MINUTES OF THE MONTCLAIR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

JANUARY 20, 2005

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

Absent:  Jonathan Perlstein

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:  On a motion by Commissioner Brady and seconded by Commissioner Lippincott, with Chairman Mosier abstaining, the minutes of the December 9, 2004 meeting of the Commission were approved.

Election of Officers: Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary

On a motion by Chairman Mosier and seconded by Commissioner Orloff, Mr. Mellon was elected as Secretary for 2005-06.

On a motion by Commissioner Lippincott and seconded by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Mosier was reelected as Chairman for 2005-06.

On a motion by Commissioner Orloff and seconded by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Smith was reelected as Vice Chairman for 2005-06.

Approval of Resolution and Certificate of Appropriateness

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Mastery Enterprises, LLC., 220 Bloomfield Avenue  On motion by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Orloff, with Chairman Mosier abstaining, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

New Business

Public Hearing:  Proposed Expansion of the Town Center Historic District

Mr. Mellon informed the Commission that he had received a total of 9 protests to the proposed expansion from affected property owners.  He also stated that all of the affected owners had received notice of the public hearing by certified mail.  He also stated that he had walked Bloomfield Avenue and handed out flyers announcing the meeting to the tenants in the affected properties.

Mr. Mellon provided an overview of the proposed expansion for the Commission and public.  Mr. Mellon stated that the proposed expansion was to the east, totaling some 29 properties and does not include any properties along “side streets”.  The east end of the District would now extend eastward along the northern side of Bloomfield Avenue to the corner of Bloomfield Avenue and Pine Street.  This stretch would consist of a total of three lots, including the Mount Carmel United Holy Church, and would not include the Montclair Mews development.  On the south side of Bloomfield Avenue, the district would end with 100-102 Bloomfield Avenue, at the corner of Maple Avenue and Bloomfield Avenue.  This stretch would include a number of significant structures including the American Legion Crawford Crew Post, which is the only individually designated landmark in the township.

Mr. Mellon competed his presentation by noting that the proposed boundaries for the eastward expansion of the district are designed to encompass the commercial district along this stretch of Bloomfield Avenue.  The adjacent “side streets” are lined with residential properties, and thus the proposed expansion does not include any properties that do not front onto Bloomfield Avenue.  In addition, due to the loss of the majority of the historic fabric along the northern side of this stretch of Bloomfield Avenue, only a handful of lots were included on this side.

Chairman Mosier opened the meeting to public comment.

Mr. Aldo DiTrolio, Esq., came forward and stated that he was appearing before the Commission in opposition of the proposed expansion on behalf of Commerce Bank that has a pending application before the Montclair Planning Board to develop a portion of the Lackawanna Plaza Shopping Center parking lot.  He stated that the proposed expansion does not meet the requirements for designation in the ordinance in that it lacks integrity of design and character, does not have distinctly definable boundaries, and has lost much of its historic fabric.

Mr. Kenneth E. Kalmis, from Cultural Resource Consulting Group, came forward and was sworn.  Mr. Kalmis stated that he was testifying on behalf of Commerce Bank in opposition to the proposed expansion, and provided the Commission with a report dated January 17, 2005.

Marked into evidence was:

CB-1   Evaluation of Historical Significance Report, prepared by Cultural Resource Consulting Group, dated January 17, 2005.

Mr. Kalmis provided the Commission with an overview of his report, and discussed the site visit that he had undertaken of the area.

Chairman Mosier suggested that other members of the public be allowed to speak before any lengthy testimony was started.  Mr. DiTrolio agreed to have his testimony and that of Mr. Kalmis continued later in the public hearing.

Mr. Roger Wilson, representing C.O.P.E., which is located at 104-106 Bloomfield Avenue, came forward and stated that he was appearing on behalf of C.O.P.E in opposition to the proposed expansion.  He stated that he agreed with the report by Mr. Kalmis that the properties to be added in the expansion were not historic.

Mr. Stanley Morrow, Esq., came forward and stated that he was appearing before the Commission in opposition of the proposed expansion on behalf of ARC Properties the owner of the Lackawanna Plaza Shopping Center parking lot.  He stated that he would continue his testimony after Mr. DiTrolio.

Mr. Tekeste Ghebremicael, owner of 154-158 Bloomfield Avenue, came forward and stated that he opposed having his property included in the expansion.  He stated that he feared that it would result in a layer of review by the Township that would hinder renovations that he had planned for his building.

Mr. DiTrolio and Mr. Kalmis returned in order to continue their testimony.

Mr. Kalmis continued by discussing the requirements for designation that are contained in the ordinance, and stated that the proposed expansion area does not have integrity.  He went on to state that the proposed expansion does not have definable boundaries, and has a large number of intrusion properties.  He continued by discussing the exclusion of the Montclair Mews from the expansion, and stated that it was his opinion that the expansion was a tool for controlling the development of the non-historic properties.

Chairman Mosier asked for questions of the witness from the public.

Mr. Michael Murphy, owner of 130-134 Bloomfield Avenue, came forward and asked Mr. Kalmis whether his property was an intrusion in the proposed expansion.

Mr. Kalmis stated that 130-134 was indeed an intrusion, and that it is part of a section of the proposed expansion that is not contiguous.

Hearing no other questions of the witness from members of the public, the Commission began by asking Mr. Kalmis about whether or not the boundary of the downtown commercial district had historically been where the eastern limit of the expansion was proposed to be.

Mr. Kalmis stated that he did not feel that this was the beginning of the downtown commercial district.

Chairman Mosier stated that a number of non-contributing buildings within the existing historic district had been restored, and that the same opportunity to do so existed within the proposed expansion area.

Vice Chairman Smith discussed the former stable building at the corner of Gates Avenue and Bloomfield Avenue that is undergoing a restoration.  He further stated that the proposed expansion should be looked at in the context of the existing district.

Mr. DiTrolio stated that the Nomination Report did not have an analysis of the existing district, and thus should be revised.

Commissioner McDonough read from the Nomination Report, and Chairman Mosier read into the record the sections of the report that referred to the existing district.

Vice Chairman Smith stated that the expansion met the criteria for designation in that it was a gateway to the downtown with a definable boundary.

Mr. Stanley Morrow, Esq., came forward and stated that he was appearing on behalf of ARC Properties.

Mr. Mark Hewitt, AIA, came forward and was sworn.  Mr. Hewitt stated that he was testifying on behalf of ARC Properties in opposition to the proposed expansion, and provided the Commission with a report dated January 18, 2005.     Mr. Hewitt stated that he had reviewed the documentation related to the proposed expansion and had conducted a site visit to the area some six months ago.

Marked into evidence was:

O2A    Photo Board of the ARC Property site

Mr. Hewitt continued his testimony be discussing his report, and stated that he supported the majority of the testimony provided by Mr. Kalmis.  He continued by discussing the ordinance, and stated that the 2003 expansion was in his opinion ill advised.  He continued by stating that the Commission did not provide any design guidelines for applicants.  Mr. Mellon provided Mr. Hewitt with a copy of the design guidelines that are provided to all applicants.  Mr. Hewitt stated that he had not been aware of them.

Mr. Hewitt concluded his testimony by stating that the proposed expansion would weaken the existing district and was an example of the Commission exceeding its mandate.

Chairman Mosier asked for questions of the witness from the public.

None were offered.

Hearing no other questions of the witness from members of the public, Chairman Mosier asked Mr. Hewitt about the harmonizing altered buildings that have been returned to being contributing structures.  Mr. Mosier continued by noting that ARC had opposed the original historic district, and discussed the former stable building that is undergoing a restoration.

Mr. Mellon asked Mr. Hewitt about the eastern boundary of the proposed expansion, and whether or not that was the beginning of the downtown commercial district.

Mr. Hewitt agreed that historically that was the eastern boundary.

Mr. Mellon stated that the proposed expansion was in response to the concerns of the Commission over the potential loss of the remaining historic buildings along this stretch of Bloomfield Avenue.  He continued by stating that the new rail station at Pine Street was expected to result in considerable development in the area, which would endanger the surviving historic structures.  He also stated that one of the primary motivations for preserving the area was to safeguard what had been a significant commercial and social area for the African-American community of Montclair.

Vice Chairman Smith stated that he disagreed with Mr. Hewitt’s testimony regarding the boundary of the proposed expansion as well as of his citing the ideas of planner and theorist Kevin Lynch.  Mr. Smith stated that he felt that the proposed boundary was a classic “Lynchian edge”.

Commissioner Morris concluded the public hearing by stating that the proposed eastern boundary was one that historically had been viewed as such by the residents of Montclair.

The Commission took a short recess.

Application 2004-27 – 23 Valley Road, LLC.

23 Valley Road  (Block 2208, Lot 21)

At the time of the public hearing, John McEvoy, the applicant, and Andrew Caracciolo, the architect for the project, 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; elevations and floor plans prepared by Andrew Caracciolo Architect, dated November 17, 2004.

The applicant was proposing to demolish the existing building at 23 Valley Road and construct a new three-story building.  23 Valley Road was identified as a “harmonizing (altered)” structure in the report prepared by Mary B. Dierickx Architectural Preservation Consultants as part of the expansion of the Town Center Historic District.

The proposed new construction would consist of a three-story building with two apartments over a first floor commercial space.  In addition, a parking area for two cars would be provided at the rear of the lot.  The materials for the exterior façade of the building are proposed to include a sand color traditional cement stucco finish, white vinyl clad windows by Anderson Windows, and an architectural asphalt shingle ‘charcoal blend’ color roof as manufactured by Timberline.

The proposed design calls for a structure measuring 32 feet in height to the roofline with a parapet wall, which is greater than the height of the adjacent structures.  The front façade would include a projecting tower like center, which would have a balcony area on the second floor, and three large windows for the ground floor retail space.  In addition, an open area on the northern side of the first floor would allow for a driveway that would provide for access to the parking in the rear.  The entrance for the ground floor retail space would be located on the northern side façade of the projecting center, off of the driveway.  The entrance to the residential units on the upper floors would be from the rear parking area.  In addition, the front façade would have metal railings for the second floor balconies as well as along a portion of the parapet.  The windows on all four sides of the building are proposed to be of a variety of sizes, with the plan also arranging them in a number of different locations.  The lighting that is shown calls for a total of 6 fixtures, 3 on the front façade and 3 on the rear façade.  The fixtures are shown as being of a gooseneck style, and are to be located above the first floor windows for the retail space.

Mr. Caracciolo provided the Commission with an overview of the proposed new construction.  He stated that the applicant had sought to address the concerns raised by the Commission at the August meeting.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, Vice Chairman Smith provided the Commission with an overview of the inspection that he completed of the building.  He stated that the building, 23 Valley Road, which dates from c.1880, is a two-story wooden frame structure that has seen some alterations over the years.  He went on to note that the building has suffered from a lack of maintenance, which has resulted in the deterioration of a number of exterior elements, most notably the wooden front porch.  He further stated that he observed signs of water damage to the structure, and that the floor joists appeared to be sagging.

The Commission stated that the applicant had returned with a revised plan that addressed the issues that had been raised at the August meeting.  The Commission noted that the contemporary design was appropriate, and that the overall scale of the building fits in with the streetscape of Valley Road.

The Commission noted its concern over the side (north) entrance to the ground floor retail space, and thus stated that the applicant should relocate the entrance to the front façade.  As well, the Commission expressed concern over the largely blank side (south) façade, and stated that the applicant should include additional windows in 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 Chairman Mosier and seconded by Commissioner Morris to approve the application with the following conditions, the Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

Conditions:

A) The entrance to the first floor retail space will be relocated from the side (north) facade to the front façade.

B) Additional windows will be added to the side (south) facade.

Application 2005-1 – Hugh Whyte.

8-10 South Fullerton Avenue   (Block 2206, Lot 10)

As the applicant was not present at the time of the public hearing, the Commission moved to have the matter reviewed at the February meeting.

Commissioner Mcdonough stated that she had a number of concerns related to the proposed lighting, including the potential damage to the façade as a result of the installation of the fixtures as well as the overall appropriateness of the lighting for the building.

Application 2005-2 – Laura Cianci.

9-15 Church Street   (Block 2207, Lot 5)

At the time of the public hearing, Laura Cianci, the applicant, and Mark Kibut, 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 building façade showing the existing conditions; floor plan and elevation prepared by New World Design Studio, LLC, dated January 7, 2005.

