Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2012-01-10Approved by ILPC – 2/14/12 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes – January 10, 2012 Present: Christine O’Malley Stephen Gibian David Kramer Ed Finegan Michael McGandy Lynn Truame, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff In Chair Stein’s absence, E. Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:38 p.m. and read the legal notice for the public hearings. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 105 DeWitt Place, East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Add Fire Escape Applicant Thomas Nix recapitulated the salient details of the application and introduced project architect Richard Hautaniemi. D. Kramer asked if the fire escape could be installed at the rear of the building rather than in the proposed location, to which T. Nix replied, no, the window opening that provides access to the fire escape is required by code to be at least 20” tall by 23” wide and the only window openings on the rear at the third floor are too small to accommodate this without reconstructing and enlarging the shed dormer in which the windows are located. Additionally, R. Hautaniemi stated that these rear windows are located in a stair landing, and by code a fire escape may not be accessed from a stair landing. M. McGandy asked what prompted the applicant to act at this time, to which T. Nix replied that the owner wants to improve the safety of the building for existing residents and have the potential to increase the residential capacity of the building. To increase the residential capacity of the building the Building Department would require either a fire escape or a residential sprinkler system. S. Gibian asked why the sprinkler alternative was not being considered, to which T. Nix replied that it would likely be significantly more expensive and would involve considerably more disruption to the tenants. E. Finegan asked how common fire escapes are in the surrounding neighborhood, to which owner Pamela Johnston replied that she believes all the surrounding houses have a fire escape. Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, E. Finegan opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy. 1 of 11 ILPC Minutes January 10, 2012 S. Gibian indicated he believes there are three alternatives to the fire escape which would be preferable to him: (1) to not increase the occupancy of the third floor; (2) to install a sprinkler system; or (3) to install the fire escape on the rear of the property. He does not believe the alternatives have been satisfactorily explored. M. McGandy agreed. T. Nix reiterated that installing the fire escape in the rear using existing rear window openings would not comply with City code. To be compliant, the fire escape would need to exit at the currently proposed window, and then extend around the corner to the rear of the building. M. McGandy indicated he would like to know more about the feasibility of installing sprinklers. He added that although the Commission may consider the disturbance to the structure in its review of the application, it is not permitted to consider financial considerations at this point in the process. L. Truame stressed that a sprinkler system is not a part of the current proposal before the Commission. At this point, the Commission is only charged with determining the appropriateness of the fire escape currently being proposed, for which the key consideration is the anticipated visual impact of the fire escape. E. Finegan observed that fire escapes are common in the East Hill Historic District. Although he would personally prefer to see the fire escape installed in the rear of the building, he understands the complications associated with that. He would not object to the fire escape as it has been proposed. T. Nix observed that the nearest public right of way from which 115 DeWitt Place can be seen is Buffalo Street; DeWitt Place is a private street. L. Truame replied that the landmarks preservation ordinance does not make that kind of distinction. D. Kramer indicated he does not believe the proposed location of the fire escape is enough of a concern to warrant his opposition to the project. While it is not ideal, he would be willing to approve it. P. Johnston reiterated she would object to investigating the sprinkler alternative, especially since it would require digging up the recently renovated street and sidewalk and installing new water lines. RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, second by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 115 DeWitt Place is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 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(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated December 20, 2011, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Thomas Nix on behalf of property owner Pamela Johnston, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Project Description and Reasons for Change; (2) four photographs of the property, showing existing conditions on all elevations of the building; (3) a site map, showing the location of the property within the historic district; and (4) an architectural drawing, showing the proposed new work, titled “A1 Fire Escape – Elevation, Plan, Section,” and 2 of 11 ILPC Minutes January 10, 2012 WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 115 DeWitt Place and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Project Description and shown in the accompanying photographs and drawing, the project involves installation of a new metal fire escape serving the second and third floors of 115 DeWitt Place, and the related enlargement of an existing third floor window on the south elevation to meet egress requirements, 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 1/10/12, 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 on the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 115 DeWitt Place, the house was constructed between 1904 and 1910 in the Colonial Revival style. Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District. The purpose of the proposal is to install a fire escape to meet current egress requirements. 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 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this case specifically the following Standards: 3 of 11 ILPC Minutes January 10, 2012 #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. #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 Standard #9, the new fire escape will be supported on 3”-diameter steel pipes bearing on round concrete bases that extend 6” above grade and will be attached to the building with 3”x3” angle brackets bolted into the wall framing. Existing sheathing materials will be unaffected, except at the attachment points of the supporting angle brackets. The installation of the new fire escape does not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. With respect to Standard #9, a small existing third floor window will be replaced and the opening enlarged to satisfy minimum egress requirements. The new window will be a casement, which will provide the required opening with half the overall dimension of a double-hung window, and it will be trimmed to match the other windows on the house. The replacement of this window does not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. With respect to Standard #10, the new fire escape and the third floor replacement window can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property or 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 East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: 4-1-0 Yes D. Kramer M. McGandy C. O’Malley E. Finegan No S. Gibian Abstain 4 of 11 ILPC Minutes January 10, 2012 B. 105 Highland Place, East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Replace Deteriorated Metal Roofing on Attached Shed Applicant George Avramis recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. E. Finegan remarked the roof appears very flat for architectural shingles, to which G. Avramis replied the pitch would be raised six inches. L. Truame indicated that a change in the pitch of the shed roof was not proposed as part of the application and the appropriateness of such a change would need to be considered by the ILPC. She noted that all other roofs on the building are flat. D. Kramer asked why a rubber roof was not being considered, to obviate the need for the pitched roof, to which G. Avramis replied that the pitch is also intended to discourage students from climbing onto it. S. Gibian asked why not simply demolish the shed, given its deteriorated state, to which G. Avramis replied, because the foundation walls are salvageable. (He noted that City Code Inspector Bob Ripa confirmed they could be salvaged.) G. Avramis indicated he would really like to retain the storage space. L. Truame asked if the existing doors would be reinstalled, to which G. Avramis replied, no, the doors had already been removed. L. Truame noted that if the originals could not be re-installed, any proposed replacements would need to be approved by the Commission. L. Truame indicated the change in the roof pitch required for the installation of shingles would definitely be an area of concern for the Commission and wondered whether the applicant might like to propose an alternative roofing material that would not require such a change. G. Avramis responded he could use a heavy white EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber) material that would hold up well and would not require raising the pitch. C. O’Malley remarked that would be a much better option. Other Commission members agreed. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, E. Finegan opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy. RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, second by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 105 Highland Place is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 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(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated December 29, 2011, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by George Avramis on behalf of property owner Maria Avramis, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Change; (2) a photograph showing the existing condition of the roof covering that is proposed for replacement; and (3) product 5 of 11 ILPC Minutes January 10, 2012 literature for Timberline asphalt architectural shingles, the proposed replacement material, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the continuation sheet photographs and annotated property list entry from the East Hill Historic District Nomination for 105 Highland Place, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Project Description and shown in the accompanying photograph and product literature, the project involves replacement of the deteriorated metal roof covering on the storage shed located on the north side of the house, and WHEREAS, the applicant originally proposed asphalt architectural shingles as the new roofing material, but at the meeting on January 10, 2012 offered EPDM in the color white as an alternative material, 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 1/10/12, 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 on the annotated property list entry from the East Hill Historic District Nomination for 105 Highland Place, the house was constructed c. 1880 in the Italianate style. Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District. The purpose of the proposal is to replace the deteriorated metal roof covering on an attached storage shed. 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 6 of 11 ILPC Minutes January 10, 2012 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 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this case specifically the following Standards: #2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. #4 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. #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. With respect to Standard #2, the existing metal roof covering on the attached shed is not a historic material that characterizes the property. With respect to Standard #4, the attached shed is not original to the building and has not acquired significance in its own right. With respect to Standard #6, the existing metal roof covering on the attached shed has deteriorated the point that it does require replacement. With respect to Standard #6, the proposed EPDM in the color white is an appropriate replacement material, given that the shed has not acquired significance in its own right, and that the existing metal roof covering is not a historic material that characterizes the property. 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 East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. 7 of 11 ILPC Minutes January 10, 2012 RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0 Yes D. Kramer M. McGandy C. O’Malley E. Finegan S. Gibian No Abstain C. 536 Thurston Avenue, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Install Through-Wall Power Ventilator Applicant Maria Maynard recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project and indicated she represents Cornell University’s property management services provider, SB Ashley Management. She remarked that the building chimney is not venting properly, as the liner tiles are spalling. The Building Department has cited the property for this improper venting. M. Maynard noted the applicant examined two possible options to the power vent: (1) replacing the liner with a rigid metal one, which was determined to be infeasible because the boiler requires an 8” duct and such a large free opening cannot be provided if a new liner is installed inside the existing liner tiles; and (2) using a poured liner which was also determined to be infeasible for the same reason that an 8” free vent opening could not be achieved. The decision was then made to install the through-wall power ventilator and abandon the chimney. M. Maynard observed that the power vent should be virtually unnoticeable in the proposed location. S. Gibian remarked he is not enthusiastic about power ventilators, due to the inevitable noise they produce. He is also concerned with the side venting, which would produce steam in the colder months. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, E. Finegan opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy. RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by C. O’Malley. WHEREAS, 536 Thurston Avenue is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 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(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated December 29, 2011, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Henry Frazier on behalf of property management agent, SB Ashley Management, acting on behalf of property owner, Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Change(s); (2) product information for the proposed through-wall power vent; and (3) a photograph from the Tompkins County Assessor’s website showing the front elevation of the building with an arrow indicating the side wall on which the vent is proposed to be installed; and 8 of 11 ILPC Minutes January 10, 2012 WHEREAS, at the meeting on January 10, 2012, additional information was provided, including four photographs of existing conditions at the property and showing the proposed location of the new through-wall vent, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 536 Thurston 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) and shown on the submitted site plan, the proposed project involves abandoning an existing chimney and installing a through-wall power vent to vent the existing boiler and hot water heater, 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 1/10/12, 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, 536 Thurston Avenue was constructed in 1909 in the Craftsman style and was designed by the prominent local architectural firm of Gibb & Waltz. 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. The purpose of the proposal is to install a through-wall power vent to provide ventilation for an existing boiler and hot water heater. 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 9 of 11 ILPC Minutes January 10, 2012 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 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this case specifically the following Standards: #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. #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 Standard #9, the insertion of the through-wall power ventilator on the side elevation of the building does not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. With respect to Standard #10, the new ventilator can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property or 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 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0 Yes D. Kramer M. McGandy C. O’Malley E. Finegan S. Gibian No Abstain II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR A. Administrative Matters L. Truame noted that the Commission would now be following the revised rules of procedure approved at the last meeting. L. Truame also indicated the Commission will be electing its Chair and Vice Chair at the next regular meeting, when all the Commission members could be present. 10 of 11 ILPC Minutes January 10, 2012 11 of 11 B. Public Comments on Matters of Interest None. C. Communications None. III. MINUTES As moved by D. Kramer and seconded by M. McGandy, Commission members unanimously approved the following meeting minutes, with no changes: • December 13, 2011 (Regular Meeting) IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 119 Ferris Place – Formal Approval of Revised Handrail L. Truame indicated a handrail for 119 Ferris Place had received staff approval, in accordance with the Commission’s intent, as stated at its December 2011 meeting. The applicant proposed, and staff approved, using a metal pipe-rail handrail, in lieu of the previously installed pressure-treated wood handrails. Commission members unanimously supported the staff approval. V. NEW BUSINESS None. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, and as moved by S. Gibian and seconded by E. Finegan, the meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m. by E. Finegan. Respectfully Submitted, Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission