Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2012-06-12Approved by ILPC – 7/10/12 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes – June 12, 2012 Present: Ed Finegan, Vice-Chair Christine O’Malley Stephen Gibian Michael McGandy David Kramer Lynn Truame, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison Vice-Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. and read the legal notice for the public hearings. (For the sake of expediency, the sequence of agenda items was slightly modified according to when the applicants appeared.) I. STAFF REPORT A. 123 Roberts Place In response to an inquiry from E. Finegan, L. Truame reported that, while the property owner originally asked the ILPC to defer reviewing the changes to the building until the Commission’s June 2012 meeting, the applicant is not yet ready to appear before the Commission. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by D. Kramer and seconded by M. McGandy, Commission members unanimously approved the following meeting minutes, with no modifications: • May 8, 2012 (Regular Meeting) • May 29, 2012 (Special Meeting) III. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. 407 E. Buffalo St., East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Alter Rear Elevation Fenestration & Construct Porch Vicki Romanoff and Sarah Adams, V. Romanoff & Associates, recapitulated the salient details of the proposed changes. E. Finegan asked if historical materials of any kind would be removed, to which V. Romanoff replied only one window in the rear, which they would hope to reuse somewhere on the front of the property in a later project phase. S. Gibian asked if the upper railing would meet Code height requirements, to which V. Romanoff replied, yes. She added that they would certainly apply for a building permit, so if they need to adjust the height in any way, they would. 1 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 D. Kramer observed the affected original features an attractive wood storm window; he asked if it would be retained for reuse. V. Romanoff replied, yes, it is her intent to use it. Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, E. Finegan opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by C. O’Malley, seconded by M. McGandy. RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, second by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 407 E. Buffalo Street 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 May 25, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Sarah Adams on behalf of property owners Kevin and LeAnn Kanda, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a photograph showing existing conditions on the rear elevation of the building; (3) a sketch showing the proposed alterations to the rear elevation; (4) an interior plan showing the future configuration of the kitchen, including the proposed new fenestration pattern at the rear elevation; (5) two photographs showing details on the existing front porch (itself a later addition to the building), which will be picked up in the detailing of the new rear porch; (6) product literature for Marvin Ultimate Double Hung wood windows, in a 2/2 configuration; (7) product literature for Marvin Ultimate Wood Swinging French Doors; and (8) product literature for Therma-Tru Smooth-Star fiberglass patio doors (which are proposed as a potential alternate), and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 407 E. Buffalo 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 reconfiguration of the rear (south) elevation of the rear wing of the house, including: replacement of one existing non-original octagonal window at the second-floor level with a new Marvin 2/2 wood window; replacement of a non-original 6/6 window at the second-floor level with a new Marvin wood (or Therma-Tru fiberglass) multi-light door; replacement of one set of non-original sliding glass doors at the first-floor level with a new Marvin wood (or Therma-Tru fiberglass) hinged multi-light door; replacement of one 2/2 window at the first-floor level (a window which is likely original to this added wing) with a group of four Marvin wood windows in a 2/2 configuration; and replacement of the non-original deck at the first-floor level with a new two-story wood porch, detailed to match the existing porch of the front of the house, and 2 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 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 12, 2012, 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, 407 E. Buffalo Street was constructed between 1835 and 1838 in the Greek Revival style. The front porch was added c. 1898, and the rear two-story addition was constructed in two phases, c. 1893 and c. 1904. These sympathetic additions to the original structure reflect its development over time and have gained historic significance in their own right. Constructed, and expanded, 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 reconfigure the rear (south) elevation of the rear wing to accommodate a remodeled kitchen and new two-story porch, and to remove visually incompatible modern elements. 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 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 #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. #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 #2, the construction of the new rear porch, the replacement of non-original windows and doors, and the replacement of a single early 2/2 window on this rear elevation will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. With respect to Standard #9, the construction of the new rear porch, the replacement of non-original windows and doors, and the replacement of a single early 2/2 window on this rear elevation will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The 2/2 window that is proposed for replacement is likely original to this wing, which was added to the main house around the turn of the twentieth century. It is one of many similar windows that still exist on the building, along with several earlier windows, and its location prevents it from being seen by the general public. For these reasons, this window is not considered a character-defining feature. Also with respect to Standard #9, the proposed new wood 2/2 windows, the proposed new multi-light wood (or fiberglass) hinged doors, and the proposed new two-story porch, with detailing that echoes that of the existing front porch are differentiated from the old and are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, the proposed alterations 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 407 E. Buffalo Street and 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 4 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: Yes D. Kramer M. McGandy E. Finegan S. Gibian C. O’Malley No Abstain B. 40 Ridgewood Rd., Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Alter Rear Roof David Ruff recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He indicated the changes could not be implemented at any other time of year, since building is an active sorority. C. O’Malley asked if the proposed low parapet wall would extend all the way from the front to the rear of the property, to which D. Ruff replied, yes, but it would not be noticeable from the street. S. Gibian observed he does not believe the low parapet wall would be as invisible as the applicant suggests, and asked if it could be moved further back from the edge of the roof, to preserve the existing relationship of the eave detailing on the main house and the addition. M. McGandy indicated he would have liked to see more detail on the drawings, including an elevation. S. Gibian agreed. M. McGandy remarked he does not doubt the need for the low parapet wall, but that he simply cannot reconcile the different drawings and images to form a complete understanding of how it would appear. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by C. O’Malley, E. Finegan opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy. M. McGandy reiterated that he understands the need for the alteration, and would likely vote in favor, but he would prefer to include a condition in the resolution that would encourage the applicant to move the parapet wall in further from the edge of the roof. D. Ruff responded that he would confer with the project engineer to see what may be done to address the Commission’s concerns. RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 40 Ridgewood Road is located in 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 5/22/12, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks 5 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 Preservation Commission (ILPC) by applicant David Ruff, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Change(s); (2) one photograph showing the side of the building and indicating the affected roof; and (3) an engineering drawing titled “Sections and Details Rear Wing Roof Replacement,” dated 2/15/12, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 40 Ridgewood Road, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as described in the Description of Proposed Change(s) and shown in the drawing provided, the proposed project involves the reconfiguration of the rear wing roof to provide an 8”-tall curb, covered and capped in metal, that will direct water to scuppers and downspouts, a change which the applicant states is necessary to prevent a recurrence of water damage to the wall of the building resulting from improper drainage off this very flat roof, and WHEREAS, the installation of a new rubber membrane surface on this roof was previously approved by the ILPC at their June 14, 2011 regular meeting, and WHEREAS, the project 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 6/12/12, 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, the house was constructed sometime after 1924 and is architecturally significant as a representative example of the Colonial Revival style. Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and possessing a moderate level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell Heights Historic District. 6 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to reconfigure the roof of the rear wing of the building by constructing an 8”-tall curb, which will be covered and capped in metal, to correct inadequate drainage. 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: #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. #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 Standard #2, the proposed roof alteration will affect an area of the structure that is a later addition. The construction of an 8”-tall curb near the roof edge on this rear wing will not alter a feature or space that characterizes the property. With respect to Standard #9, the addition of an 8”-tall curb near the roof edge on this rear wing will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new curb will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity 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 228-4E(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, with the following condition: 7 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 The existing frieze detail at the eave, which aligns with the frieze on the main block of the house, will be retained. If technically feasible, the curb will be pulled back from the edge of the roof so that its face is in plane with the face of the wall below, leaving a small roof overhang outside the curb, projecting over the wall below. If this revision is not technically feasible, staff may approve the location of the curb as originally proposed. RECORD OF VOTE: Yes M. McGandy C. O’Malley E. Finegan S. Gibian D. Kramer No Abstain D. 308 N. Cayuga St., Dewitt Park Historic District ― Proposal to Remove Rear Stairs, Porch, & Door, & Alter Roof Line to Accommodate Interior Alterations Nancy Medsker recapitulated the salient details of the proposed changes. E. Finegan asked how old the porch in question is. N. Medsker replied she believes it was built in the early 1970s, but she is not certain. Certainly, it is not original. E. Finegan asked what kind of window would be installed, to which N. Medsker indicated it would be a Pella double-hung window with narrow mullions. She intends to have the window designed so that its lights have the same proportions as those in the rest of the house; the overall dimensions of the window would be adjusted accordingly. Commenting on the second proposed change, S. Gibian indicated he would prefer that the new closet adjacent to the new bathroom were reduced in size so that the exterior wall of the addition could be set back from the plane of the original wall below. C. O’Malley agreed. N. Medsker agreed to do so. D. Kramer commented that the four-light frieze window on the north wall of the existing rear wing is a charming detail that should be preserved if possible. Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, E. Finegan opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, 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, 308 North Cayuga Street is located in the DeWitt Park Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1971, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1971, and 8 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated May 25, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner, Nancy Medsker, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) three architectural drawings respectively labeled “A1.00 Floorplans,” “A2.00 Exterior Elevations,” and “A.2.01 Exterior Elevations;” and (3) one sheet, showing photographs of existing conditions and three-dimensional renderings of the proposed alterations, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 308 North Cayuga Street, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, the proposed project involves removal of an existing, non-original porch and stair at the first-floor rear (west) elevation of the building, replacement of the existing non-original door served by that stair with a new double-hung window, and removal of an adjacent non-original window; and construction of an addition to house a new bathroom at the second-story 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 Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on June 12, 2012, 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 DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the DeWitt Park Historic District is identified as 1820-1930. As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 308 North Cayuga Street, also known as the Beebe-Halsey House, was constructed in 1820 by prominent local businessman, Jeremiah Beebe. It is one of the oldest extant structures in the city of Ithaca and one of the few remaining Federal style buildings. In 1850, the house was sold to another prominent local businessman, William Halsey, who added the south wing. Pictorial evidence appears to suggest the north wing was added sometime after 1895. 9 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 Constructed within the period of significance of the DeWitt Park Historic District and possessing an unusually high level of architectural integrity, the property is a contributing element of the DeWitt Park Historic District. As described in the Certificate of Appropriateness Application, the purpose of the proposal is to remove a deteriorated non-original rear entry and to construct a small addition to house a new bathroom at the second-story level, both alterations being located on the rear (west) elevation. 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: #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. #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 Standard #2, removal of the non-original stair and porch, removal of the non-original window, and replacement of the non-original door served by this stair with a new wood double-hung 6/6 window will not remove distinctive historic materials that characterize the property and will not alter features that characterize the property. With respect to Standard #2, the proposed new bathroom addition would be constructed in an area on the rear of the building, where numerous other additions to the original house already exist. The proposed addition will not remove distinctive historic materials that characterize the property and will not alter a feature or space that characterizes the property. 10 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 With respect to Standard #9, removal of the non-original stair and porch, the removal of the non-original window, the replacement of the non-original door served by that stair with a new wood double-hung 6/6 window, and the construction of the new bathroom addition will not destroy distinctive historic materials that characterize the property. Again with respect to Standard #9, the new 6/6 wood double-hung window that is proposed to replace the existing non-original rear entry door is differentiated from the old and is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. Again with respect to Standard #9, the proposed bathroom addition, as detailed on the architectural drawings provided and as modified by the condition placed on this Certificate of Appropriateness, is differentiated from the old and is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. RESOLVED, that, based on findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of 308 North Cayuga Street and the DeWitt Park 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 with the following condition: The south wall of the proposed bathroom addition will be moved approximately two feet to the north, so that it is set back from the first-floor wall plane of the house. Existing eaves and eave detailing will be retained at both the north and south walls of this addition. The existing four-light frieze window on the north elevation below the new bathroom addition will be retained, if allowed by code. RECORD OF VOTE: Yes S. Gibian D. Kramer E. Finegan M. McGandy C. O’Malley No Abstain E. 102 The Knoll (Delta Chi), Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Upgrade Existing Gravel Parking Area & Create Additional Parking Along Entrance Drive Annette Marchesseault, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, and David Weber, Delta Chi Fraternity Alumnus, recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. 11 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 A. Marchesseault stressed that the property was constructed in 1915, in the age of the car, expressly for the purpose of being used as a fraternity house. She indicated that no formal landscape plan has ever been found for the property. M. McGandy asked what the full parking occupancy of the property would be, to which A. Marchesseault replied, 26 parking spaces (the house itself can accommodate 40 residents). Currently, there are 18 official parking spaces, which limit the property to an occupancy of 36; however, more than half the residents generally own and operate vehicles. D. Weber added that the fraternity chapter is large, with 60 or 90 people depending on the time of year. As a result of its size, roughly half the members cannot live on-site, but periodically need to drive there for meetings. C. O’Malley asked if any additional access between the parking lot and house was planned, to which A. Marchesseault replied, no, given the steepness of the slope. Residents and guests would either need to employ the existing stairway or walk around to the driveway. S. Gibian asked how snow removal would work, with the addition of the planned retaining wall. A. Marchesseault indicated that, while the retaining wall would make it a little more difficult, snow removal would remain possible. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, E. Finegan opened the public hearing. John Schroeder, 618 Stewart Avenue, and member of the Planning and Development Board, indicated some changes to the site were submitted to the Project Review Committee some time ago, proposing to cut down the hickory trees on the site, which ultimately did not occur. At a later date, Planning Board members also expressed concern with a proposal to add parking spaces along the road and the deleterious impact this would have on a row of evergreens. A. Marchesseault indicated that those evergreens had since been removed. J. Schroeder responded that the concern had been, nonetheless, that the trees line the curb and define the edges of the drive. A. Marchesseault remarked that the island would be curbed, while hedges are being proposed to define the other portions of the parking area. E. McCollister remarked there has been a terrible incidence of tree vandalism over the past year and she would suggest the applicant ensure any newly added trees are well-protected. There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy. 12 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 S. Gibian remarked that the proposed quarry stone walls appear somewhat rough to his eye. He would much rather see something more refined in appearance. M. McGandy agreed the rough-hewn limestone seems inappropriate for the site ― it is too rustic in comparison to the more distinguished-looking house. A. Marchesseault responded that the quarry stone is considerably more economical than most alternatives (e.g., a veneered concrete wall). She suggested adding some landscaping to the site, to address the Commission’s concerns. C. O’Malley expressed concern with the prospect of introducing landscaping on an historic site for which there is no historical precedent. M. McGandy indicated that any condition the Commission agrees on to address its concerns with the materials of the retaining wall could be entrusted to staff to review and approve. A condition was added to the language of the resolution. RESOLUTION: Moved by C. O’Malley, second by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 102 The Knoll 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 May 29, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Annette Marchesseault on behalf of property owner Delta Chi fraternity, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) six drawings respectively labeled “L100 Existing Conditions Plan,” “L101 Demolition Plan,” “L201 Site layout Plan,” “L301 Grading Plan,” “L401 Planting Plan,” and “L501 Site Details;” and (3) one sheet of photographs, showing existing conditions at the site, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 102 The Knoll, 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: replacing one existing curbcut with two new curbcuts further north on Barton Place; installing a new curb and tree lawn along the Barton Place parking area; installing curbing at the curved drive in front of the building; creating nine new parking spaces along the curved drive in front of the building; paving and/or repaving all parking areas; installing limestone block retaining walls at both the Barton Place parking area and in two areas on the curved entrance drive; and new landscaping, including a hedge along the curved drive in front of the house, and 13 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 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 12, 2012, 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, Delta Chi Fraternity House, constructed in 1914-1915, is architecturally and historically significant as an example of the work of locally prominent architects, Arthur Gibb and Ornan Waltz, and as an excellent example of the Tudor Revival style, popular in the early decades of the 20th century during the first period of the development of Cornell Heights. 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 now before the ILPC is to upgrade an existing parking area at Barton Place and create nine new parking spaces along the curved entrance drive, in front of the house. 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: 14 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 #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. #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 Standard #2, the alterations proposed for the existing gravel parking lot on Barton Place affect an area that is remote from, and significantly lower in elevation than, the historic structure and its primary landscaping. These proposed alterations will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. With respect to Standard #9, the proposed alterations to the Barton Place parking area are remote from and not visible from the historic structure and its primary landscaping. The proposed alterations are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the historic district as a whole. With respect to Standard #2, the creation of nine new parking spaces along the circular entrance drive will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The proposed new parking stalls are located, spaced, and landscaped in such a manner that their presence does not negatively impact the formal, landscaped approach to the main entrance of the house. With respect to Standard #9, the creation of nine new parking spaces along the circular entrance drive will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. Also with respect to Standard #9, the nine new parking spaces along the circular entrance drive and their associated landscaping and retaining walls 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 228-4E(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 with the following condition: 15 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 The proposed retaining wall material and detailing will be revised so that the walls have a less rustic, more refined, appearance, in keeping with the character of the Tudor Revival style house. Revised details will be proposed for final approval by staff. RECORD OF VOTE: Yes C. O’Malley D. Kramer E. Finegan S. Gibian M. McGandy No Abstain IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Second Preliminary Concept Review, 312 Thurston Ave., Cornell Heights Historic District Graham Gillespie and Nathan Brown, HOLT Architects, recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. G. Gillespie indicated the applicant also appeared before the Planning and Development Board in May to present its sketch plan of the project, and received similar feedback to that of the Commission (e.g., the height of the project, etc.). As a result, the applicant has now broken down the massing of the buildings, adjusted the setbacks, and modified the colors and materials. G. Gillespie added that the applicant explored the issue of removing a number of units, but this would not have been economically viable without the addition of a building, which did not prove to be a satisfactory solution. The applicant’s second approach involved breaking up the buildings and splaying them along