Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2011-03-08Approved by ILPC – 6/14/11 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes – March 8, 2011 Present: Susan Stein, Chair Susan Jones, Vice-Chair David Kramer Ed Finegan Michael McGandy Nancy Brcak Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison Leslie Chatterton, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff In Chair Susan Stein’s absence, Vice-Chair Susan Jones called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. I. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR A. Administrative Matters (no discussion) B. Communications (no discussion) C. Public Comment on Matters of Interest Leslie Chatterton reported that, after the original agenda had been generated and disseminated, several members of the public had asked the Commission to review the proposed Seneca Way Apartments project and consider making a formal determination regarding the project’s impact on the East Hill Historic District. As a result, community members will be permitted to present their views in this Public Comment portion of this meeting. A separate ad hoc Commission meeting, however, will most likely still need to be scheduled for a more comprehensive and formal review of the project. (Chair Susan Stein joined the proceedings at 5:36 p.m.) Public Hearing On a motion by David Kramer, seconded by Ed Finegan, Chair Susan Stein opened the public hearing. Matthew Clark, 419 E. Seneca St., indicated he and his wife have lived in their house in the East Hill Historic District for 14 years and they feel intimately connected to the neighborhood. As part of a like- minded group neighbors, they twice met with the developer to express their concerns and offer their suggestions, regarding the size, footprint, and parking of the proposed building. They are very concerned the project review process is moving forward at such a rapid pace and they would like the ILPC to add its own input to the process. The neighbors feel strongly that the nature of their individual homes and the neighborhood as a whole will be deleteriously impacted by the building. There is virtually no transition between the proposed building and the neighboring houses and the size of the building is excessive. With 17 children living on the street, the neighborhood is thriving – in no small part thanks to the work of the ILPC over the years – and the neighbors do not want to lose their current quality of life. Mr. Clark concluded that by indicating he would like the opportunity to present a three- dimensional model of the proposed building to the Commission, at a future meeting, using the actual data provided to the City by the applicant. 1 of 6 ILPC Minutes March 8, 2011 (Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison, joined the proceedings at 5:40 p.m.) Leslie Chatterton thanked Mr. Clark for his comments and asked him to briefly reiterate his list of concerns, which Mr. Clark enumerated as follows: • loss of the neighborhood’s quality of life • prospect of more vehicular traffic and related disturbances • parking scarcity problems • loss of the neighborhood’s historic character Ms. Chatterton asked Mr. Clark if he knew which specific variances the applicant is requesting, to which he responded: variances for height, setback, off-street parking, and loading. He also noted that even though, strictly speaking, the building comprises five stories, it is in fact the height-equivalent of six stories. The re-orientation of the building along a north-south axis also means the applicant shall only be required to build a ten-foot side-yard setback on the building’s north side. Were it not for this re- orientation, the developer would be required to obtain five variances, not four. Barbara Lantz, 411 E. Seneca St. (home office), indicated she would like to corroborate Mr. Clark’s description and opinion of the variances being sought. Ms. Lantz then distributed the text of a draft resolution being proposed by the neighbors for the Commission’s consideration. She remarked she has enjoyed collaborating with several Commission members who helped her select historically appropriate doors and windows for her home. Ms. Lantz distributed a photograph of her home’s interior, depicting the fireplace she uncovered that had been concealed behind a wall since 1960. A genuinely lovely feature, she stated, it also serves as a good illustration of the rich history of her house, beginning with its purchase from Simeon DeWitt by Isaac Day in 1832. Since then, the house has changed hands numerous times and has been occupied by a variety of prominent members of the community, including Charles E. Cornell (Ezra Cornell’s grandson). It has been used for a variety of purposes, from a home to a boarding house to a preparatory school. Virginia Augusta, 419 E. Seneca St., indicated when she and her husband, Matthew Clark, moved into their home, only one house was home to any children living on the block. Shortly after they bought their house, the neighborhood’s renaissance seemed to pick up steam and now all but two houses are owner-occupied. Virginia and Matthew purchased their home for $59,000 in a fairly advanced state of disrepair. Since then, they have invested considerable time and money to renovate it and appealed to the ILPC multiple times during their home’s conversion from a multi-family building to a single-family dwelling. Ms. Augusta also took the opportunity to remark that other houses have asked for on-street parking, but were denied, which has only added to the stress of the parking situation. Right next to the William Henry Miller house, Ms. Augusta’s house dates from around 1850 and is ‘kitty-cornered’ to the proposed building. As a result, she feels the mere 10-foot setback will be disastrous for them; the neighboring homes are relatively fragile buildings and really need a larger setback. Neighborhood residents have collectively invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in their homes, but they do not feel their concerns are being seriously considered and they would like the Commission’s support for maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood. Ms. Augusta stressed that the vast majority of her neighbors welcome the prospect of development, but they just want it to conform to the same rules as everyone else does. 2 of 6 ILPC Minutes March 8, 2011 David Kramer indicated he would like the Commission to hold a separate meeting at a future date, so Commission members have the opportunity to assimilate as many different viewpoints as possible, before making any kind of determination. Ellen McCollister remarked she agrees and sympathizes with many of Ms. Augusta’s points. To some extent, she believes the issue has been unfairly framed as merely an expression of unbending ‘NIMBY- ism’. However, the developer’s own approach, itself, seems somewhat intransigent. Ms. McCollister also believes there may be some merit to the notion that there is unfairness associated with the relative ease the proposed project seems to be moving forward, compared to the often arduous review process community members must endure. Nancy Brcak noted that zoning laws exist for a reason and she does not know why the developer has sought so many variances. Leslie Chatterton noted that any resolution adopted by the Commission would not be binding. The Chair inquired about the environmental impact statement. Ms. Chatterton indicated a draft version was generated; and if anyone, including members of the public, would like a copy, to contact either Senior Planner Lisa Nicholas or Planning and Development Director JoAnn Cornish. Susan Jones indicated she would be in favor of the Commission meeting next week. Michael McGandy indicated he had examined the language of the draft resolution provided to the Commission and that the drafters should note that issues associated with building demolition are not part of the ILPC’s charge, so they may like to consider revising some of that particular language. David Kramer then asked Mr. Clark if it would be possible for him to generate another three- dimensional model of a hypothetical as-right building that conforms to the zoning law, for comparative purposes, which Mr. Clark indicated he would do. Michael McGandy asked whether any of the city-owned bridges would be impacted in any way by the project, to which Ms. Chatterton replied that two of them may be, but that would need to be looked into. The public hearing was closed on a motion by Michael McGandy, seconded by Nancy Brcak. II. MINUTES (no minutes were reviewed) III. OLD BUSINESS (no old business was discussed) 3 of 6 ILPC Minutes March 8, 2011 IV. NEW BUSINESS 1. Tea Pavilion, Stewart Park – Architect Claudia Brenner to give presentation on rehabilitation plans for the Tea House in Stewart Park. No action by the Commission is required because, although “historic,” the Tea House is not designated. Bert Fortner indicated he would be presenting in lieu of Claudia Brenner, who could not be here today. He prefaced his comments by noting that none of the Stewart Park buildings is in a historic district, although they have all had historic resource forms or ‘blue forms’ filed for them, and the Cascadilla Boat Club boathouse is on the National Register. The Whartons film studio buildings, including the Pavilion, were all designed by Clinton Vivian and Arthur N. Gibb, circa 1903. Mr. Fortner showed a photograph of the existing Pavilion (all photographs shown to the Commission were provided courtesy of the Ithaca History Center). He noted that the impetus for the Pavilion’s rehabilitation began when a member of the Ithaca City Fire Department noticed that the building was unstable and the building was subsequently condemned. The city then began planning its demolition and reconstruction, a process Engineer Tom West has been instrumental in. In its original location, the Pavilion served as the terminus for the Ithaca trolley. Mr. Fortner then showed an older photograph of the Pavilion, taken when it was used by The Whartons studio for storage of stage scenery and props. The structure featured paired columns and was constructed on top of a plinth. Over time, however, the structure lost a considerable amount of its original character (for example, the building is now essentially imbedded in concrete and the building has lost some of its original height). The city would like to reconstruct it to reflect as much of its historic nature as possible. The Department of Public Works will be building it using a highly skilled team of people who are excited at the prospect of showcasing their talents. The building will remain in its current location and conform entirely to current building codes. The proposed walls will be sheathed in shingles and the roof and arches re-used as much as possible. The railings will be rebuilt, two ramps installed, and the building will have two exits. In the very near-term, the building will remain intact while some exploratory removals of materials are performed. An informative plaque will also be installed. Mr. Fortner remarked that it is a great collaborative project. He expects construction to begin in early summer 2011. 2. City of Ithaca Historic Preservation Design Guidelines – Update from Cornell Historic Preservation Planning graduate student Christiana Limniatis who is working to finalize the City of Ithaca Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Leslie Chatterton indicated the Design Guidelines had never quite been completed and it has been at least five years since they were last worked on. Although the primary users for the final guidelines are anticipated to be ILPC members and staff, it is also hoped and anticipated that members of the public with applications before the Commission will find them helpful in identifying the kinds of approaches more likely to be approved. The final guidelines will be posted to the city web site, with hardcopies also available for purchase at-cost. 4 of 6 ILPC Minutes March 8, 2011 Christiana Limniatis began her presentation by noting that the current document is a good starting point and will not need to be altered too much. Her principal objective is to simplify some sections, while adding more detail to others. The document contains a considerable amount of factual information which Christina plans to adjust and streamline a little, so that it can more easily be navigated and the most important topics more easily found. For example, the three sections which describe the review process could be reinvigorated and consolidated into a single section. Ms. Limniatis also believes some of the historic district information could be condensed and the most salient portions highlighted. The guidelines section, which describes encouraged preservation methods and types of work, could benefit from the addition of more specific details and concrete examples. Christina will focus most of her efforts on the text-heavy “Additions and New Construction” section which would benefit enormously from the inclusion of diagrams and other illustrations. She noted that the “Preservation Dos and Don’ts” section is a great section, but it would probably be more helpful to the reader if its component parts were incorporated elsewhere into those sections of the document that most pertain to them. Finally, Ms. Limniatis noted she will make minor adjustments to the semantics of the text and fine-tune the order of the contents to achieve a more fluid and intuitive whole. David Kramer recommended the “Ithaca’s Historic Districts” section be altered as little as possible, since its contents have been generated and distilled over a long period of time and they do a good job of encapsulating the most salient historical details of each district. Ms. Limniatis agreed that she would not seek to trim too much text, but would simply adjust the focus of the text to accentuate the architectural characteristics of each district. Ms. Limniatis added that a few other things will need to be changed, such as updating any tax-related and legal references. Mr. McGandy suggested making the decision regarding the trim and orientation of the document fairly early in the process, since this will save considerable time and effort during the rest of the process, when more substantive textual changes are being made. Ms. Limniatis thanked the Commission for its time and indicated she would welcome the Commission’s further feedback and recommendations at any point in the process. 3. Discussion of Recent State Appeals Court Ruling on Markles Flats Building Leslie Chatterton reported that a state appeals court has just ruled that the Ithaca City School District has complete control over the disposition of the Markles Flats building on Court Street and that the ILPC has no jurisdiction over school district buildings. (The ILPC voted in 2009 to deny the school district’s request to demolish the historically designated Markles Flats building). The ruling essentially designates the school district a state agency. 5 of 6 ILPC Minutes March 8, 2011 At this juncture, Ms. Chatterton indicated that the City Attorney’s office has not yet decided on a further course of action. She believes the fact that the ruling was unanimous will complicate any further appeal on the city’s part; the City Attorney would need to provide the court with an extenuating basis of argument for the court to conclude an appeal is justified. The considerable financial expense of further legal action will also undoubtedly factor into the City Attorney’s decision on whether to recommend further action to the Common Council. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:54 p.m. by Chair Susan Stein. Respectfully Submitted, Leslie A. Chatterton, Secretary Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 6 of 6