HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2013-10-08Approved by ILPC: 11/12/13
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – October 8, 2013
Present:
Sue Stein, Chair
Ed Finegan, Vice Chair
Michael McGandy
Stephen Gibian
David Kramer
Katelin Olson
Christine O’Malley
Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison
Lynn Truame, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. She announced that one agenda item originally
included in the first version of the agenda, “B. 201 W. Clinton Street, Henry St. John Historic District ―
Request for Retroactive Approval of Added Window & Proposal to Replace Existing Door with
Window & Add Decorative Iron Gate,” was subsequently removed, since the property was not posted as
required.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 115 Kelvin Place, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Deteriorated Steps
& Add Two Bay Windows
Applicants David Fernandez and Elizabeth Lawson recapitulated the salient details of the proposed
project, stressing that the existing non-original concrete steps are highly deteriorated. The proposal is to
replace them with granite steps, which should be durable and harmonize with the faded brick of the
adjacent walkway. In terms of overall shape and position, he stressed, the proposed new steps would be
identical to the current ones.
D. Kramer asked if there would be a riser between the steps. Fernandez replied only on the steps being
added, which have a six-inch thickness. No joints or mortar would be used, only a construction-grade
adhesive.
S. Gibian asked, since the proposed steps would extend further than the existing steps, what a passer-by
would see past the wingwall. Fernandez replied the steps would extend past the wingwall only very
slightly and that what would be visible would be the solid granite side of the step itself.
D. Fernandez indicated he also contacted local architect, Lane Chambliss, with a proposal to create a
small addition in back. After examining several options, however, he simply decided to add the two
small bay windows that are proposed.
E. Finegan asked if the bay windows would be aluminum-clad wood. D. Fernandez replied, yes, with
the bay window roofs in copper to match the flashing that is located on the house roof. He added that all
the windows on the secondary facades are single panes of undivided glass, so the new windows would
conform to the style of the adjacent windows. Furthermore, he noted, the back corner of the house is not
very visible. From the driveway, one can only just barely see one of the windows in the back corner.
1 of 14
ILPC Minutes
October 8, 2013
S. Gibian asked if the new bay windows would be pre-fabricated. D. Fernandez replied, no. He would
buy the window units and build the sides out to match the house. S. Gibian observed the sides of the
windows seem rather heavy-looking; it would be more attractive if the sidewalls were not as thick. D.
Fernandez agreed to explore that option.
Public Hearing
On a motion by E. Finegan, seconded by D. Kramer, 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.
S. Gibian that the proposal seems appropriate to him, since one of the proposed bay windows on the rear
elevation would not really be visible to the public and the existing concrete steps are not original.
M. McGandy asked if the Commission generally feels comfortable with the proposed window materials.
No objections were raised. L. Truame indicated that aluminium-clad wood windows have regularly
been approved by the Commission in the past.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 115 Kelvin 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
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated September 24, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner David Fernandez,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed
Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a survey map showing the location of the
property and placement of the proposed work; (3) a sketch of the proposed front stair
work; (4) four photographs of existing conditions at the front stair; (5) a photograph of
the proposed new granite stair treads; (6) five photographs showing existing conditions at
the locations of the proposed new windows; (7) three sketch-up drawings and one line
drawing, showing the appearance of the new windows once installed; (8) one sheet of
architectural drawings showing the interior kitchen renovations; and (9) one product cut
sheet for Marvin Ultimate Casement aluminum-clad windows, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 115
Kelvin Place, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
replacement of deteriorated poured concrete stairs with new granite stairs and
replacement of two existing windows with bay windows on secondary elevations, and
2 of 14
ILPC Minutes
October 8, 2013
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
October 8, 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, 115 Kelvin Place
was constructed in 1916-17 for Cornell Professor of Geology, Oskar Von Engeln. The
author of the inventory form notes that, “One of the most distinguishing features of this
residence is the windows. There are ribbons of multi-pane casements on the first and
second floor of the main façade. Along the north façade there is a shed dormer and a
large first floor squared bay window; there are a variety of other casement windows here
of varying sizes and configurations.”
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.
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:
3 of 14
ILPC Minutes
October 8, 2013
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 #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
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, Standard #5, and Standard #9, the replacement
of the deteriorated poured concrete stairs with granite stairs will not remove distinctive
materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, Standard #5, and Standard #9, the replacement
of two single-light casement windows with the proposed square bay windows with single
light casement leaves will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and
spaces that characterize the property. The Commission notes that the two windows in
question are located on secondary elevations.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed granite stairs are
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment. The proposed square bay windows with copper roofs and single light
casement leaves 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.
4 of 14
ILPC Minutes
October 8, 2013
RECORD OF VOTE:
Yes
M. McGandy
D. Kramer
S. Stein
K. Olson
S. Gibian
E. Finegan
C. O’Malley
No
Abstain
B. 323 S. Albany Street, Henry St. John Historic District ― Proposal to Remove Chimney
Applicant/owner Elizabeth Hess recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. She indicated
the chimney in question does not function. It originally connected to two fireplaces, which were
subsequently covered over (before she purchased the property). Following an inspection of the house
for a Certificate of Compliance, she was informed the chimney requires repointing. When it rains, water
actually infiltrates the building from three different sides of the chimney (leaking into her tenant’s
kitchen). E. Hess indicated several roofers/masons examined the situation and informed her that the top
half of the chimney would need to be completely rebuilt and a cricket added to eliminate the leak. The
alternative is to completely remove the chimney and build a continuous roof in its place. She noted that
a second chimney on the north side also needs to be repointed, but it is structurally intact and would be
preserved.
M. McGandy asked about the projected longevity for the proposed repair work. E. Hess replied the
contractors assume the work would last 10-20 years but of course regular maintenance would be
required.
C. O’Malley remarked that the house is a very vertical Stick style structure ― and chimneys are very
much a part of that architectural vocabulary. As a result, she is concerned with the impact that removing
the chimney would have on the appearance of the house. E. Finegan agreed, noting it would not appear
balanced.
E. Hess indicated the masons also suggested possibly removing the unstable top portion of the chimney,
just below the upper projecting brick band.
D. Kramer observed the chimney looks like an original feature of the house, which is a crucial
consideration for him, in addition to any aesthetic concerns. He would definitely prefer to preserve it.
K. Olson agreed.
S. Gibian noted he appreciates the owner’s dilemma. Unfortunately, the chimney she is proposing to
remove is the more decorative of the two chimneys on the house. He also disclosed that the applicant is
a personal friend of his and recused himself from voting on the application.
5 of 14
ILPC Minutes
October 8, 2013
M. McGandy asked how the chimney would read if it the upper portion were removed down to the top
projecting brick band. C. O’Malley replied the central problem would be if it dropped below the
adjacent roofline. If so, it would risk looking strange (although that would still be preferable to
complete removal).
D. Kramer asked if the masons suggested removing the chimney down to the first band or the second.
E. Hess replied, the first (upper).
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by C. O’Malley, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There
being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M.
McGandy.
S. Stein observed the general consensus appears to support removing the severely deteriorated top
portion of the chimney only. No objections were raised.
M. McGandy asked if the Committee would also like to define the preferred height of the rebuilt
chimney. C. O’Malley responded it would be best if the chimney height did not fall below the roofline.
S. Stein agreed.
RESOLUTION: Moved by C. O’Malley, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 323 South Albany Street is located within the Henry St. John Historic District, as
designated under Section 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 September 26, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Elizabeth Hess,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed
Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) three photographs showing the existing
two chimneys at the property, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
Henry St. John Historic District for 323 South Albany 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 routine
repairs to the roof and north chimney, which do not require ILPC approval, and removal
of the non-functional south chimney, and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, the applicant agreed to revise the proposal as follows: retain the
existing chimney while removing only the top several courses of severely deteriorated
brick; maintain the height of the altered chimney at no less than the height of the adjacent
roof ridge; retain the profile of the upper projecting brick band, with at least two courses
of brick above that band; cap the altered chimney; and construct a new cricket to protect
the brick from roof water run-off, and
6 of 14
ILPC Minutes
October 8, 2013
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
October 8, 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 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, 323 South Albany was constructed circa 1875
by William Bostwick, a prominent local businessman and large landowner in the area
whose own home was located at 318 South Albany, on the site of what is now the
Beechtree Care Center. 323 South Albany is one of the several Stick Style homes
constructed in this area in the 1870s.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Henry St. John Historic District, the
property has suffered some loss of integrity due to the addition of vinyl siding and
alteration of the front porch, however, the annotated property list entry notes that “it
retains its original windows, ornate chimney, and gable bracing,” and constitutes a
contributing feature in the historic district.
