HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2013-03-12Approved by ILPC: 4/9/13
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – March 12, 2013
Present:
Sue Stein, Chair
Ed Finegan, Vice Chair
Christine O’Malley
Michael McGandy
Stephen Gibian
Ashima Krishna
Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison
Lynn Truame, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 410 Thurston Ave., Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Windows
Applicant Sara Niechwiadowicz recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project.
M. McGandy asked if the applicant knows when the porch was enclosed and the existing windows
installed. S. Niechwiadowicz replied she has not found that information in Cornell’s files, but it appears
to have been sometime prior to 1980.
E. Finegan asked if there would be divided lights on the upper sash. S. Niechwiadowicz replied, yes. S.
Gibian asked if they would be wood divided lights. S. Niechwiadowicz replied, yes.
S. Gibian observed that the divided lights on adjacent windows are lead came, which creates a much
thinner division than a true divided light wood muntin would allow. S. Niechwiadowicz replied she
would look into that.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by E. Finegan, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being
no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by C. O’Malley.
S. Gibian noted that it seems clear the existing windows are not original to the period of construction.
S. Stein observed that three vendors are mentioned in the application. She asked which one would be
selected. S. Niechwiadowicz replied she believes the architects, EYP Architecture & Engineering,
selected the vendors. The intent was to give the general contractor the choice of the three appropriate
options for bidding purposes.
S. Gibian remarked that insulated glass cannot be accommodated in a narrow muntin profile; so the
applicant will end up with rather thick muntins if they go with true divided lights. He suggested that the
applicant consider using simulated divided lights to achieve the look of a thinner muntin.
1 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 12, 2013
RESOLUTION: Moved by C. O’Malley, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 410 Thurston Avenue 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 February 28, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Sara Niechwiadowicz on behalf of
property owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) two expanded narratives,
including photographs and technical specifications, respectively titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) two architectural drawings
showing the proposed work, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 410
Thurston Avenue, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
replacement of four deteriorated, non-original, tri-partite wood window units located in
the west wing of the building with new custom wood true divided light windows to match
existing original windows located elsewhere on the building. The window replacement is
part of a larger maintenance project that includes stucco and roofing repairs and in-kind
replacement, which have been reviewed and approved at the staff 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 a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on
March 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.
2 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 12, 2013
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 410 Thurston
Avenue was constructed in 1916-17 in an interpretation of the Mission style for Edward
G. Wyckoff, partner in the Cornell Heights Land Company. The west wing, which is the
subject of this proposal, was originally an open porch.
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 replace four deteriorated non-
original window units.
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 #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.
3 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 12, 2013
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of these four
non-original tri-partite window units will not remove distinctive materials and will not
alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new true divided light wood
windows are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the
property and its environment, depending upon the final design of the muntins.
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, with the
following conditions:
The applicant will submit shop drawings or a mock-up of the window prior to the start of
construction, for staff approval. Simulated divided lights (with profiled grids on the
interior and exterior, and a spacer bar between the panes) will be allowed, if that would
result in a thinner muntin profile that will better harmonize with existing original
windows located on the building.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
C. O’Malley
M. McGandy
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
A. Krishna
S. Stein
No
Abstain
B. Sibley Hall, Cornell Arts Quad Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Windows
Applicants Stella Betts and David Leven recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project.
Consultant Robert Bates, Walter B. Melvin Architects, noted that his firm specializes in the restoration
of historic exteriors and has worked on many similar projects. His firm performed the window survey
that is included in the application.
E. Finegan asked if sash weights would be used in the new window assembly. R. Bates replied, yes.
4 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 12, 2013
C. O’Malley asked for clarification of the risk of damage to the surrounds that the applicant mentioned
in his presentation. R. Bates responded that if the existing windows were removed for repair, the
surrounds would certainly be damaged because of the method of original installation. If, however, the
windows being removed were not going to be repaired, the surrounds could be protected during removal
and he would anticipate minimal damage, if any.
C. O’Malley asked for more information about the process for producing the new custom sash. R. Bates
replied that the design team would review and approve the shop drawings before the contractor was
allowed to proceed with production, to ensure all design requirements are satisfied.
M. McGandy asked the applicant to address the issue of the windows needing to be both “differentiated
from the old” and “compatible.” R. Bates replied that the new sash would utilize a chain rather than a
sash cord. D. Leven added that the planned didactic window unit, that explains the original windows to
the students, would also address that issue.
S. Gibian asked if there would be screening for the windows. D. Leven replied that there will be no
exterior-mounted screening. They may use temporary screens mounted on the interior, similar to what
is currently in place.
C. O’Malley asked if there were any plans to replace the rest of the Sibley Hall windows. K. Kleinman
replied, yes, but there is currently no funding in place for that project.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by M. McGandy, S. Stein opened the public hearing.
Alphonse F. Pieper, Executive Director of Historic Ithaca, read a prepared statement against the
proposed project, noting that Historic Ithaca does not believe the proposal meets Standard #6. He
remarked that, based on the information in the application, he does not believe the windows are
deteriorated enough to justify replacing them.
There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy,
seconded by E. Finegan.
M. McGandy asked the applicants if they would like to address A. Pieper’s comments. R. Bates
responded that he believes he had already done so, in the substance of his earlier comments.
Noting that the original application, submitted prior to completion of a window survey, assumed
replacement of all the windows, M. McGandy asked if Walter B. Melvin Architects had independently
reached the conclusion that each of the 41 windows did, in fact, need to be replaced. R. Bates replied,
yes.
S. Gibian observed that the critical issue for the Commission is whether the windows are genuinely too
deteriorated to be repaired.
5 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 12, 2013
E. Finegan asked the applicant to address in greater detail the condition of the windows and how the
conclusion had been reached that all 41 windows actually need to be replaced outright. It is not clear to
him.
R. Bates responded that the poor condition of the meeting rails and the loose lower sash are typical of all
the windows. It would not be possible to correct the meeting rail problem in-situ due to the original
installation method of the upper, fixed, sash. Removing that sash to repair the meeting rail would
jeopardize either the sash itself or the surround (again, because of the method of installation). He noted
that if the upper sashes had not been fixed in place, the way they currently are, the situation would have
been different.
E. Finegan remarked it is a very difficult case. He remarked that windows are moving parts of a
building and they do eventually give out (and these particular windows have already been repaired a
number of times). Given the quality and thoughtfulness of the proposal, E. Finegan indicated he would
be inclined to support it. He added that he believes the outside of the building would essentially look the
same as it does now.
RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by C. O’Malley.
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 February 21, 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) a narrative titled
“Project Purpose, Benefit and Scope;” (3) a narrative titled “Windows and Proposed
Modifications;” (4) specifications for the proposed replacement windows; and (5) fourteen
sheets of architectural drawings detailing the construction of the existing windows, the
construction of the proposed replacement windows, and a window survey describing the
condition of each window; 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 all forty-one of the existing original windows in the third floor, east wing, of
Sibley Hall, 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
6 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 12, 2013
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 March 12,
2013, now therefore be it
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.
7 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 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 all forty-one
original wood windows in East Sibley Hall will remove distinctive materials, but 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 and February 27, 2013 site visits to the property and
expert testimony offered by Walter Melvin Architects at the March 12, 2013, public hearing,
the severity of deterioration of all forty-one of the existing windows does require their
replacement. The proposed new work will match the old in design, color, texture, material,
and other visual qualities.
In addition to the above Principles and Standards, because the applicant has emphasized the
importance of sustainability and energy efficiency as goals of this window replacement
project, the ILPC has sought guidance in the application of the Standards from the National
Park Service publication, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation &
Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. In the section
on windows in this publication, the Commission notes that the following actions are
identified as “recommended:” maintaining windows on a regular basis to ensure that they
function properly and are completely operable; retaining and repairing historic windows
when deteriorated; weather stripping and caulking historic windows, when appropriate, to
make them weather tight; and installing interior or exterior storm windows or panels that are
compatible with existing historic windows. The following actions are identified as “not
recommended:” neglecting to maintain historic windows and allowing them to deteriorate
beyond repair with the result that they must be replaced; removing repairable historic
windows and replacing them with new windows for perceived improvement in energy
performance; and replacing repairable historic windows with new insulated windows.
The Commission notes that significant meeting rail deflection and a loss of historic material
that is integral to the function of the windows at the sides of the lower sash (caused by a
prior alteration) occur at all forty-one windows. According to expert testimony offered by
Walter Melvin Architects at the public hearing, it is not possible to adequately correct either
of these conditions through repair, either in the field of by removing the windows to a shop.
It was stated that the fixed upper sash cannot be removed without severe damage, because
of the original method of installation.
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,
8 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 12, 2013
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.
The Commission notes, with appreciation, that the Cornell College of Architecture, Art, and
Planning has indicated it will retain one original window for use in instructing architecture
students about the construction and function of historic weighted wood windows.
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-1-0
Yes
E. Finegan
C. O’Malley
S. Gibian
M. McGandy
S. Stein
No
A. Krishna
Abstain
C. 604 E. State Street, East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Replace Side Porch
Applicant Roger Smith recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project.
C. O’Malley asked if the new work would be painted. R. Smith replied, yes (and the proposed
composite deck material is already light gray).
C. O’Malley inquired into the size and spacing of the balusters. R. Smith replied they are about two
inches at their widest and have a somewhat sculpted profile. They would be spaced as shown in the
submitted sketch.
L. Truame observed that the sketch shows square 1 x 1 balusters, while the applicant is now describing a
different profile.
S. Gibian remarked that the porch is quite visible from East State Street. He also noted that, contrary to
what the application form states, the composite material is AERT (not Trex). He added that the
Commission should decide how it believes it should approach the use of synthetic material.
L. Truame remarked that the Commission approved the use of composite decking material in July 2012,
for the property at 210 Kelvin Place. In that decision the Commission specifically noted that the
material was approved because the two secondary entrances at which it was used were not visible to the
public.
E. Finean asked the applicant what he would use if he could not use the proposed synthetic material. R.
Smith replied, planking with pressure-treated lumber.
9 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 12, 2013
L. Truame expressed some concern with the process for reviewing the application, since the submitted
materials do not accurately describe the proposed materials and since no precise description of the
proposed baluster has been made available. She indicated that the Commission could either: (1) table
the application for lack of sufficient information; (2) delegate final approval of the baluster to staff; or
(3) act on the design that was submitted in the application (1 x 1 square balusters).
M. McGandy indicated he could support approving the application as submitted.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by A. Krishna, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being
no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by C.
O’Malley.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by A. Krishna.
WHEREAS, 604 E. State 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 February 26, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Roger Smith on behalf of property
owner David Kramer, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) two
dimensioned sketches showing the proposed new work, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
604 E. State 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
replacement of a deteriorated side porch (already removed) with a new porch using
pressure-treated wood for the structure and Trex decking, and
WHEREAS, the Commission notes that the material on site that is proposed for use in the decking and
treads is actually AERT composite, in the color gray, 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
10 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 12, 2013
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
March 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.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 604 E. State
Street was constructed between 1851 and 1866. It is a simple Greek Revival style
dwelling that has been altered by the addition of a Colonial Revival porch and of modern
siding.
Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and
retaining a reasonably high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the
East Hill Historic District.
The purpose of the proposal is to replace a deteriorated side porch.
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.
11 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 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.
