HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2014-06-10Approved by ILPC: 7/8/14
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – June 10, 2014
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
Sue Stein
Christine O’Malley
Michael McGandy
Katelin Olson
Stephen Gibian
Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison
Gabriela Brito, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Sage Hall ― Slate Roof Repairs/Alterations Proposal
Applicants Andrew Germain and Andrew Murphy, Cornell University, recapitulated the salient details
of the proposed project. The purpose of the project is to replace the slate on the southeast turret and
northwest tower. There would also be some miscellaneous slate repairs around the perimeter of the
mansard roof and the iconic tower on the west. The alterations to the southeast turret represent a
dimensional change to the slate. The other principal change would be to the dormers on the west and
north elevations of the northwest turret, with additional flashing detail where the exposed wood trim has
deteriorated.
S. Gibian inquired into the changes to the cheek walls. A. Germain referred to drawing R-5, noting that
the dashed lines represent the proposed new copper cladding on the sidewalls, or cheeks, of the dormer.
The copper cladding is meant to address the rotted wood situation, flashing any water away from the
dormer. If one examines drawings R-1 and R-2, one can see the slate sizes. A. Germain stressed that
there would be very little difference and it would not be visible to the naked eye.
E. Finegan asked what a passer-by at ground-level would see when looking at it. A. Germain replied
they would see nothing at all on the southeast turret. On the northwest tower, they would see the new
copper, until the patina has had a chance to develop (after about 6 months).
Public Hearing
On a motion by C. O’Malley, seconded by K. Olson, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There
being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by S. Stein, seconded by M.
McGandy.
For purposes of the resolution, M. McGandy noted the applicants would be removing distinctive
materials, but would not be altering features and spaces characterizing the property.
1 of 13
ILPC Minutes
June 10, 2014
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, Sage Hall is an individual local landmark, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City
of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1990, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated May 13, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Andrew Germain on behalf of property owner
Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a set of eight
architectural drawings showing slate repair roof plans and details dated 3/20/14, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for Sage
Hall, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
localized slate roof repairs and alterations consisting of the extension of the existing
copper base cladding across the cheek walls of the two dormers on the northwest tower,
the installation of a new copper end dam on the east dormer, and the use of 8-inch slate
shingles to replace the 7-inch existing ones on the southeast turret, 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
June 10, 2014, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, Sage Hall was
constructed in 1875 as Cornell University’s women’s dormitory. Designed by Cornell’s
first professor of architecture, Charles Babcock, Sage Hall is an outstanding example of
the High Victorian Gothic style. It is the third of the three buildings that comprise the
informal Red Brick Group.
As described in the Certificate of Appropriateness Application, the purpose of the
proposal is to perform localized slate roof repairs that will result in the replacement of
original slate shingles and some flashing modifications.
2 of 13
ILPC Minutes
June 10, 2014
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 #1 The historic features of an individual landmark shall be altered as little
as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with the historic character
of the landmark.
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 #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 #1, Standard #2, Standard #5, and Standard #9, the repair of the
slate roof, including the replacement of existing slate shingles and flashing modifications,
will remove distinctive materials, but will not alter features and spaces that characterize
the property.
With respect to Principle #1 and Standard #6, as described on the application for
Certificate of Appropriateness, and shown on the pictures and details on the provided
drawings, the severity of the deterioration of the slate roof does require the replacement
of the existing shingles and alteration of the flashing details of the dormers. The
proposed new slate shingle roofing will sufficiently match the old in design, color,
texture, and material.
3 of 13
ILPC Minutes
June 10, 2014
Also with respect to Principle #1 and Standard #9, the use of 8-inch slate shingles and the
proposed new copper flashing at the dormers’ cheek walls 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 Sage Hall, 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: 6-0-0
Yes
E. Finegan
S. Stein
C. O’Malley
K. Olson
S. Gibian
M. McGandy
No
Abstain
B. 202 Eddy St., East Hill Historic District ― Request to Demolish Fire-Damaged Building &
Proposal to Reconstruct House
Applicants Nick Lambrou and Dylan Scott recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. N.
Lambrou noted that the intent is to replace it with the same structure that was there before, but with a
modernized interior (with sprinklers) and some minor changes to the façade. He noted there were three
entrances on the original building, all on the side, which was awkward; so the architect thought it would
be better if there were a front-and-center entranceway.
E. Finegan noted that some remaining portions and detailing on the existing structure seem to be in good
shape. N. Lambrou replied, yes. He would definitely like to include some things (e.g., the cupola), as
much as possible.
S. Stein asked if it would be the same footprint. N. Lambrou replied, yes.
S. Gibian asked if the applicant considered simply working with the remains of the existing structure.
N. Lambrou replied, yes, he did look into that; however, the structure is in very bad shape. The heat
destroyed a lot of it (e.g., buckled floors). S. Gibian responded it just seems excessive to tear the whole
building down.
G. Brito explained that the City Building Division actually requires the demolition of the building.
M. McGandy asked if it would comprise 11 bedrooms. N. Lambrou replied, yes. It would have the
same occupancy as the old building.
4 of 13
ILPC Minutes
June 10, 2014
C. O’Malley asked if the proposed design was based on any photographic or other historic
documentation. D. Scott replied they examined the existing floor plans and retained the same spaces for
the rooms. The overall layout would be preserved, including the central staircase. C. O’Malley asked
what materials would be employed on the exterior of the building. D. Scott replied they would use
hardy board painted the same color as the original structure. C. O’Malley asked if they would keep the
same windows. D. Scott replied, yes.
S. Gibian observed that the submitted plans and elevations are not consistent with each other in many
ways. For example, not all the windows shown on the elevations appear on the plans. Also, on the
second-floor plan, it shows an indent on the front of the building, but on the elevation it does not.
Likewise, the second-floor plans show two windows on each side in bedrooms 2 and 3, which are
pushed to the front, but on the elevation they are not. The third-floor plan shows two windows in
bedrooms 2 and 3, but the elevation only shows one window. He would find it hard to approve the
application, in light of the number of elements that do not agree with each other.
N. Lambrou responded that he was paying more attention to the elevations, than the plans. He should
have examined the plans more closely. He stressed that the central concept of the proposal, however, is
captured in the elevations. S. Gibian noted the applicant would still need to alter the plans to match the
elevations.
N. Lambrou noted there is enough room in the house to accommodate all the elements depicted on the
plans.
M. McGandy expressed concern with the color of the proposed building (“the new shall be differentiated
from the old”). The design looks wonderful, but it seems like too much of a replica of the former
building.
G. Brito responded that she discussed that exact point with the former City Historic Preservation
Planner, who believes the materials themselves will be substantially different enough from the original
and therefore would be sufficiently differentiated.
K. Olson asked what materials would be visible on the foundation. D. Scott replied they would use the
same materials as the original.
E. Finegan wondered if the application were approved, whether the applicant would have to alter the
interior in order to comply with what was being approved. N. Lambrou replied that he would like to say
yes, but he is not an architect. He agreed it would be more prudent to re-examine the design.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy. seconded by S. Stein, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Wayles Browne, 206 Eddy St., remarked that he supports the current level of density of students living
in Collegetown, so he is pleased to see that the proposed building would have the same occupancy. He
also hopes the new building would match the old building in appearance.
5 of 13
ILPC Minutes
June 10, 2014
Tom Hanna, formerly of 210 Eddy St., spoke in support of the application. He is very familiar with the
house and he suggested researching the history of the house more extensively. The person who built his
own former house was a Mr. Carmody ― and he believes Carmody was also the builder of this house.
Carmody worked for William Henry Miller as his contractor, so the current house included many ideas
borrowed from him Miller. If that could be corroborated, Hanna suggested that restoring the house as
much as possible may be the best approach.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by S. Stein,
seconded by M. McGandy.
C. 210 Eddy St., East Hill Historic District ― Request for Addition of Parking Spaces
Applicants Matoula Halkiopoulos and Gregory Halkiopoulos recapitulated the salient details of the
proposed project. G. Halkiopoulos explained that he just purchased the house and is a little confused
about the whole approval process. He observed that it is in fact legal for six unrelated people to reside
in the building; and, given that there are minimum parking requirement in the zone, he and his wife
would like to add parking spaces, which they believe makes sense. He is cognizant that he needs to
respect the neighbors, as well as what the prior owners did. G. Halkiopoulos remarked that he and his
wife would like the Commission’s guidance on what he and his wife can do in order to balance the
practical need for parking with the aesthetic and historic considerations the Commission is charged with.
E. Finegan responded the process is simply that the Commission will review the application as it was
submitted, and vote on its merits. The applicants would not be able to build the parking spaces, if it is
not approved.
M. McGandy remarked that he does not believe the Commission has enough information to make a
determination at this point.
G. Halkiopoulos asked if the Commission could discuss the other side and whether it would be
acceptable to add one more parking space. He added that he would certainly be willing to add a trellis
or other features to beautify it.
C. O’Malley responded that the Commission would need to actually see the proposed trellis on some
kind of drawing, in that case. G. Halkiopoulos agreed to submit one.
S. Gibian observed that it looks like there would be 24 feet of width available on that side of the house.
He suggested the applicant place more parking at that location, rather than the original location. G.
Halkiopoulos replied that he would not want to ruin that side of the house.
S. Gibian asked if one would be able to back a vehicle out while one is inside the driveway. G.
Halkiopoulos asked if the applicants should submit more detailed plans of the driveway area. C.
O’Malley replied that the applicants need to carefully examine the various options and provide
drawings.
6 of 13
ILPC Minutes
June 10, 2014
M. Halkiopoulos remarked that when she spoke to the former City Historic Preservation Planner and the
City Housing and Land Use Supervisor about what the applicants’ legal rights were, she was told that
altering the rear of the house would be much easier than altering the side.
E. Finegan replied that, regardless of the alterations the applicants would like to make, they are still
required to obtain the Commission’s approval. The Commission does not have enough information
about the proposed design of the parking area to make a decision.
M. Halkiopoulos responded that her original plan is summarized in the application, but she subsequently
conceived of the option of adding parking on the side. She asked what she would legally be allowed to
do.
G. Halkiopoulos asked if there are any rules that the applicants could follow to expedite the process. He
would like more guidance on what he can and cannot do.
S. Stein reiterated that the Commission does not yet have a satisfactory understanding of what the
applicants are proposing. They need to submit a drawing that is to scale that accurately represents their
proposal.
G. Halkiopoulos asked if they need to hire an architect to do that. He also asked if the applicants could
do what it is they have proposed, if there is enough room for cars to drive in and out.
E. McCollister noted the Commission cannot determine what would be appropriate for the building and
the Historic District without more information. She explained that the Building Division cannot approve
the project, until it has received the Commission’s approval.
M. McGandy suggested the applicants examine the City’s Historic District & Landmark Design
Guidelines for more guidance. He stressed that the Commission is most concerned with minimizing the
impact of the proposed alterations to the Historic District. It may be helpful if the applicants consulted
someone who has already worked in a Historic District.
K. Olson asked how someone would reach the back parking lot. G. Halkiopoulos replied, through the
driveway. K. Olson responded, in that case, she would be concerned ― if the property were ever sold,
there would be no access. G. Halkiopoulos replied others would be given a right-of-way.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by C. O’Malley, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Wayles Browne, 206 Eddy St., expressed general support for the applicants; however, he is concerned
that the proposal is for seven parking spaces, since that is more than the number of occupants in the
house. The tenants from the surrounding buildings may want to park their cars there.
Tom Hanna, formerly of 210 Eddy St., noted that he does not entirely understand the process. The
application only proposes using softscape, not hardscape. While he generally supports a decreased
emphasis on accommodating parking spaces in the city, the proposal to work on the north side of house
seems appropriate.
7 of 13
ILPC Minutes
June 10, 2014
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy,
seconded by S. Gibian.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
• None.
III. OLD BUSINESS
• 7 Ridgewood Rd., Student Apartments, Cornell Height Historic District ― Update
Applicants Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle, LLP, Steve Bus, CA Ventures, and Peter Trowbridge,
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project.
A. Walters indicated the applicants would like a clear sense of what the Commission is seeking, in
order to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicants have struggled a little in
attempting to address the Commission’s concerns. He stressed that the applicants believe the site
would already be sufficiently screened, as proposed, although it appears the Commission does not
share that view. To address any concerns, the applicants will conduct a balloon test to visually
establish the height of the proposed project at various points. The balloons would be floated at
designated points and photographs taken, which would give the Commission a sense of the project
from surrounding viewpoints. He stressed that the applicants do not believe the project would be
visible from Highland Avenue.
M. McGandy responded that sounds reasonable. He asked how that would account for rooftop
mechanicals. A. Walters replied there are no longer any rooftop mechanicals (although there would
be stair towers to reach the roof decks, which the applicants would like to capture). A. Walters
added that the balloon test would also involve superimposing the test results over leaf-off winter
conditions.
C. O’Malley asked about taking some photographs from the houses on the north looking down onto
the site. A. Walters replied the applicants cannot trespass on those properties, so they have not
investigated that. He noted that the applicants could explore that further.
S. Bus observed that some of those same homeowners have vehemently opposed the project and it
seems likely that they oppose it on the face of it; so he would like that taken into account if they
refuse to permit the applicants access to their properties.
S. Gibian noted that the grade for Building 3 appears raised. P. Trowbridge replied, yes, in order to
achieve positive drainage away from the driveway.
S. Bus noted that the Commission expressed other concerns about the project that cannot be
addressed by the balloon tests, so the applicants would like more guidance from the Commission on
those issues.
8 of 13
ILPC Minutes
June 10, 2014
E. Finegan responded that massing and scale remain a principal concern. At the last meeting, S.
Gibian provided some good numeric comparisons to other projects in the area, so he is not sure how
the applicants propose to address those.
S. Bus responded that the applicants examined the height on the Thurston Avenue Apartments
project. The buildings for that project are 36 feet from the average grade line to the mid-point on the
peak of the roofs. The applicants are proposing an average of 30-40 feet for this project, so he
would like more guidance on that issue.
A. Walters remarked that one of the main challenges is that the proposed buildings are taller than
they would otherwise be, because of the underground parking. He asked how the applicants should
balance that massing issue vs. the alternative of providing additional surface parking. He asked if
the Commission would prefer that the applicants forgo the subsurface parking.
S. Bus asked if the applicants should be proposing more numerous, but smaller buildings.
A. Walters asked if, using the Thurston Avenue Apartments project as baseline for what would be
acceptable, the applicants should be considering the number of units compared to lot size, or some
other measure. There are many different methods for comparing the two projects.
M. McGandy responded the two projects are really apples and oranges in comparison to each other.
He strongly recommended that the project needs to speak to its natural environment. While he loves
the architectural design, and believes the balloon tests should be helpful, the project remains
gargantuan. The number of units is a key driver.
S. Bus asked if the balloon test would be helpful to the Commission. C. O’Malley replied,
definitely. M. McGandy agreed.
A. Walter noted that the applicants would place markers 10 feet down from the height of the
balloons, so the test results could also be used in the future should the project change.
S. Bus asked if the Commission would be amenable to the project having a greater number of
smaller buildings. E. Finegan replied that the view from Highland Avenue is the sticking point for
him.
S. Gibian remarked that he was surprised at how close to Ridgewood Road the proposed buildings
turned out to be.