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:
7 of 14
ILPC Minutes
October 8, 2013
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.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #2, the proposed alteration of the south
chimney will not remove distinctive materials though it will alter a feature that
characterizes the property. The Commission notes that the south chimney is specifically
mentioned in the annotated property list entry as being one of the remaining original
features of the property that have not been altered, thus increasing the importance of its
preservation.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #6, based on personal
observations made by the members of the Commission, the severity of deterioration of
the south chimney does require its alteration, as described above.
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:
Yes
M. McGandy
D. Kramer
S. Stein
K. Olson
E. Finegan
C. O’Malley
No
Abstain
S. Gibian
8 of 14
ILPC Minutes
October 8, 2013
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
• Bill Demo, 121 Heights Court, spoke in opposition to the Ridgewood Road Apartments project, in
particular its height and scale. The project would remove an island of greenspace that contributes to
the quality of that portion of the Historic District (which is already losing greenspace, due to the
recently approved Thurston Avenue Apartments project.). It would also set unfortunate precedent
for the neighborhood and lead to a slippery slope for more of that kind of development.
• Walter Hang, 218 Wait Avenue, spoke in opposition to the Ridgewood Road Apartments project
and also asked the Commission to rescind its decision to approve the Thurston Avenue Apartments
project, on the basis that in his opinion the project does fulfill a key requirement cited on p. 99 of the
Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines, that “[…] a new construction project that
has either a significantly larger or a significantly smaller footprint than is common in the area would be
considered inappropriate.” Hang indicated he examined the lot coverage ratios of all the large
properties in the Historic District and determined there are only two other large properties with
greater total lot coverage than the proposed Ridgewood Road Apartments project. Hang noted he
would submit a letter to the Commission that summarizes his comments.
III. OLD BUSINESS
• 304 Thurston Avenue, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Approval of Final Design Details
Applicants Graham Gillespie, HOLT Architects, and Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels,
LLP, recapitulated the final design details.
C. O’Malley asked how the entry doors are being handled (since that had been a subject of concern at
the last Commission meeting). G. Gillespie replied the doors would read as more open than before,
comprising an aluminium door, with three lights across the top, and two panels below, to give them
more detail.
S. Gibian asked if the bio-retention basins are a required feature. P. Trowbridge replied, yes; the State
Department of Conservation requires them. They were part of several stormwater-related mitigations.
The applicants chose the bio-retention basins so they could have a number of smaller basins, with less of
a visual impact to the site. The basins would not be very visible. There would be no standing water and
they would not read as stormwater-management features.
S. Gibian asked what the retaining walls would be made of. P. Trowbridge replied, native bluestone
quarry blocks, to provide a ledged look, which should convey a very natural appearance over time. S.
Gibian responded he would prefer smaller-scale components for the retaining wall. P. Trowbridge
replied the applicants could probably use a smaller material to reduce the blocks’ dimensions. M.
McGandy agreed that that would be preferable.
9 of 14
ILPC Minutes
October 8, 2013
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by E. Finegan.
WHEREAS, 312 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 for the construction of four new apartment buildings on this currently
vacant site was approved at the regular April 9, 2013, ILPC meeting, and
WHEREAS, a condition was placed on that Certificate of Appropriateness, requiring the applicant to
obtain Commission approval of all exterior and site details, once those details were
developed, including 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, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has received a submission from HOLT Architects, dated September 24, 2013,
describing the exterior and site elements that are proposed for inclusion in the project,
including the following: (1) one sheet, AP127, titled “Building Materials (revised),”
showing proposed colors and materials for exterior siding and roofing; (2) four sheets of
building elevations, labeled A201-A204, detailing all elevations of each new building; (3)
seven sheets of landscape drawings, titled AP106-AP112, showing site materials,
plantings, and furnishings; (4) one civil engineering drawing, titled C102, showing the
storm drainage plan; (5) product literature for GAF Camelot shingles, color, Welsh Gray;
(6) product literature for HardiePanel vertical siding, stucco pattern; (7) product
literature for HardieTrim smooth batten boards; (8) product literature for HardieSoffit
panels, vented smooth pattern; (9) product literature for Marvin Integrity wood Ultrex
double-hung windows, color: custom brown, style: 9-over-1 simulated divided lights;
(10) product literature for Marvin wood-clad, raised panel, commercial doors, color:
custom brown; (11) product literature for AF Florence pedestal style mailbox unit, color:
sandstone; (12) product literature for Providence Medium post-style site lighting; (13)
product literature for Gardco dome top louver bollard; (14) product literature for Dero
Hoop Rack style bicycle rack; and (15) product literature for Austin benches, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed this submission for the purpose of evaluating the impacts of the
proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC finds that the proposed exterior and site materials and elements, with the
exception of the proposed quarry block retaining wall material, are compatible with the
architectural features of the property and its environment and are approved for use, and
be it further
RESOLVED, that the original condition placed on the project’s Certificate of Appropriateness has been
satisfied, with the following exception: The applicant will revise and resubmit for staff
level approval the proposed quarry block retaining wall material, substituting a material
that reduces the coarseness of the walls’ appearance.
10 of 14
ILPC Minutes
October 8, 2013
RECORD OF VOTE:
Yes
M. McGandy
S. Gibian
S. Stein
K. Olson
E. Finegan
C. O’Malley
No
Abstain
D. Kramer
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST (cont.)
• Kim Weeden, 202 Fall Creek Drive, spoke in opposition to the Ridgewood Road Apartments
project, noting that the addition of 300 students would indelibly alter the neighborhood character.
She also noted that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was initiated in 1996 for a 30-unit
apartment building, but the owner apparently decided the project was not worth the investment of
time and money.
• Barbara Ley, 110 Highland Avenue, spoke in opposition to the Ridgewood Road Apartments
project, noting that the site is a unique piece of land, which is worth preserving.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
• Early Design Guidance: New Construction at 150 & 152 Highland Place (Ridgewood Road
Apartments)
Prospective applicants Steve Bus, Campus Acquisitions, Nathaniel Finley, Shepley Bulfinch Architects,
and Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, appeared before the Commission to present an
alternative design for the project, including the following highlights and points-of-interest:
• minimization of impervious surfaces
• significant changes to style and design of building façades (in a more horizontal Prairie style)
• minimization of site disturbance
• perspective photos from neighboring properties have been provided, as requested
• stone base would form out of the landscape, with shingle cladding on the top level
• fourth floor would be stepped-back, with roof terrace
• no on-site surface parking
• larger caliper trees for new plantings
• deeper recesses between building sections and a reduced garage footprint
• a shortened building, with 174 beds (reduced from 192)
• additional landscaping and a reduced parapet wall around the parking structure, softening the edges
and making the deck over the parking structure seem more like natural landscape
• stairs on building corner would resemble many stone stairs in state parks or gorges
• large Llenroc retaining walls, resembling ledge stone, which would be set back and interplanted
• re-oriented access stairs to garage to be parallel to Ridgewood Road (concealing face of parking
garage)
• reduction of building height by 5 feet and width by 20 feet
• 21% lot coverage (including garage), with building footprint of 16%
11 of 14
ILPC Minutes
October 8, 2013
D. Kramer indicated the applicants are moving in the right direction; however, the project still looks far
too large by at least half. C.O’Malley agreed.
M. McGandy asked why surface parking would be necessary, as indicated by the applicant in their
summary, if the building were to be broken up into separate, smaller buildings. S. Bus replied that
breaking the building up into separate smaller buildings would require fire separation between them as
well as more staircases, elevators, and mechanicals, which the owner finds undesirable.
S. Stein remarked the project appears more like a very large dormitory, than apartments. She believes it
would be the wrong use for that unique parcel of land.
D. Kramer reiterated that the size of the project should definitely be reduced.
E. McCollister noted the Planning & Economic Development Committee is seriously considering a
proposal to re-zone that portion of the R-U Zone to an R-3aa Zone; so the developer should probably
design the project to conform to those requirements (i.e., reducing its impact/size).
N. Finley responded the applicants were recently informed of the proposed re-zoning and they prepared
rough designs for it, which he displayed. That design would comprise four separate 3-story buildings,
with both underground and surface parking, but it would require significantly more site disturbance.
L. Truame encouraged the Commission to be as explicit as possible in describing its objections to the
proposed project and enumerating the changes they would want to see made.
E. Finegan noted that a total size of only 70-80 beds would be far preferable and asked whether the
owner would consider a project of that size. S. Bus replied he would not consider that a viable option.
M. McGandy observed the site is zoned for development, so clearly the applicant has the right to build
on it; however, the proposed size, massing, and scale of the project are simply not in keeping with the
rest of the Historic District. He appreciates the changes to its style and design, which are very attractive
in some cases, but the project definitely needs more detailing and articulation, as well as a reduction of
in the footprint and the number of beds.
D. Kramer indicated he feels the same as before. He conceded the project is much improved from the
first proposal, but he would like to see it a third the size. In his opinion, the appropriate project for that
site would be a single building that is not any larger than any other building in the area (i.e., ~6,000
square feet). E. Finegan and C. O’Malley both agreed.
S. Gibian also agreed, noting that the footprint and height are his greatest concerns. He suggested
separating the building segments with a glass bridge containing only a hallway, rather than a living unit
as is currently the case with the recessed sections, so the project would read more authentically as three
separate buildlngs.
S. Bus asked if there were any objection to the flat roof design. M. McGandy and D. Kramer both
indicated they like it.
12 of 14
ILPC Minutes
October 8, 2013
N. Finley indicated he remains uncertain what the Commission is looking for in terms of size.
K. Olson noted she would like to see the building made up of smaller segments that are clearly
articulated as individual buildings. E. Finegan agreed.
L. Truame remarked that she had heard the majority of Commission members express a desire for a
significantly smaller project, on the order of one-half to one-third the current size, and noted that the
largest houses in the Historic District also sit on extremely large lots, which is one of the Historic
District’s defining characteristics.
P. Trowbridge reiterated that the applicant would mitigate the impact to the neighborhood through the
use of landscaping and the submerged parking structure, unlike the large manor-like buildings in the rest
of the Historic District, which all have surface parking lots. M. McGandy noted that particular
comparison falls short, since the proposed project would be crowded into a gorge-like area and the
buildable space is so small.
• Early Design Guidance – Sage Block, Harold’s Square Project
L. Truame explained that the proposed project lies in a National Register District and the Planning &
Development Board, as part of their environmental impact process, has required that the Commission
specifically review those project components affecting the Sage Building as they would if the Sage
Building were a locally-designated historic structure. At this meeting, the Commission is being asked to
provide some preliminary feedback to the developer, as they would during an Early Design Guidance
review. The developer will return before the Commission for final review, equivalent to a Certificate of
Appropriateness review, which L. Truame will summarize in a written report to the Planning Board.
Applicant Scott Whitham, Scott Whitham Associates, recapitulated the salient details of the proposed
project. He stressed that the Sage Building would essentially appear the same as it does now, with the
exception of the first floor. The project would involve restoration and potentially in-kind replacement of
the windows, repointing and cleaning of the brick, and the restoration of the terra cotta banding at the
top of the building. The applicant would not alter the appearance of the façade in any way. Whitham
added that the first floor would likely become a restaurant, so there may be as-yet-unidentified changes
made to that floor, depending on the needs of the future tenant, however the existing first floor storefront
has already been radically altered and is not historic.
L. Truame remarked that if the developer is waiting to finalize the project until a tenant for the first floor
has been secured, he may prefer to postpone his next meeting with the Commission until those design
details are settled. Whitham agreed that would make the most sense.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by D. Kramer, and seconded by E. Finegan, Commission members unanimously approved the
following meeting minutes, with no modifications.
• September 10, 2013 (Regular Meeting)
13 of 14
ILPC Minutes
October 8, 2013
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• 333. S. Geneva Street Picket Fence Staff Approval
L. Truame reported that she approved the final design for the south property line fence, including a
privacy fence along the section behind the adjacent barn. No objections were raised.
• Proposed Ridgewood Road Apartments Project: Petitition
L. Truame indicated she received two petitions objecting to the project that should be noted as having
been received. They would be distributed to the Commission and to the Planning Board if the project
moves forward.
• Window Replacements
L. Truame noted that, having heard from Ken Vineberg at the previous meeting regarding historic
window replacements, the Commission may want to consider adopting a document similar to
Washington, D.C.’s Window Repair and Replacement: Preservation and Design Guidelines. This
document offers much more detailed guidance on the treatment of windows than is currently included in
our Design Guidelines. Copies of the document were distributed and there was general agreement with
this idea.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:56 p.m. by Chair Stein.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
14 of 14