The applicant was proposing to remove two recessed storefront entrances to the property and replace them with windows.  The alterations to the exterior are part of the interior work that is taking place in order to allow for the expansion of “Suzette’s” into what were originally three separate storefronts.  The proposal calls for the replacement storefront windows to match the existing ones, as well as for the construction of new sills.  The new sills are to match the existing ones, and will be faced with matching tile.  The application does not call for any additional changes to the exterior of the structure.

Mr. Kibut provided the Commission with an overview of the proposed alterations to the storefronts.  He stated that the proposed changes were in order to improve the traffic flow for the business, and noted that the replacement storefronts would match the existing ones.

Mr. Richard Grabowsky, owner of the property, came forward and was sworn.  Mr. Grabowsky stated that he was working on an overall plan for the façade, and suggested that the application should be looked at as an interim solution.  He went on to state that he has matching tile to use under the windows, which will match exactly the tile located under the adjacent windows.  He concluded his testimony by noting that he has original plans for the building and would be returning to the Commission in the future to pursue a complete restoration of the façade.

Upon Completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission discussed the proposal and noted that the existing storefronts are not original to the building, and thus their removal would not result in the loss of historic fabric.

The Commission also stated that the application should be seen as an interim solution, with the restoration of the storefronts to their original configuration as the final goal.  The Commission also noted that they had heard testimony from the owner of the building that he concurred with viewing the project as an interim solution, and that he would be returning to the Commission with a plan for the restoration of the storefronts.

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 Chairman Brady and seconded by Commissioner Lippincott to approve the application, the Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

Application 2005-3 – Future Image Sign & Awning Inc.

220 Bloomfield Avenue   (Block 3102, Lot 18)

At the time of the public hearing, Jae Park, 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 and layout plan for the proposed sign and lighting.

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 and lighting on the facade.  The proposed new wall mounted signage will consist of one carved wooden sign, that is proposed to be approximately 3’-4” wide and 1’-4” high, with gold lettering on a forest green background.  The proposed sign is to be located within the building sign location band.  In addition, the application calls for the installation of two gooseneck style fixtures directly above the sign, which are to be of a similar forest green color.

Jae Park provided the Commission with some background information on the project, and stated that the owner of the building was going to be undertaking a restoration of the building façade in the coming year.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission discussed the proposal and stated that proposed sign is appropriate in scale and design, while at the same time stating its concern over the proposed lighting that was deemed to be inappropriate in both design and color for the building.  The Commission also stated that the proposed sign would require the removal of the existing light fixture located above the door, and that until the façade was restored it was important that the hole from the fixture be covered by the proposed sign.  The Commission noted that the sign would have to be removed when the façade was restored, and that its location would have to be looked at again at that time.  The Commission also noted that any proposed lighting for the sign would have to be approved as a part of a future application.

The applicant stated that he supported the Commission only approving the sign at this time, and that the lighting could be discussed as part of a future application for the restoration of the entire 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 Commissioner Orloff and seconded by Commissioner Brady to approve the application with the following conditions, the Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

A) The sign is to be centered above the door and positioned at a height in order to cover the hole resulting from the removal of the existing light fixture.

B) When an application is submitted for the restoration of the building façade, the Commission reserves the right to have the location of the sign adjusted.

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 February meeting would be focused on the historic preservation element of the Master Plan Reexamination.  He stated that an article would be published in the Montclair times in order to help publicize the meeting.

Mr. Mellon informed the Commission that the Crescent parking deck was progressing and that changes had been made to the design that had been shown to the Commission.  The Commission stated that it felt that the proposed changes to the plan were substantial enough to warrant the Parking Authority returning and making a new presentation to the Commission.  The Commission also asked Mr. Mellon to forward a letter to the Planning Board stating the concern that the Commission had over the proposed changes.

The Commission then discussed the proposed expansion of the Town Center Historic District, and whether or not to proceed with a vote on a resolution forwarding the Nomination Report to the Township Council.  The Commission reiterated its positions taken at the November meeting, again noting that the proposed expansion was small in scope, and followed the pattern that had been established by the earlier expansion of the district in 2003.

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

Mr. Mellon informed the Commission that he would me meeting with Councilor Tobin in order to discuss the proposed Upper Montclair Historic Commercial District.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:26 pm on a motion made by Orloff and seconded by Commissioner Brady.

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan Mellon, Commission Secretary