Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2011-07-12Approved by ILPC – 10/11/11 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes – July 12, 2011 Present: Susan Stein, Chair Nancy Brcak Susan Jones Ed Finegan Michael McGandy Leslie Chatterton, Staff Megan Gilbert, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff Chair Susan Stein called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. and read the legal notice for the public hearings. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Grand View House, 209 College Avenue, Local Landmark Designation (continued from 6/28/11 Special Meeting) L. Chatterton noted the local landmark designation discussion for Grand View House represents a continuation of the discussion that took place at the Commission’s special meeting on June 28, 2011, which had to be abridged due to time considerations. Rebuttals L. Chatterton indicated she would like to respond to some of the points Steve Beer, owner of the subject property, made at the last meeting. First, she noted that most of the building alterations that Mr. Beer mentioned he had performed would have been reviewed and most likely approved as part of the Commission’s review process. Moreover, there is little reason to believe they would have been approved in a way which would have required significant, if any, additional expense on Mr. Beer’s part. Second, regarding Mr. Beer’s argument about the Grand View House (and the Snaith House) being unnecessarily singled out for designation, L. Chatterton indicated both properties are in fact part of a much larger group of at least 15 Collegetown buildings that were identified in the Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research report as good candidates for designation. Third, L. Chatterton reiterated the point she made at the conclusion of the last meeting ― that the City has instituted a property tax abatement program (for both commercial and residential properties) that is applicable to any enhanced property tax, when rehabilitation work has been performed that involves historical restoration that increases the value of the property. L. Chatterton added there are also New York State incentives available to Ithaca property owners. S. Stein inquired if there were any other comments for the rebuttals portion of the meeting. There were none. 1 of 11 ILPC Minutes July 12, 2011 Commission Discussion and/or Action M. McGandy indicated he believes Mary Tomlan’s presentation was both clear and convincing in illustrating the Grand View House’s unique historical place in Collegetown. E. Finegan expressed his agreement. He would also be very supportive of other Collegetown buildings being designated. N. Jones expressed her support for designation. N. Brcak noted her support for designation. Steve Beer, Chair of the City’s Board of Zoning Appeals & owner of the subject property, encouraged the Commission to also consider designating 202, 204, 206, and 210 College Avenue. He believes these properties also exhibit some highly distinctive and historically characteristic features. He also wanted to take the opportunity to note that a real estate property value expert with whom he consulted indicated to him that historical designation sometimes actually detracts from the assessed value of certain properties. He concluded by saying he does not dispute the unusualness and historical value of the Grand View House and he certainly appreciates Mary Tomlan’s extensive research and analysis. RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by E. Finegan. WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) may designate landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance, and WHEREAS, a special public hearing held on Tuesday, June 28, 2011, for the purpose of considering a proposal to designate the Grand View House at 209 College Avenue as a City of Ithaca landmark was continued to and concluded at the regular meeting held on Tuesday, July 12, 2011, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, dated June 20, 2011, including the Narrative Description of Property and the Narrative Description of Significance, prepared by Mary Tomlan for consideration by the ILPC, and WHEREAS, the designation of a local landmark is a Type II action under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and as such requires no further environmental review, and WHEREAS, consideration of the Grand View House as an historic resource was introduced in a report prepared by Mary Tomlan and John Schroeder on June 14, 2009, entitled Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and Landscape Features, and WHEREAS, Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code defines a landmark as follows: 2 of 11 ILPC Minutes July 12, 2011 A structure, memorial or site or a group of structures or memorials, including the adjacent areas necessary for the proper appreciation of the landmark, deemed worthy of preservation, by reason of its value to the city as: A. An outstanding example of a structure or memorial representative of its era, either past or present. B. One of the few remaining examples of a past architectural style or combination of styles. C. A place where an historical event of significance to the city, region, state or nation or representative activity of a past era took place or any structure, memorial or site which has a special character, special historical and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca, including sites of natural or ecological interest, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Commission adopts as its own the documentation and information more fully set forth in the expanded New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, prepared by Mary Tomlan and dated June 20, 2011, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the proposed designation. As described in the Narrative Description of Significance on the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, prepared by Mary Tomlan and dated June 20, 2011, the Grand View House, and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #67.-1-12, is a structure deemed worth of preservation by reason of its value to the city as a structure which has special character, special historical, and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca as enumerated below: 1) The Grand View House is a structure that has special character, special historical and aesthetic interest, and value as part of the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca as a representative building of its later 19th Century construction period. The structure is visually distinctive by virtue of its hillside setting, its partially exposed basement story, the elevated porch and prominent central stairway from the street to the main entrance, and the tall tower with a mansard roof that penetrates the roofline. These features impart a “landmark” quality to the building as viewed today from the street or from downtown Ithaca; however, the property is the surviving example of five newly constructed boarding houses similar in scale that characterized the College Avenue streetscape in the later 19th Century. 3 of 11 ILPC Minutes July 12, 2011 2) The Grand View House reflects a development trend that characterizes the neighborhood south of the Cornell campus, and as such has special character, special historical and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca. As stated in the Narrative Description of Significance, construction of the Grand View House, like much of the East Hill building activity that occurred in the later 19th and early 20th Centuries, was in response to housing demand caused, in part, by the continued growth of the University and, in part, by rehabilitation of already limited on-campus dormitory accommodations for academic uses. Housing demands spurred by the growth and change of the University were responsible for much of the development in the neighborhood south of the University and throughout East Hill. 3) The evolving residential use of the Grand View House from boarding house to “flats” reflects a trend inherent in the growth of the neighborhood, now known as Collegetown, in the first decades of the 20th Century, prior to the 1920s and, as such, the Grand View House is a structure which has special character, special historical and aesthetic interest, and value as part of the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca. As stated in the Narrative Description of Significance, in addition to students, by the early 20th Century, the neighborhood was being populated by greater numbers of University faculty and staff. With this change came demand for housing that offered greater independence. The Grand View House retains features inherent to its original boarding house use, most notably the basement story with access to the street originally used for serving meals to both boarders and members of the public, and exhibits the later changes, such as the insertion of windows in the mansard story that reflect changing housing patterns in the neighborhood south of the University. RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that, based on the findings set forth above, the Grand View House meets criterion “C.,” defining a “Local Landmark,” as set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, “Landmarks Preservation,” and be it further RESOLVED, that the Commission hereby designates the Grand View House, 209 College Avenue, as a City of Ithaca landmark. RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0 Yes M. McGandy S. Stein S. Jones E. Finegan N. Brcak No Abstain 4 of 11 ILPC Minutes July 12, 2011 L. Chatterton indicated that the resolution approval would be subject to Common Council approval (likely to be its September 2011 meeting). It will also go before the Council’s Planning and Economic Development Committee and the Planning and Development Board, which would make their own formal recommendations to Council. B. 100 W. Buffalo Street, Cayuga Apartments, DeWitt Park Historic District (tabled at 6/14/11 Regular Meeting) Applicant Frost Travis indicated he had intended to defer the Commission’s review of the project to its August meeting. L. Chatterton indicated that during the straw poll at the June ILPC meeting there were three votes in favor of the project and one opposed. If the applicant would like, another straw poll could be taken to determine if there may be four affirmative votes at this time. M. McGandy indicated he would most likely oppose the proposal. While he understands the situation the applicant finds itself in, his concerns with the aesthetic impacts and the prominence of the building prompt him to say the building should be returned to its prior historic state. E. Finegan indicated he could support the proposal. N. Brcak indicated that she had been persuaded by M. McGandy’s remarks and that she would prefer the parapet wall be returned to its original state. L. Chatterton remarked that it was determined that the original construction of the parapet wall had been flawed. N. Brcak responded that despite the flawed nature of the construction the parapet wall had been in place for a considerable number of years. L. Chatterton noted that it is not necessarily possible to ascertain when the damage to the parapet wall occurred, as it was hidden from the current owners. S. Jones indicated that she could support the proposal, given the cause of the deterioration. S. Stein indicated she could also support the proposal. Following the straw poll, the applicant requested to postpone the application to the next ILPC meeting. C. 210 Kelvin Place, Cornell Heights Historic District Michael May, John Page, Elizabeth Ambrose, and Paula Horrigan were present to address the Commission regarding the application. 5 of 11 ILPC Minutes July 12, 2011 Michael May, attorney representing Dick Hughes, recapitulated the main points included in his 7/12/11 letter to the Commission (on file). John Page, Bero Architecture, described the major salient details of the project. The project was conceived for three principal reasons: (1) to restore the residence, (2) to keep resident Dick Hughes in the house, and (3) to expand the house to a 2-family residence. As noted in the project application, the proposed one-story addition (with full basement) will be located entirely within the existing rear-yard, behind the existing two-story residence. Designed not to be visible from the street, the addition will be constructed with matching brick and painted wood shingle siding, a matching 7:12 gabled roof with matching painted wood details and architectural asphalt shingles, wood trim, and double-hung windows. J. Page noted that the improvements to the house would include an entry canopy portico, improvements to the entry walkway, creation of a front terrace, and replacement of any damaged wood paneling. The proposal meets all zoning requirements. J. Page added that the rear of the addition would employ vernacular elements, significantly differentiated from the remainder of the house, while the single-story nature of the addition would further distinguish it from the original. J. Page then displayed some material samples to the Commission. Landscape Architect Paula Horrigan presented the landscape design plan. She indicated the property contains a large slope and noted that in order to construct the addition the entire building needed to be reintegrated into the site, so the building would not appear to be such a significant change. As a result, the design team decided not to construct any large retaining walls. Virtually everything would be done using grading, with just a few modest retaining walls. The woodland edge would be retained and sensitively treated. The tree lawn would be partially replaced and the sidewalk reinforced. A circular lawn would be installed in the back of the property, establishing a semi-formal center to the back of the property. Vernacular materials would be employed, including bluestone, sandstone, field stone, and brick. Understory plants and shrubs, flowering trees, and specimen trees would also adorn the property. At the conclusion of the applicant’s presentation, Chair Stein indicated that the Commission is not charged with addressing any changes to the use of the property but should merely examine how it fits into the surrounding neighborhood. E. Finegan asked if it would not be appropriate to discuss the change from one to two units. L. Chatterton replied that the Commission should really be focusing purely on the aesthetic and architectural impact of the project. M. McGandy asked what the total square footage of the proposed addition would be, to which J. Page replied it should be about the same as the existing residence. The square footage of the footprint of the full basement of the first floor addition should be about equal to that of the existing building. The footprint of the existing building (not including the garage) is approximately 1,300 square feet, while that of the addition should be about 1,200 square feet. He added that this is comparable to many other properties in the area, in terms of the lot coverage. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by N. Brcak, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. 6 of 11 ILPC Minutes July 12, 2011 Lee Adler spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting that he lives right next door to the subject property, so he believes the proposed changes would impact him directly. He indicated that he is extremely concerned with the corporatization or commercialization of the neighborhood. The proposed building will be Cornell Heights Bridges’ third building and since the proposal is to re-orient the building away from the street they are effectively transforming their property into a corporate campus. L. Adler noted that although the Commission may be prohibited from addressing the question of use, he believes the fact that, for example, it is a commercial facility in a residential neighborhood and it is not seeking a building permit should inform the discussion. He indicated that City Code §228-5 (B), “Alteration permit procedure,” specifically states that the ILPC can examine the façade of a building and evaluate its impact on adjoining properties (“Where facade changes are proposed in an historic district, their effect upon adjoining properties must be shown.”). L. Adler also indicated that the ILPC also has the option of making a finding that the issue needs to be further examined, as delineated in City Code §228-5 (G), “Certificate of appropriateness:”(“In the event, however, that the Commission shall make a finding of fact that the circumstances of a particular application require further time for additional study and information than can be obtained within the aforesaid period of 45 days, then, in said event, the Commissioner shall have a period of up to 90 days within which to act upon such an application.”). E. Finegan read a letter from Michael Decatur and Erika Fowler-Decatur, dated July 1, 2011, into the record (on file). Isaac Kramnick, 125 Kelvin Place, spoke in opposition to the project. He recounted the story of how the Cornell Heights Historic District was originally designated. He indicated that, while he understands the ILPC’s charge is limited to architectural and general aesthetic considerations, it should also consider that the Cornell Heights Historic District’s Summary Significance Statement makes multiple mention of the “strictly residential nature” of the neighborhood. I. Kramnick avowed he is not opposed to assisted- living housing in the neighborhood (for example, he was accepting of the initial Bridges building), but he is opposed to its continued expansion from one to three structures. He also indicated he believes the applicant had already expressed an interest in continued expansion of the site and he believes this will only place the principally residential character of the historic district at risk. Pamela Raney, 1150-G The Park in Cortland, read a letter into the record (on file) on behalf of neighbor, Fred Widding. Betsy Magre, 413 E. Buffalo Street, read a following letter from Dick Hughes (on file), dated May 25, 2011, into the record. Michael May (speaking as a member of the public) indicated he had lived in the Alpha Gamma Rho building in the neighborhood and he believes there are plenty of commercial enterprises in the historic district. M. May concluded by noting that he believes the applicant satisfactorily addressed each of the elements of historic rehabilitation for the subject property, including its architecture, aesthetic appearance, and landscaping. Susan Coombs, 123 Heights Court, spoke in opposition to the project. She asserted that the proposed project cannot genuinely be characterized as a two-family house. Furthermore, the driveway is too narrow to support the changes that are being requested. The lighting that would likely illuminate the 7 of 11 ILPC Minutes July 12, 2011 north wall patio would unduly impact the Adler house. S. Coombs also expressed concerns with where the air conditioning and fans would be located, as well as the other functions and services that an expanded assisted-living facility would require, such as increased truck traffic and food deliveries. Alison Cares Pritz, 106 Brook Lane, spoke in opposition to the project. She noted that while she supports Dick Hughes, it is a larger issue that concerns the whole neighborhood. A. Pritz indicated that she believes the applicant had previously misrepresented herself in its interactions with the community and that boundaries had been overstepped. Eric Pritz, 106 Brook Lane, spoke in opposition to the project. He indicated that, although the project’s landscape architect characterized the proposed project as being “nested” into the slope behind the original structure, he does not believe that this at all consistent with the history and appearance of the rest of the Bridges facility. E. Pritz further remarked he is worried about the expansion of the total footprint of the facility and encouraged the Commission to consider more than merely the façade of the proposed building. Catherine Penner, 121 Kelvin Place, spoke in opposition to the project. She indicated she agrees with the concerns her fellow neighbors have expressed; and she is concerned about the possibility the applicant would seek to add a fourth building, as well. C. Penner remarked that the current Bridges facility can essentially be described as a “compound” and that it could most likely never be converted back into single-family homes. She concluded by noting her concern that the neighborhood is being unduly commercialized and that the historic district’s residential nature will be fundamentally placed at risk. Suzanne Welsh, 18 Armstrong Place in Tioga County, spoke in support of the project. S. Welsh remarked that she believes the applicant is making every possible attempt to restore and expand the property in a historically appropriate and sensitive manner. The Commission should consider the extent to which the current building has deteriorated over the years and the prospect of preserving it that the proposed project presents. Most critically, the changes that are being proposed are not obvious or intrusive and would only be publicly visible from only a handful of perspectives. Applicant Elizabeth Ambrose spoke in support of the project. She noted that she had met with Ithaca Building Commissioner Phyllis Radke, who had indicated to her that the proposed changes would be a permitted use. E. Ambrose added that, were it to remain in its current state, the building would most likely be condemned by the Building Department. It is in a seriously dilapidated condition (e.g., it possesses no functioning plumbing). Additionally, a 45-day delay would mean the project would most likely be delayed for an entire year, given the lateness in the building season, during which time Mr. Hughes would remain displaced. She concluded by challenging the neighbors to provide examples of any boundaries that had been overstepped, as was mentioned earlier in the meeting. John Page, Bero Architecture, architect for the applicant, indicated he would like to formally rebut some of the claims and comments that had been made by the opposing neighbors. He noted that the combination of the driveway and the garage would be sufficient to meet the anticipated parking needs of the proposed expanded facility. It is his opinion that it is not within the Commission’s purview to oppose the improvement and expansion of a given building. The applicant has taken every measure to 8 of 11 ILPC Minutes July 12, 2011 meet the requirements of the historic district. He concluded by noting that the small portico proposed to be added would be in keeping with the Colonial Revival style. Closure of Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by S. Jones, the public hearing was closed. N. Brcak remarked she is having a little difficulty reconciling the landscape plan with the statements that had been made by members of the community. She asked the applicant if further changes, above and beyond the ones being proposed, are anticipated, such as the connecting path mentioned at the beginning of the Public Hearing. E. Ambrose replied that the only further change she might anticipate would be for the purpose of accommodating resident Dick Hughes, should there come a time when he can no longer negotiate the stairs on the exterior access path of the building and it would make more sense for him to simply park in the rear of the building. No other substantial changes are being considered at this time. N. Brcak asked the applicant to affirm that she is not suggesting connecting the building to the rest of the Bridges facility. E. Ambrose replied that she would only consider requesting approval