MINUTES OF THE MONTCLAIR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

JUNE 17, 2004

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

Also present:  Wayne McCabe, Historic Preservation Consultant and Commission Secretary.

Order and Announcements:  The meeting was called to order at 7:30 pm by Chairman Mosier.  Mr. McCabe called the roll and announced that all members of the Commission were present and 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 or Montclair and also posted in the municipal Building.

Approval of Minutes: On a motion by Commissioner Orloff and seconded by Commissioner Eck, the minutes of the May 20, 2004 meeting of the Commission were approved, with Commissioners McDonough and Morris abstaining.

New Business

Application 2004-10 - David Freeman

596 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 2208, Lot 5)

At the time of the public hearing, David Freeman came forward and was sworn in by Mr. McCabe.  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 set of plans “A-1” and “A-2” prepared by Alan Feld, RA, dated April 7, 2004; six photographs showing the addition and the commercial building that fronts on Bloomfield Avenue in their current status; and a cut sheet and color chart for the Kawneer windows.  At the time of the hearing, the applicant provided an additional cut sheet for the door that is proposed to be used as the side entrance.

The applicant was proposing the installation of six fixed anodized aluminum frame windows and a door in the window and door bays that are currently filled with concrete masonry block.  The windows and door are manufactured by Kawneer Sealair Architectural Windows and will have dark brown anodized aluminum frames.  The applicant testified that the windows will be fixed and immobile.  The applicant stated that he wanted this type of window and door so that they would match the windows and door on the front o the building located at 595 Bloomfield Avenue.

Under questioning by the members of the Commission, the applicant admitted that he was considering developing a unified appearance of the building, but had not come up with any specific proposal to date.  It was noted by the Commissioners that the rear section of the building was constructed of concrete masonry units that have simply been painted but not faced with a stucco or other material.  The two story rear addition of the building is connected to the front three story section through a one story structure also constructed of concrete masonry units.  The applicant acknowledged that he would be coming back to the Commission at a later date when he has additional proposals regarding the treatment of the rough concrete block exterior surface of the building.

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.

The Commission noted that it was of the opinion that the use of the type of windows and door proposed were appropriate given the type of windows and door already used on the building as it fronts of Bloomfield Avenue.  The Commission also had raised a question regarding the possibility of replicating the remaining original six/six window.  The applicant indicated that he had considered it but felt the units that were proposed would provide an overall unified architectural appearance with the building. He also noted that the windows to be used, as well as the door, will fill all of the original windows and door area that have been block up.  He further stated that he was proposing to use the 350 Medium Stile frame door manufactured by Kawneer.

On a motion by Commission Brady and seconded by Commissioner Lippincott, the Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes cast to approve the application as submitted.

Application 2004-11 - Matthew Haramis and Chris Haramis

556 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 2208, Lot 12)

At the time of the public hearing, Matthew and Chris Haramis and J.C. Aviles of Competitive Signs & Graphics appeared before the Commission and were sworn in by Mr. McCabe.  The documents that had been submitted by the applicants as a part of the application package included:  an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness; undated color layouts created by Competitive Signs & Graphics - one showing two potential choices for the proposed sign and awning and the second showing a photograph of the present facade with replications showing two proposed signs superimposed on each; one photograph of an example of the lighting fixtures used on Arnold's Restaurant in Montclair and product literature regarding the proposed lighting fixtures.  At the time of the hearing, the applicant provided samples of the material and colors to be used on the awning.

The applicant, at the beginning of their presentation, noted that the name that had appeared on their original application for their business - "Wings and Things" was no longer going to be used.  They are now going to use the company name "The Roost."

It was noted that the application was being broken down into three distinct areas - the awning, the sign, and lighting.  In terms of the awning, considerable discussion took place between the applicant and the Commission members regarding whether or not the awning should be a structural fixed awning or a retractable awning.  Following discussion, it was decided to leave it up to the applicant to have either a fixed or retractable awing. However, the Commission was favoring a fixed awning so that it would effectively be the same style and size as the awning over the other business that occupies the left half of the building. The type of awning material to be used on the fixed frame unit is a "Starburst" style 8702 in a yellow and natural color, as manufactured by Sunbrella.  The top of the awning would have the material shown in the "Starburst" pattern.  However, the drop valance in front would be solid yellow in color, with red lettering saying "The Roost" and the number "556" being located at either end of the valance and encased within an oval.  The lettering will be back highlighted with a dark blue.

