MINUTES OF THE MONTCLAIR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

JULY 15, 2004

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

Absent:  Sabine Eck

Also present:  Karen Kadus, Township Planner, Jonathan Mellon, Assistant Planner.

Order and Announcements:  The meeting was called to order at 7:30 pm by Chairman Mosier.  Ms. Kadus 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 Commission had only just received a copy of the minutes from the June 17th, 2004 meeting, approval was moved until the August 19th meeting so as to allow time for proper review of the minutes.

New Business

Application 2004-13 – Paul S. Yeager

34 Church Street (Block 2206, Lot 3

At the time of the public hearing, the applicant Paul Yeager was not present nor were there any other speakers on behalf of the application.  The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as a part of the application package included: a completed application for Certificate of Appropriateness; plans by ACS Design.

The applicant was proposing to rehabilitate the front façade of the structure that has fifty-six feet of frontage along Church Street.  The proposal called for the complete removal of the existing glass panels that cover the entire façade, a few of which are in various stages of decay.  The proposal also called for the restoration of much of the existing metal coping as well as for the retention of the existing metal and glass storefronts.  The proposed façade was to consist of a new stucco surface, which would be scored so as to replicate the existing grid pattern of the façade.  In addition, the proposal called for the installation of a new metal joint system, which would further echo the pattern of the existing glass panel system.  The proposed color of the stucco was not indicated in the proposal.

The Commission noted that the application was identical to an earlier one that had been submitted in 2003, application #2003-16, that had been denied.  In denying the earlier application, the Commission had stated its desire to see the glass façade restored, and its opposition to its removal and replacement with a stucco façade that was seen as not keeping with the streetscape or original design of the building. The Commissioners discussed the history of the site in question, and the attempts that had been made to aid the applicant in finding replacement material for the damaged portions of the façade.  The Commission reaffirmed its position that the proposal to remove the façade was not appropriate, and further noted that the glass façade could in fact have its appearance drastically improved through some minor maintenance and cleaning.

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 Brady to deny the application, the Commission voted five in favor, with no negative and two abstaining votes by Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Pearlstein.

Application 2004-14 – Peter Schofel

310 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 3104, Lot 23

At the time of the public hearing, the applicant stated that the architect for the project had not yet arrived, and asked the Commission if the item could be heard later in the meeting.  The Commission agreed to put off the discussion of the application until the architect arrived.

Section 106 Review

The Schultz House: Reconstruction of Driveway, Parking Area, and Paths

30 North Mountain Avenue

At the time of the public hearing, the Commission reviewed the proposal of the Montclair Historical Society for a series of changes to the existing driveway system and parking areas at the Shultz House. The documents that had been submitted included: a revised scope of work outlining the proposed alterations to the site, dated May 19, 2004; one set of revised drawings, dated May 18, 2004.

The Montclair Historical Society is proposing a series of upgrades to the existing driveway, parking areas, and paths at the Shultz House.  Two different options for how to treat the existing driveway on the property are proposed, with both resulting in the expansion of the driveway at various points.  The proposal also calls for changes to the existing north and south parking areas.  The proposed changes would include the expansion of the parking areas, the designation of new accessible parking spaces, and new paving materials for both parking areas.  In addition, the proposed plan calls for changes to the paving materials for the existing paths on the property

Commissioner Morris informed the Commission that he would be excusing himself from the discussion of the item, as he intended to appear before the body as a witness on behalf of the application.  He also stated that the Montclair Historical Society was going to be submitting a revised proposal that would include additional changes to the site, including the construction of an accessible bathroom facility, and that the matter should be carried until the August 19th meeting of the Commission.  Chair Mosier stated that a member was not allowed to appear as a witness for an application.

The Commission stated that the applicant needed to provide an additional 10 copies of the revised drawings in order for the matter to be properly reviewed, and requested that the Township Planning Department staff contact the applicant to facilitate the request.  The Commission also requested that the applicant provide witnesses for the August meeting who would be able to address any questions that the Commissioners had.  The review of the matter was moved until the August 19th meeting.

Application 2004-14 – Peter Schofel

310 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 3104, Lot 23

Vice Chair Smith stepped down for the review of the application.

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: a completed application for Certificate of Appropriateness; plans by Smith Maran Architects, dated June 28, 2004; three photographs taken in May 2004 – one showing the building’s entire façade and two close-up details; and product literature and cut sheets for the doors and lighting fixtures.  At the time of the hearing, the applicant provided additional photographs showing the existing conditions, neighboring properties, as well as of the proposed materials as used in other structures.  The applicant also provided the Commission with a rendering of the proposed façade.

Marked into evidence were:

A-1                  existing and proposed façade elevations, dated 6/28/04

A-2                  photographs:

                        a) site context

b) existing conditions

c) site context - architectural elements

d) examples of use of proposed materials

A-3                  photos – site context

A-4                  rendering of the proposed facade

The applicant was 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 called 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 was to consist of a combination of textured concrete block, brick and eifs.  All of the storefronts and doors were proposed to be replaced with new metal systems.  The proposal also called 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 called for the installation of new awnings for the building.

The applicant submitted two proposals for the façade, and was requesting approval for both options so as to allow for flexibility in order to accommodate a commercial tenant.  The two proposals were 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.

The applicant provided the Commission with an overview of the proposed project that is being developed by the Eastman Companies, which has twenty five years of development experience and is currently involved in the redevelopment project in Livingston Township.  The applicant stated that it was the intention of the company to improve the appearance of the site, while being considerate of community concerns.

The presentation to the Commission discussed the existing conditions of the structure, with Mr. Maran stating that a preliminary structural report had been completed that showed the structure was in poor condition and had suffered from water damage.  In addition, the Commission was shown a board that contained the proposed materials to be used on the façade; the type of stone; the type of brick; the color of the stucco.  The Commission discussed the presentation and stated its initial concerns over the choice of materials, in particular the use of concrete block as opposed to real stone, and the use of stucco in the façade.

The applicant continued the presentation by discussing the context of the building, citing examples of structures in the area that had ornamentation that the proposed design was intended to echo.  The design was described as being an effort to add more verticality to the building, to decrease the appearance of the width, and to set up bay like structures as appear on other buildings in the area.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission began its discussion by stating that it had a number of serious concerns regarding the proposed façade for the building.  The first major area of concern raised related to the existing fabric of the building.  The question of what original material was intact, and whether it was worthy of restoration was discussed.  The Commission noted that this was an issue that had come up before in previous applications, and that it had been required in the past for applicants to conduct an investigation.  After discussion, the Commission stated that the applicant should regard the site as a blank slate, or vacant lot, and thus a thorough investigation was not required.

Another major area of concern related to the proposed materials to be used in the design, with the Commission stating that it had serious reservations about the use of synthetic stucco on a large portion of the façade.  The materials and their interaction with the design were discussed, with the Commission stating that they fell far short of what was desired in the historic district of the Township, and rather were more appropriate for a mall like development.

The use of awnings in the design was also discussed, with the Commission raising the concern that too much of the façade was broken up by them, and if they should be removed at some point the overall design would not work.  The applicants stated that they would be willing to alter the proposal as it related to the awnings if the Commission requested it to do so.

Another issue was the proposal to raise the roofline of the building that the applicant stated was both an issue of design, as well as function in order to hide the mechanical equipment for the building.  The Commission questioned the applicant about the existing roofline, and the possibility of preserving the existing triangular shaped portion over the garage area.

The Commission closed the discussion of the proposal by summarizing its concerns; that the applicant should simplify the design, with less ornamentation, and use a much higher quality of materials in the façade.

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 that addressed the concerns of the Commission.  The applicants stated that they would return with a new design for the August 19th meeting; Mr. Maran informed the Commission that he would be unavailable at that date, and thus another member of his firm would handle the presentation.

Chairman Mosier, hearing no further questions from the members of the Commission or staff opened the meeting to the public for purposes of receiving comments on the application.  No public comment was offered.

Vice Chair Smith returned to the meeting.

Section 106 Review

Omnipoint Communications Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Telecommunications Lightpole

Montclair State University – 20 Normal Avenue

At the time of the public hearing, the Commission reviewed the proposal of Omnipoint Communications for the construction of a wireless telecommunication on the campus of Montclair State University adjacent to Sprague Field.  The documents that had been submitted included a description of the proposal; a site plan and elevation dated February 11th, 2004; and project location map; which were all provided by the consultant for the project, Richard Grubb & Associates, Inc.  The consultant stated in its letter that a Cultural Resources Survey and an architectural survey of the area are both being conducted.

Omnipoint proposes to construct a 120-foot high communications lightpole with antennas on top in a fenced area adjacent to Sprague Field.  The lightpole will be made up of by a 90 foot section which will be the location for the mounting of stadium lighting, as well as a 30 foot section on which will be located the telecommunication antennas.  Four equipment cabinets will be located behind a 6-foot high chain link fence on a concrete pad in an area measuring 35 feet by 20 feet.  In addition, the proposal calls for an additional area measuring 8 feet by 12 feet for the location of an emergency generator.

The Commission members discussed the matter, and expressed their concerns over the height of the proposed tower and the impact that it would have in the adjacent areas.  The Commission stated that this concern went beyond just the impact that the wireless antenna would have, and extended to the stadium lights.

The Commission further noted the need for the consultant to complete the cultural resources survey as had been done on similar projects in the past, and that it was not the responsibility of the Commission to provide the information on the historic resources that might be impacted by the project.

The Commission requested that the Township planning staff send a letter to the consultant stating the concerns that had been raised, and in addition request that a balloon test be performed at the site as had been done in the past for proposed telecommunications antenna.

Chairman Mosier, hearing no further questions from the members of the Commission or staff opened the meeting to the public for purposes of receiving comments on the application.  No public comment was offered.

Section 106 Review

Reconstruction Project of the Bloomfield Avenue Bridge over New Jersey Transit Montclair Line

At the time of the public hearing, the Commission reviewed the proposal of the New Jersey Department of Transportation for a feasibility study for the replacement of the Bloomfield Avenue Bridge.  The documents that had been submitted included a brief description of the project and a location map, which were provided by the consultant for the project, Richard Grubb & Associates.  The consultant stated in the letter that a Cultural Resources Investigation is being conducted.

The New Jersey Department of Transportation is conducting a study in order to investigate the feasible alternatives to the existing deficient bridge.  The Commission is being asked to direct any comments or concerns regarding the potential for impacts to architectural or archeological resources from the project to either the consultant or the State Historic Preservation Office.

The Commission stated that the letter from the consultant was woefully inadequate in providing any details on the proposed project. The Commission requested that the Township planning staff send a letter to the consultant stating that it would not provide any comments on the project until it had received a more detailed description of the project.  The Commission also noted the importance of the site as an entrance to the Township, and the need for the project to be carefully monitored in the future.

Chairman Mosier, hearing no further questions from the members of the Commission or staff opened the meeting to the public for purposes of receiving comments on the application.  No public comment was offered.

Section 106 Review

Greenwood and Glenridge Avenue Reconstruction Project

At the time of the public hearing, the Commission reviewed the proposal of the Township of Montclair for the street reconstruction projects for Glenridge and Greenwood Avenues.  The documents that had been submitted included forms stating that the State Historic Preservation Office had signed off on the projects, as well as photographs of the sites in question.

The Commission members discussed the matter, and stated that additional information was needed before any comments could be provided to the Township. The Commission requested that the Township planning staff contact the Township Engineer, in order to request that she attend the August 19th meeting at which time she would provide the Commission with additional information on the project.

Chairman Mosier, hearing no further questions from the members of the Commission or staff opened the meeting to the public for purposes of receiving comments on the application.  No public comment was offered.

Approval of Resolution and Certificate of Appropriateness

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Richard Grabowsky, 501 Bloomfield Avenue On motion by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Orloff, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified, with Commissioner Smith abstaining.

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Mathew and Chris Harramis, 556 Bloomfiled Avenue On motion by Commissioner Lippman, seconded by Commissioner Pearlstein, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified, with Commissioner Morris abstaining.

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of David Freeman, 596 Bloomfield Avenue On motion by Commissioner Pearlstein, seconded by Commissioner Orloff, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified, with Commissioner Morris abstaining.

Public Comment

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

General Discussion Issues - Members of the Historic Preservation Commission

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 it was imperative that a mechanism be put in place in order to assure compliance.  The Commission asked that the Township planning staff organize a meeting with the Director of Code Enforcement, the Township Manger, the BID Director and members of the Commission, in order to address the issue.

The Commission held a brief discussion regarding the Council’s decision to not designate the Marlboro Inn as a Landmark.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm on a motion made by Commissioner Lippincott and seconded by Commissioner Pearlstein.

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan Mellon, Assistant Planner