for a paver walkway along the side of the building. Chair Stein asked the applicant the purpose for doubling the footprint of the original building, to which J. Page replied that it is the only way to ensure all the living space necessary for Mr. Hughes’ needs can be incorporated on one floor, on the first floor of the addition. M. McGandy asked what was intended for the second floor of the current building, to which E. Ambrose replied, perhaps office space or storage space. She is not yet sure. M. McGandy remarked that he sees that the new building could potentially require four parking spaces. E. Ambrose replied that typically her residents do not tend to own and operate vehicles; however, there is still room for one car in the garage, two in the rear, and one in the front. N. Brcak asked the applicant how much Bridges residents pay a year for its services, to which E. Ambrose replied she does not believe that is an appropriate question for these proceedings. S. Jones noted that she agrees that the Commission should not focus on the appropriate use of the property and that this does not fall within its charge. She also indicated that, although considerable attention has been given to the very limited degree to which the proposed addition would be visible from the street, the Commission is not in fact only restricted to those kinds of considerations. L. Chatterton remarked that the nature of either the use or the occupants of the proposed building is not relevant to the Commission’s decision. She indicated she had also spoken to Building Commissioner Radke, and the Commissioner had stated it was a permitted use. L. Chatterton remarked, however, that nothing precludes further action on the part of the neighbors or any other party, if they decide to challenge the Commission’s decision. The Commission should only be concerned with the substance of the architectural and aesthetic changes that are being proposed. 9 of 11 ILPC Minutes July 12, 2011 N. Brcak indicated she agrees with everything that was just stated, however, she also believes it is relevant for the Commission to discuss the potential alteration in the principally residential character of the neighborhood and the historic district, to which L. Chatterton agreed. M. McGandy asked if the clustered nature of the proposed building and the adjoining Bridges properties would be a legitimate issue for the Commission to address. L. Chatterton replied that the important criteria to consider are the orientation and scale of the new building, as well as the modifications to the entrance. S. Stein indicated she also has issues with regards to the size of the addition. She was not sure why the configuration of the original building could simply have been changed and a smaller addition proposed. M. McGandy indicated that he appreciates the fact that the current building is so dilapidated and that this is an opportunity to renovate it in a historically sympathetic manner. He believes the design is reasonably balanced and proportionate. He asked the applicant if the landscaping is in fact intended to be an integral and inextricable aspect of the project, to which both P. Horrigan and E. Ambrose replied, yes. M. McGandy indicated that, contrary to one line of argument that had been made, he does believe that the issue of use is relevant, in so far as it affects the fundamental character of the historic district. The project’s impact needs to be evaluated based on more than merely a net addition to the property. He noted that, if there is any question at all about the issue of permitted use, he believes the proposed changes should be addressed in a separate forum, prior to any Commission decision. E. Finegan agreed and indicated that he is uncomfortable with the persistent degree of uncertainty associated with the project. N. Brcak remarked that the building is not merely an isolated structure, but that changes to it need to be evaluated within the larger context of the historic district. She is definitely concerned with both the massing and the orientation of the proposed structure. S. Jones expressed her agreement with the previous comment about the scale of the building and indicated that she would very much the Commission to be permitted to visit the site. S. Stein noted that she agrees with virtually everything the other Commission members have stated and would most certainly like more information before considering a vote on the matter. At this point in the proceedings, L. Chatterton indicated that the Commission now needs to make a formal finding of fact, as prescribed in City Code §228-5. She added that the Commission should consider obtaining detailed guidance from both the Building Commissioner and the City Attorney for clarification of the permitted use issue. The City Attorney may also be able to address any issues associated with the nature of the historic district. Finding of Fact: Moved by N. Brcak, seconded by M. McGandy. 10 of 11 ILPC Minutes July 12, 2011 “Having concluded a public hearing for the application of 210 Kelvin Place, the Ithaca Historic Preservation Commission finds that the circumstances of this application require further time for additional study and information, in accordance with §228-5 (G.) of the City of Ithaca Code. Specifically, the Commission will seek consultation with the City Attorney and the interpretation of the Building Commissioner, either in person or in writing.” RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0 Yes S. Jones M. McGandy N. Brcak E. Finegan S. Stein No Abstain II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR A. Administrative Matters (none) B. Communications (none) C. Public Comments on Matters of Interest (none) III. MINUTES (none) IV. OLD BUSINESS (none) V. NEW BUSINESS (none) VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:57 p.m. by Chair S. Stein. Respectfully Submitted, Megan Wilson, Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 11 of 11