C. O’Malley indicated the Commission performed a reasonably exhaustive site visit and saw how
close to the road it was. Furthermore, she believes the Ridgewood Road building reads as four
stories from the entranceway, rather than three. She agreed with the other Commission members
that the designs for the buildings are very good-looking; but she asked if there could simply be fewer
buildings.
S. Bus replied that having only one or two buildings would not work, since they could not possibly
provide the number of living units the applicant would need.
9 of 13
ILPC Minutes
June 10, 2014
P. Trowbridge suggested that site walls could be employed to obscure the base of the building,
which may help.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by S. Gibian, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Eric Ricciardi, 55 Ridgewood Rd., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting that once one
project like this project is approved, the Commission would be legally bound to approve similar
projects. He is also concerned that the building would be clad with fiber cement, simulated stone,
and other artificial materials. He does not believe the applicant has been responsive enough to the
Commission’s concerns. It would not be appropriate for this Historic District.
Wes Turner, 55 Ridgewood Rd., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting that the
proposed building does not in fact reflect the Prairie architectural style, as has been conveyed. He is
also concerned with the prospect of a non-local developer developing this project purely for the
purpose of making a profit.
Nicholas Kok, 55 Ridgewood Rd., spoke in opposition to the proposed project and presented two
graphical illustrations he believes support the contention that the project would not be suitable for
the Historic District in terms of lot coverage and building height.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by S. Stein,
seconded by K. Olson.
A. Walters remarked that this meeting has been very helpful. The applicants have heard at least two
Commissions members state that a project comparable to the Thurston Avenue Apartments project
would be approvable.
M. McGandy remarked that something along the lines of the Thurston Avenue Apartments footprint
would be closer to what he is looking for.
S. Bus asked what the Commission would think if there were different-sized footprints, recognizing
that the size of the buildings facing the right-of-way are the most critical ones for the Commission.
S. Gibian replied that would be fine.
E. Finegan noted that the location of Building 3 has been the principal problem all along. He
suggested that the footprint of Building 3 could be left alone, if it were situated in the lower section
of the site.
S. Bus suggested that perhaps the best solution would be to have two smaller flanking buildings in
the publicly-visible locations.
E. McCollister agreed that the Highland Avenue end of the site is the most important. She added
that the proposed green roof is not really a green roof at all, but would be AstroTurf®. She would
also discourage permitting residents to access the roof, as proposed.
10 of 13
ILPC Minutes
June 10, 2014
• 232 S. Albany St., Henry St. John Historic District ― Update
Applicant Colin Smith explained that he explored all the other options for the solar panels, but
determined that there is unfortunately no other option that would work. Consultant Nick Kirk,
Taitem Engineering, P.C., explained that he examined everything that could be done on the roof to
make the project look more aesthetically pleasing. They would use black anodized aluminum for all
parts of the array, its mounts, rails, and modules. The mounts would also be low-profile. Finally,
the conduit would run through the attic so that there is no exposed metal.
C. O’Malley asked if the configuration would still be the same. C. Smith replied, yes. All the other
possible configurations would have involved too much shading.
S. Gibian observed that the roof is fairly shallow, which would make the project less prominent.
M. McGandy remarked that the Commission approved a neighboring solar project on the basis that it
was black on a dark roof and that it was on a prominent but not principal façade of the building. In
light of those considerations, M. McGandy noted, he could not approve this project since it is on a
principal façade.
S. Gibian disagreed, noting it would be on the side of the roof.
G. Brito noted that she discussed this project with the former Historic Preservation Planner and they
concluded the Commission could include some detailed language in the text of the approval
resolution that explains why the Commission voted for it (e.g., the applicant explored all other
possibilities, that he has made all other appropriate efficiency improvements to the building, etc.)
S. Stein asked if the alterations would be entirely removable. N. Kirk replied, yes, they could easily
be removed. It would simply be a matter of removing the panels and infrastructure, and repairing
the shingles. S. Stein observed that would also serve to bolster a decision to approve the project.
E. Finegan asked how old the roof is. C. Smith replied, circa 2008.
K. Olson replied it is significant that it is a new roof; however, she remains conflicted about how to
proceed. There would certainly be an aesthetic impact to the Historic District as a result of the
project. The fact that no materials would be adversely affected is good, but it would be jarring to see
the black panel system on the brown roof.
S. Stein asked if there were any other colors the applicant could use. N. Kirk replied, no.
S. Stein remarked that the Commission can state that it examines these kinds of applications on a
case-by-case basis.
S. Gibian remarked that he would vote to approve the project. S. Stein agreed. C. O’Malley
indicated that she would vote for it, only if the detailed language that was mentioned earlier is
included in the resolution.
11 of 13
ILPC Minutes
June 10, 2014
M. McGandy noted that referring to the Commission’s decision in the context of making case-by-
case decision would be a mistake.
E. Finegan noted that he would most likely approve the project.
M. McGandy noted that he would prefer to have all of the documentation associated with the project
before making a determination (e.g., documents demonstrating that all other avenues were explored,
etc.).
G. Brito indicated the applicant could provide that information at the next meeting, including all
specifications for the installation (e.g., black finish, low profile, etc.).
C. O’Malley added it would also be helpful for the applicant to demonstrate that no other location on
the property would have worked.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
• 140 College Avenue ― Preliminary Review
Architect Jason Demarest recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He emphasized that
the contractor for the project is ready to begin work, so he would like some indication from the
Commission as to whether the project can proceed.
E. Finegan asked if the fire escape would be permanently removed. J. Demarest replied, no. A
secondary emergency egress is not required in this case, due to the new sprinklers.
G. Brito explained that the fire escape removal would be eligible for staff-level approval.
J. Demarest noted that he had spoken to the former Historic Preservation Planner, who indicated that she
would personally have no problem with allowing the City Building Division to issue the Demolition
Permit for the fire escape.
K. Olson asked if the proposed siding has a specific lifespan estimate. J. Demarest replied, probably 20-
25 years.
S. Gibian remarked that he was somewhat surprised at the number of bedrooms that would be involved
(24). He asked if it was the express purpose of the owner to maximize the number of bedrooms. J.
Demarest replied, yes. He added that there would be no parking spaces associated with the project,
however, given its proximity to Collegetown.
S. Gibian noted the project would cover up the two decorative chimneys. J. Demarest replied that a
portion of them would be visible from the interior.
G. Brito asked why brick would not be used. J. Demarest replied that there had been some discussion of
that with the Planning and Development Board, but that the Board ultimately decided the addition
should be as differentiated as possible from the original building.
12 of 13
ILPC Minutes
June 10, 2014
K. Olson expressed appreciation of the need to put on additions to historic buildings, and the way that
the original exterior wall then becomes the interior wall; but it would be best to retain the intact brick. J.
Demarest responded that although it is being covered up, the brick would remain.
M. McGandy asked if the applicant could simply not cover up the brick. J. Demarest replied, yes. That
should be feasible. (In fact, it was only in a recent discussion with the contractor that the decision was
made to cover it.)
J. Demarest asked the Commission’s opinion of the proposed simulated slate. E. Finegan replied that if
the applicant were proposing it on the original building, that would be a problem. The Commission has
more flexibility in considering it for the addition, so it would be acceptable.
K. Olson noted that she thinks the addition should be set back from the main building. She added that
the Commission will also be very interested in the windows that are being proposed. C. O’Malley
indicated that she agrees that the addition should be pushed back, as well as exposing the brick.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by K. Olson, and seconded by M. McGandy, Commission members approved the following
meeting minutes, with no modifications, with S. Gibian abstaining.
• May 13, 2014 (Regular Meeting)
As moved by S. Stein, and seconded by C. O’Malley, Commission members approved the following
meeting minutes, with no modifications, with S. Gibian abstaining.
• May 20, 2014 (Special Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:55 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
13 of 13