MINUTES OF THE MONTCLAIR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

AUGUST 19, 2004

Present: Chairman Jerry Mosier, Vice Chairman Ira Smith, Commissioners Susan Brady, Kathleen McDonough, John Morris, Denis Orloff, and Jonathan Perlstein.

Absent: Edward Lippincott, Sabine Eck

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 Vice Chairman Smith and seconded by Commissioner McDonough, the minutes of the June 17, 2004 meeting of the Commission were approved. On a motion by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Vice Chair Smith, the minutes of the July 15, 2004 meeting of the Commission were approved.

Approval of Resolution and Certificate of Appropriateness

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Paul S. Yeager, 501 34 Church Street On motion by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Orloff, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Old Business

Request for Postponement of

Application 2004-14 – Peter Schofel

310 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 3104, Lot 23)

On a motion by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner McDonough the request to postpone the review of the item was approved, with Commissioner Smith abstaining.

Section 106 Review

Evergreens: The Shultz House Museum

30 North Mountain Avenue

Commissioner Morris excused himself and left the room for the hearing.

At the time of the public hearing, the Commission reviewed the proposal of the Montclair Historical Society for a series of changes to the Evergreens: Schultz House Museum. The documents that had been submitted included elevations and a site plan by C.E. John Way & Associates Architects.

John Way, the architect for the project, came forward and was sworn. Mr. Way provided the Commission with an overview of the project that was approved by the Montclair Planning Board in 1998. The proposal is a CDBG funded project that is part of an effort to improve the public access to the museum. The major changes called for the in the plan include the construction of a new handicapped accessible bathroom in the carriage house; a handicapped ramp for the main house; redesigned and enlarged parking areas; and alterations to the existing driveway system.

Upon completion of the presentation by Mr. Way, the Commission stated that it greatly appreciated the Montclair Historical Society taking the time to make a thorough presentation.

On a motion by Vice Chair Smith and seconded by Commissioner Perlstein, the Commission voted six in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes to endorse the plan as proposed.

The Commission asked Mr. Mellon to write a letter stating their support for the project to the SHPO.

Section 106 Review

Greenwood and Glenridge Avenues Reconstruction Projects

As the Township engineer was not present to make a presentation to the Commission on the projects, the Commission postponed any comments until the September meeting. Mr. Mellon stated that he would contact the Township engineer to make sure that she would attend the September meeting at which time she could provide the Commission with an over view of the projects and answer any questions that the Commission might have.

New Business

Application 2004-15 – Izabella Bussin and Larry Bussin

229 Glenridge Avenue (Block 3201, Lot 42

At the time of the public hearing, Izabella Bussin, 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; rendering of the proposed lettering on the façade sign and the new window sign.

The applicant was proposing the alteration of the lettering on the façade sign, as well as the installation of a new window sign. The proposed alteration to the lettering on the façade sign will consist of the changing of the lettering to “Spice It Up”. The new lettering is proposed to be of the same height and color as the lettering that is being replaced, with no additional changes proposed to any other part of the existing sign. The proposed new sign for the storefront window will not be attached to the window, but rather will hang 2 feet behind it. The proposed sign will not take up more than 20% of the window area.

The applicant stated that the new lettering on the façade sign would match that which exists on the other storefronts in the building, and that there would not be any other changes to the sign box. The applicant also provided the Commission with the proposed colors for the window sign, and stated that the center area of the sign would be open.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission began its discussion by asking a number of questions about the proposed new window sign. The Commission noted that the proposed window sign was of an appropriate scale and design for the storefront, and that with an open center area it would not dominate the storefront.

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, the Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

Application 2004-16 – Edward Occhipinti

3 Midland Avenue (Block 2210, Lot 6

At the time of the public hearing, Edward Occhipinti, 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; renderings of the proposed awning and window lettering; two photographs showing the existing awning and storefront window.

The applicant was proposing the alteration of the lettering on the awning, as well as the installation of new window lettering. The proposed alteration to the awning lettering will consist of the changing of a portion of the lettering; “Salon” will be changed to “Yoga”. The new lettering is proposed to be 6 inches in height and to be of a gold flake color, which will be in keeping with the existing lettering that is to be retained. The proposed new lettering for the storefront window will consist of a vinyl decal affixed to the window that will not be larger than 20% of the window area. The proposed window lettering will consist of the word “Lotus” over a rendering of the flower in navy blue and gold flake, so as to match the color scheme of the awning.

The applicant provided the Commission with an overview of the proposal, and stated that the proposed changes would be minor in nature and would be keeping with the overall design of the storefront.

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

Application 2004-17 – Guita Behbin

22 Lackawanna Plaza (Block 3206, Lot 9

At the time of the public hearing, Guita Behbin, 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; a photograph of the existing façade without the awning; rendering of the façade with the proposed awning; rendering of the proposed awning with design and color information by Competitive Signs and Graphics Inc.

The applicant was proposing the installation of a new awning at 22 Lackawanna Plaza. The proposed new awning will consist of a concave awning structure measuring 17’6” in width. The awning will be 48” in height and will project from the façade of the building by 45”. The lettering on the facade will be located on the lower 10” of the awning, with the lettering being 6” in height. The awning is proposed to be of a black cherry color, with the lettering being of an ivory color.

The applicant provided the Commission with some background information on the project, stating that the business would be an arts and crafts store. The applicant also stated that she felt that the awning would improve the appearance of the façade by covering up the fake stone veneer on the lower portion of the building.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission discussed the proposal and noted that the proposed typeface for the awning could possibly be difficult to read. The Commission suggested that the applicant consider other fonts for the lettering.

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

Application 2004-18 – Bud Markelwith – NW Sign Industries

439-449 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 3205, 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 completed application for Certificate of Appropriateness; a letter from the property owner, Bank of America), explaining the reasons for the project; photographs of the existing signage and renderings of the proposed signage with detailed descriptions of both; location map showing the sites of the existing and proposed signage.

The applicant was proposing the installation of replacement signage at 439-449 Bloomfield Avenue. The proposed changes entail the replacement of all of the existing exterior signage at 439-449 Bloomfield Avenue. The proposed changes have been reviewed for their compliance with the applicable zoning requirements, with the proposed size and location of all of the proposed signage being permitted. The internal illumination of the existing signage is not permitted, and the proposed signage will not be internally illuminated. The proposed changes will include new signage at a total of eight locations and will include the replacement of the existing wall cabinet sign above the main entrance to the building as well as above an entrance along Bloomfield Avenue; the door window signage at the main entrance and at the doorway along Bloomfield Avenue; the wall plaques on the north, south and west facades of the building.

After the applicant provided an overview of the proposal, the Commission began its discussion by noting that it had a number of concerns related to the proposed new sign above the main entrance to the building. The Commission stated that the proposed replacements signs at the other locations on the structure were appropriate both in scale and materials.

The Commission noted that the existing sign above the main entrance was inappropriate for the façade, and that any replacement sign should not be similar in size or materials. The Commission stated that the applicant should also consider the possibility of not replacing the sign, but rather investigate the condition of the façade beneath the existing sign to see if it could be left uncovered. Furthermore, the Commission noted that the building had an original carved sign beneath the existing box sign, which if exposed would help to show the history of the structure.

The Commission also stated that the property is a key building in the historic district, and that particular attention ahs to be paid to the new signage. The Commission stated that it wanted to see the applicant return with a new proposal for the sign over the main entrance that used different colors, materials, and was of a different size.

In response to the concerns raised by the Commission, the applicant stated that they would be agreeable to returning with a new proposal for the sign over the main entrance, and would further be willing to investigate the possibility of not installing any new sign at that location.

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

Conditions:

A) Approval is granted for the removal and replacement of all of the existing signage as specified in the application submitted to the Commission, with the exception of the replacement of the sign over the main entrance to the building.

B) The applicant will return to the Commission with a new proposal for the sign over the main entrance to the building. Furthermore, the Commission stated that the sign should be smaller than that which was proposed, and it should be centered between the two columns on the front façade. The Commission also stated that the proposed material for the sign should be changed, and that the applicant should look at making the sign out of brass. The Commission also asked that the applicant look at the possibility of not placing any new sign at that location.

Discussion of proposed new construction / demolition of 23 Valley Road

At the time of informal discussion, Andrew Caracciolo and Michael Mackavoy, came forward and were sworn. Mr. Caracciolo, the architect for the project, requested the time to make an informal presentation to the Commission, so as to get feedback on both the proposed design as well as the proposed demolition of the existing structure.

The subject property, 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 property is zoned OR-4, Three-Story Apartment and Office Building Zone.

23 Valley Road, which dates from c.1880, is a two-story wooden frame structure that has seen some alterations over the years. The exterior of the structure has at some point been covered with stucco, and there have been other minor alterations to the façade. In addition, 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. As well, the subject property is located on a section of Valley Road that has suffered the loss of much of its historic fabric.