In terms of the sign, it will measure 2'-0" in height and 6'-6" in length, being a total of thirteen square feet, which matches the width of the section of the building that the business will occupy.  The sign will be painted on a half inch M.D.O. board and will have flat graphics. The sign and the awning are both illustrated on color graphics prepared by Competitive Signs & Graphics and distributed on the evening of the meeting.

Concerning the lighting, the applicants were originally proposing three goose neck lights come out from the face of the building to illuminated the oval sign.  However, following some discussion, the applicants agreed to amend the application and have the goose neck lamps come down from the top of the parapet wall above the sign.  In this fashion, they would not have to drill through the material below the black plastic grid that currently provides a facing for the upper part of the building facade.  Also, the applicants agreed to modify the proposal to have only two goose neck lights.

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.

On a motion by Commissioner Brady and seconded by Commissioner Orloff, a motion was made to approve the application with the following conditions:

            a)         The awning be a fixed frame unit with a starburst pattern for the main body of the awning and a second drop yellow valance in the front.

            b)         The sign will be as proposed, and surface mounted to the face of the building above the awning.

            c)         The goose neck lights will not be secured to the facade of the building, but rather to the rear or top of the parapet wall and then extend down to illuminate the sign. This will also necessitate using only two such lights instead of three as originally proposed by the applicant.

The motion made by Commissioner Brady was approved with seven affirmative and no negative or abstaining votes being cast.  The Commission stated that it felt its conditions were appropriate to assure continuity in the type of awnings that were being placed on this particular building, with the business in question occupying the right half of a reasonably narrow structure originally constructed in the 1920's.  The signage is appropriate and is in keeping with the size and style of commercial wall mounted signs in the district.  Also, the type of lighting is appropriate for the period and will provide sufficient illumination for the sign.

Application 2004-12 - Richard Grabowsky

501 Bloomfield Avenue (Block 2212, Lot 12)

At the time of the public hearing, Eric Maran, Project Architect and Richard Grabowsky, applicant, appeared before the Commission and were sworn in by Mr. McCabe.  The documents that had been submitted by the applicants as a part of the application package included:  the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness; plans by SmithMaran Architects dated May 29, 2004; three photographs taken in April 2004 showing the building's entire facade and two close-up details; two historical photographs c. 1920 and c. 1950 and product literature and cut sheets for windows, doors and lighting fixtures. At the hearing, the project architect distributed a revised proposed facade elevation that included the actual location of the gooseneck lamps and the inclusion of four additional lights that will be placed between the raised wood panels on the commercial facade that will be used to illuminate the first floor cornice.

The applicant is proposing to rehabilitate two sections of the 25 foot wide building facade - the storefront and the cornice above the third story windows.  The other elements of the proposal include routine maintenance cleaning the upper two stories brick exterior, the installation of window awnings and the installation of B-K Lighting Company fixtures to illuminate the underside of the upper story cornice.

It should be noted that during the course of the hearing on this application, the applicant stated that he wished to defer the issue of awnings to a later, at which time he would re-appear before the Commission to discuss the specifics.

The applicant indicated that the upper story copper cornice work will entail cleaning the existing copper and leaving it unpainted or covered so that it would oxidize and provide a patina appropriate for the building.  The applicant further testified that the new granite base, as depicted on the architectural plans, will be same granite used for the building at 499 Bloomfield Avenue.  By using the same material, the buildings will provide a unified appearance at the base line.

The lighting that is proposed for the top cornice will have 39 watt metal halide light fixtures, in a bronze housing.   Likewise, the applicant proposes the use of "Sign Star Style A" gooseneck lamps for the area above the commercial facade.  These lighting units are to  illuminate the signboard that will extend above the new wood paneling that will be set above the storefront.

The new wood panels and glass transoms to be set atop of the commercial facade, will be constructed to match those used at 499 Bloomfield Avenue.  Again, this is to provide a unified appearance on the facade.  The panels will be stained in the same way and manner as those used at 499 Bloomfield.

During the course of the testimony, the project architect testified that the single door on the right side of the building will not be recessed approximately five feet back from the facade. This door will be moved forward so that it will be recessed a total of 18 inches.  This will provide a swing of the door 18 inches beyond the face of the building.  The purpose of having to move the door relates to the fire-subcode which is forcing that door to be moved closer to the building face.

At the suggestion of the Commission's Consultant, the applicant agreed to recess the double doors, located in the middle of the building, a total of 18 inches.  This will help to maintain the appearance of a recessed entryway which has an architectural commonality to the majority of the stores on Bloomfield Avenue.

Based upon the discussion held between the Commission and the applicant during the course of the hearing, the applicant requested that the application be modified to include the replacement of the windows on the second and third floors of the facade of the building. In the case of the third floor, the windows will be all-wood, true divided light twelve-over-twelve units.  The double hung windows on the second floor will be twelve-over-one units, thermalpane and true divided light.  The changes to the windows are based upon historical photographs, with the new proposed windows reflecting the original window patterns depicted in the 1920 photograph.

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.

In terms of the awnings and the sign proposed for the building, the applicant had not submitted any detailed information regarding these improvements. Therefore, the applicant will have to come back before the Commission at a later date with technical information.

In terms of the stonework, the Commission is of the belief that the limestone used in the existing partial piers that remain on the first floor facade should be replicated in the same piers to be constructed below them, extending down to the granite base.  This will provide a unified architectural appearance for rusticated piers.

The recessing of the double doors on the first floor, set 18" in, will permit the building to have a semblance of maintaining a common architectural  feature found on commercial buildings along Bloomfield Avenue- that being a recessed entryway.  The application had originally called for a straight facade with only a recess for the emergency access door leading to the second floor.

By requiring that the six Sign Star Style "A" gooseneck  lights (manufactured by B-K Lighting) to illuminate the cornice to use a cutoff shield, this will help to direct the light at the cornice and avoid an overall glare from the units.

Based upon these conditions, Commissioner Orloff made a motion that was seconded by Commissioner Lippincott to approve the application as amended and with the conditions set forth above.  The Commission vote seven in favor of the resolution, with no negative or abstaining votes being cast.

Section 106 Review

Proposed Collocation of Cell Antenna

641 Bloomfield Avenue

Valley Road/Claremont Avenue

Mr. McCabe brought to the attention of the members of the Commission the historic assessment statement that had been submitted to the Township Planning Department prepared by Archaeological & Historical Consultants, Inc. of Centre Hall, PA and dated May 24, 2004.  The project calls for the installation of new cell antennas to be located on top of the building at 641 Bloomfield Avenue.

The study that was prepared by the consulting firm included a statement on methodologies used to undertake the investigation, a statement regarding the final evaluation that the firm prepared based upon background research and field work, a summary of the results of the investigation, a statement of the assessment of the effects of the proposed cell towers on the cultural resources noted and a statement of conclusions.

The basic underlying conclusion that the consulting firm arrived at is that the proposed project will have no adverse effect on the existing historic distinct.  The did reference the fact that the proposed collocation site is more than 45 years of age and is located within the Montclair Central Business Historic District, which was previously determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places.

The Commission members discussed  the study at some length, noting that there are several new face mountings of antennas that will be a visual intrusion within the historic district.  Further, the location of the proposed roof mounted units will be in extremely close proximity to the parapet wall, and will also be an additional visual intrusion within the historic district.  In all, the 12 proposed new antennas will, in the estimation of the Commission, have a negative visual impact on the historic district.

Following considerable further discussion by the members of the Commission, the Chairman opened the meeting to receive public comment.  A member of the Township Council came forward and stated that there should be additional discussion regarding the collocation of cell antennas between members of the Commission, the governing body and the Planning Board.  Such a dialog would help to develop a policy in the Township on how to deal with additional cell antennas that may be proposed in the future.

Other than the member of the Township Council who came forward to discuss the idea of having a dialog between the municipal agencies, there were no other members of the public present to speak on this issue.

On a motion by Commissioner Smith, and seconded by Commissioner Eck, the Commission voted seven affirmative with no negative or abstaining votes cast to reject the recommendations that there would be no adverse effect on the historic district.  The Commission felt that there was adequate documentation, no discussion of view corridors from the west to the east and that the number of clusters of existing cell towers on this building contribute to an unattractive appearance of the existing structure.  The Commission instructed the Secretary to send a letter back to the consulting group and to the State Historic Preservation Office indicating the position the Commission has taken on the application.

Public Comment

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

General Discussion Issues - Members of the Historic Preservation Commission

There were no major issues that were raised by the members of the Commission during this time of general discussion.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm on a motion made by Commissioner Orloff and seconded by Commissioner Bride.

Respectfully submitted,

Wayne T. McCabe, PP, AICP

Secretary

Montclair Township Historic Preservation Commission