Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2020-04-21Approved by ILPC: July 21, 2020 1 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes — April 21, 2020 Present: Ed Finegan, Chair David Kramer, Vice Chair Stephen Gibian, Member Katelin Olson, Member Avi Smith, Member Susan Stein, Member Donna Fleming, Common Council Liaison Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Anya Harris, City of Ithaca staff Absent: None 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 5:35 p.m. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 225 Fall Creek Drive, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Replace the Driveway Paving Material, Install a Two-Car, 18- by 24-foot Parking Area on the East Side of the Existing Driveway, Install New Flagstone Walkways on the West Elevation, Install a New 16- by 28-foot Flagstone Patio on the South Elevation, and Install a 12- by 20-foot Flagstone-Paved Area on the North Elevation of the Existing Garage. Applicants Reilly Coch and Flannery Hysjulien appeared in front of the Commission to present their proposed project, which is to enlarge and reorient the parking areas, replace the driveway, and install a new patio and walkways. R. Coch presented an overview of the proposal and asked the Commission members to suggest appropriate material for the driveway replacement. F. Hysjulien added that the landscaping plan, which was not included in their proposal, would include a green screen around the proposed parking area that would screen it from the sidewalk and integrate it into the rest of the property. She said that right now the area is a bit barren. Chair E. Finegan asked if any Commission members had questions. There being no questions forthcoming, E. Finegan asked the applicants what materials they were considering for the driveway. F. Hysjulien said they are considering either replacing the deteriorated asphalt or using small gravel. K. Olson asked why they propose placing the parking spaces to the front as opposed to the rear of the house. Approved by ILPC: July 21, 2020 2 R. Coch said that part of the reason for the placement is because there’s already parking there. They just want to change it from a diagonal to a right angle alignment. K. Olson asked the applicants why they think the proposed location is the best spot. F. Hysjulien said it’s probably the only location for it. She said the driveway runs along the property line to the garage (which isn’t really big enough for modern vehicles). She said the proposal is to straighten out the parking and put in a second spot for two cars to park side by side. She said their intention is to allow for a turn around so drivers can pull in and out, and not have to either back in or out. R. Coch said that to move the parking farther back from the street would encroach on existing walkways. They are looking at this as an opportunity to replace what’s currently there, expand it slightly, and re-orient it to allow for a turnaround. K. Olson said there have been other instances where homeowners have proposed parking in the front yards of their houses, and so they always try to encourage applicants to identify the reasons behind why they select a particular location. S. Gibian said that gravel can tend to act like ball bearings and he suggested they consider using crushed limestone instead because it will compact and get more solid than gravel. He also suggested that they use radius corners on the new parking area, rather than sharp right angles in order to make it easier to pull out. Applicants thanked him for the suggestions. D. Kramer said that nothing they are proposing is attached to the house, and nothing they do to the landscaping or hardscape will affect the integrity of the house. He said clearly the homeowners are cherishing the house because it looks much different and better than it did before they purchased it 16 months ago. He said he thinks whatever alterations to the project the Commission members suggest, the project will be a real addition to the property. He said he agrees with the homeowners that the yard at present looks rather bare, but they are addressing that concern by doing landscaping as part of this project. S. Stein said she thinks the flagstone patio in the back will work well, nothing that other homes in the neighborhood have them as well. Chair E. Finegan said it’s surprising that someone hasn’t put one in back there already. S. Stein said the house hasn’t had a family in it in a long time. A. Smith said that the proposal to replace the chewed up concrete walkway with flagstone also sounds great and will dramatically improve the view from the street. D. Fleming asked about S. Stein’s comments about not having a family in the house for many years. She asked if it had been a student rental. Approved by ILPC: July 21, 2020 3 S. Stein said no, it was owned by Cornell, which sold it to a single individual in the late ‘90s, and she passed away a few years ago. Public Hearing On a motion by K. Olson, 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. Chair E. Finegan asked if any Commission members had questions. Several members expressed support of the project. S. Gibian said he did not intend his suggestions to be critical, and while the crushed stone or gravel options for the driveway would allow more water to the roots of the existing trees, all the other driveways on the street are paved, so he wouldn’t have a problem with that either. A brief discussion about driveway materials followed, and Commission members and applicants agreed to use the crushed limestone. B. McCracken said that the applicants were fortunate enough to track down the blueprints for the house and determined that it was designed by Clarence A. Martin, Dean of the AAP Department at Cornell. He said another architect was noted in the draft resolution and said he would make the correction. K. Olson asked about roof shingle replacement colors mentioned in the resolution. B. McCracken said they would be choosing from one of the approved colors of roof shingles. RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D.Kramer. WHEREAS, 225 Fall Creek Drive 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 3, 2020, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owners Reilly Coch and Flannery Hysjulien, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a proposed site plan; and (3) four photographs documenting existing conditions, and Approved by ILPC: July 21, 2020 4 WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 225 Fall Creek Drive, 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 the replacement of the existing asphalt driveway with crushed limestone, the replacement and expansion of an existing asphalt-paved parking area with crushed limestone, the replacement of a concrete walkway on the west elevation with stone, the installation of a new stone walkway on the west elevation, the installation of a 16’X20’ stone patio on the south elevation, and the replacement of the three-tab asphalt shingle roofing with architectural-style asphalt shingles, 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 replacement of three-tab asphalt shingle roofing with architectural-style shingles has been determined to be an in-kind repair by the ILPC, and as such, was administratively approved by the Secretary of the Commission on April 8, 2020, as authorized by the City of Ithaca Landmark and Historic District Design Guidelines, 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 April 21, 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 Colonial-Revival Style residence at 225 Fall Creek Drive was designed by Cornell University professor of architecture, Clarence A. Martin and built in 1901. 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 Approved by ILPC: July 21, 2020 5 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. Principle #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible with the historic character of the district within which it is located. 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. 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 replacement of the driveway, replacement and expansion of the parking area, replacement of a walking and the installation of another walkway, and the installation of a patio will not remove distinctive materials will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #2, Principle #3, and Standard #9, the proposed expanded parking area, walkway and patio are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, expanded parking area, walkway and patio can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment. Approved by ILPC: July 21, 2020 6 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, 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: K. Olson Seconded by: D. Kramer In Favor: D. Kramer, K. Olson, S. Stein, S. Gibian, A. Smith, E. Finegan Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 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. The Commission members thanked the applicants and again expressed support for the project, as well as for the work done on the house by the applicants thus far. II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST Chair E. Finegan opened the public comment period. There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the public comment period. III. NEW BUSINESS & OLD BUSINESS B. McCracken said that in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, they have been asked to keep meetings to only “essential” business, so in the future, there will likely be no Old Business or New Business on the agenda unless there is an associated resolution to be considered. S. Gibian said that there’s a house on Highland Avenue in really rough shape. He asked if any application to make repairs was forthcoming. Approved by ILPC: July 21, 2020 7 B. McCracken said the property owner is working on an application and one will be coming. D. Kramer asked B. McCracken for clarification on what is meant by “essential.” B. McCracken said Public Hearings, considering applications, reporting on problems in historic districts (such as S. Gibian’s comment) would be “essential”; whereas, considering revisions to design guidelines, for example, would not, and should be put off until a more conventional type of meeting can be convened to hold a public hearing. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The March 19, 2020 meeting minutes were approved by unanimous consent with no modifications. IV. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by K. Olson, the meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission