HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2013-04-09Approved by ILPC: 5/14/13
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – April 9, 2013
Present:
Sue Stein, Chair
Ed Finegan, Vice Chair
Christine O’Malley
Michael McGandy
David Kramer
Stephen Gibian
Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison
Lynn Truame, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 218 Fall Creek Drive, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Windows with
French Door & Sidelights
Owner, Bob Camp, and applicant, Martin McElwee, recapitulated the salient details of the proposed
project.
S. Stein inquired into the operational nature of the French doors. M. McElwee replied it is a sliding door
(not hinged).
D. Kramer asked if the sidelights would also be operable. M. McElwee replied, yes.
S. Gibian asked whether the proposed method of creating light divisions was grills between the glass.
M. McElwee replied, yes.
E. Finegan asked if the light divisions would include exterior components in addition to the grills
between the glass. M. McElwee replied, no.
S. Gibian inquired again about the proposed method of light division. M. McElwee replied that actual
simulated divided lights, with exterior muntins as well as a shadow bar between the glass, are not
available for this particular window model.
M. McGandy asked if any further history is known about prior alterations to the rear elevation. B. Camp
replied that the back porch was remodeled a few years ago, because of its decrepit state, for safety
reasons.
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by E. Finegan, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no
public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Gibian.
1 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
S. Gibian asked if the Commission has a defined position with respect to grills between the glass vs.
simulated divided lights. In recent years, L. Truame replied, the Commission has not approved grills
between the glass, because they do not read as genuine divided lights. The Commission has required
either true divided lights or simulated divided lights.
M. McElwee noted it is conceivable that simulated divided lights may be available, but he is not
completely sure. He would be willing to check.
M. McGandy indicated that it should be stipulated that simulated divided lights should be used,
assuming they are available. L. Truame indicated that could be included as a condition of approval in
the resolution. The applicant would then need to submit a cutsheet, showing the simulated divided
lights, before he could begin the work.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by C. O’Malley.
WHEREAS, 218 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 March 12, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Martin McElwee, on behalf of property owner Robert
Camp, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed
Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a sketch plan showing the approximate
dimensions of the proposed new deck, doors, and sidelights; (3) a photograph of the existing
windows overlaid with a sketch showing the outline of the new doors and sidelights; (4) a
photograph of the adjacent stair addition (approved by the ILPC in 2004) that the new deck
will be detailed to match; and (5) a cut sheet for the proposed new doors and sidelights, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 218 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 the
replacement of four original windows on the rear elevation of the house with a pair of
sliding French doors, flanked by sidelights, 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 April 9,
2013, now therefore be it
2 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
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, 218 Fall Creek
Drive was constructed in 1924-25 in the Colonial Revival style. The ILPC has previously
approved the replacement of original basement windows at this residence, as well as the
construction of a two-story exterior stair on the rear elevation.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and
retaining 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 existing windows with
French doors and sidelights to increase natural light and ventilation.
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.
3 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the project will not remove
distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The
windows proposed for replacement are located on the rear elevation and are not significantly
visible to the public. This rear elevation has previously been altered by the addition of a
two-story exterior stair, approved by the ILPC in 2004.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new deck, French doors,
and sidelights 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 228-5, 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:
The new doors and side lights must include full simulated divided lights with an applied
exterior muntin in addition to a spacer bar between the panes.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
M. McGandy
C. O’Malley
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
D. Kramer
S. Stein
No
Abstain
B. Goldwin Smith Hall, Cornell Arts Quad Historic District ― Proposal to Add Dormers &
Ridge Vents
Applicant Gary Wilhelm, Senior Project Manager, Capital Projects & Planning, Cornell University,
recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project and walked through a detailed presentation. He
noted there are probably 8-10 years of remaining life for the existing slate roof.
S. Stein asked if the applicant would be replacing the flashing and valleys with copper. G. Wilhelm
replied, yes, with lead-coated copper (red copper would stain the sandstone walls).
E. Finegan asked if all the materials on the roof would be removed. G. Wilhelm replied, yes.
4 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
S. Gibian indicated his primary concern is with the addition of the ridge vent. The ventilation channel
seems problematic since it was rather minimal and would require airflow around obstructions at the
dormers and hips. He asked if the applicant would not consider adding another inch of foam to achieve
the required insulation without a need for ventilating the roof. G. Wilhelm replied the design team
considered that approach; however, at the recommendation of its engineers, it decided on the approach
that was proposed. S. Gibian observed that the NY State building code is beginning to move away from
requiring insulation channels, so those seemed like an old-fashioned approach to him. G. Wilhelm
replied he would ask the project consultants, Simpson, Gumpertz, & Heger, (SGH) about that.
S. Gibian expressed concern that the new dormers would not be evenly spaced from the existing
dormers. G. Wilhelm replied that although the new dormers would not be spaced at the same distance
from the existing dormers as the existing dormers are from one another, the two sides of the building
would be symmetrical once the new dormer was added to each. Keeping the new dormers symmetrical
to the center line of the building seemed like the most important issue; the dormers, however, should not
be visible from the ground.
M. McGandy noted the dormers may end up being somewhat visible; and, if so, that lack of symmetry
would be quite apparent. M. Deshong explained that the applicant is limited by the location of the
central ventilation hood, which cannot be decreased in size.
Emily Eig, EHT Traceries, Inc., noted she spent considerable time working with the project engineers,
trying to minimize the visual impact of the work on the roof. They really tried to arrive at an optimal
balance between energy issues, safety, and aesthetics.
M. McGandy asked about the new gutters. G. Wilhelm replied the gutters would be box gutters, as
currently exist on the building.
C. O’Malley noted the details of the slate would be very important (i.e., keeping the same color, the
same beveling, etc.). G. Wilhelm replied, yes, those details would be replicated.
C. O’Malley asked if there would be a snow fence visible on the west (Arts Quad) side of the building.
G. Wilhelm replied, no, no snow fence would be visible there.
M. McGandy asked for clarification that the applicant is not planning for the new dormers to be
symmetrical in comparison to the existing ones. G. Wilhelm replied that is correct — the distance
between the two new dormers would not be the same as the distance between the two existing ones. M.
McGandy responded that he is rather concerned with that.
L. Truame reminded the Commission that all the existing dormers were added outside the period of
significance.
5 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
Public Hearing
On a motion by E. Finegan, seconded by M. McGandy, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being
no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by E. Finegan.
RESOLUTION: Moved by C. O’Malley, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, Goldwin Smith 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 28, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Gary Wilhelm 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) four photographs and twelve
architectural drawings detailing the proposed work and existing conditions at the building;
and (3) a document entitled Goldwin Smith Hall Roof Project Preservation Analysis, and
WHEREAS, additional information was submitted on March 26, 2013, by Ruth Howell, on behalf of
Cornell University, including updated attachments to the Certificate of Appropriateness
application, a copy of a PowerPoint presentation describing the project, product data sheets
for the proposed snow guards and snow fences, and three drawings showing alternate
locations for placement of the snow fences, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for Goldwin
Smith 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 in-kind
replacement of slate roofing, minor reconfiguration of existing valleys and the addition of
ridge vents to address problem areas where snow and ice collect, installation of snow guards,
the addition of nine new downspouts, and the construction of two new hipped dormers, 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 April 9,
2013, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
6 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
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, Goldwin Smith Hall
was constructed in 1904, incorporating the existing 1893 Dairy Building as its north wing.
The Dairy Building was designed by Charles Osborn; Goldwin Smith Hall was designed by
the nationally prominent Beaux-Arts architectural firm, Carrère and Hastings.
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 modify the roof to better shed ice
and snow, improve roof drainage, and add two new dormers to accommodate interior
programming.
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.
7 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
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 modification of the existing
valley and addition of ridge venting will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter
features and spaces that characterize the property. The addition of the proposed snow
guards and fences, and nine new downspouts, will not remove distinctive materials and will
not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The addition of two new hipped
dormers, similar in appearance to those added to the building in the 1920s, on the rear roof
slope facing East Avenue, 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 ridge vent is
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment. The proposed new snow guards and fences and downspouts are compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment.
The proposed new dormers are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural
features of the property and its environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed new ridge vent, snow guards, snow fences, and
dormers 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 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: 5-1-0
Yes
C. O’Malley
D. Kramer
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
S. Stein
No
M. McGandy
Abstain
C. Goldwin Smith Hall, Cornell Arts Quad Historic District ― Proposal to Construct Major
Addition (Klarman Hall)
Applicant M. Deshong recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He stressed that there
would be nothing visible from the Arts Quad; the design team specifically tried to minimize the impact
to the site and its surroundings.
8 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
M. Deshong stressed that only one small physical connection would be made between Goldwin Smith
Hall and Klarman Hall, at the eave of the existing roof. The changes to the hemicycle were also
designed to be minimal: it would be left essentially intact and highlighted as an historic feature.
G. Wilhelm noted that Pennsylvania sandstone would be used as the building material, complementing
the existing structure without falsely duplicating it. E. Eig added that the design team went through the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and made every effort to ensure the project
complied with it.
C. O’Malley noted her main concern was with the entrance on East Avenue and inquired into the
rationale for the little vestibule cube. M. Deshong replied that the design team studied many different
designs for that entrance and it wanted to make sure the building was as transparent as possible. While
it is clearly an entrance, they wanted to minimize it as much as possible. M. Deshong added that it will
be lit to illuminate the underside of the vestibule roof plane.
S. Gibian noted his chief concern is the height of the new building. M. Deshong responded that the
design team carved away 20,000 square feet of the new building and also set it back, to address those
kinds of concerns.
M. McGandy observed that he cannot see the continuation of the Goldwyn Smith Hall eave line, as
described in the project summary. M. Deshong replied one would definitely be able to see the eave line
from the inside; and he believes one should also be able to see it all the way through, from the outside,
as well.
D. Kramer remarked that Goldwin Smith Hall is an iconic building and the design team has done a
remarkable job of bringing the building into the next century.
(D. Kramer departed at 7:24 p.m.)
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 M.
McGandy.
Responding to M. McGandy’s earlier comment, G. Wilhelm remarked that a great deal of effort went
into maintaining the visual line of the Goldwin Smith Hall roof. M. McGandy expressed continuing
concern with the horizontal character of Goldwin Smith Hall: the new building does not read as being
subordinate to him, as the applicant has suggested.
E. Finegan remarked the proposed new building seems like a good conclusion to Goldwin Smith Hall’s
evolution. He believes the community will be pleased with the final result.
9 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by S. Gibian.
WHEREAS, Goldwin Smith 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 28, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Gary Wilhelm, on behalf of property owner
Cornell University, including the following: (1) a six-page project description, including
photographs and architectural renderings; (2) six pages of floor plans for the new building;
(3) five pages of sections through the new building; (4) fifteen additional pages of images,
both interior and exterior, of the new building; and (5) a document entitled New Humanities
Building Project, Klarman Hall, Design Development Historic Report, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for Goldwin
Smith 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 the
construction of a three-story addition to Goldwin Smith Hall, to be located facing East
Avenue, between the existing north and south rear wings of the building, 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 April 9,
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, Goldwin Smith Hall
was constructed in 1904, incorporating the existing 1893 Dairy Building as its north wing.
The Dairy Building was designed by Charles Osborn; Goldwin Smith Hall was designed by
the nationally prominent Beaux-Arts architectural firm, Carrère and Hastings.
10 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
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 construct a major addition to
Goldwin Smith Hall, to be known as Klarman Hall.