the ridgeline, providing a view through the site. The remainder of the site essentially remains the same, such as the access route and central parking area. The landscaping was developed considerably more than originally proposed, including new vegetation, since grading would eliminate more of the extant vegetation. The applicant also added a flat roof in the central portion of one building and dropped floor- to-floor height by one foot. M. McGandy asked what the total elevation loss turned out to be, to which N. Brown replied, approximately 3 feet. M. McGandy remarked he does not believe the retention of the balconies, even as modified, addresses the concerns brought up at the May 2012 Commission meeting. They still appear architecturally inappropriate, in comparison with the surrounding buildings. Additionally, as had been noted at the last meeting, balconies have a strong tendency to become a nuisance to neighbors. M. McGandy also noted that, although the articulation of the buildings in the new project design possesses some merit, he wonders if the 3-story option is not something the applicant should reconsider. 16 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 N. Brown responded that the applicant would have needed to perform substantial regrading of the project in order to accommodate the 3-story option. Producing the same number of units would have required 6 buildings, which would have extended around the entire site, almost closing the site off completely. S. Gibian remarked that the applicant’s insistence on maintaining the same number of units seems inflexible. J. Schroeder indicated the Planning Board expressed to the applicant that it should individualize the buildings as much as possible, which was done, to some extent; however, the Planning Board’s other principal concern ― the size and institutional appearance of the central parking area ― does not appear to have been addressed. At the Planning Board meeting, it was proposed the applicant incorporate the unused parking spaces adjacent to the Highland House in its design. G. Gillespie responded that current City Code requires 43 parking spaces for the project and the Fire Department would also need to ensure it has sufficient access to the entire site. N. Brown added that Highland House only has approximately 4-5 excess parking spots, which would only marginally help to address the Planning Board’s concerns. D. Kramer suggested the applicant reconsider incorporating the Highland House site as part of a more comprehensive global approach to addressing the Planning Board’s and Commission’s concerns. C. O’Malley indicated that, while she appreciates the work that was done modifying the original design, she still has a strong objection to the overall height of the project and the resulting visual impact on the historic district. S. Gibian added the new project design also creates an odd relationship between the buildings and the grading. One fewer building would be far better, visually. E. McCollister remarked that the project also lacks detailing, as well as fenestration on the sidewalls. D. Kramer agreed that the lack of fenestration is a concern. M. McGandy suggested reconfiguring the project so the parking is situated on the peripheries of the site, which could be far more easily screened than the buildings. E. Finegan and D. Kramer did not agree that this would reduce the visual impact of the project. At this juncture, L. Truame remarked that the applicant may choose to bring the project back to the Commission for another review, taking into account the continuing concerns that have been expressed. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 121 Heights Court, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Construct Backyard Fence The applicant was not present to appear before the Commission. L. Truame recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. 17 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 S. Gibian remarked the proposed placement of the fence on the property line would create a very narrow a space between the fence and the garage located on an adjoining property. L. Truame noted that while this may be true, the applicant was within his legal rights to place the fence on the property line. D. Kramer remarked that the styling of the fence looks acceptable. Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, E. Finegan opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer. RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 121 Heights Court 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 May 28, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Bill Demo, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Change(s); (2) a quote from Whitmore Fence, describing the proposed fence and its materials; (3) a sheet of photographs showing the appearance of the proposed fence and of four similar wood fences that currently exist adjacent to the subject property; and (4) a site plan showing the proposed location of the fence, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 121 Heights Court 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 construction of a six-foot tall cedar fence in the “sandwich” style along the west and south sides of the rear yard at 121 Heights Court, in an area that is not visible from the street, 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 18 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 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 6/12/12, 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, 121 Heights Court was constructed c. 1914-1915 in the Classical Revival style. 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 construct a fence to enclose the south and west sides of the rear yard. 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: #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. 19 of 20 ILPC Minutes June 12, 2012 20 of 20 With respect to Standard #9, the construction of the new fence along the south and west sides of the rear yard of the property does not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. Also with respect to Standard #9, the simple “sandwich” style six-foot tall cedar fence is similar in style, scale, and materials to several other existing fences in the immediate vicinity. The proposed fence is differentiated from the old and is sufficiently compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, the new fence 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: Yes E. Finegan D. Kramer S. Gibian M. McGandy C. O’Malley No Abstain III. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Vice-Chair Finegan. Respectfully Submitted, Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission