MINUTES OF THE MONTCLAIR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

MARCH 18, 2004

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

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

Absent:  Sabine Eck and Planning Board Liaison Sally Ross

Order and Announcements:  Chairman Mosier called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm.  Mr. McCabe called the roll and announced that the meeting had been properly noticed in the local newspaper according to the Open Public Meetings Act.

Approval of Minutes:  On motion by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Orloff, the Minutes of the February 19, 2004 meeting were approved by a unanimous vote of 7 ayes.

            Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Herod Development I, 56-58 Church Street.  After a brief discussion about a potential discrepancy between the plans and the wording of Item number 7, no discrepancy was found.  On motion by Mr. Lippincott and seconded by Ms. McDonough, the motion to approve the Resolution was carried by a unanimous vote of 7 ayes.

            Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Steven B. Raninoff, 460 Bloomfield Avenue.  On motion by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Lippincott, the motion to approve the Resolution was carried by a unanimous vote of 7 ayes.

            Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Mary Ann Cucci, 43 Church Street.  On motion by Mr. Lippincott and seconded by Mr. Orloff, the motion to approve the Resolution was carried by a unanimous vote of 7 ayes.

            Adoption of Memorializing Resolution #2004-05, Carol Jafferje (for Jafajems), 2 Church Street.  A discussion about the lack of clarity about the proposal resulted in a correction to the last line of the Resolution to read: “The drawing submitted with the application indicates that the proposed window signs cover less that 20% of each window area, as allowed by the sign ordinance.”

A discussion about the newly painted section of the building that had once been covered with a sign took place.  After the removal of the sign, the tenant painted that section of the wall with a color that does not match the stone façade.  Prior discussions anticipated this problem and included language that the best color match would be selected.  There was a question if the local ordinance covered paint, which it does not.  Several points were raised including if the Commission requires repairs to conform to its specifications, is this a matter for code enforcement, and if this could be considered a repair or is it paint.

Mr. McCabe stated that if the applicant raised the issue of paint first, then the Commission can guide the applicant to select the best option.  If the Commission brings up the topic, then it must provide options from which the applicant can chose.  If this applicant has already agreed to supplying a color that will match the façade then a follow-up phone call to remind the applicant of their prior agreement should be made.

On motion by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Lippincott, the motion to approve the Resolution was carried by a unanimous vote of 7 ayes.

Application #2004-06, Washington Mutual Bank, 460 Bloomfield Avenue.

Steven Rabinoff, an architect from Flushing, New York was sworn in.  In response to the meeting last month, Mr. Rabinoff presented plans with several changes.  They include the retention of the recessed bay on South Fullerton Avenue with framing, glazing, and bulkhead materials to match the current façade.   The commissioners stressed the importance of maintaining the rhythm of the streetscape.  There was a discussion about the recess and the potential for trash accumulation at that location.  The commissioners stated that there has never been a prior trash problem.  Displaying a photograph, the commissioners also suggested that the same type of planters that the prior tenant had installed on the public sidewalk could be provided to beautify the recess.  The applicant had no objection to the planters and wanted to know who had jurisdiction over the public sidewalk.  The Downtown BID might be able to help.

Another new element presented in these plans, an interior, five-foot tall screen to eliminate the public’s view of the backside of the concierge’s desk near the entryway, was discussed.  It was determined that four feet of this screen would also block the existing view through the window.  Michael Feaser, a project manager in the New York office of the bank was sworn in.  After a lengthy discussion about the importance of maintaining the unblocked view in, it was determined that the concierge desk could be constructed with doors on it to hide the workspace and the applicant would eliminate the interior screen.

The issue of the recess was reintroduced and further discussion over whether it should exist at all, be a closed-off doorway, or consist of a large window took place.  The majority of commissioner favored the recess.  There was no consensus about what type of recess—window or door.  Mr. Rabinoff reconfirmed the applicant’s preference to have the recess and have it as a large window bay built upon a short brick bulkhead.  The idea of having a blocked-off doorway did not appeal to the applicant.

The Commission’s Consultant had a question about the necessity for the large louvers that were illustrated in the upper right section of one of the elevations.  The applicant explained that the same type of louvers was currently present in different locations and that the planned louvers would be necessary for the bank’s air conditioning needs.  The applicant agreed to paint the new louvers the same color as the window trim.  The bricks removed to allow for the louvers’ installation would be used else where on the building.  In addition, an attempt will be made to locate a mason skilled enough to match the existing laying of the brick.

The Commission thanked the applicant’s representatives for their cooperation and willingness to adapt the layouts to fit this historic building.  Chairman Mosier called for questions and comments from the public.  None were offered.  Chairman Mosier closed the public comment section of the meeting.

On motion by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Perlstein, a motion was made to approve the application with the following exceptions:

1).  That the screen wall behind the concierge desk be removed.

2).  That the recess on South Fullerton Avenue should be retained and whether it becomes a door or a window would be left up to the discretion of the applicant.

3).  That the applicant take great care to reuse the bricks that are removed from the façade.

4).  That the color of the new louvers will match the existing green anodized aluminum window frames and louvers.

5).  That sidewalk planters be installed at the recess on South Fullerton Avenue.  This is to be taken as a suggestion rather than as a mandatory requirement.

6).  That the non-illuminated pin-mounted letters approved at the prior meeting would continue to be approved.

The motion carried with a unanimous vote of 7 ayes.

Application #2004-07, Greg Spinelli, 12 Church Street:  Mr. Spinelli was sworn in.  Mr. Spinelli is the leaseholder for the old Midtown Diner.  He is preparing to open a new café named “Church Street.”  The proposed sign would consist of a band of individual letters with the two words separated by a symbol of a crossed knife and fork.  The new sign would be laminated onto Plexiglas and mounted on the raised light box that is currently in place just above the cast concrete band that is over the storefront.  The applicant stated that he is creating a sign with a standardized font and that new lights would illuminate it externally.

The commissioners agreed that the font selected was attractive.  There was considerable debate over the requirements for grandfathering the use of the light box, which the applicant found documentation dating it to 1960, but which does not conform to the current zoning code for signage.  The light box is 2 feet high and 20 feet long and the building is 25 feet long.  The aggregate sign area would be 15 square feet over that permitted by the ordinance.  Mr. Spinelli stated his preference to have light box grandfathered.  The commissioners stated that they would like to encourage new businesses to conform to the new design guidelines, which have the intention of capturing the more formal look of the historic district as their basis.   If the applicant so chooses, there is a mechanism in place for appealing decisions by the Historic Preservation Commission.   The applicant again restated his preference to have the light box grandfathered and that he would be willing to address the new signage in two years time.  The commissioners stated that because the sign was going to be illuminated externally it would be best mounted directly onto the façade.  To change the sign later would mean additional presentations in front of the Historic Preservation Commission.  And the mechanism is not in place as to who would remember to conduct business in two years time.  The discussion continued about the need to remove other elements from the façade including a wall-mounted telephone.  The brickface under that may need to be repaired.

Mr. McCabe stated that based on the current application, the Commission had no choice but to deny the application based on the square footage of the sign.

Mr. Spinelli decided to amend his application.  He will take down the light box, install a slab of wood to cover the broken bricks he presumes will result, and he will reduce the size of the sign to conform to current zoning requirements.

With these changes, the applicant was asked if he would be willing to carry the application over to the next meeting instead of having the Commission deny it and have him reapply.  Mr. Spinelli agreed to the continuation and agreed to remove the light box and to develop the lighting plan.  After the light box removal, Mr. McCabe will visit the site and at that time, determinations will be made about any necessary repairs.

Chairman Mosier called for questions and comments from the public.  None were offered.  Chairman Mosier closed the public comment section of the meeting.

On motion by Mr. Lippincott and seconded by Ms. Brady, the motion to carry this application over to the April 15, 2004 meeting was unanimously approved by 7 aye votes.

Public portion of the meeting:  Chairman Mosier opened the meeting up to public comment.  The owner of Rascals Restaurant wanted to discuss a pending application.  However, because Vice Chairman Smith is the architect for this project, it was firmly stated by Mr. McCabe that any discussion would be inappropriate.  There was no discussion.

Ms. McDonough asked Mr. McCabe about the requirement under the Municipal Land Use Law that the Historic Preservation Commission must not consider the applicant’s financial position regarding changes requested by the Commission.  Sympathy for the applicant is only human nature.  Mr. McCabe explained that there is a written opinion by the Attorney General that a claim of economic hardship by an applicant cannot be determined, except in an arbitrary and capricious manner and therefore, such a claim must not be taken into consideration.  However, costs of the changes can be taken into consideration, just not whether they would cause the applicant economic hardship.

There is a Section 106 review that will be discussed at the April 15, 2004 meeting.

A member of the public raised the issue of grandfathering, particularly regarding old signs and stated that it will come up again in the future.  It was decided that the Commission must have a ruling from the Zoning Board of Adjustment because that Board is the ultimate authority.  Mr. McCabe will discuss changes to the codes for signage that would cover all the uncovered topics such as size and lighting, with the Township Planner and Chairman Mosier.  The proposals would then be submitted to the Zoning Board.

At this point, Vice Chairman Smith welcomed Historic Preservation Consultant Wayne McCabe and thanked him for the packets prepared in advance of the meeting.  Mr. McCabe stated that his services will include regularly scheduled technical assistance for applicants and he will supply report summaries by the weekend before each meeting.   All applicants must get their applications in at least eighteen days before the next meeting in order to allow enough time for a proper review.

Motion to Adjourn: Upon motion by Mr. Perlstein and seconded by Ms. McDonough, the vote to adjourn the meeting was carried by a unanimous vote of 7 ayes.  The meeting ended at 9:15 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeanne Kolva