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.
11 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the construction of Klarman
Hall as proposed will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces
that characterize Goldwin Smith Hall. The Commission notes that the distinctive hemicycle
located on this elevation will be preserved, acting as a focal point within the main atrium of
the new structure; and that the existing exterior walls of Goldwin Smith Hall will be
preserved and will remain readily visible within, and noticeably distinct from, the new
structure of Klarman Hall.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the construction of Klarman Hall, as
proposed, is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the
property and its environment. The Commission notes that the new building will not be
visible from the Arts Quad, is fully contained within the space at the rear of Goldwin Smith
between the existing north and south wings, and does not project above the roofline of
Goldwin Smith, when viewed from East Avenue.
With respect to Standard #10, Klarman Hall, as proposed could 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 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: 5-1-0
Yes
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
D. Kramer
C. O’Malley
S. Stein
No
M. McGandy
Abstain
D. 115 West Clinton Street, Henry St. John Historic District ― Proposal for Addition, Re-
Roofing, & Re-Cladding
Applicant Paul Mazzarella, Executive Director, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS),
recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He noted that INHS made extensive changes to
the building in 1995 when it was moved; however, INHS now needs more office space so INHS is
proposing the addition and the concurrent energy-efficient retrofit as well as the roof replacement which
addresses deterioration.
C. O’Malley asked if the metal roof was original. P. Mazzarella replied, yes, as far as he knows.
12 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
Architect Claudia Brenner, Claudia Brenner Design, noted that two issues emerged after the application
materials were originally submitted: (1) removing the back porch of the building (the back porch is not a
required exit and the applicant would like to remove it, since it is in very bad repair); and (2) removing
the east-facing dormer (the dormer is virtually invisible to the public and it would be cost-prohibitive to
retain).
L. Truame reminded the Commission that the issue of cost is not something they are permitted to
consider at this point in the process. She also reminded them that the building is a non-contributing
building in the historic district due to the loss of integrity occasioned by its being moved.
P. Mazzarella remarked that INHS initiated the current project several years ago, before it was even
aware of the prospect of designating the Henry St. John Historic District. It has tried to respect the
neighborhood and believes the proposed alterations will be an improvement to the current appearance of
the building.
E. Finegan observed the proposed changes should not have any real impact on the character of the
district as a whole.
C. O’Malley also indicated the proposed changes seem appropriate to her.
C. Brenner indicated the applicant would also be removing the existing wooden handrail on the ramp
and replacing it with a graspable rail.
S. Stein asked if it would be possible to choose another kind of siding, instead of the fiber cement. C.
Brenner responded the applicant would strongly prefer not to use wood siding, which comes with
numerous cost and maintenance implications.
L. Truame noted that cement siding has been used before on additions in historic districts; although, it
has so rarely come before the Commission that there is not yet much precedent for its approval. She
noted the crux of the issue in this case is whether the cement siding would be so dissimilar from wood
that it would negatively impact the character of the historic district or neighboring contributing buildings
in the district. S. Stein responded she does not think it would.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by C. O’Malley, S. Stein opened the public hearing.
Ann Cedarholm, 334 S Geneva St., spoke in support of the project.
There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by E. Finegan,
seconded by S. Gibian.
13 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by C. O’Malley.
WHEREAS, 115 West Clinton Street is located within the Henry St. John Historic District, as designated
under Sections 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2013, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated March 25, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Paul Mazzarella, on behalf of property owner Ithaca
Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) four
sheets of architectural drawings, dated February 1, 2013, depicting the proposed project; (3)
one photograph showing the building as it currently stands; and (4) one photoshopped
depiction of the building, as it will appear upon completion of the project, and
WHEREAS, additional materials were presented at the meeting, including a photograph of a deteriorated
secondary porch on the south elevation that is proposed for removal, and a photograph of a
small dormer on the east elevation that is also proposed for removal as part of the project,
and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
Henry St. John Historic District for 115 West Clinton Street, and the City of Ithaca’s Henry
St. John Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves replacing
the existing deteriorated standing seam roof with architectural shingles, removing the
existing wood siding for the purpose of insulating the walls, installing new fiber cement
siding, removing the dormer on the east roof slope, removing the secondary porch on the
south elevation, and extending the building to the west with a 427 square-foot two-story
addition, 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 April 9, 2013
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
14 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Henry St. John Historic District Summary Statement, the
period of significance for the area now known as the Henry St. John Historic District is
1830-1932.
As indicated in the individual property entry in the annotated list of properties included
within the Henry St. John Historic District, 115 West Clinton was constructed sometime
between 1850 and 1875. The vernacular Victorian style building was moved to its current
location in 1995, resulting in a significant loss of historic context. All of its original windows
were also replaced at this time. Because of this loss of historic material and context, the
building is a non-contributing feature of the historic district.
As a non-contributing element within the district, the ILPC will review the proposed
alterations solely for their effect on the historic character of the historic district, as a whole,
and on neighboring properties within the district.
The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to replace deteriorated roofing,
conduct a deep-energy retrofit (which requires removal of the existing siding), and enlarge
the building to better accommodate program 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 #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible
with the historic character of the district within which it is located.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction 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 #3 and Standard #9, the proposed addition, the new architectural
shingle roof, and the new fiber cement siding are compatible with the massing, size, scale,
and historic character and architectural features of the property and its environment.
15 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
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 Henry St. John 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: 5-0-0
Yes
S. Gibian
C. O’Malley
E. Finegan
M. McGandy
S. Stein
No
Abstain
E. 312 Thurston Avenue, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Construct Four New
Apartment Buildings
Applicant Graham Gillespie, HOLT Architects, recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project.
He noted that, during the Commission’s last informal review of the proposed project, the project team
received feedback regarding two major points of concern: the height and the massing of the buildings.
G. Gillespie then walked through a presentation of the current proposal, noting that all buildings are now
3 stories tall. He added that the buildings have also been changed to a Tudor Revival style, which is
more appropriate to the surrounding neighborhood and buildings. The stone base of the buildings has
also been replaced with a brick base.
S. Gibian asked why there is a plinth on Building #1 and not any of the others. G. Gillespie replied that,
unlike any of the other buildings, one would enter Building #1 at ground-level, rather than at the second
story level. Applicant Nathan Brown, HOLT Architects, noted that, due to the site’s topography, it was
not possible to drop Building #1 into the hillside.
C. O’Malley noted that the design of the half-timbering was inappropriately elaborate and could be
scaled back, to avoid looking too kitschy. G. Gillespie replied, yes, that could be done. C. O’Malley
remarked that she does think the current design is more visually consistent and proportionate vis-à-vis
the rest of the neighborhood.
S. Gibian asked if the proposed brick would be real brick. G. Gillespie replied, yes.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by C. O’Malley, S. Stein opened the public hearing.
16 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
Barbara Ley, 110 Highland Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project. She is principally concerned
with the traffic flow: the southeast corner is a very busy street, since it is the main route leading into the
Cornell campus. She is concerned with increasing the number of cars in the neighborhood. In addition,
she is concerned the project would be too large for the neighborhood.
Bill Demo, 121 Heights Court, spoke in opposition to the project. For the homeowners on the block, it
is a struggle to maintain the character of the neighborhood, with all the student housing in the vicinity.
The more high-density housing that is built in the area, the more impact it will have on the integrity of
the neighborhood. B. Demo noted that one thing that the project drawings do not convey is the presence
of the Highland House apartment building. He noted that the new trees will take considerable time to
grow and shield the project. He noted that the fraternity across the street is also very concerned with the
project.
Erika Fowler-Decatur, 125 Heights Court, spoke in opposition to the project, noting that Cornell
Heights was specifically planned as an “ideal residence park”. When she and her family moved there, it
was in large part because of that particular character. E. Decatur noted that the historic district is
characterized by a large amount of green space. The site in question, in particular, is full of majestic
trees and green space. She does not understand how one would be able to place so many buildings in
that space, without markedly affecting the nature of the historic district. It would certainly negatively
affect the overall ratio of green space to building space.
Michael Decatur, 125 Heights Court, spoke in opposition to the project. He noted that the uniformity
of the buildings, alone, would change the fundamental nature of the neighborhood, since one does not
find a set of identical buildings like it anywhere else in the neighborhood. Highland House should be
demolished first, before considering a project of this size at that site. He noted that he knows there are
other neighbors, not present today, who are also upset.
Responding to some of the public comments, G. Gillespie remarked that one cannot see the Highland
House from below. Part of the rationale for the proposed design is that the new buildings would hide
Highland House from the major Thurston Avenue viewshed. In terms of the footprint vs. open space
ratio, the applicant explored other options to preserve more green space around the buildings, but that
did not work. He stressed that the new vegetation will eventually become filled out, which should help
considerably. He remarked that the applicant is also covering a mere 13% of the available land. In fact,
the footprints of the other buildings in the neighborhood are larger in proportion to lot size.
There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by S. Gibian,
seconded by M. McGandy.
S. Gibian noted the current proposal is far closer to what he would have liked to have seen when it was
first presented, in May 2012, which he appreciates. He would be inclined to support the project, with a
few reservations.
C. O’Malley expressed her agreement with S. Gibian. The project really has been reduced in scale and
transformed into something that would seem to be compatible with the historic district. As a result, she
would also be inclined to support it, with reservations.
17 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
E. Finegan indicated that the shifted orientation, the protected hillside, and scaled down nature of the
buildings are certainly improvements to the project. The style is also much improved. The project as a
whole now generally seems to conform to its surroundings, in style and scale. As a result, he would be
inclined to support it, with reservations.
M. McGandy indicated he would be inclined to support the project, as well. It seems the right balance
has been struck. He took particular care to note the project makes quite clear that City zoning and
historic preservation, in this case, have not worked well together at all (which is something that would
hopefully be addressed by the Comprehensive Plan).
S. Stein indicated she agrees with everything that has been said by the other Commission members. She
would only suggest the applicant distinguish the buildings a little more from each other.
RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, the proposed new Thurston Avenue Apartments, 312 Thurston Avenue, are located within
the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated under Section 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 March 26, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Graham Gillespie of HOLT Architects, on behalf of
property owner RABCO Highland House, including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2)
thirteen sheets of architectural drawings, dated April 9, 2013, depicting the proposed project,
and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed 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 new
construction of twenty apartments in four new buildings, each three stories in height, 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 April 9,
2013, now therefore be it
18 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
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.
The vacant property located at 312 Thurston Avenue was originally part of the Edward G.
Wyckoff estate. Wyckoff was a partner in the Cornell Heights Land Company, the
developer of Cornell Heights. The Wyckoff mansion, demolished in 1964 for the
construction of Highland House Apartments, was located immediately north of this site. No
structures are known to have existed historically on the parcel now proposed for
development.
Located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, highly visible to the public, and
adjacent to several contributing elements of the Cornell Heights Historic District (as well as
one non-contributing element, Highland House Apartments), new development on the
proposed site is subject to review by the ILPC for its impacts on the historic character of the
Cornell Heights Historic District, as a whole, and on adjacent contributing elements within
the district.
The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to construct four new apartment
buildings containing a total of twenty 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 #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible
with the historic character of the district within which it is located.
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.
19 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
With respect to Principle #3 and Standard #9, the proposed new apartment buildings are
compatible with the historic character of the Cornell Heights Historic District, and more
specifically, with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment. The three-story height and the massing of the proposed new buildings are
consistent with the height and the massing of the larger contributing properties within the
district. The design of the new buildings draws on the Tudor Revival style, which is a
prevalent style within the district, particularly for larger buildings. Parking for the project is
located at the top of the site and is obscured by the new buildings, minimizing its visual
impact on the district.
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 condition:
The ILPC must review and provide final approval for all exterior and site details, once they
have been developed. This includes, but may not be limited to, such elements as exterior
doors and windows, exterior cladding and roofing, exterior and site lighting, paving and
other hardscape elements, site furnishings, and fences or walls. The ILPC may, at its sole
discretion, delegate approval of some or all of these elements to its staff.
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0
Yes
E. Finegan
M. McGandy
S. Gibian
C. O’Malley
S. Stein
No
Abstain
F. 207 W. Clinton Street, Henry St. John Historic District ― Request for Retroactive Approval
of Garage Re-Siding
L. Truame noted the applicant’s absence. She recapitulated the salient details of the project, on his
behalf.
S. Gibian observed the proposed siding is, in fact, superior to wood siding, from a fire-protection
perspective, which may be an important consideration given the location of the garage on the property
line.
20 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
L. Truame remarked that the Commission will most likely see an increasing number of applications for
fiber cement siding in the future. The Commission should consider how significant the siding material
is to one’s understanding of the garage as an historic feature in the district.
C. O’Malley noted it is keeping the same visual appearance and consistency.
M. McGandy noted he would be concerned that the Commission would be setting a precedent,
retroactively approving alterations which were completed without permission.
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 C. O’Malley, seconded by E.
Finegan.
RESOLUTION: Moved by C. O’Malley, seconded by E. Finegan.
WHEREAS, 207 West Clinton Street is located within the Henry St. John Historic District, as designated
under Sections 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2013, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated March 26, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Chris Stoscheck, including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Changes(s), and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
Henry St. John Historic District for 207 West Clinton Street and the City of Ithaca’s Henry
St. John Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
replacement of deteriorated wood siding with fiber cement siding in the same size and
having the same reveal, 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 April 9,
2013, now therefore be it
21 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
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 Henry St. John Historic District Summary Statement, the
period of significance for the area now known as the Henry St. John Historic District is
1830-1932.
As indicated in the individual property entry in the annotated list of properties included
within the Henry St. John Historic District, 207 West Clinton was constructed in 1922 in the
Dutch Colonial Revival style for Frank and Mabel Burns on property that had previously
been part of the Hardy Estate. The garage that is the subject of the project was also
constructed at this time.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Henry St. John Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, both the house and its garage are contributing elements
of the Henry St. John Historic District.
The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to replace deteriorated wood siding.
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.
22 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
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, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the residing of the garage has
not removed distinctive materials and has not altered features and spaces that characterize
the property. Though likely original to the garage, the wood siding that was removed was
not unique or distinctive. The main façade of the garage is dominated by the garage door,
making the siding a feature of secondary importance.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new siding, which has the
same profile, size, and reveal as the siding it replaces 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 Henry St. John 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: 4-1-0
Yes
C. O’Malley
E. Finegan
M. McGandy
S. Stein
No
S. Gibian
Abstain
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
None.
III. OLD BUSINESS
• Commission Comments on Historic District & Landmark Design Guidelines
L. Truame announced she is hoping the guidelines can be adopted in May 2013, so if Commission
members have any additional comments, please contact her as soon as possible.
23 of 24
ILPC Minutes
April 9, 2013
24 of 24
IV. NEW BUSINESS
None.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by C. O’Malley, and seconded by M. McGandy, Commission members unanimously
approved the following meeting minutes:
• February 12, 2013 (Regular Meeting), with one modification
• March 12, 2013 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• Legal Settlement in 123 Roberts Place Case
L. Truame announced the City Attorney’s office reached a settlement in the 123 Roberts Place case
(associated with a 9/11/12 Commission decision). The Commission took note of the settlement and
considers the case closed.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:15 p.m. by Chair Stein.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission