Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2013-02-12Approved by ILPC: 4/9/13 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes – February 12, 2013 Present: Sue Stein, Chair Christine O’Malley Michael McGandy David Kramer Stephen Gibian Ashima Krishna Lynn Truame, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. L. Truame reminded the Commission that a public hearing item that appeared on an earlier version of the agenda (“Sibley Hall, Cornell Art Quad Historic District – Proposal to replace windows”) had been removed from this month’s agenda at the request of the applicant. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 212 Fall Creek Drive, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Deteriorated Rolled Roofing on Non-Contributing Garage Applicants Hilary Fraser and Michelle Morris recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by C. O’Malley, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy. D. Kramer observed that the chosen roofing material (EPDM) seems like the obvious choice in this particular case, given the extremely low slope of the roof. S. Gibian remarked that the roof is not at all visible to the public. RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 212 Fall Creek Drive is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated January 24, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Hilary Fraser, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a proposal from Michael Snyder’s Construction, Inc., describing the proposed work; (3) four photographs showing existing conditions at the building; and (4) a sample piece of EPDM roofing, and 1 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 212 Fall Creek Drive and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves replacement of deteriorated roll roofing and underlying sheathing on a non-contributing concrete-block garage with black EPDM roofing, 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 February 12, 2013, 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, 212 Fall Creek Drive was constructed in 1909-1911 and is an interesting early-twentieth century eclectic design that incorporates a dual-pitched hipped roof and Craftsman detailing. The garage that is the subject of the proposed project is a non-contributing later addition to the site. 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 garage that is the subject of the proposed work is a non- contributing element within the district. The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to replace deteriorated roll roofing and associated sheathing on the garage. 2 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 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 228-5 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following Principles and Standards: Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the replacement of deteriorated roll roofing on this non-contributing garage will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new EPDM roofing is 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 228-5, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. 3 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0 Yes S. Gibian D. Kramer A. Krishna M. McGandy C. O’Malley S. Stein No Abstain B. 315 N. Cayuga Street, DeWitt Park Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Deteriorated Slate Roofing, Flashing, Internal Gutter System, Snow Guards, & Dormer Cladding, and to Install Skylight Covers Applicants Richard Applebaum and Andrew Germain recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. D. Kramer asked if the skylight covers would be temporary. R. Applebaum replied, yes. The church has no plans at present to reopen the skylights, but they want to preserve that option by making these covers totally reversible. Noting that the current slate roof is not original and that the building had been built in 1901, D. Kramer asked if it seemed surprising that two slate roofs had deteriorated to the point of needing replacement in just 100 years. A. Germain responded that it was surprising and that it appeared to be due to sliding ice and snow damage. Public Hearing On a motion by C. O’Malley, seconded by S. Gibian, S. Stein 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 D. Kramer, seconded by A. Krishna. WHEREAS, 315 N. Cayuga Street, is located in the DeWitt Park Historic District, as designated under Section 228-3 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 WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated January 22, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Richard Applebaum on behalf of property owner the First Presbyterian Church, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) nine sheets of architectural drawings, numbered R001, R100, R101, R102, R200, R201, R202, R300, and R301, and dated January 14, 2013, depicting the proposed project in its entirety, and 4 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 315 N. Cayuga Street, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, the proposed project involves replacement of the non-original slate roof with new slate, replacement of the deteriorated original integral gutter system, replacement of non- original snow guards and installation of additional snow guards, replacement of deteriorated copper dormer cladding, and installation of copper skylight covers, 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 February 12, 2013, 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, 315 N. Cayuga Street was constructed in 1900 in the Romanesque style and is a pivotal structure in the DeWitt Park Historic District. The church was designed by noted New York City architect, J. Cleaveland Cady, whose major works include the original Metropolitan Opera House and the American Museum of Natural History. Constructed within the period of significance of the DeWitt Park Historic District and possessing a 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 address deteriorated components of the roof covering and drainage systems. 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. 5 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 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 228-5 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following Principles and Standards: Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. Standard #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. Standard #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. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of the non- original slate roof covering and associated copper flashings, the replication of the deteriorated integral gutter system, the replacement of non-original snow guards and addition of new rail-type snow guards, the in-kind replacement of original copper dormer cladding, and the installation of standing-seam copper skylight covers will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. 6 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, the condition of the original integral gutter system and copper dormer cladding has been evaluated by Crawford & Stearns, an architectural firm specializing in historic preservation. Crawford & Stearns has determined that the severity of the deterioration of these original components requires their replacement. Although the slate roof and associated flashings and the snow guards proposed for replacement were installed outside the district’s period of significance, they are historically-appropriate later additions. The proposed new work will match the old in design, color, texture, material, and other visual qualities. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new slate roof covering and associated flashing, integral gutter system, snow guards, copper dormer cladding, and copper skylight covers are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, added snow guards and skylights covers 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 findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the property and the DeWitt Park Historic District as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets the criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0 Yes D. Kramer A. Krishna S. Gibian M. McGandy C. O’Malley S. Stein No Abstain C. Sibley Hall, Cornell Arts Quad Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Roofing and Skylights Applicant Stella Betts and Cornell Facilities Projects Manager Art Stern recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. D. Kramer asked if the new skylights would be the same dimensions as the old. S. Betts replied, yes, everything being replaced will be the same dimensions as the old. 7 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 S. Gibian remarked he was surprised to see three-tab shingles being used. He asked what the original shingles were. A. Stern replied he is unsure. They do not have the original East Sibley Hall drawings. However, the shingles that are currently on the roof in the affected location are three-tab. S. Gibian observed that the skylights are not visible from the ground. RESOLUTION: Moved by A. Krishna, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, Sibley Hall is located within the Cornell Arts Quad Historic District, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1990, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated January 28, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by LEVENBETTS Architects on behalf of property owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) detailed narrative descriptions of the proposed work accompanied by photographs of the existing conditions at the affected area; (3) specifications for the proposed replacement shingles and skylights; (4) four sheets of architectural drawings, labeled A001-A004, dated 1/29/13; and (5) four sheets of architectural drawings, labeled A005-A008, dated 1/25/13, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for Sibley Hall, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Arts Quad Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves replacement of existing asphalt shingles on the low-slope portion of the East Sibley roof with new asphalt shingles, removal of three sheet metal ventilation hats related to the original passive ventilation system of the building, replacement of the existing skylights with new skylights, and the addition of two new rooftop exhaust vents, and WHEREAS the applicant has withdrawn their request for repair and replacement of windows at this time and will return with a more complete proposal for this work at a later date, 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 February 12, 2013, now therefore be it 8 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: The period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Arts Quad is identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Arts Quad Historic District Summary Significance Statement as 1868-1919. As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, Sibley Hall was originally constructed in 1870 and received additions in 1881, 1884, 1894, and 1902. The original building was designed by Archimedes Russell, with later additions by Arthur N. Gibb (Sibley Dome) and Charles F. Osborne (East Sibley Hall). Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Arts Quad Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell Arts Quad Historic District. The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to renovate the third floor of East Sibley for use by students and faculty as studio and office space. The project has a goal of achieving LEED Silver status. 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 228-5 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following Principles and Standards: Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. 9 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 Standard #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 Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of the existing asphalt shingles on the low slope portion of the roof will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The removal of the three sheet metal ventilation hats related to the original passive ventilation system of the building will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The replacement of the existing skylights will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The addition of two new rooftop exhaust vents will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as documented in the Application for Certificate of Appropriateness and based on observations made by ILPC Commission members during their February 7, 2013, site visit to the property, the severity of deterioration of the skylights requires their replacement. The proposed new work will match the old in design, color, texture, material and other visual qualities. 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 Arts Quad Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0 Yes A. Krishna M. McGandy S. Gibian D. Kramer C. O’Malley S. Stein No Abstain D. 402/404 Eddy Street, East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Alter Main Entrance & Rear Exit to Meet Egress Requirements Applicant Todd Zwigard and Contractor John Edwards recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. 10 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 Regarding the new handicapped-accessible front entrance, C. O’Malley asked if the door would be automated. T. Zwigard replied, no, code only requires that there be 18” clearance on the pull side, which will be the case. L. Truame remarked that City Code Inspector Bob Ripa and the Building Division have examined the application and determined it is compliant with existing code. C. O’Malley noted that the flower box option that was presented would work better, visually, than the handrail option ― the handrails seem ungainly. D. Kramer agreed. S. Stein noted she appreciates the applicant’s reuse of the existing main door. Regarding the replacement of the rear door, D. Kramer asked if the applicant would also replace the two-light door behind the aluminum door. T. Zwigard replied, yes, that is the door that will be affected. It will be replaced and the swing of the door will be reversed. S. Gibian asked if the door would continue to be centered between the two windows that flank it. T. Zwigard replied, no. The applicant cannot enlarge the door opening by extending it to the north, since doing so would interfere with access to the restroom on the interior. C. O’Malley asked how one would access the rear (exterior) stairway, since reversing the swing of the door would appear to block that stair. T. Zwigard replied he assumes the door would need to be opened more than 90° ― he may need to take a closer look at that. C. O’Malley asked if the rear door would be considered a fire exit. T. Zwigard replied, yes. S. Gibian observed the applicant will be creating an asymmetrical configuration of the windows. T. Zwigard noted that he is reasonably certain it is already somewhat asymmetrical and he is trying to keep the alterations as simple as possible. After continued discussion of the potential for the reserved door swing to block access to the rear stair, L. Truame suggested the Commission proceed on the assumption that access to the rear egress stairway will not be blocked, and include a condition in its resolution requiring the Building Division to specifically review that apparent conflict prior to issuing the permit. S. Gibian asked if the applicant could recess the steel angle iron that will support the brick above the widened door. T. Zwigard replied the applicant would look into that and determine if that is something that could be done. The face of the brick would need to be ground down to make the face of the steel flush with the brick above. Public Hearing On a motion by C. O’Malley, seconded by M. McGandy, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer. 11 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 M. McGandy asked if all the Commission members were comfortable with the asymmetry of the door. C. O’Malley and S. Stein replied, yes. No objections were raised. RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by C. O’Malley. WHEREAS, 402/404 Eddy Street is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under Section 228-3 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 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated January 29, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Todd Zwigard on behalf of property owners Dale Sherwood and Charlie Tallman, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) one architectural drawing and one Photoshop rendering, each depicting two alternatives for the detailing of the new ADA-accessible entrance on Eddy Street, plus one additional Photoshop rendering of Option 2, depicting an alternate color scheme; and (3) three architectural drawings depicting the proposed alterations to the rear door and stairs, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the entry for 402/404 Eddy Street in the annotated property list accompanying the National Register nomination for the East Hill Historic District, 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 eliminating one existing step, modifying the height of the existing door, and installing a small ramp and railing at the existing main entrance to 402 Eddy Street; and widening one rear egress door and the existing stairs from the first floor to grade, 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 February 12, 2013, 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. 12 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 402/404 Eddy Street was constructed circa 1895. It is a representative example of turn of the century masonry mixed-use commercial/residential architecture, constructed during a period of urbanization on East Hill that occurred in response to the demand for student lodging and services close to the Cornell campus. 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 alter the main entrance on Eddy Street and the rear first floor egress door and stairs to meet code 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 228-5 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following Principles and Standards: Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 13 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the elimination of the single step at the main entrance, installation of a ramp and railing or planter box and related modification of the existing door will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, widening the first floor rear egress door and stairs from the first floor to grade will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new two-panel rear egress door, the proposed new planter box at the main entry (Option 1) and the proposed new railing at the main entry (Option 2) are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. Of the two options presented for protecting the ramp edge at the main entry door, the Commission finds that Option 1, the planter box, is the more visually appropriate option. With respect to Standard #10, the proposed main entrance and rear 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 the property and the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, with the following condition: Approval to widen the rear egress door as proposed is conditioned upon the City of Ithaca Building Division specifically confirming that the proposed operation of the new door is acceptable. The Commission notes that this door, when opened, currently appears to block access to the rear egress stair. RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0 Yes M. McGandy C. O’Malley S. Gibian D. Kramer A. Krishna S. Stein No Abstain 14 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST • 312 Thurston Avenue, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Requesting the Commission’s Informal Input on Recent Design Revisions Applicant Graham Gillespie, HOLT Architects, and agent for the owner, RABCO Highland House, LLC, presented an overview of revisions made to the project since it was presented to the Commission in January 2013 for a Certificate of Appropriateness. He remarked that no formal presentation or application is being made at this time. The applicant is simply interested in knowing whether their attempts to respond to the Commission’s prior concerns with the project might be moving in the right direction. Since denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness in January, the applicant has eliminated one building, increased the height of all remaining buildings to four stories, moved the project further up the hill, and re-oriented the buildings to preserve more of the existing vegetation. At this time, the applicant would like to hear feedback from Commission members about the new direction they have taken with the design. M. McGandy asked if the parking lot is now the same size it was originally. G. Gillespie replied, yes, although the applicant will probably also need to add 4 parking spaces back to the driveway. M. McGandy noted that he voted to approve the project in January, but since the design is being revised he would note that the Arts and Crafts style was not entirely successful due to the project’s large scale. He suggested the applicant consider some other identifiable architectural styles found in the community. G. Gillespie responded that is definitely something the applicant would like to discuss further, including getting an overall sense of the appropriateness of the height and massing of the proposed buildings. L. Truame suggested that if a change in architectural style is being considered, a Tudor Revival approach would allow the fourth story to be contained within the roof space, using dormers for light and air, which would lower the actual, as well as the perceived, height of the buildings. S. Gibian remarked that the orientation of building number four still seems to conflict with the axis to the street. D. Kramer indicated he appreciates the work that has gone into trying to make this project fit the site ― however, he continues to feel that the size, scale, and massing of the buildings are simply not in keeping with the historic district. He could not personally approve a project of this scale (and he does not believe any amount of vegetative screening would ultimately resolve his concerns). C. O’Malley remarked that L. Truame’s dormer suggestion certainly seems worth pursuing. She added that she finds the current configuration of the buildings, now that one has been eliminated, to be a significant improvement. 15 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 S. Stein remarked that her concern continues to be the density of the project on that particular parcel ― the parcel simply does not appear large enough for the proposed buildings. She does not understand why the project needs so much density. G. Gillespie remarked that the R-U Zoning District was originally established with the thought that additional density in the district would be a positive change. L. Truame observed that the R-U Zoning District was established in the 1970s, whereas the historic district was designated in 1989. Ideally, Common Council would at that time have revisited the potential conflict between the two where the RU zone overlaps the historic district, but unfortunately that did not occur. S. Stein indicated she would likely vote against the project in its latest configuration. C. O’Malley indicated she likes many of the changes that had been made, but she is not comfortable with the height of the project, now that the buildings have been returned to four stories. She would also likely vote against the project in this configuration. S. Gibian indicated he would likely vote for the project in its new configuration, if it were reduced to three stories. He added that the project would benefit greatly, however, if the buildings could be differentiated from each other. L. Truame indicated that Commission member Ed Finegan, who was not present, had expressed to her discomfort with the return to a four-story height, even with the elimination of one building. G. Gillespie thanked the Commission for its time. The applicant has obtained a clearer understanding of what the Commission could potentially approve and will continue to work on refining the design. III. NEW BUSINESS • 115 West Clinton & Henry St. John Historic District L. Truame noted that 115 West Clinton Street is now a part of the Henry St. John Historic District. In the nomination prepared by Historic Ithaca that was approved by Common Council, the building was characterized as a contributing element in the district, in spite of its having been moved in the 1990s to its current location on the lawn area adjacent to the Henry St. John School building. Truame noted that buildings that have been moved are typically not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, due to the loss of their historic context. Truame indicated that before she requests Certification of the district from the SHPO, she wants to be sure the Commission is comfortable with the characterization of this particular building as a contributing feature. After some discussion the Commission unanimously agreed that 115 West Clinton Street should be considered a non-contributing element in the Henry St. John Historic District due to the loss of its historic context. 16 of 17 ILPC Minutes February 12, 2013 17 of 17 IV. OLD BUSINESS • Update on Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines L. Truame indicated the current version of the Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines had been distributed to Commission members for comment. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by D. Kramer, and seconded by M. McGandy, Commission members unanimously approved the following meeting minutes, with no modifications: • January 13, 2013 (Regular Meeting) VI. STAFF REPORT None. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:10 p.m. by Chair Stein. Respectfully Submitted, Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission