 spaces, a 163 unit apartment building with 196 parking spaces, and noted that the apartments would be rental units with 10% reserved as affordable units.

Mr. Zimmerman continued his presentation by introducing the development team for the project; David Markunas, advisor to the Montclair Parking Authority; Tony Aianuale, of the developer Lincoln Properties; Jeffrey Reeve, the project engineer; Lloyd Rosenberg and Ralph Rosenberg, the architects for the project.

Ralph Rosenberg reviewed the architectural plans for the Commission, and stated that the design took cues from the existing Bay Street Station. He continued by discussing the Pine Street elevation of the residential building, and noted that the plan called for a four story building with a metal entrance canopy, as well as vertical living towers with bays. He went on to discuss the south elevation which would be visible from Bloomfield Avenue, as well as the northern elevation that would be visible from Glenridge Avenue.

He continued his presentation by discussing the proposed materials for the residential building, and stated that the plans called for the use of pre-cast concrete, as well as hardy panel that simulates metal in the bay windows. He continued by reviewing the design for the proposed parking deck.

Upon completion of the presentation, the Commission stated that the proposed design for the residential building was appropriate both in scale and materials for the site.

The Commission made the following recommendations for the facade of the residential building:

A) That the corner of the façade that faces Bloomfield Avenue should be looked at, with the possible introduction of a bay or brick material. The Commission stated that since the southern façade was visible from Bloomfield Avenue it should not be treated as a side façade, and rather should be considered as an additional front façade.

The Commission stated its concern that the proposed parking deck was not in keeping with the character of the proposed residential building or with the buildings in the surrounding area. The Commission went on to express concern over the elevation facing Glenridge Avenue, and the lack of detailing on the façade.

The Commission made the following recommendations for the facade of the parking deck:

A) That the introduction of brick on the southern façade over the entrance to the deck could help to articulate the entrance and improve the overall appearance of that side of the structure.

B) That the installation of a metal canopy over the doors to the garage in the tower, that would echo the canopy on the residential building would be an important addition that would help to both identify the pedestrian entrance to the structure as well as to dress up the façade.

Mr. Markunas stated that the Parking Authority was working under a tight budget for the parking deck, and was aware of the problems that had arisen due to revisions to the plans for the Crescent Parking Deck, and thus was looking for a design that would not have to be altered in the future.

The Commission suggested that the Parking Authority look at the possibility of adding lattice elements to the deck, which would allow for plantings that would soften the appearance of the structure.

Mr. Markunas stated that $50,000 was available for a public art component for the project, and that it would most probably be located on the south elevation of the deck.

Vice Chairman Smith, hearing no further questions from the members of the Commission or staff, opened the discussion to the public for comments on the proposal.

Frank Rubacky, Montclair resident, came forward, and stated his support for additional landscaping for the site.

The Commission closed the discussion by thanking the development team for taking the time to provide the Commission with a thorough presentation on the project.

Public Comment

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

General Discussion Issues - Members of the Historic Preservation Commission

NJDOT reconstruction of Bloomfield Avenue Bridge project

Mr. Mellon informed the Commission that he had attended a meeting with representatives of NJDOT in order to discuss the proposed reconstruction of the Bloomfield Avenue Bridge. He stated that NJDOT expressed their desire to work with the Commission to see how the current drab appearance of the bridge could be improved. He noted that NJDOT was looking for input from the Commission in a number of areas, including the lighting for the bridge as well as the treatment of the bridge railings and walls. He continued by stating that NJDOT was looking for comments from the Commission about the project by sometime next month, and asked for volunteers from the Commission to meet on the matter.

Commissioner McDonough and Commissioner Morris stated that they would volunteer to meet to discuss the project.

Pine Street District

Mr. Mellon informed the Commission that the recommended course of action would be for the Commission to contact all of the owners of the properties proposed to be included in the district, and have them attend the meeting in May. Then, should the Commission decided to move ahead with the proposal, the formal nomination could take place at the May meeting. He noted that this was the approach that was used for the 1st phase of the Town Center Historic District, and due to the sensitive nature of residential designation in the Township, that it would be the best way to move forward on the matter.

The Commission stated its support for moving ahead with the proposed Pine Street Historic District, and holding a public discussion with all affected property owners at the May meeting.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:04 pm on a motion made by Commissioner Orloff and seconded by Commissioner McDonough.

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan Mellon, Commission Secretary