Mr. Caracciolo stated that his client was considering a number of options for the site, but was most likely looking at proposing to demolish the existing structure and replace it with a new building. He went on to show the Commission a preliminary design for new construction at the site that would entail a new building with commercial space on the ground floor and two apartments on the upper floors. The proposed design was described as contemporary and contextual, consisting of a stucco façade with balconies.

The Commission stated that the attempt by the architect to have the proposed structure be of a contemporary design was commendable, and that the massing and scale appeared to be appropriate for the site.

The Commission also stated that the demolition of the existing structure would have to be investigated before any position by the Commission on whether it was appropriate could be made. Vice Chair Smith stated that an existing conditions report for the structure was needed, and that he would be willing to conduct a walk through of the building.

The Commission noted that the project would have to be approved by the Planning Board and would undoubtedly require a number of variances.

Section 106 Review

T-Mobile Telecommunications Project

Montclair State University – Sprague Library

At the time of the public hearing, the Commission reviewed the proposal of T-Mobile Telecommunications to install communications antennae and supporting equipment on the roof of Sprague Library, on the Campus of Montclair State University. The document submitted was a Cultural Resources Survey, completed by Archeological & Historical Consultants, Inc.

The Commission members discussed the matter and noted that the site is not in Montclair, and would be entirely contained on the roof of the library with no ground disturbance. The Commission stated that no formal comments on the project should be forwarded to the Consultants.

Section 106 Review

Construction of Commerce Bank Branch

1 Lackawanna Plaza

At the time of the public hearing, the Commission reviewed the proposal of Commerce Bank to construct a bank branch at 1 Lackawanna Plaza, at the corner of Grove Street and Bloomfield Avenue. The documents that had been submitted included a letter stating that the State Historic Preservation Office had signed off on the project, as well as location map, tax map, and general site layout map. Commerce Bank was asking for the input of the Commission at the direction of the SHPO.

The Commission members discussed the matter, and expressed their concern over the proposal. The Commission stated that the site in question was an important gateway to the Township and that it was not an appropriate location for a prototype or cookie cutter bank branch. The Commission also expressed its dismay at the lack of information on the specifics of the project provided in the packet from Commerce Bank.

The Commission asked Mr. Mellon to write a letter to Commerce Bank expressing the concerns that were raised in the discussion. Mr. Mellon stated that he would contact the bank representative by phone to let him know that the Commission would be commenting on the project, as the time frame for a response as spelled out in the letter from the Bank had already expired.

Public Comment

At the time of the public comment portion of the meeting, Paul S. Yeager came forward and stated that he had followed up on the leads that the Commission had provided in an attempt to find replacement glass for his property at 34 Church Street; Application 2004-13, which was denied at the Commission’s July 15th meeting.

Vice Chair Smith stated that he had additional leads for Mr. Yeager, and that he would forward the information to him. The Commission again stressed to Mr. Yeager that a potential solution to the problem would be the substitution of back painted glass for the Carrara glass.

General Discussion Issues - Members of the Historic Preservation Commission

Mr. Mellon informed the Commission that the ongoing problem with the planter at the Crane Building was to be resolved shortly, and that Richard Charreun of the Planning Office had been in contact with the architect for the project.

Mr. Mellon stated that the project for the replacement plaques for the firehouses was probably not likely to be completed until the fall, and that Ms. Kadus was still working on finding someone to handle their installation.

Vice Chair Smith stated that he had heard concerns over the Township’s reconstruction project on Myrtle Avenue. He stated that their was a concern that the reconstruction project would lead to the loss of the swales; Mr. Mellon stated that he would forward the concerns to the Township engineer and ask that she respond to them at the September meeting.

Chair Mosier gave the Commission a brief overview of some of the efforts of the Business Improvement District to redesign the downtown streetscape.

Chair Mosier stated his concern over the ongoing problem with code enforcement in the Historic District. He stated that applicants were not always following the plans that were approved by the Commission, and that there is a need for a mechanism to be put in place to review the work before it is started to ensure that it matches that which has been approved by the Commission.

Mr. Mellon stated that he would be providing the Commission with a proposed map for the Upper Montclair Historic District at the September meeting.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 pm on a motion made by Commissioner McDonough and seconded by Commissioner Perlstein.

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan Mellon, Commission Secretary