HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2014-04-08Approved by ILPC: 5/13/14
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – April 8, 2014
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice-Chair
Sue Stein
Christine O’Malley
Katelin Olson
Stephen Gibian
Michael McGandy
Lynn Truame, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Ellen McCollister, Common Council
Liaison
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 2 Ridgewood Road, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Paired Doors,
Sidelights, & Fanlight
Applicant Bojan Petek recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. No questions were
raised.
Public Hearing
On a motion by C. O’Malley, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded
by S. Stein.
M. McGandy asked if the center doors are repairable. B. Petek replied, yes, strictly speaking, they are
repairable; however, the applicant would prefer to have doors with long-term durability, without needing
frequent repainting, and which would be specifically engineered as exterior doors to safeguard against
warping, that have durable seals, etc., since they would be exposed to the weather. He noted the existing
doors accumulated considerable damage over the years.
(K. Olson arrived at 5:36 p.m.)
B. Petek noted the existing doors also tend obstruct people using the patio, so the applicant would like to
be able to open them and keep them flat against the building. He added that in order comply with
Building Code a new door in the existing opening between the sidelights would need to be made as a
single leaf, rather than two 24-inch leaves. B. Petek noted the fraternity had also recently been broken
into through the existing doors, so the applicant would really like to replace them with something more
secure.
S. Gibian asked if the proposed doors would swing out. Petek replied, yes. That is a requirement for
emergency egress.
1 of 15
ILPC Minutes
April 8, 2014
K. Olson asked when the side doors had been replaced. L. Truame responded that the applicant
submitted a proposal to the Commission 2.5 years ago for side doors and a central door; however, that
proposal was handled by two separate resolutions. The flanker doors were approved for replacement,
but the applicant withdrew the application for the central door.
S. Gibian asked if the original side doors were paired 2-foot doors. Petek replied, yes.
S. Gibian observed the whole area being discussed seems somewhat of a hodgepodge, with three
different types of windows. It would be an improvement to establish some visual consistency one way
or the other. The area being discussed is also blocked from public view in many places; and it is not the
primary façade.
S. Stein agreed with S. Gibian that it would be good to have some visual consistency.
RESOLUTION: Moved by C. O’Malley, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 2 Ridgewood Road is 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 February 26, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Bojan Petek on behalf of property owner
Phi Delta Theta, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) one photograph
showing the existing central door, sidelights, and fanlight, flanked by the newly installed
flanking doors; and (3) one architectural drawing dated 10/04/11 showing the proposed
new central door unit; and (4) one architectural drawing titled “Round Top Over Door 2,”
showing the proposed new fan light and elimination of existing sidelights in detail; and
(5) one two-page product information sheet for the Marvin Magnum commercial door
series, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 2
Ridgewood Road, 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 the entire central door assembly, which includes non-original operable
leaves, as well as an original fan light and original sidelights. The sidelights would be
eliminated and the fan light reconfigured to reflect this alteration of the original
opening’s proportions, 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
2 of 15
ILPC Minutes
April 8, 2014
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 8, 2014, 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, 2 Ridgewood
Road was constructed between 1921 and 1922 and combines elements of popular revival
styles of the first quarter of the 20th century.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and
possessing a relatively 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:
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.
3 of 15
ILPC Minutes
April 8, 2014
Standard #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
Standard #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the
new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities,
and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be
substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, Standard #5, and Standard #9, the replacement
of central door assembly, including elimination of the original side lights and
replacement of the original fan light with a reconfigured fan light, will remove distinctive
materials, but will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Because
they are located on a secondary elevation that is not significantly visible to the public, the
visual impact of the alterations is reduced.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, based on personal inspection of the
condition of the door assembly, the Commission finds that the severity of deterioration of
the original sidelights and fan light does require their replacement. The proposed new
work will approximate the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new door assembly is
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell
Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
4 of 15
ILPC Minutes
April 8, 2014
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-1-0
Yes
S. Stein
C. O’Malley
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
M. McGandy
D. Kramer
No
K. Olson
Abstain
B. 660 Stewart Ave., University Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Construct Garden Fence
Applicants Tim Anderson, Senior Facilities Manager, Cornell University, and Jamie Johnson (former
resident) recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. J. Johnson explained that he lost his
best friend, Chris Dennis, in a canoeing accident, so he wanted to start a garden to dedicate to him. It
would be behind two cooperative houses and would consist primarily of vegetables and fruit trees,
although the plans have not been finalized. The submitted drawing represents a rough representation of
the dimensions.
C. O’Malley asked if the fence was primarily for excluding deer. J. Johnson replied, yes. The existing
garden has been there a while, surrounded by a short mesh fence; however, the deer simply jump over it.
S. Gibian asked why the existing garden could not also be encompassed by the new fence. J. Johnson
replied the new garden site was chosen because it receives the most direct sunlight. He also wanted it in
a central location so it could be shared between the two buildings.
T. Anderson remarked that the applicant has identified someone who would live on-site and be in charge
of maintaining the garden in exchange for a reduced rent. He added that the cultures of both houses are
well-attuned to maintaining the existing garden, which bodes well for the maintenance of the new
garden.
J. Johnson added that the new garden will be well-planned, with a sufficient degree of structure to
ensure it is well-maintained, so as to require the least possible maintenance.
D. Kramer noted he is the closest non-Cornell University-affiliated neighbor to the site. He examined
the site and determined no one would be able to see it from the row. He very much supports the project
and believes it is a lovely plan.
C. O’Malley agreed it is a nice project. She does not foresee a problem with the fence (i.e., because of
its location, its distance from the house, etc.).
S. Gibian noted his primary objection to the proposal is that it is a very symmetrical house, which the
proposed site for the new garden does not pay deference to. He suggested including the existing garden
in the proposal, as well.
5 of 15
ILPC Minutes
April 8, 2014
Public Hearing
On a motion by C. O’Malley, seconded by S. Stein, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There
being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D.
Kramer.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 660 Stewart Avenue is located within the University Hill Historic District, as designated
under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2003, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated March 24, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Wesley Cornell 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) three photographs
showing existing conditions at the property and the location and configuration of the
proposed new garden; (3) a narrative further describing the proposed alterations; and (4)
a photograph showing the design and materials of the proposed fence, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
University Hill Historic District for 660 Stewart Avenue, and the City of Ithaca’s
University Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves creation
of a fruit and vegetable garden west of the house and enclosure of that garden with a
wood and woven wire fence, 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 8, 2014, 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 University Hill Historic District
is identified in the City of Ithaca’s University Hill Historic District Summary
Significance Statement as 1867-1927.
6 of 15
ILPC Minutes
April 8, 2014
As indicated in the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the University
Hill Historic District, 660 Stewart Avenue was constructed in 1902 for Elizabeth Treman
Van Cleef. This outstanding example of the Italian Renaissance style was the central of a
group of three residences built by the Treman family, one of Ithaca’s most prominent
families during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, that were arranged in a rough
semi-circle on a common 9-acre designed landscape spanning from Stewart Avenue to
University Avenue. 660 Stewart Avenue was designed by William H. Miller, Ithaca’s
most renowned architect of the period, and is his only known Italian Renaissance-style
residence.
Constructed within the period of significance of the University Hill Historic District, 660
Stewart Avenue possesses a high level of physical integrity and visual prominence, and is
one of the most architecturally and historically significant contributing structures in the
University Hill 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:
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.
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 #9, the installation of the proposed garden fence will not
remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the
property.
7 of 15
ILPC Minutes
April 8, 2014
Also with respect to Principle #3, and Standard #9, the proposed new fence is compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment and with the historic character of the district within which it is located.
With respect to Standard #10, the new fence can be removed in the future without
impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the University
Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-1-0
Yes
S. Stein
C. O’Malley
E. Finegan
M. McGandy
K. Olson
D. Kramer
No
S. Gibian
Abstain
C. Proposal to Expand Local East Hill Historic District to Include Properties at 109, 111, 112,
114, & 115 Orchard Place
L. Truame summarized the contents of the proposal. She explained that the City received a Certified
Local Government (CLG) grant to perform some survey work in the Collegetown area to determine if
any historic properties should either be protected as landmarks or locally designated historic districts.
Orchard Place was reviewed as part of that process. Historic Ithaca subsequently discovered the
Orchard Place properties are actually related to the East Hill Historic District (EHHD); so it was
suggested to expand EHHD to include them. L. Truame has reviewed the Historic Ithaca information
and incorporated it into a draft proposal, which City Historian Mary Tomlan then reviewed and edited.
All affected property owners have been notified of the proposal. No objections of any kind have been
received. (Common Council Member Graham Kerslick, who lives on Orchard Place even individually
e-mailed his neighbors and received no expressions of opposition.)
L. Truame observed that no members of the public are present this evening, despite having been notified
of the meeting.
8 of 15
ILPC Minutes
April 8, 2014
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy seconded by C. O’Malley, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Mary Tomlan, 200 Delaware Ave., and City of Ithaca Historian, indicated her initial involvement with
the proposal began with the preparation of the Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed
Research report (May 13, 2009). That report identified the Orchard Place houses as worthy of
investigation. After performing the research, Historic Ithaca determined the houses are definitely related
to the East Hill Historic District: the development of the street was linked to various downtown Ithaca
enterprises and not the university. In addition, the Orchard Place properties are contemporary with the
rest of that portion of the East Hill Historic District. She added that the fact that Orchard Place residents
have maintained pride in their buildings, which are well-kept and have experienced consistent
ownership, also suggests that recognition would be appropriate. She strongly supported the proposal.
L. Truame read the following memorandum to the Commission:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lynn C. Truame and members of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
FROM: Alphonse Pieper, Executive Director Historic Ithaca, Inc.
RE: Proposed local designation and inclusion of the Orchard Place properties in the East
Hill Local Historic District
DATE: April 7, 2014
Historic Ithaca supports the proposal to expand the local East Hill Historic District to include
properties at 109, 111, 112, 114, & 115 Orchard Place. The Orchard Place properties were built as
part of the same early 1900s residential development that included the properties at 115 Eddy Street
and 101 Orchard Place, both currently in the East Hill Historic District. The additional Orchard
Place properties share architectural styles and features with these adjacent properties, all retain a
high level of architectural integrity, and all are worthy of inclusion in the East Hill Historic District.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer,
seconded by S. Stein.
Expansion of Local East Hill Historic District ― Lead Agency
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established
for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead
agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, and
9 of 15
ILPC Minutes
April 8, 2014
WHEREAS, the proposed expansion of the local East Hill Historic District is a "Type II Action"
pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and is an "Unlisted
Action" under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission does hereby declare itself lead
agency for the environmental review of the proposed expansion of the local East Hill
Historic District.
RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0
Yes
S. Gibian
S. Stein
E. Finegan
D. Kramer
M. McGandy
C. O’Malley
K. Olson
No
0
Abstain
0
Proposed Expansion of Local East Hill Historic District ― Environmental Determination
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by K. Olson.
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review, including the preparation of a Short Environmental
Assessment Form (SEAF), for the expansion of the local East Hill Historic District has
been conducted and submitted for review to the Conservation Advisory Council, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is a "Type II Action" under the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act (Sec. 617.5(C)(30) and an "Unlisted Action" under the City
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, (CEQR Sec. 176-2), and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed
the SEAF, dated March 14, 2014, and supplemental information, and has determined that
the proposed expansion of the historic district will not have a significant effect on the
environment and that further environmental review is unnecessary, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk
is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City
Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law.
10 of 15
ILPC Minutes
April 8, 2014
RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0
Yes
S. Gibian
S. Stein
E. Finegan
D. Kramer
M. McGandy
C. O’Malley
K. Olson
No
0
Abstain
0
Expansion of Local East Hill Historic District to Include 109, 111, 112, 114, & 115 Orchard Place
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by C. O’Malley.
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission may designate landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been concluded for the purpose of considering a proposal to expand the
existing East Hill Historic District to include the five properties along Orchard Place that are
not currently included within the district, the boundaries of which are shown on the attached
map, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission acting as Lead Agency and it has been determined that the proposal will not
have a significant environmental impact, and
WHEREAS, Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code defines a HISTORIC DISTRICT as follows:
A group of properties which:
1. Contains primarily properties which meet one or more of the criteria for
designation as an individual landmark; and
2. Constitutes a distinct section of the city by reason of possessing those qualities
that would satisfy such criteria.
and,
WHEREAS, Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code defines the criteria for designation of an
individual landmark as follows:
1. Possessing special character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as part of
the cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality, region, state,
or nation; or
11 of 15
ILPC Minutes
April 8, 2014
2. Being identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s); or
3. Embodying the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style; or
4. Being the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced an age;
or
5. Representing an established and familiar visual feature of the community by
virtue of its unique location or singular physical characteristics.
and,
WHEREAS, the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the proposed
designation:
Two portions of the East Hill neighborhood were first designated as local historic districts in
1974 (the Fountain Place Historic District) and 1976 (the East Hill Historic District). In
1986, the much larger present-day East Hill Historic District was surveyed and listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. In 1988, the boundaries of the local East Hill Historic
District were expanded to match those of the National Register District, subsuming the two
earlier local districts.
The period of significance for the East Hill Historic District is 1830-1932. The district
derives its greatest significance from the broad collection of architecturally and
historically significant 19th and early 20th century residential, commercial, and
institutional buildings contained within it.
The district includes many of Ithaca’s best and most intact examples of popular American
architectural styles and modes, including Greek Revival, Gothic Revival, Italianate,
Second Empire, Shingle, Queen Anne, Renaissance Revival, Colonial Revival, and Arts
and Crafts (or Craftsman). The architectural styles employed reflect the neighborhood’s
prestige and influence and the prominence Ithaca gained after the founding of Cornell
University and the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
Constructed roughly between the 1830s and 1930s, this building stock reflects Ithaca’s
growth from a small industrial community to its 20th century role as an internationally
known, distinguished educational center.
The significance of the Orchard Place properties, which were constructed between 1907
and 1913 in the Colonial Revival and Craftsman styles, is consistent with that of the East
Hill Historic District as a whole.
In keeping with Section 228-3 C.1 of the Municipal Code, the addition of the Orchard Place
properties to the existing East Hill Historic District will more appropriately define an area
that contains primarily properties which meet one or more of the criteria for
designation as an individual landmark.
12 of 15
ILPC Minutes
April 8, 2014
Per criterion #1 of Section 228-3 B, the Orchard Place properties possess a special
character, historical interest, and aesthetic interest and value as part of the
cultural, political, economic, and social history of the city.
The five properties at 109, 111, 112, 114, and 115 Orchard Place (as well the two
at 101 Orchard Place and 115 Eddy, which are already included within the
historic district) are significant for their association with the residential growth of
East Hill in the decades following the granting of a City Charter to Ithaca in 1888.
Planned as single-family residential building lots that were sold to buyers who
then contracted with architects or builders to erect a house, the street initially
attracted non-Cornell affiliated middle-class business people and professionals,
and later, Cornell University faculty and staff.
Though planned as a distinct residential enclave, Orchard Place now blends
seamlessly into the larger East Hill neighborhood and helps define the district’s
edge where it abuts the more heavily student-oriented development of the
Collegetown neighborhood.
Per criterion #3 of Section 228-3 B, Orchard Place is also significant as a
collection of early-twentieth century houses embodying the distinguishing
characteristics of the popular architectural styles of the era, including
Craftsman and Colonial Revival.
The Commission has received expert opinion concerning the significance of the
Orchard Place buildings as a coherent early twentieth century architectural
grouping in the Craftsman and Colonial Revival styles.
Two of the five Orchard Place houses (#s 114 and 115) were constructed in the
Craftsman style, two (#s 109 and 112) feature elements of both the Craftsman and
Colonial Revival styles, and one (#111) is an excellent example of the Dutch
Colonial Revival style. 111 Orchard Place gains additional significance for its
association with the regionally prominent architectural firm of Pierce & Bickford,
Elmira, NY.
In keeping with Section 228-3 C.2 of the Municipal Code, the addition of the Orchard Place
properties to the existing East Hill Historic District will more appropriately define an area
that constitutes a distinct section of the city by reason of possessing those qualities
that would satisfy the criteria for designation as an individual landmark.
The eastern boundary of the East Hill National Register district was established at
Eddy Street on the basis of that street having been the 1887 Village boundary.
However, the selection of Eddy Street as the eastern boundary was not consistent
with the intent stated within the nomination of delineating that part of the East
Hill neighborhood that “retained the architectural integrity of the 1870-1920
period.”
13 of 15
ILPC Minutes
April 8, 2014
Recent research has revealed that when Eddy Street was selected as the eastern
boundary for the National Register district an historically unified, early-twentieth
century planned residential development on Orchard Place was bisected, placing
two of its seven architecturally and historically related components within the
district and the remaining five outside the district. This created an inappropriate
artificial distinction between these related historic resources.
and,
WHEREAS, the Commission adopts as its own the documentation and information more fully set forth in
the report titled Proposed Expansion of the Local East Hill Historic District, prepared by
Secretary to the Commission, Lynn C. Truame, based upon material submitted to the ILPC
in 2012 by Sara Johnson and Kristen Olson of Historic Ithaca, Inc, and reviewed by Mary
Raddant Tomlan, City Historian, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that 109, 111, 112, 114, and
115 Orchard Place meet criteria for inclusion within the local East Hill Historic District, as
set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Commission hereby recommends expansion of the local East Hill Historic District
to include 109, 111, 112, 114, and 115 Orchard Place, altering the eastern boundary of the
local historic district as shown on the attached map.
RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0
Yes
S. Gibian
S. Stein
E. Finegan
D. Kramer
M. McGandy
C. O’Malley
K. Olson
No
Abstain
L. Truame noted that the Planning and Development Board will receive the proposal materials for their
review and comment and both the ILPC recommendation and the Planning Board report will then be
forwarded to the Planning and Economic Development Committee of Common Council for
consideration at their May 2014 meeting.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
• None.
14 of 15
ILPC Minutes
April 8, 2014
III. OLD BUSINESS
• None
IV. NEW BUSINESS
• None
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by M. McGandy, and seconded by K. Olson, Commission members unanimously approved
the following meeting minutes, with one minor modification.
• March 11, 2014 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• None
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 6:44 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
15 of 15