MINUTES OF THE MONTCLAIR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

MARCH 17, 2005

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

Absent: Jonathan Perlstein, Susan Brady

Also present: Jonathan Mellon, Commission Secretary

Order and Announcements: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 pm by Chairman Mosier. 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: As the minutes of the February 14 meeting were not ready to be reviewed by the Commission, the matter was carried until the April 21 meeting.

Approval of Resolution and Certificate of Appropriateness

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Starseed Center for Yoga & Wellness, 215 Glenridge Avenue On motion by Commissioner Orloff, seconded by Vice Chair Smith, with Chairman Mosier abstaining, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

New 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; a completed application for a certificate of appropriateness; photographs of the existing conditions of the site and adjacent properties; site plan, elevations and floor plans prepared by The Mylan Architectural Group, dated February 10, 2004.

The applicant was proposing to construct a new 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, precast stone, wood siding, and fiberglass asphalt shingles for the roof.

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, which is followed by the second story that is to have three openings for windows for the duplex apartment. The windows are to be double hung with precast lintels and sills. Three precast stone accent pieces are proposed to be located above the center window, with the second level being topped by a precast 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 wood siding with a large French door providing access from the apartment to the front terrace. The French door is to be flanked by single pane windows, and topped by a half circle divided window. In addition, two light fixtures are proposed to flank the opening; the style of the fixtures is not indicated.

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 style of the fixture is not indicated. 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 project, stating that the applicant would return at a later date with a proposed sign for the retail space as a tenant had yet to be secured. He continued his presentation by reviewing the lighting and materials for the building, stating that the roof was to be covered with asphalt shingles, and that down lights would be located in the recessed entrance.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission discussed the proposal and noted its concern that the building was not distinctive, and did not reflect the character of the period in which it would be built. As well, the Commission expressed concern over the proposed façade for the 3rd floor of the building, and suggested that the applicant consider the use of different materials.

The Commission also stated its support for the recessed storefront called for in the design, while stating that more detailed information on the storefront was needed for a proper review. The Commission requested that the applicant provide samples of the proposed materials to be used in the façade, and suggested that different types of brick should be considered.

In response to the concerns raised by the Commission, the applicant agreed to return with a revised design at the April meeting. The applicant also stated that a more detailed description of the proposed storefront would be provided to the Commission at the meeting, as well as samples of the proposed materials to be used in the façade.

Application 2005-6 – Lashica Levins – New Visions Learning Center.

108-110 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 4107, Lot 35)

At the time of the public hearing, Lashica Levins, 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 of the proposed sign.

The application was before the Commission for review due to the proposed expansion of the Town Center Historic District. The property in question falls within the expansion area, and thus is subject to review as part of the “Moratorium Period”.

The applicant was proposing to install a new wall mounted sign on the facade. The proposed new wall mounted signage will consist of one aluminum sign mounted on a frame of aluminum tubing, that is proposed to be 96” wide and 24” high, with blue lettering on a white background. The applicant was not proposing any additional changes to any other parts of the storefront façade.

Ms. Levins provided the Commission with an overview of the project, stating that the sign was needed for the business that she was opening, and that she welcomed the advice of the Commission on how to make the sign more attractive.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission discussed the proposal and stated its concern over the placement of the sign on the building, and the need to have it located within the storefront and not on the brick portion of the façade. The Commission noted that 108-110 Bloomfield Avenue is part of a row of intact historic brick structures that have had alterations to their storefronts, and that the proposed location for the sign within the storefront would not impact the remaining historic fabric. The Commission went on to state that the sign should be stretched out in order to cover the entire opening above the storefront, while stating that the proposed color and design of the sign was appropriate for the façade.

Chairman Mosier, 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 Vice Chair Smith, 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 located within the storefront.

B) The sign is to be stretched out so as to cover the entire opening at the top of the storefront. The revisions to the sign would not require the applicant to return to the Commission, and could be approved by staff.

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; a completed application for a certificate of appropriateness; elevations of proposed marquee sign by Effective Sign Works; rendering of proposed marquee sign and awnings on the two buildings; historic photographs of the building and of theater marquee sign on building across the street.

The applicant was proposing the installation of a new marquee sign and awnings at 499 Bloomfield Avenue, and a new awning at 501 Bloomfield Avenue. The proposal calls for the installation of 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”.

In addition, the proposal calls for the installation of a total of four new awnings; one awning will span across the entire lower portion of 501 Bloomfield Avenue, and three awnings will span across the recessed areas of the lower portion of 499 Bloomfield Avenue. The awning are stated to be of a traditional “shed” style, and the applicant will be providing the Commission with samples of the proposed material to be used. The proposal calls for lettering to be located on the lower portion of the awnings, as well as lettering in the middle portion of the center awning at 499 Bloomfield Avenue.

