HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2013-11-12Approved by ILPC: 12/10/13
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – November 12, 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
Lisa Nicholas, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 201 W. Clinton St. (former Red Cross Building), Henry St. John Historic District ― Proposal
to Create Patio Area & Add Window, & Request for Retroactive Approval of New Window
Already Added
Applicant Isabel Fernández recapitulated the salient details of the application.
L. Truame explained to the Commission that the applicants obtained a Building Permit prior to the
Henry St. John Historic District designation, so they assumed the window that was installed had already
been approved, as part of that Building Permit process, however, it was discovered that the original
permit had been closed out and that installation of the window in question would require a new building
permit.
S. Stein asked if the already-installed window replaced a window that had been there before. Fernández
replied that they copied the design of the previously existing window in that location from a photograph.
They also propose installing a similar window on the east face of the rear porch in a location previously
occupied by a door.
S. Gibian asked about the nature of the window grilles. I. Fernández replied they are permanently
installed, on both sides of the glass panel. S. Gibian asked if it would be equivalent to a simulated
divided light window. L. Truame replied, yes.
D. Kramer remarked that the windows on the building’s east side are very old and special; it seems a
shame to install a more modern window on the east face of the rear porch. He wondered if it might not
be possible to install a window that replicated the appearance of the original windows on that east
elevation of the house, or possibly a salvaged window). I. Fernández replied, while that would be
possible, it would not provide as much insulation as a modern window, which is what the applicants
would prefer. She added, however, they could certainly install a modern window which matches the
character of the originals. She would prefer to strike a balance between architectural character and
energy efficiency.
1 of 13
ILPC Minutes
November 12, 2013
S. Gibian observed he does not think the current energy code permits installing a new window that does
not meet new energy-efficiency standards. He also does not see the need to match all the three
windows. The applicants could install something other than double-hung windows for the porch. D.
Kramer agreed, but he does not believe it would need to be as modern-looking as the rear windows.
I. Fernández remarked that the proposed new custom-designed gate was inspired by a gate near
Cascadilla Creek. There is no gate currently on the property and the proposed gate would not be
designed to appear old or original to the property. She explained that the reason for adding a gate was
that the applicants have had numerous encounters with people walking up to the house assuming it was
still the Red Cross building.
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 D. Kramer, seconded by M.
McGandy.
RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 201 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 September 24, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Zac Boggs, including
the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s)
and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a sketch of the proposed new gate; (3) a sketch of the
new window that has already been installed in the south face of the rear porch and of the
matching window that is proposed for the east face of this enclosed porch; and (4) a
photograph from 1977 showing the appearance at that time of the south and east faces of
the rear porch, and
WHEREAS, the applicant subsequently submitted product literature for the Andersen Casement
Transom window that was installed on the south face of the rear porch, a site survey map,
and a landscape plan showing the proposed new rear patio area, and
WHEREAS, the property was not posted in accordance with the requirements of Section 228 of the
Municipal Code and could not be considered at the regular October 8, 2013, ILPC
meeting, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
Henry St. John Historic District for 201 W. Clinton, 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
installation of a new window (which has already been completed) on the south face of the
rear porch in a location previously occupied by a window, installation of a similar
window on the east face of the rear porch in a location previously occupied by a door,
2 of 13
ILPC Minutes
November 12, 2013
installation of a gate at the hedge opening of the front walkway, and replacement of a
portion of asphalt paving behind the house with a stone patio and three stone walls, and
WHEREAS, at the November 12, 2013 ILPC meeting, the applicant withdrew the request for approval
of the east wall window, to allow time for the consideration of other possible design
options, 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
November 12, 2013, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s 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, 201 W. Clinton Street was constructed circa
1835 in a transitional Federal-Greek Revival style and is one of the oldest buildings in the
Henry St. John Historic District. The rear porch was added sometime between 1888 and
1893, during the district’s period of significance. 201 W. Clinton was built by Charles
and Louisa Hardy. In 1868, their daughter, Jane Hardy, inherited the house and in 1922
Jane’s heirs donated the property to the local American Red Cross. It remained in use by
the Red Cross until 2012, when it was purchased by the current owners.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Henry St. John Historic District and
possessing an unusually high level of physical integrity and historic significance, the
property is a contributing element of the Henry St. John 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
3 of 13
ILPC Minutes
November 12, 2013
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 #1 A property shall be used for its intended historic purpose or be placed
in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the
building and its site and environment.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and
integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
With respect to Standard #1, the current owners have returned 201 West Clinton Street to
its intended residential use after 90 years of use as an office. Because of this long-term
office use, there is a need to re-establish the property’s identity as a private residence.
The installation of the proposed gate at the front hedge opening is an appropriate means
of communicating the residential character of the property.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the proposed rear patio,
which will replace an asphalt parking area, will not remove distinctive materials and will
not alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of the window
in the south face of the rear porch, where a window was previously located but which has
since been in-filled with siding, did not remove distinctive materials and did not alter
features and spaces that characterize the property. The appearance of this window is
consistent with the previously existing window, as documented in the photograph from
1977.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new gate, window and
rear yard hardscape are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural
features of the property and its environment.
4 of 13
ILPC Minutes
November 12, 2013
With respect to Standard #10, the new window, gate, and rear yard hardscape 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 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: 7-0-0
Yes
E. Finegan
D. Kramer
S. Gibian
M. McGandy
K. Olson
C. O’Malley
S. Stein
No
Abstain
B. 55 Ridgewood Rd. (Pi Kappa Phi), Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Add
Through-Wall Heating/Cooling Unit & Bathroom Exhaust Fan, & Widen Door
L. Truame noted the applicant indicated he would be present. Discussion was deferred until later in the
meeting.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
• Steven Smolyn, 55 Ridgewood Rd., spoke in opposition to the proposed Ridgewood Road
Apartments project and asserted that the developers have misrepresented the true impact of their
proposal, submitting visualizations that mischaracterize the impact of the building on the
surrounding landscape. Both the massing and scale of the project would be disproportionate to its
environs. S. Smolyn noted an Environmental Impact Statement was performed in 1996 for a
different proposed 32-unit project that identified significant impacts, like substantial erosion and a
significant conflict with the character of the historic district. The current project proposal is three
times the footprint of the 1996 project. S. Smolyn remarked that the applicant is a for-profit
developer, who is ignoring the project’s impacts on the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
5 of 13
ILPC Minutes
November 12, 2013
III. OLD BUSINESS
• 1 Ridgewood Road Apartments – Joint Discussion with Planning & Development Board of
Preliminary Design Proposal (Cornell Heights Historic District)
L Truame prefaced the discussion by noting she received the petitions opposing the project (mentioned
at the last Commission meeting) and would be distributing them to the Planning and Development
Board.
Prospective applicants Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, and Nathaniel Finley,
Shepley Bullfinch Architects, recapitulated the salient details of the preliminary design proposal.
N. Finley remarked this is third time the applicant has presented various iterations of its proposal to the
Commission for preliminary design guidance. No formal Certificate of Appropriateness application has
been submitted. He noted the applicant discussed the proposed project at the last Planning and
Development Board meeting, including one proposal for three separate buildings, to initiate the
conversation. At that meeting, it was ultimately decided it would be helpful to hold a joint Planning
Board-ILPC meeting.
Responding to the prior public comment, N. Finley noted the developer is a Cornell University alumnus,
who has considerable pride in the area. Furthermore, the current proposal is very atypical compared to
the rest of the developer’s portfolio, in terms of its sensitivity to a historic district. N. Finley explained
that the project has presented a challenge for the architect, who initially designed a project that was
somewhat under the zoning requirements. He was then informed that it was too large and was not the
right style. The applicant returned before the Commission with a redesigned proposal with a smaller
footprint, which was better received by the Commission and Planning Board, and more in keeping with
the character of the neighborhood. N. Finley avowed there has never been any intention to employ
cheap materials for the project, as was suggested, nor has the applicant attempted to be misleading in
any way. The applicant has carefully modeled all the drawings, elevations, and renderings it has
submitted.
P. Trowbridge added that T.G. Miller, P.C. performed the tree survey and identified all the trees, tree-
by-tree. It has a very good reputation in the community and certainly did not misrepresent the site.
N. Finley remarked it was always the applicant’s intent to focus the development on the low side of site,
to preserve as much of the slopes and trees as possible, on the north and east faces of the site. He noted
that the 1996 project alluded to earlier would have been situated in a different portion of the site and
would have cut into the hillside, removing a considerable number of trees around the perimeter. As a
result, he does not believe that project is a fair comparison. N. Finley indicated that, while there would
be some public visibility onto the proposed project, the two principal public views would be from
Highland Avenue and Ridgewood Road, where an observer would only see the short ends of the
building. The applicant designed the project, so the building would read conceptually as three separate
buildings, with recesses between the three segments.
N. Finley then displayed a modified version of what was presented to the Commission in October, which
would accommodate 164 bedrooms. He indicated that the applicant submitted a subsequent, alternative
proposal to the Planning Board, pulling the project apart as three separate buildings and conforming to
6 of 13
ILPC Minutes
November 12, 2013
the prospective R-3aa zoning change, which would accommodate 45 units (102 bedrooms). This new
design footprint would comply with the R-3aa requirements and employ a combination of under-
building parking (appr. ⅓ the total) and surface parking.
At this time, P. Trowbridge explained, the applicant would like to identify some kind of consensus with
the Board and Commission with regard to the general design of the project.
S. Stein remarked the project still seems twice the size that it genuinely needs to be. She would much
prefer to see something substantially different from what has been proposed, although she likes the most
recent proposal the best of those submitted to date. The project remains too dormitory-like. D. Kramer
agreed, except he would like the project reduced by ⅔, to be compatible in size and scale to the
buildings in the vicinity.
N. Finley noted the footprints of the adjacent buildings on the block face average 5,580 SF each. Under
R-3aa zoning, the cap would be 6,700 SF (120% of 5,580), so the applicants have been trying to remain
below that threshold.
J. Schroeder indicated he would like to see a proposal that includes underground parking with the latest
three-building proposal. P. Trowbridge replied that underground parking is expensive when spread over
the site, which is why they came up with the last design that incorporates some surface parking to allow
the buildings to be pulled further apart from one another.
E. Finegan asked why all the parking could not be provided through underground parking, but under
only two buildings. P. Trowbridge replied that, while there is some underground parking under the
three-building proposal, because each building has a smaller footprint, the applicant can only squeeze so
much parking under each. E. Finegan remarked he still does not understand why all the parking cannot
simply be underground. P. Trowbridge responded by stressing that the proposed design would obscure
the surface parking, so it would not be visible.
J. Schroeder noted he regularly passes the site, which provides a genuinely sublime, primeval-seeming
view, with its large trees and steep slopes. He would be dismayed to see the development pushed
towards Highland Avenue. Replacing that kind of vista with surface-level parking simply does not seem
appropriate; that needs to be avoided at all costs. J. Schroeder noted he is more sympathetic to the
original design, assuming it could be further reduced in size. The flat roof, however, is a major concern,
since observers would be looking down onto it. If it needs to be flat, then it should be a green roof; or it
could also be a gabled roof.
J. Elliott observed part of the problem is the City minimum parking requirement itself. Most prospective
residents of the project would be Cornellians and would only need limited vehicular use.
J. Schroeder asked how much parking the developer actually wants for the project. P. Trowbridge and
N. Finley responded that they would have to check with the developer about that, but that it would be
difficult to argue for no parking before the BZA since it was, in fact, possible to achieve the required
parking within the existing site constraints.
7 of 13
ILPC Minutes
November 12, 2013
J. Elliott asked if the proposed number of parking spaces was actually market-driven or whether that was
merely the standard convention. P. Trowbridge replied he would need to discuss that issue with the
developer, to satisfactorily answer that question.
J. Schroeder indicated he strongly supports the establishment of an entirely new zone with no minimum
parking requirement.
I. Fernández noted the first proposal (a revision of the original proposal, still retaining underground
parking, but with four three-story buildings atop that parking podium) seems too environmentally
harmful; the second proposal (the three-building scheme with some surface parking) seems far less
damaging. She agreed with J. Schroeder’s comments about the roof. She suggested a contemporary-
looking structure is not necessary. She urged the applicant to maximize its reliance on alternative
transportation and parking systems, like Ithaca Carshare, bike parking, and so on.
J. Elliott remarked the first design is too orthogonal and out-of-proportion. The second proposal is
better and more compatible. The ultimate design for the project should be as picturesque as possible.
P. Trowbridge asked the Commission and Board members to recapitulate their opinions of the different
proposals.
K. Olson indicated she is most interested in the architectural character of the proposed project, which is
the crucial decision-making factor for her. So far, she prefers the latest three-building design with
surface parking. She agreed it does not have to be a modern building, which probably would not be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, in any respect. She would also like a better
understanding of the relationship between the three buildings and would need to see more architecturally
developed plans before she could comment further on the potential suitability of the proposal.
S. Gibian noted he is concerned with the grade change in the three-building proposal. P. Trowbridge
replied that the grade change permits the applicant to fit some parking underneath the buildings. S.
Gibian noted he does not object to the surface-parking as much as some of the other Commission
members. The project appears to be heading in the right general direction (although 45 units with 102
beds is still very large).
C. O’Malley noted she could not support the original proposal or the revision of the original proposal
that maintained the large underground parking feature. The three-building proposal is a significant
improvement and is more visually appropriate. She noted the applicant could still build a relatively
contemporary project and continue to evoke some historical character. Parking does seem like a crucial
consideration for her. Like K. Olson, she would need to see more developed plans for the three-building
scheme before she could provide meaningful comments.
S. Stein indicated she would prefer to see a much smaller project.
J. Elliott indicated he agrees with all the comments. He suggested the applicant explore the feasibility of
negotiating a landswap with the City, so the project could be built on a less objectionable site.
8 of 13
ILPC Minutes
November 12, 2013
E. Finegan noted he prefers the three-building proposal by far, but encouraged the applicant to further
reduce the number of units and pull the buildings further away from Highland Avenue. He objects to
the flat roof and would prefer to see gabled roofs. In either case, the applicant should reduce the
footprint and keep the project to no more than three stories.
J. Schroeder noted that a recently approved apartment building project on a site that included a steep
slope was approved with a required “no-development” preservation area, which may make sense for this
project as well.
D. Kramer suggested the applicant remove the two buildings on the right of the three-building proposal
drawing, which is probably the only way he could support the project.
M. McGandy recommended reducing the footprint size. The three buildings are all massed together,
creating a significant collective visual impact, regardless of their individual footprints compared to other
buildings in the neighborhood. He also remarked that a flat green roof would be far more desirable than
a gabled one: this particular site is far more driven by its natural environment, than its architectural one.
I. Fernández noted that if the number of buildings were reduced she would be concerned the project
would not increase density enough. She supported the suggestion of a landswap with the City. She
strongly urged using permeable pavers and also replacing/restoring any removed vegetation.
L. Nicholas remarked that the Commission does not perform environmental reviews for proposed
projects as does the Planning Board, but many of the issues that have been discussed in this meeting
would be part of that process. The environmental review process would most likely alter the project
design significantly, would inform the entire approval process, and would probably address many of the
concerns being expressed. She suggested the Planning Board’s environmental review could be
undertaken at the same time as the Commission’s review, for this particular project.
P. Trowbridge responded that is why the applicant requested the joint meeting, so that a process could
be established to identify a certain baseline of design components that could ultimately be approved by
both City decision-making bodies.
P. Trowbridge indicated that all the parking could most likely not realistically be placed underground.
He reiterated that, in order to provide less than the required number of parking spaces, the applicant
would need to demonstrate to the BZA that it cannot feasibly build all the required parking on the site.
J. Schroeder replied he would be willing to come up with an alternative to propose to Common Council;
however, before he did that, he would need to make sure the developer does not want all the parking.
N. Finley expressed apprehension that the applicant will be investing resources into creating another
design, without any assurance its efforts would be worthwhile, at least according to what he has heard so
far. He had been hoping the applicant would be given clearer guidance on the proposed project and
suggested that the Commission establish set parameters for density allowed within the historic districts.
L. Truame observed that the Commission needs to evaluate visual impacts on a site-specific basis and
that it would be difficult to set a blanket standard for appropriate density district-wide.
9 of 13
ILPC Minutes
November 12, 2013
J. Schroeder observed that Planning Board members present today appear more-or-less happy with the
three-building scheme, whereas the majority of Commission members would prefer a significantly
smaller development, with a reduction in size of 1/3 to ½.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.)
B. 55 Ridgewood Rd. (Pi Kappa Phi), Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Add
Through-Wall Heating/Cooling Unit & Bathroom Exhaust Fan, & Widen Door
Speaking for the applicant, Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity member Steve Smolyn recapitulated the salient
details of the proposed project. He explained that the applicant is converting the garage to an accessible
living unit, which requires a fire sprinkler system, which in turn required the garage to be heated. The
door must be widened to meet ADA requirements and the PTAC system would be installed to provide
heating and cooling.
S. Gibian asked if the applicant explored any other kind of heating/cooling systems. S. Smolyn replied,
he is not sure; however, he believes the PTAC system would have the lowest visual impact of any
option.
S. Gibian observed the proposal involves considerable damage to the original (stone) material of the
house. He strongly encouraged exploring other options, including the possibility of locating the heating
unit in the existing T-111-filled garage door opening.
S. Stein asked whether the access door could also be located at the existing garage door opening. S.
Smolyn replied that may require a ramp and would not bring the room to the same grade as the rest of
the house.
K. Olson indicated she could not support removing the amount of stone required to be removed under
this proposal, if there were any other way of accomplishing the same objective.
S. Stein asked if S. Smolyn could speak to the applicant and ask him to explore other options, perhaps
using the existing door openings. Smolyn agreed to do so.
S. Gibian asked how other Commisison members would feel about putting the PTAC through the garage
door opening. There was general consensus that would be preferable.
III. OLD BUSINESS (cont.)
• Resolution in Support of Proposed Revisions to Landmarks Ordinance
L. Truame noted the proposed revisions to the Landmarks Ordinance will be going before the Planning
and Economic Development Committee for consideration, and that it would be appropriate to provide a
resolution in support of the changes. (Nothing has changed in the draft new ordinance since the
Commission last discussed it.)
10 of 13
ILPC Minutes
November 12, 2013
RESOLUTION: Moved by C. O’Malley, seconded by K. Olson.
WHEREAS, Chapters 73 (“Landmarks Preservation Commission”) and 228 (“Landmarks
Preservation”) of the City Municipal code, collectively known as the Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance, were first enacted in 1975, were periodically amended, and in
July 2012 were substantially revised, and
WHEREAS, additional revisions to these chapters are now proposed, including the following:
…to address comments received from the State Historic Preservation Office:
• correct an error in §228-3-E, concerning the duration of the moratorium on issuance
of building permits during the period when a property is under active consideration for
designation as a landmark; and
• add language to §228-10, addressing claims of economic hardship when the alleged
hardship is self-imposed; and
• add language to §73-2-A, regarding the qualifications of Commission members;
and
…to change and clarify certain administrative processes:
• add a new §228-5, defining Temporary Improvements, which are not subject to
ILPC review; and
• add language in §228-7-C, regarding staff-level approvals under the Commission’s
newly-adopted City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines; and
• add a new §228-12, creating a “prudent and feasible” test for ILPC regulation of
City-owned improvements; and
• add language to §228-4, §228-6, and §228-15 that describes the process for
retroactive review of a project that has been completed without a request for ILPC
approval; and
• add language to §73-2-A and add a new §73-3-B, concerning the appointment of
Commission alternates to serve in cases of conflict-of-interest; and
... to add a new section related to public safety:
• add a new §228-13, describing exceptions to the normal requirements of the
Ordinance for alterations related to the public safety; and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed these proposed revisions and finds that said revisions will better
effectuate the goals of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the State Historic Preservation Office has also reviewed and approved the proposed
revisions, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC supports the proposed revisions to Chapters 73 and 228 of the City
Municipal Code, and be it further
11 of 13
ILPC Minutes
November 12, 2013
RESOLVED, that the ILPC recommends the adoption of the proposed revisions by the Common
Council.
RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0
Yes
C. O’Malley
K. Olson
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
D. Kramer
M. McGandy
S. Stein
No
Abstain
• 1 Ridgewood Road ― 3-Month Extension Request for Certificate of Appropriateness Approval
L. Truame indicated she received an e-mail from the applicant, Bojan Petek, asking for an extension to
the Certificate of Appropriateness approval for the project, involving the replacement of two sets of
doors, exiting from the library at the rear of the building, with fixed panels. The applicant originally
appeared before the Commission in December 2011 for permission to replace the doors, with a condition
he would work with staff to identify a divided light configuration as closely matching the main door
sidelights as possible; however, no agreement could be reached. The Commission subsequently
removed the condition in May 2013; and the applicant would now like a three-month extension to
complete the work. L. Truame noted nothing in the Landmarks Ordinance precludes approving an
extension to a Certificate of Appropriateness (which expires two years after issuance).
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by M. McGandy.
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) agrees to extend the
Certificate of Appropriateness approved at the regular 12/13/11 ILPC meeting for 2 Ridgewood Road
(Phi Delta Theta Fraternity), in the Cornell Heights Historic District, for a period of three months. The
new expiration date will be March 13, 2014
RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0
Yes
C. O’Malley
K. Olson
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
D. Kramer
M. McGandy
S. Stein
No
Abstain
12 of 13
ILPC Minutes
November 12, 2013
IV. NEW BUSINESS
• Fall Creek Drive Fence Working Group
L. Truame announced the Fall Creek Drive Fence Working Group will be holding meetings over the
next couple of weeks with Cornell University representatives to discuss possible ideas for a new
fence proposal at the stone wall.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by C. O’Malley, and seconded by K. Olson, Commission members unanimously approved the
following meeting minutes, with no modifications.
• October 8, 2013 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• Discussion of Proposed Collegetown Area Form-Based Code: Designated Historic Properties
L. Truame explained that Planning staff has been working on the current draft of the Collegetown
Area Form Districts document and a question recently arose regarding several affected designated
historic properties.
The proposed new MU-1 Zoning District would contain the Grand View House local landmark,
while the proposed CR-4 Zoning District would contain the John Snaith House local landmark. In
addition, the proposed MU-2 Zoning District would eventually contain Sheldon Court, the Larkin
Block, and the Chacona Block, each of which may be considered in future for historic designation.
Planning staff would like to know whether the Commission feels comfortable with the draft
Collegetown Area Form Districts document, as it relates to those properties (i.e., that it does not
contain any inconsistencies in terms of the Commission’s oversight or would make the
Commission’s job more difficult for future Certificate of Appropriateness applications involving
those buildings). No concerns were expressed by Commission members.
E. McCollister asked if Commission members would like to go on-record as disagreeing with
removing Eddy Street from the East Hill Historic District and including it in the Form-Based Code
District. The Commission agreed and via these minutes states that it is unanimously opposed to the
idea of removing Eddy Street from the East Hill Historic District, noting that there is no provision
in either Ithaca’s local landmarks ordinance or the State Model Landmarks Ordinance to allow “de-
designation” of a landmark or any portion of a designated historic district.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:11 p.m. by Chair Stein.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
13 of 13