HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2020-06-16Approved by ILPC: 21, July 2020
1
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — June 16, 2020
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Stephen Gibian, Member
Susan Stein, Member
Donna Fleming, Common Council
Liaison
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner and
Acting ILPC Secretary
Anya Harris, City of Ithaca staff
Absent:
Katelin Olson, Member
Avi Smith, Member
Pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Order 202.1, this meeting was conducted remotely via the
online meeting platform Zoom. Chair E. Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 404 E. Seneca Street, East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Install Fence and
Seating Area
Applicants John Barradas and Martha Walker appeared to present their proposal to install a fence
and seating area at 404 E. Seneca Street. J. Barradas said he wants to extend the fence to limit the
movement of deer and provide screening between their yard and the neighbors’ yard. He said he
has already enlarged an existing deck on the property, and is seeking a retroactive approval for
that, but he noted he had installed it with screws, so it can be removed if he is not granted
approvals.
D. Kramer asked if the proposed bench is already there.
J. Barradas said, yes, it is.
Chair E. Finegan asked if the new fence would match the design of the existing at the front of the
house along Seneca Street.
J. Barradas said it would be similar, but would more closely match the horizontal pattern of the
fence bordering the other neighbor’s lot, rather than the pattern of vertical and horizontal along
the front. He said his neighbors requested that.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public
Hearing on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein.
Approved by ILPC: 21, July 2020
2
Chair E. Finegan asked if any Commission members had questions.
D. Kramer said it’s not visible to anyone but the neighbors, the Chongs, and their response is a
little equivocal. He asked J. Barradas if he had heard anything else from them.
J. Barradas said he had spoken with them again since their comments came in, and added a plate
to the top of the fence to give it a more finished appearance.
M. Walker said they had provided input on the height and selected a color of stain for their side
of the fence.
Chair E. Finegan asked if any commission members had any other comments of concerns.
S. Gibian said that from the seating area, it might exceed 8 feet.
J. Barradas said from the Chong’s side, it does not exceed 6 feet.
Chair E. Finegan asked if the Commission members felt comfortable approving the resolution.
The Commission members said they were.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D.Kramer, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 404 E. Seneca Street is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under
Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New
York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated May 7, 2020, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner John Barradas,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) an historic photo of the house;
and (3) two sheets of architectural and site plans labeled A-103 and S-101; and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form
for 404 E. Seneca Street, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
construction of a wood privacy fence and a wood deck as shown on the plans
provided and matching a fence approved by the ILPC in 2012, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
Approved by ILPC: 21, July 2020
3
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate
impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC
meeting on June 16, 2020, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and
the proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is
1830-1932.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 404 E.
Seneca Street was constructed in before 1851 in the Greek Revival style. Though it
has been unsympathetically altered over the years, the property retains a sufficient
level of physical integrity to be considered a contributing element of the East Hill
Historic District.
The purpose of the proposal is to construct a privacy fence along the west property
line and an outdoor seating area.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that
the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the
landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring
improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value,
the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with
the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or
district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code. In making
this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in
Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-6C,
and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this
case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing
to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and
any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
Approved by ILPC: 21, July 2020
4
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment.
Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form
and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the proposed fencing
and deck will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces
that characterize the property.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed fencing and deck
are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property
and its environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed fencing and deck can be removed in the
future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property
and its environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the 404 E.
Seneca Street and the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be
it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal
meets criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: D. Kramer
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, D. Kramer, S Stein.
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: K. Olson, A. Smith
Vacancies: 1
Notice: Failure on the part of the owner or the owner’s representative to bring to the attention
of the ILPC staff any deviation from the approved plans, including but not limited to changes
required by other involved agencies or that result from unforeseen circumstances as
construction progresses, may result in the issuance by the Building Department of a stop
work order or revocation of the building permit.
Approved by ILPC: 21, July 2020
5
B. Kahin Center, 640 Stewart Avenue, University Hill Historic District – Proposal to
Replace Existing EPDM Roof of One-Story Addition with Off-White Modified
Bitumen Roof Membrane
Applicants Randall Nesbit of Cornell University, and Doug Arena and Ryan Grace from Bell &
Spina Architects appeared in front of the Commission to present a proposal to replace a rubber
roof membrane on a non-original addition on the rear of the Kahin Center at Cornell University.
They are proposing going from a black rubber roof to an off-white bitumen roof membrane.
M. Wilson said she approved much of the proposed work at the staff level, but she wanted to get
the Commission members’ approval of the roofing because of the change in color.
Chair E. Finegan asked if it is correct that the roof isn’t visible from the public right of way. He
asked if it is in fact visible from any point.
D. Arena said that from Stewart Avenue looking down the hill, the building shields it, and from
grade looking up, it’s not visible.
S. Stein and D. Kramer said they are fine with the proposed roof.
S. Gibian said he’s also fine with the roof, although he said you might see it from portions of
Stewart Avenue in winter when the leaves are down. He said he was surprised, however, that the
k-type gutters were approved on the modern addition. He said that there are other, box-type
gutters in other areas of the building (such as the porte cochere and the easterly porch) that he
thinks would be more appropriate. He asked that they reconsider the gutter style, as there are
currently no gutters on that section, so it can’t be considered a replacement in kind.
D. Arena said there are currently scuppers and downspouts, and said he doesn’t take any
exception to the proposed change. He asked R. Nesbit if he was okay with the change.
R. Nesbit said he was fine with it.
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public
Hearing on a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer.
S. Gibian asked why they were going from EPDM to modified bitumen.
D. Arena said that EPDM certainly has a good track record, but so does modified bitumen. He
said that the University has been using a lot of modified all across campus so it’s their preference
from a capital and asset management point of view.
Approved by ILPC: 21, July 2020
6
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, the Kahin Center, 640 Stewart Avenue, is located within the University Hill Historic
District, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in
2003, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated May 28, 2020, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Douglas Arena on behalf of
property owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s);
(2) seven photos of the Kahin Center and the existing roof; and (3) six sheets of
architectural drawings of the proposed roof replacement, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within
the University Hill Historic District for 640 Stewart Avenue and the City of Ithaca’s
University Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
replacement of the existing black EPDM roofing with off-white modified bitumen
roof membrane, and
WHEREAS, the project also includes installation of a box style copper gutter, three round copper
downspouts, and a junction box, all of which have been approved at the staff level,
and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate
impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC
meeting on June 16, 2020, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and
the proposal:
The period of significance for the area now known as the University Hill Historic
District is identified in the City of Ithaca’s University Hill Historic District Summary
Significance Statement as 1867-1927.
As indicated in the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
University Hill Historic District, 640 Stewart was constructed in 1901. It was
formerly known as the Robert H. Treman House and is one of three residences in
the immediate area constructed for the Treman family. The original building is a
Approved by ILPC: 21, July 2020
7
Tudor Revival-style residence designed by William Henry Miller. The building has
been adapted to institutional use through several modifications, including the single-
story, flat-roof addition along the rear elevation. Constructed within the period of
significance of the University Hill Historic District and retaining a high level of
integrity, the property is a contributing element of the University Hill Historic
District.
The purpose of the proposal is to replace the deteriorated black EPDM roof on the
contemporary addition of the building.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that
the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the
landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring
improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural
value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is
consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the
landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code.
In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set
forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in
Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and
Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and
contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little
as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the
historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as
a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and
preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and
spaces that characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of the
existing black EPDM roof on the one-story addition will not remove distinctive
materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The
proposed off-white modified bitumen cap sheet is compatible with the massing, size,
scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment.
Approved by ILPC: 21, July 2020
8
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the
University Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal
meets criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following condition:
• A box style gutter shall be installed in place of the originally proposed k-style
gutter.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Gibbian
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, D. Kramer, S. Stein
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: K. Olson, A. Smith
Vacancies: 1
Notice: Failure on the part of the owner or the owner’s representative to bring to the attention
of the ILPC staff any deviation from the approved plans, including but not limited to changes
required by other involved agencies or that result from unforeseen circumstances as
construction progresses, may result in the issuance by the Building Department of a stop
work order or revocation of the building permit.
II. OLD BUSINESS
A. 106 Highland Avenue, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Replace
Second-Story Balcony Railing and Two French Doors
Applicant Susan Lewis appeared in front of the Commission to present updates to a proposal to
replace patio doors, porch railings and roof, originally proposed in April. She argued in favor of
retaining the replacement patio doors she originally proposed that some Commission members
suggested she select a different model to more closely resemble a true divided light. Her
argument was that the doors are high up and not in a highly visible location.
Chair E. Finegan asked S. Gibian if he thinks what’s being proposed is appropriate.
S. Gibian asked if she had looked at the model he had suggested, which is a flush-glazed system.
S. Lewis said that at the previous meeting S. Gibian had suggested that he could approve a
Approved by ILPC: 21, July 2020
9
fiberglass replacement. She said her contractor had originally proposed an interior grid style of
simulated divided light (SDL), but the Commission recommended a fixed external grid, which
she said does look better and is closer to the appearance of the original doors. She said though
that the updated model her contractor is recommending uses durable polycarbonate for the
external grids because the doors are exposed to the weather.
S. Gibian said the door he suggested is made by the same manufacturer as what she’s proposing
and is also a fiberglass door, but he said the model he recommended more closely matches the
detailing of the originals. He asked if any of the other Commission members had had the chance
to compare the two models online.
S. Lewis said she wasn’t entirely sure what he meant. She asked if he wanted a model with
interior spacers and external grids.
S. Gibian said yes, exterior grids, interior spacer bars, and flush glazing.
S. Lewis again argued that the doors are on a second story, located about 100 feet down a
driveway and are not highly visible from the public way.
Chair E. Finegan said that the Commission had a few members absent that night and asked if
those in attendance could approve this. He explained that the decision would have to be
unanimous. He asked the Commission if they would approve the proposed doors.
Commission members did not think they could approve unanimously.
Chair E. Finegan next asked about the railing. He asked if it is intended to resemble the railing
on S. Stein’s house.
S. Lewis said yes.
S. Gibian said that without a detailed section drawing, they really don’t know what it is that
they’d be approving. He said he doesn’t think from what was provided that the railing will match
what is on S. Stein’s porch. He said that his guess, based on what was submitted, is that it will
resemble a pressure treated deck. He said he had asked for more information, but it wasn’t
provided.
S. Lewis said she didn’t provide updated drawings, but she did address his other questions.
S. Gibian said he was in favor of five posts, as opposed to the three originally proposed.
S. Lewis agreed, and she said it will make the railing stronger and it will look better.
S. Gibian said he’s a little disappointed that the other Commission members didn’t look at his
suggested model of door and the applicant didn’t price it.
S. Lewis said she had consulted with her contractor and it was more expensive. She said that this
Approved by ILPC: 21, July 2020
10
project is urgent, as her roof is leaking and she has already lost time to COVID-related work
stopages.
Chair E. Finegan said that maybe she could accept S. Gibian’s door selection. He asked if her
intent is to replicate the design of S. Stein’s railing.
S. Lewis said yes.
S. Stein said she could provide a drawing and some pictures of her porch railing.
S. Gibian said that he is disappointed that the Commission and the applicant didn’t review and
address his suggestions sent out in an email a week and a half ago. He said he had tried to help
out by sending information, so they could approve the resolution. He said he had provided
information on the Flush Glazed Smooth Star Therma Tru S2050 model, and said that it’s
available with or without the spacer bars.
Chair E. Finegan said that they could include the name and the model of door that would satisfy
the Commission members and define the design of the railing in the resolution so that the project
can move forward, and if the applicant has a problem, she could return for further review from
the ILPC.
S. Stein said she could provide the applicant with a copy of the drawing they used to build their
porch railing.
M. Wilson said she just wants the Commission to spell out clearly in the resolution what they
want to see, so she can close the loop and make sure the final product matches their intent.
D. Kramer agreed that this isn’t the way they typically handle cases, and it seems like they are
lacking important details.
S. Lewis said her contractor doesn’t typically do drawings, and she doesn’t have the money to
engage an architect.
D. Kramer said that while they have a drawing, they don’t have detailed information on
materials.
S. Lewis said she had indicated it would be pressure treated in one of the notes on the drawing
provided.
D. Kramer asked if there were modifications to the resolution they could make that would satisfy
S. Gibian’s concerns, noting that if he doesn’t approve, the proposal won’t be approved at this
meeting.
S. Gibian said that if the intent is to make the railing identical to the rail at S. Stein’s house, it
will have both an inner and outer face rail notched into the posts, so the width of the baluster sits
right between them. He asked S. Stein what material her riling is made of.
Approved by ILPC: 21, July 2020
11
S. Stein said she would have to check on what type of wood was used for her railing.
S. Gibian said he understands why the applicant might want to use pressure treated wood, but he
said that sometimes it will warp and look bad.
S. Lewis said it’s required to be weather resistant by code, and she thinks it will pressure treated
fir.
Chair E. Finegan said they should try to get these issues resolved in the resolution and allow the
applicant to return if changes become necessary.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 106 Highland Avenue is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as
designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as
listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated April 30, 2020 was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Susan Lewis,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) three photographs of the
existing doors and a photo of the existing railing; (3) two contractor estimates; and
(4) two photographs of the proposed railing design (located at 310 Fall Creek Drive),
and
WHEREAS, the proposal was discussed at the May 19, 2020 ILPC meeting and was tabled to
allow the applicant to submit additional information on the proposed replacement
doors and railing design, and the applicant has submitted product specifications for
the Therma-Tru Smooth Star S108-FXG fiber glass door and a hand-drawn sketch
of the proposed railing design, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
106 Highland Avenue, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District
Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves (1)
the replacement of the deteriorated railing on the second-story balcony with a code-
compliant wood railing and balusters; and (2) the replacement of two damaged
French doors leading to the balcony with fiberglass patio doors with double-paned
glass lights with interior grids, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
Approved by ILPC: 21, July 2020
12
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate
impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC
meeting on May 19, 2020; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and
the proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights
Historic District is 1898-1937.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the Tudor
Revival Style residence at 106 Highland Avenue was constructed between 1923-1925
for George L. Coleman, director of the University band and orchestra. The home’s
one-story side wing and second-story balcony project southward from the main
façade and feature ribbons of multi-pane casements.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District
and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the
Cornell Heights Historic District.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that
the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the
landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring
improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural
value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is
consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the
landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code.
In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set
forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in
Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and
Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and
contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little
as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the
historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as
a whole.
Approved by ILPC: 21, July 2020
13
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and
preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and
spaces that characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than
replaced. When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture,
and other visual qualities, and where possible, materials. Replacement of
missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial
evidence.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of the
second-story balcony railing and the replacement of the two wood balcony doors will
remove distinctive materials but will not alter features and spaces that characterize
the property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as shown in the photographs of existing
conditions, the severity of the deterioration of the wood balcony railing requires its
replacement and is required by NYS Residential Code. The proposed new work will
not match the old in color, texture, and material but is an improvement over the
existing and will be compatible with the old in design and other visual qualities.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as shown in the photographs of existing
conditions, the severity of the damage of the wood French style balcony doors requires
their replacement. The proposed new work will match the old in design, color, texture,
and other visual qualities.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed wood railing that
is similar in design and construction to the railing at 310 Fall Creek Drive is
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property
and its environment.
With respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, replacement doors Therma-Tru
Smooth Star S2050-SDLGBG are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features of the property and its environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell
Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
Approved by ILPC: 21, July 2020
14
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal
meets criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following conditions:
• Therma-Tru Smooth Star S2050-SDLGBG shall be used as the replacement
balcony doors in place of the originally proposed Therma-Tru Smooth Star
S108-FXG model.
• Staff shall review the final design of the porch railing prior to construction. The
final design shall include inner and outer face rails at the top that are notched
into the posts. The bottom rail shall feature two small face rails on either side of
the posts.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Stein
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, D. Kramer, S. Stein
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: K. Olson, A. Smith
Vacancies: 1
Notice: Failure on the part of the owner or the owner’s representative to bring to the attention
of the ILPC staff any deviation from the approved plans, including but not limited to changes
required by other involved agencies or that result from unforeseen circumstances as
construction progresses, may result in the issuance by the Building Department of a stop
work order or revocation of the building permit.
B. Other Old Business
S. Gibian reported that the window they had approved to be installed at the white house at 115
Llenroc Court was put in at the wrong place. Instead of being centered between two columns, it
is centered on the garage door below.
M. Wilson said she would have the code inspector follow up on that.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
No members of the public appeared wishing to speak, nor did anyone submit written comments
to be read into the record.
Approved by ILPC: 21, July 2020
15
IV. ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer, the meeting was adjourned by unanimous
consent at 7:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner and Acting Secretary
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission