MINUTES OF THE MONTCLAIR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

SEPTEMBER 23, 2004

Present:  Chairman Jerry Mosier, Vice Chairman Ira Smith, Commissioners Susan Brady, Kathleen McDonough, John Morris, Denis Orloff, Edward Lippincott, Sabine Eck, and 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 Vice Chairman Smith, the minutes of the August 19, 2004 meeting of the Commission were approved.

Approval of Resolution and Certificate of Appropriateness

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Spice It Up, 229 Glenridge Avenue  On motion by Commissioner Orloff, seconded by Commissioner Perlstein, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Vice Chairman Smith stated that the window sign that has been installed does not appear to match up with the one that was approved by the Commission.  Mr. Mellon stated that he would go out and look at the sign and report back to the Commission at the October meeting.

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Edward Occhipinti, 3 Midland Avenue  On motion by Vice Chairman Smith, seconded by Commissioner Orloff, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Guita Behbin, 22 Lackawanna Plaza  On motion by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Orloff, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Bud Markelwith, 439-449 Bloomfield Avenue  On motion by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Vice Chairman Smith, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Old Business

Application 2003-25 – Rockaway Bedding

504 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 2207, Lot 3)

At the time of the public hearing the applicant was not present.  The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as a part of the application package included: a layout plan with description of the new sign and lighting, as well as a cut sheet for the lighting

The applicant was returning to the Commission with a revised design for the proposed signage at 504 Bloomfield Avenue. The original application for this project was reviewed at the August 21, 2003 meeting of the Commission; Application #2003-19.  The application called for the removal of the existing awning and its replacement with a new wall mounted sign.  The Commission approved the removal of the awning, but did not approve the proposed new wall mounted sign due to concerns over the colors and materials that were to be used.

A second application for this project was reviewed at the October 23, 2004 meeting of the Commission; Application #2003-25.  As was the case with the previous application, this one also called for the removal of the existing awning and its replacement with a new wall mounted sign.  The new application differed from the earlier one in that new materials were proposed for the wall mounted sign, with a choice of three options provided to the Commission.  The Commission denied the application due to a lack of information about the proposed changes; the application failed to clearly state what the proposed colors of the sign would be.  In addition, no representative for the applicant attended the meeting and thus the Commission was unable to completely determine the effect the sign would have on the façade.

In the period since the application was heard, the illegal awning sign has remained in place.  In response to the failure of the applicant to remove the illegal awning sign, a warrant was issued approximately one year ago; the warrant was served in the past month, which brought an immediate response from Rockaway Bedding.  Frank Leslie, Director of Code Enforcement for the Township, had a number of discussions with representatives for Rockaway Bedding who stressed their desire to have the matter resolved.

The new proposal calls for the sign to consist of ¾” duraply letters painted red (Patriot Red 520), with the letters being stud mounted to the building.  The sign is proposed to be 2’ in height and 14’-9” in length.  The proposal also calls for the fascia to be painted white.  The new lighting is to consist of 4 chrome gooseneck fixtures with a black finish; Primelite Manufacturing Corp. Cat. # 20-850.

As the applicant was not present, the Commission discussed the proposal with Chairman Mosier providing the background on how the issue had developed since the original review of the application by the Commission.  The Commission noted that the proposed new sign complies with the zoning ordinance and will result in the removal of the existing illegal awning and lighting.  The Commission also noted that the proposed sign will not damage the historic fabric of the building, and will result in a considerable improvement in the appearance of the structure.

The Commission also stated that the proposed gooseneck light fixtures proposed by the applicant are not appropriate to the style of the building, and thus an alternative should be selected.  The Commission further stated its concern over the mounting of the fixtures on the façade, and the need to have it done in such a way that it would not have a negative impact on 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 Commissioner Brady and seconded by Commissioner Lippincott to approve the application with the following conditions, the Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

Conditions:

A) The applicant will consult with Commission staff on selecting a new light fixture for the façade, as well as obtain staff approval for the mounting conditions for the light fixtures.

Application 2004-18 – Bud Markelwith

439-449 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 205, Lot 1)

At the time of the public hearing, Terry Hale, representative for the applicant NW Sign Industries, came forward and was sworn.  The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as a part of the application package included: a rendering of the proposed sign with a description.

The applicant was returning to the Commission with a revised design for the proposed signage at 439-449 Bloomfield Avenue.  The original application was reviewed at the August 19th meeting, at which time the Commission approved the removal of all of the existing signage on the building and its replacement with new signage with the exception of the wall cabinet sign above the main entrance to the building.

At the August 19th meeting, the Commission raised a number of concerns relating to the proposed new sign above the main entrance.  The Commission stated that the size of the sign, as well as the colors and materials, were not appropriate for the façade.  The Commission asked the applicant to return at the September meeting with a new proposal for the sign above the main entrance that responded to the concerns that were raised at the August meeting.

The new proposal for the sign calls for it to be 2’-0” in height, and 10’-9” in width.  The original proposal called for the sign to be of the same height, but to be 30’-0” in width.  The new sign is described as consisting of ½” plate letters on a 1” pan sign.  The original proposal called for the refacing of the existing wall cabinet sign; the wall cabinet sign is to be completely removed and the new sign is not to be internally illuminated.  The proposed colors for the sign are to match PMS #485 red, PMS #293 blue, as well as a white color for the border around the letters and logo.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission discussed the proposal and noted that it did not feel that the revised design for the sign submitted by the applicant was appropriate for such a key structure in the Town Center Historic District.  During the course of the hearing, the Commission suggested that the applicant consider making the background panel for the sign of a color that would blend in with the overall structure.  The Commission also stated its desire to see the panel cover the area between the pilasters as well as to cover the carved lettering that exists on the façade.  The Commission stated that the proposed changes to the sign would allow for a compromise, allowing Bank of America the opportunity to have the signage that it needs for the branch while at the same time respecting the architectural integrity of the building.

In response to the concerns raised by the Commission, the applicant stated that they would be agreeable to the changes to the sign proposed by the Commission.

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 Perlstein to approve the application with the following conditions, the Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

Conditions:

A)    The background panel for the sign is to be no wider than the space between the pilasters, and will cover the existing carved lettering on the façade.

B)    The background panel is to be of a color that closely matches that of the stone façade, and is to be of a mat finish.

C)    The lettering spelling out “Bank of America” is to be blue and white, and the company logo is to be blue and red.

Application 2004-14 – Peter Schofel – 312 Montclair Associates, LLC

310 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 3104, Lot 23)

Vice Chair Smith left the room for the hearing.

At the time of the public hearing, Peter Schofel, the applicant, and Eric Maran, the architect for the project, came forward and were sworn.  The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as a part of the application package included: plans by Smith Maran architects, dated September 22, 2004; cut sheets for the lighting fixtures; fabric sample for the awnings.

Marked into evidence were:

A-1 to A-6      existing and proposed façade elevations, dated 9/22/04

The applicant was returning to the Commission with a revised design for the proposed changes to the façade of 310 Bloomfield Avenue.  The original application was reviewed at the July 15th meeting, with the Commission asking the applicant to return at the August meeting with a new design that responded to the concerns that were raised by members of the Commission.

The applicant is proposing to rehabilitate the entire front façade of the structure that has a little over seventy-six feet of frontage along Bloomfield Avenue.  The proposal calls for the complete removal of the existing stone veneer and stucco finishes from the façade, as well as for the removal of the existing cornice, awning, and storefronts.

The proposed façade is to consist of a combination of brick on the lower portion, with stucco on the upper area.  The brick portion of the facade is proposed to contain a vertical stack, a rowlock with rounded edges, a running bond, and finally a soldier course at the top.  The stucco portion of the façade is proposed to be of one color, with two recessed panel areas in the eastern portion of the façade.  All of the storefronts and doors are proposed to be replaced with new metal systems.  The proposal also calls for the introduction of new lighting on the façade, which would include sconces adjacent to the entry doors, as well as additional decorative lighting.  In addition, the proposal calls for the installation of new awnings for the building.

The applicant submitted two proposals for the façade, and is requesting approval for both options so as to allow for flexibility in order to accommodate a commercial tenant.  The two proposals are similar save for the treatment of the former garage door opening, with one option calling for a series of glass doors with an awning above, and the other calling for a new storefront window in the space.

Mr. Maran stated that the revised design was an attempt to respond to the concerns that were raised by the Commission at the July meeting.  He went on to discuss each of the concerns in detail, including the need to reduce the mass of the structure; the need to simplify the design; and the need to upgrade the materials used in the façade.  Mr. Maran also provided the Commission with samples of the proposed awning fabric material, as well as additional cut sheets for the proposed lighting.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission stated that the applicant had returned with a revised plan that addressed the concerns that had been raised at the July meeting.  The Commission noted that the revised design had in particular addressed the following points; the need to upgrade the proposed materials to be used in the façade that in the original application consisted largely of concrete block and stucco; the need to reduce the mass of the structure by not raising the roofline as much as was proposed in the original design; the need to simplify the design by not adding ornamentation such as the spheres and eifs that were in the original proposal.

The Commission also stated that the two options for the treatment of the former garage door opening were appropriate, and thus it would be up to the applicant to choose which of the two to proceed with once a tenant had been secured.

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

Section 106 Review

Greenwood and Glenridge Avenues Reconstruction Projects

Vice Chair Smith returned to the meeting.

Kim Craft, Township Engineer, came forward and was sworn.  Ms. Craft began her testimony by stating that she was appearing before the Commission as part of the Section 106 Review of the reconstruction projects for Greenwood and Glenridge Avenues.  Ms. Craft stated that the project consisted of the reconstruction of Glenridge Avenue between North Willow Street and Grove Street, and would include the installation of new granite block curbs, brick sidewalks, drainage improvements, as well as paving.

Ms. Craft stated that there were a number of other projects that the Township would be starting in the coming months that would affect historic districts, and that she would like to provide the Commission with overviews of them at future meetings.

Ms. Craft went on to discuss the reconstruction of Myrtle Avenue, which was described as part of an effort to address drainage problems in the area.  Vice Chair Smith raised the issue of whether the Township had looked at preserving the swales; Ms. Craft stated that the Township had looked at the issue and concluded that the cost was prohibitive.

Chairman Mosier expressed his concern over the need to acknowledge the Township as well as the Commission on the signs erected at projects that have undergone review.  Ms. Craft stated that she would work to have this concern addressed on future projects.

Ms. Craft stated that she would return at the October meeting of the Commission to discuss a project in the Erwin Park District.

New Business

Application 2004-20 – Dave Freeman

596 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 2208, Lot 5)

At the time of the public hearing, Dave Freeman, the applicant, came forward and was sworn.  The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as a part of the application package included: a completed application for Certificate of Appropriateness; plan A-1 produced by Architect Alan Feld dated April 7, 2004.

The applicant was proposing to change the exterior of the rear section of the building by covering the existing masonry block with stucco.  The proposal calls for the stucco to be of the same color and texture as that which is found on the front façade of the building, with the goal to be to unify the appearance of the structure.

The applicant stated he is currently nearing completion on alterations to the rear section of the building, which includes the installation of new windows and a door in bays that were previously infilled with concrete masonry units.  This work was approved at the Commission’s June 17th meeting, (Application #2004-10), at which time the applicant had informed the Commission that consideration was being given to unifying the appearance of the façade.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission discussed the proposal and noted that the application would allow for the building to have a unified appearance, and would not result in the loss of any distinctive architectural details or features as the rear section of the building is constructed of masonry units.

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

Application 2004-21 – Mathew Haramis & Chris Haramis

556 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 2208, Lot 12)

At the time of the public hearing, Mathew Haramis and Chris, the applicant, came forward and were sworn.  The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as a part of the application package included: a completed application for Certificate of Appropriateness; undated color layout created by Competitive Signs & Graphics showing the existing conditions as well as the proposed for the façade of the building.

The applicant was proposing to remove the existing façade, which consists of a series of synthetic tiles and a metal support structure.  The proposal calls for the application of a new stucco finish over the entire façade, the color of which is described as being of an “earth tone color”.  The stucco finish is to be applied directly to the cinder block wall that is underneath the existing synthetic tiles.

This new application is a follow up to an earlier one that was reviewed at the Commission’s June 17th, 2004 meeting; application #2004-11.  At that meeting, the Commission approved changes to the façade including the installation of a new awning, sign, and lighting.

The applicant provided the Commission with some background information on the project, stating that the existing façade is in a severe state of deterioration and needs to be replaced.  The applicant stated that they would be amendable to any suggestions that the Commission had as to what should be done with the façade.  The owner of the property was also present, and stated that he too was willing to work with the Commission on a solution to the façade.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission discussed the proposal and noted that although the existing façade was in poor condition and should be replaced, the proposed stucco façade was not appropriate to either the building or the Town Center Historic District.  The Commission noted that the metal grid system of the existing façade should some how be replicated in any new façade, and suggested that the applicant look at a stucco system with a metal grid showing.  The Commission also noted that due to the wear and tear on buildings in the downtown, the applicant should look at using a material other than stucco on the lower portion of the façade, such as tile or slate.  The Commission stated that the proposed use of a light color stucco was also inappropriate, and that any new stucco façade should be of a dark color similar to the color of the existing panel system.  The Commission suggested that the applicant work with the Commission to see what kind of system for the façade could be produced that would preserve the architectural integrity of the building.

In response to the concerns raised by the Commission, the applicant stated that they would be agreeable to the suggestions that were proposed.  The applicant also noted that they were looking at securing funding for the façade improvement from the BID – Business Improvement District.  The Commission stated that staff would consult with the applicant on a proposed design, in order to allow the applicant to return to the Commission with a proposal that responded to the concerns raised at the meeting.

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.

Chairman Mosier stated the desire of the Commission to not reject the application, but rather to have the applicant return at a later meeting with a modified design.  The applicant agreed to have the application continued for review at a future meeting.

Application 2004-22 – Euro Glass Art LLC

27 South Park Street (Block 2207, Lot 6)

At the time of the public hearing, Dan Vasiluseu, the applicant, came forward and was sworn.  The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as a part of the application package included: a completed application for Certificate of Appropriateness; undated color layouts by Competitive Signs & Graphics – one showing a photograph of the existing façade with a replication showing the proposed lettering and signs superimposed, and the other showing the layout of the proposed lettering and window signs.

The applicant was proposing the installation of new awning lettering and window signage at the property.  The proposed new awning lettering will consist of white lettering on the existing pink colored awning.  The proposed new signage for the storefront windows will consist of white lettering affixed to the windows, as well as a small red colored triangle also affixed to the window.

The applicant provided the Commission with some background information on the project, stating that the business sold affordable works of glass art.  The applicant went onto state that the proposed window and awning signage was need to be better advertise the newly opened store.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission discussed the proposal and noted that the applicant might want to consider a simpler font in order to make the signage easier to read from a farther distance.

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

Application 2004-19 – Ecco Bella

50 Church Street (Block 2206, Lot 1)

At the time of the public hearing the applicant was not present.  The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as a part of the application package included: a completed application for Certificate of Appropriateness; rendering of the proposed lettering; renderings of the exterior elevations of the property with the proposed signage; photographs of the existing conditions.

The applicant was proposing to install new window and door signage.  The proposed new signage for the storefront windows will consist of a total of three electrostatic removable stickers that will be applied to three separate storefronts.  The signs are proposed to be approximately 12” wide and 4” high, with black lettering.  The proposal also calls for the installation of an identical sign on a new front door to the business that is to replace the existing double door.

As the applicant was not present, the Commission discussed the proposal and noted that the application stated that approval had been received by the Building Department to replace the front door to the structure.  The Commission went on to state that no such approval had been granted, and that the applicant would have to return to the Commission in order to have the change to the front door approved.  The Commission stated that the application that had been submitted only addressed the issue of new window and door signage, and thus that was all that was being decided on.

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 Perlstein and seconded by Commissioner Lippincott to approve the application, the Commission voted seven 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 replacement plaques for the firehouses have been completed, and are to be delivered to the installer in the next couple of weeks.  He stated that the actual installation dates were still to be determined, and that additional funding was needed for the accompanying plaques explaining that the replacement pieces were not the original ones.

Mr. Mellon informed the Commission that Vice Chair Smith had alerted him of the work being performed at 22 South Park Street, and that the work did not appear to match up with that which the Commission had approved.  Mr. Mellon stated that he had visited the site, and determined that much of the work being performed was different from that which had been approved by the Commission.  Mr. Mellon stated that he was in contact with the owner and architect for the building, and that he would be attempting to set up a meeting to address the issue.  The Commission noted the importance of the structure to the Town Center Historic District, and the need to hold the owner to following the plans that had been approved.

Mr. Mellon provided the Commission with proposed boundaries for the Upper Montclair Historic Business District.  The Commission stated its overall approval of the boundaries, but suggested the addition of four new lots to the district.  Mr. Mellon stated that he would be providing the Commission with a report on the proposed district at the October meeting.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:08 pm on a motion made by Commissioner Lipincott and seconded by Commissioner Perlstein.

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan Mellon, Commission Secretary