Mr. Pontones provided the Commission with an overview of the project, as well as with samples of the materials to be used in the proposed marquee sign and the awnings. He continued his presentation by stating that the awnings were proposed to be of a dark burgundy or maroon color with white lettering.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission discussed the proposal and stated its concern that the marquee sign did not relate to the rest of the building, and further that a more accurate elevation for the proposal was needed in order for it to be reviewed properly. The Commission stated that the height of the marquee sign needed to be lowered, and that the signage for the Green Room should be removed.

The Commission separated the awning portion of the application from the marquee sign, and stated that the proposed awnings were appropriate for the façade, and that the material and color choices that were presented were in keeping with the overall design for the facades. In addition, the Commission noted that the proposed lettering in the middle portion of the center awning at 499 Bloomfield Avenue would not meet the requirements of Montclair Code Section 347-109-C.(2), in that the lettering would not be painted on the area of the lowest 12 inches of the awning.

Chairman Mosier, 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 Chair Mosier, 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 lettering in the middle portion of the center awning at 499 Bloomfield Avenue is to be relocated to the lower portion of the awning.

B) The awnings are to be made of the material presented to the Commission at the hearing. In addition, the color for the awning and lettering that were presented are to be followed.

The Commission stated that it needed more detail on the proposed marquee sign before determining whether or not it was appropriate for the façade.

In response to the concerns raised by the Commission, the applicant agreed to return with a revised design for the proposed marquee sign. The applicant stated that they were under time constraints due to the on-going restoration of the façade and requested that the Commission schedule a special meeting to hear the matter.

Chair Mosier called for a special meeting of the Commission to review the matter the following Thursday, March 24, 2005 at 6:00 pm.

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 proposing to install a new awning with signage, with the proposal calling for retaining the support structure of the existing awning, while replacing the fabric. The new awning is proposed to be of a black vinyl material with white lettering located on the front and sides of the lower portion of the awning. The applicant was not proposing any additional changes to any other part of the storefront façade.

Mr. Vacca stated that they had revised their proposal for the site, and were now planning to remove the existing awning, and install a new channel letter sign on the façade. He continued by providing the Commission with a layout plan for the proposed sign, as well as photographs of the channel letters. He stated that the letters are proposed to be individually mounted to the façade, and will not be internally illuminated.

The commission stated its concern that a more complete application was needed in order for the Commission to properly review it, and further stated that the condition of the existing façade needed to be clarified.

In response to the concerns raised by the Commission, the applicant agreed to return with a revised application that provided a better rendering and more detailed description of the proposed sign. The applicant requested that the matter be included as part of the agenda of the special meeting called for March 24.

The Commission agreed to have the application included in the special meeting.

Application 2005-9 – Alyson Pardo.

461 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 3201, Lot 43)

At the time of the public hearing, Alyson Pardo, 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 on the facade. The proposed new wall mounted signage will consist of one brushed steel with letter and line cutouts sign, that is proposed to be 148” wide and 22” high. In addition the proposed sign will include a bent steel rod welded to the sign. The brushed steel portion of the sign is proposed to be of a gray color, while the steel rod portion is proposed to be of a light blue color. The applicant was not proposing any additional changes to any other parts of the storefront façade.

Ms. Pardo provided the Commission with an overview of the project, stating that the sign was needed for the clothing store that she was opening at the site.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the proposed sign is 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 located within the recessed sign area that is part of the architectural design of the building.

Chairman Mosier, 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 Vice Chair Smith, and seconded by Commissioner Orloff to approve the application, the Commission voted six in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

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 the Planning Board had at its March 14 meeting endorsed the proposed expansion of the Town Center Historic District unanimously. He stated that the Planning Board had noted that the proposed expansion was an important step in protecting the character of the central business district.

Mr. Mellon informed the Commission that he had followed up on the different options for protecting the Pine Street Historic District. He stated that the idea to amend the rehabilitation plan was found to not be a viable option, as it would be seen as circumventing the local designation process. He went on to state that the only way of preserving the historic structures in the area was to pursue the creation of a local historic district. The Commission stated that it would like the staff to move forward with the process of local designation for the district, and asked that a nomination report be prepared.

Mr. Mellon informed the Commission that the Salvation Army was before the Board of Adjustment for approval of a new building on Trinity Place. He stated that the site is adjacent to the Town Center Historic District, and that the Chair of the Board of Adjustment had asked him to see if the Commission would like to have the matter referred to them so that they could review the design of the building. The Commission stated that the site was adjacent to the district, and thus the project should be referred, so that the Commission could review the design of the proposed building.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:24 pm on a motion made by Lippincott and seconded by Chair Mosier.

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan Mellon, Commission Secretary