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
deteriorated side porch, which was not original to the building, will not remove
distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, the applicant’s contractor has stated that
the existing side porch appeared to have been constructed circa the 1960s. Though there
may have been a porch in this location prior to that time, the porch that was removed was
not a distinctive historic feature. There is no evidence of the appearance of the earlier
porch that may have existed in this location. The Commission, therefore, has no basis for
determining whether or not the proposed new work would match the old in design, color,
texture, and other visual qualities and will employ the principle of compatibility in
determining the appropriateness of the new work; however, since Trex is a modern
material, the Commission finds that the new work would not match the old with respect
to materials. Due to the highly visible location of this porch, the use of composite
material for the stair treads and decking is not appropriate.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed new porch is compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the new porch 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,
12 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 12, 2013
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 conditions:
The decking and stair treads will be pressure-treated wood. All elements of the stair,
with the exception of the treads and decking, will be painted, once they have weathered
sufficiently to hold paint. The treads and decking will be stained and sealed. Balusters
are to be square 1x1, as depicted in the submitted sketch.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
M. McGandy
A. Krishna
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
C. O’Malley
S. Stein
No
Abstain
D. 105 Needham Place, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Install Fence
L. Truame announced that the applicant is out-of-town, but he asked that the Commission make a
decision on the application at this meeting. L. Truame then recapitulated the salient details of the
proposed project on the applicant’s behalf. She noted that the applicant provided Commission members
with a number of different options, from which he is expecting them to choose.
After some discussion, C. O’Malley indicated that she felt a white picket fence is not in keeping with the
Tudor Revival style of the residence. She would prefer dark-stained wood. S. Stein agreed, adding that
she preferred a dog-ear or flat top to the pickets as more in keeping with the style of the house.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by M. McGandy, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being
no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by E. Finegan, seconded by C.
O’Malley.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by A. Krishna.
WHEREAS, 105 Needham Place 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
13 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 12, 2013
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated February 22, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Robert Nead, including
the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s)
and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a letter from the applicant further explaining his
proposal; (3) a site map showing the location of the property within the historic district;
(4) a boundary map showing the proposed location of the fence on the site; (5) a
photograph showing the rear elevation of the residence; (6) a photograph showing a white
wood picket fence located within the Cornell Heights Historic District; and (7) two
computer images showing the “straight” fence profile and the “shaped” fence profile, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 105
Needham Place, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed two e-mails from the applicant, dated February 26, 2013,
which provide further information about the proposed materials for the fence and an
additional statement justifying the request, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
construction of a picket fence around the rear yard area of the residence, 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
March 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, 105 Needham
Place was constructed in 1907-09 in the Tudor Revival style for Cornell University
Professor James Needham.
14 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 12, 2013
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 construct a picket fence around
the rear yard to define an area for use by small children and pets.
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.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the construction of a picket
fence in this rear yard area will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter
features and spaces that characterize the property.
15 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 12, 2013
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new fence, if constructed
in accordance with the conditions enumerated below, is compatible with the massing,
size, scale, and architectural features 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 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, with the
following conditions:
A white picket fence, though appropriate at a residence of a different style, would not be
consistent with the Tudor Revival style of this residence, therefore, this approval is
conditioned upon the material used in construction of the fence being natural wood, the
color being a dark wood stain, the top profile between posts being straight, and the shape
of the individual pickets being dog-eared or flat-topped.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
S. Gibian
A. Krishna
E. Finegan
M. McGandy
C. O’Malley
S. Stein
No
Abstain
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
None.
III. OLD BUSINESS
• Commission Comments on Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines
L. Truame reported that she received comments from Commission members regarding the current
version of the Design Guidelines. Any other comments should be submitted to her as soon as possible,
since the document is nearing completion. She added she would make sure the document addresses the
composite building materials issue, as well as the fiber cement siding issue.
16 of 17
ILPC Minutes
March 12, 2013
17 of 17
IV. NEW BUSINESS
None.
V. STAFF REPORT
None.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:58 p.m. by Chair Stein.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission