HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2014-09-09Approved by ILPC: 10/14/14
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – September 9, 2014
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Katelin Olson
Stephen Gibian
Sue Stein
Lynn Truame, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 201 W. Clinton St., Henry St. John Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Gutters & Extend
Existing Brick Chimney
The applicants were not present.
S. Gibian noted the gutter situation could probably be solved in some other way, perhaps using 6-inch
half rounds, rather than the proposed five-inch K-style gutters. S. Stein agreed. She expressed
skepticism the K-style gutters would be compatible with the building.
E. Finegan wondered how the Commission has handled these kinds of applications in the past. He
thought the Commission would not approve K-style gutters in any situation ― that only half rounds are
acceptable.
L. Truame explained the only situation for which the Commission can approve K-style gutters as
replacements for existing half-rounds is if the applicant can show that the K-style is necessary to
effectively control a water problem that is leading to the deterioration of the historic structure.
E. Finegan wondered what the water-handling capacity of 6-inch half rounds is compared to K-style
gutters.
S. Gibian noted he would prefer not to see the K-style gutters project out from the building.
L. Truame observed that the Commission may have more questions than staff is capable of answering at
this time. The Commission may prefer to table consideration of the application until the next meeting.
E. Finegan asked if Commission members have any questions or concerns about the proposed chimney.
K. Olson noted she may feel better about the proposed chimney if she could see a better historic image
of the house.
D. Kramer suggested tabling the application since there are several questions the Commission cannot
answer. For example, he would personally like to know how the applicants plan on constructing the
chimney, and if there is any documentation to illustrate what the original chimneys looked like and what
the proposed chimney would look like. There is just not enough information.
1 of 14
ILPC Minutes
September 9, 2014
E. Finegan indicated it sounds like the consensus of the Commission is to table the application. No
objections were raised.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer, 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.
B. 210 Eddy St., East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Add Two Parking Spaces
Applicant Brian Buttner recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting it was modified
from the earlier proposal based on the Commission’s comments. The size and scope of the project were
reduced from the earlier 5-space parking lot proposal that would have removed most of the backyard and
required substantial fill.
B. Buttner explained the current proposal only seeks to add one parking space near the existing
driveway, as well as extend the existing sidewalk onto the property at the top of that slope. It also seeks
to add two parking spots on the north side of the backyard, with access from the 214 Eddy Street
driveway. He indicated the owners are prepared to agree to an easement guaranteeing access to that
driveway, should the property ever be sold. The current proposal would preserve the existing nearby
garden and use only a little fill, with a retaining wall approximately 3-4 feet away from and parallel to
the existing stone stair. The 214 Eddy Street driveway would also be re-graded to decrease the slope.
Just to the west of the proposed parking would be a rock garden area to reduce run-off onto neighboring
properties.
E. Finegan observed the application mentions 3 new parking spaces. B. Buttner replied that is simply a
typographical error.
B. Buttner presented an updated sketch of the proposal to the Commission.
E. Finegan asked for clarification of the filled parking area with the retaining wall. B. Buttner
responded the retaining wall would be situated next to the stone stairs and the fill area depicted on the
drawing represents the rock garden. The site would also require a guardrail behind the two new parking
spaces on the north side to prevent vehicles from backing up into the backyard.
E. Finegan observed the new parking spaces should make the parking near the barn unnecessary. B.
Buttner replied that the parking to the north of the barn would actually still be available.
D. Kramer noted the proposal appears to call for two parking spaces in front of the barn and a portion of
a parking space to the north of the barn. It is not clear to him what the applicants would gain with their
proposal. B. Buttner responded that the parking spaces would be on the north side of the barn. There
would also be parking at the higher level, near the retaining wall at the rear, near 214 Eddy Street.
S. Stein asked how many occupants live at 210 Eddy Street. B. Buttner replied, six. S. Stein remarked
that the City only requires one parking space for every two occupants, so the proposal would create one
more parking space than required. B. Buttner replied there are only two existing spaces (actually, more
like 1½ spaces) and the applicants are seeking three. The proposal also includes an overflow area, so as
not to force both of the 214 Eddy Street vehicles to park next to the barn.
2 of 14
ILPC Minutes
September 9, 2014
K. Olson observed that under Photo A in the application it states: “Driveway of #214 Eddy Street
looking south to #210 Eddy Street. This driveway will be lowered approx 24” to permit new access
drive to enter rear yard of #210 Eddy Street.” B. Buttner replied that is correct. K. Olson indicated that
the Commission cannot consider that particular proposal at this time, since it is for an entirely different
property. K. Olson remarked it appears the applicants are essentially adding a parking space to one
property and subtracting one from the other property ― creating something she does not see any kind of
historical rationale for (i.e., more parking in the backyard).
B. Buttner responded there is the expectation the house would need 3 spaces, so there is a rationale for
one additional spot.
E. Finegan asked where the third parking space would be located. B. Buttner replied it would go in the
same general area. The southern end of the site already features a steep drop-off, so there is no feasible
way to add the space without using a lot of fill. When he evaluated the possibility of the additional
parking space on the south side of the house, that driveway would have had to have been made even
steeper, presenting a serious risk in winter.
S. Stein stressed the neighborhood was established with the intent of being more of a walking-oriented
neighborhood, than a driving-oriented one. Most of the houses were not designed to have significant
parking.
K. Olson indicated she would not favor approving more parking than is legally required for the number
of residents.
D. Kramer suggested that since an agreement with the City is already necessary to get the easement to
access the parking area at 210 Eddy Street from 214 Eddy Street, the applicants could also perhaps get
the City to agree that the parking spaces next to the barn would apply to 210 Eddy Street. B. Buttner
replied he is not opposed to that suggestion; however, it is important to remember that 210 Eddy Street
is not a one-family home, but a student housing rental property; and it will most likely continue to be for
the foreseeable future.
E. Finegan explained that the property has historically been a one-family house. Simply because a
group of students is currently living there does not mean there is an obligation to accommodate
additional parking on the site. The property also serves as a buffer zone for maintaining the character of
the Historic District.
B. Buttner indicated he was only trying to minimize the impact on the backyard, based on the
Commission’s past comments, and still maintain the highest and best use of the property for the owners.
D. Kramer added there is further parking nearby, to the north and south. He noted the simplest thing to
do would probably be to discuss the situation with the City and see what options may be available to the
applicants.
S. Stein observed that the 2012 Collegetown Parking Study generated for the Collegetown Crossing
project indicated that only 15.6% percent of respondents in buildings without parking brought vehicles,
while only 39.7% of respondents in buildings with parking brought them; so there does not appear to be
3 of 14
Approved by ILPC: 10/14/14
an extraordinary demand for parking to begin with. S. Stein observed there is also on-street parking
nearby.
B. Buttner replied that the City Zoning Code does not count on-street parking towards a property’s
parking requirements. A property’s parking requirement has to be accommodated on the property itself.
S. Gibian noted he is not sure what advantage there is for the applicants in the proposal, since there is no
net gain in parking spaces. He asked why the applicants need 12-foot wide parking spaces on the south
side. B. Buttner replied that is a sloped area, so he did not want to force cars too close together
(especially in winter).
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by K. Olson, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Wayles Browne, 206 Eddy St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting that while he is in
favor of students living in Collegetown and having them as neighbors, he is worried about the details of
the proposal and wonders if the changes are actually necessary.
Graham Kerslick, Common Council Member, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting that
fewer people are bringing vehicles into Collegetown and there are a number of vacant off-street parking
spaces. He does not see that the proposal is necessary. He also noted the applicants could achieve their
objectives by applying for a Zoning Variance. And he knows that the Building Division is more than
willing to work with the owners on this issue.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer,
seconded by S. Stein.
D. Kramer expressed regret that so much effort has been expended by the applicants on the proposal, but
his sense is that the Commission would not approve it. S. Stein agreed.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 210 Eddy Street is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under Section
228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New York State
and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated August 25, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Brian Buttner on behalf of property
owners Greg and Matoula Halkiopoulos, including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2)
one sheet of photographs of existing conditions at the property; and (3) a site plan
depicting the proposed changes, and
4 of 14
ILPC Minutes
September 9, 2014
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
210 Eddy Street, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement,
and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
addition of two new parking spaces at the north side of the parcel, west of the existing
house, which will be accessed via the driveway of 214 Eddy Street (which existing drive
will be lowered by approximately 24”), and the creation of one additional parking space
adjacent to the existing space at the south side of the house, with associated landscape
plantings, 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
September 9, 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 East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, the
period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is 1830-
1932.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 210 Eddy Street
was constructed between 1872 and 1874. It is a modest mid-19th century house,
extensively remodeled in 1912.
Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East 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 228-6
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
5 of 14
Approved by ILPC: 10/14/14
the principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-6C, 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.
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 #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 Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the addition of the three
proposed parking spaces will not remove distinctive materials but will alter features and
spaces that characterize the property. The topography, landscaping, and yard areas of the
East Hill Historic District are character-defining features of the district. The subject
property is located at a pivotal juncture between areas to the north where alterations to
the historic environment have occurred and areas to the south where they have not,
essentially serving as a buffer between those two areas. The construction of surface
parking in formerly landscaped yard areas to accommodate increased occupancy as
formerly single-family homes are converted to student housing is not compatible with the
historic character of the district.
Also with respect to Principle #2, Principle #3, and Standard #9, the proposed new
parking spaces are not compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features
of the property and its environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed parking spaces cannot be removed in the
future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and
its environment.
6 of 14
ILPC Minutes
September 9, 2014
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of 210 Eddy Street and the
East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal does
not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0
Yes
S. Stein
D. Kramer
S. Gibian
K. Olson
E. Finegan
No
Abstain
A. 201 W. Clinton St., Henry St. John Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Gutters & Extend
Existing Brick Chimney [cont.]
Applicant Zac Boggs arrived and recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He explained
there are two situations the proposal is trying to resolve. The applicants removed all the gutters and
downspouts to install the new roof. The half round gutters on the front of the property lie below a large
roof plane and cannot effectively handle the run-off. His contractor indicated that K-style gutters would
more effectively catch the run-off and transport it to the downspouts. Z. Boggs noted he would prefer
not to re-install half rounds, since they spill water and fill the window wells.
S. Gibian asked if the applicants considered using larger half rounds. Z. Boggs replied, no, since his
contractor indicated the K-style gutters would better capture the water.
S. Stein asked if that meant that using the larger half rounds would not solve the problem.
E. Finegan asked what size half rounds had been installed before. Z. Boggs replied he would guess they
were six-inch ones, since they seemed fairly sizeable. He still has one, which he could measure. D.
Kramer responded it would definitely be helpful to know what size they were.
Z. Boggs indicated the applicants explored either aluminum half rounds or steel half rounds that would
need to be painted and come in sections, which would create the potential for failure at the seams. The
half rounds are about three times as expensive as the K-style gutters. He stressed that many homes in
neighborhood have K-style gutters and they have never seemed particularly conspicuous to him.
L. Truame explained the Commission has already determined that half rounds are a character-defining
feature where they are present, so the Commission is limited to assessing the alleged water damage and
determining if the proposed change to the gutters would solve that problem.
7 of 14
ILPC Minutes
September 9, 2014
Z. Boggs responded that the water damage in the basement is serious. Tenants are currently living there
and the applicants have been dealing with the situation for 2 years. He would be very reluctant to re-
install half rounds, since they were causing so many problems.
E. Finegan noted that if the applicants actually had 6-inch half rounds originally installed that were not
functioning properly, then the proposal would make sense; however, the Commission does not know
what was there before.
Z. Boggs responded he could call his wife and obtain the answer. He also noted that they have three
gutters on the front and two on the back corner; perhaps they could install half rounds in the front and K-
style ones in the back, due to the cost.
L. Truame responded that the Commission is not charged with considering cost-related issues at this
point in the overall process. Cost-related issues can be considered after the original application is denied
if the denial would prevent the applicants from earning a reasonable return on their investment in the
property.
S. Gibian observed the Clinton Street façade is by far the most important one.
[Z. Boggs telephoned his wife who confirmed the removed gutters measure six inches at the top,
although that could have been the result of deformation over the years.]
E. Finegan asked the applicant to explain the reasoning behind the proposed chimney.
Z. Boggs replied that a new roof was installed on the house in the late 1970s, along with new rafters and
sheathing. The previous owners also removed 3 of 4 brick chimneys above the roof level; they remain
visible in the attic below. The current plan is to restore one of the home’s fireplaces for burning wood,
which would require a chimney. Z. Boggs determined that the best way to do that would be to re-extend
a brick chimney through the roof, with a stainless steel liner within.
S. Stein noted the Commission has been wondering what the proposed chimney would look like,
especially since it is not clear what the original chimneys looked like.
Z. Boggs replied the original chimney was larger, as depicted on the old photographs, with three flues.
The applicants would only need one flue, so they new chimney would be approximately a third the
historic size. It would be about the same height as the old one, about 7 feet above the roof line.
K. Olson asked what kind of cap would be used. Z. Boggs replied, stainless steel with mesh and a built-
in flue. The stainless steel would extend all the way through the top. There would also be flashing and
a cricket on the roof.
S. Gibian observed the flashing in the submitted drawing looks heavy; perhaps it could be stepped.
8 of 14
ILPC Minutes
September 9, 2014
K. Olson observed it is good the chimney will read as a later addition to the house, rather than trying to
replicate a historic feature.
S. Stein remarked she has no objections to the chimney. E. Finegan agreed.
E. Finegan indicated he would like to return to the gutters discussion.
S. Stein asked if the water problem might be addressed by installing larger downspouts.
Z. Boggs replied he received a bid for doing that, but he probably could not afford it. He suggested an
alternative proposal of installing K-style gutters in the rear and half rounds in the front.
S. Stein asked if there had been any water problems at the rear of the house. Z. Boggs replied, no, just
in the front. He explained the window wells are only in the front and the grade slopes away from house
in the rear.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 201 W. Clinton Street is located within the Henry St. John Historic District, as designated
under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2013, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated August 26, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owners Zac Boggs and Isabel
Fernández, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) one sheet of product literature for
the proposed gutters; (3) one photograph of existing conditions at the basement window
wells; (4) one sketch of the proposed new chimney; and (5) two historic photographs
showing that a brick chimney previously existed in the area of the proposed chimney,
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 Street, and the City of Ithaca’s Henry
St. John Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
installation of 5” K-style gutters to replace half-round gutters for purposes of
functionality, and construction of a brick chimney in the same general location as a
previously existing brick chimney, and
WHEREAS, at the meeting, the owner agreed to modify that portion of the proposal pertaining to the
gutters and downspouts as follows: to replace the existing half round gutters with larger,
6” half round gutters and larger 4” round downspouts on the main Clinton Street façade,
to replace the existing K-style gutter on the Clinton Street porch with a 5” half round
gutter and 3” downspout, to replace existing K-style gutters elsewhere on the building
with new 5” K-style gutters with appropriate downspouts, and to replace the existing half
9 of 14
ILPC Minutes
September 9, 2014
round gutters on the rear of the building with 5” K-style gutters and appropriate
downspouts, 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
September 9, 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 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 St. was constructed around
1835 and is a good example of a transitional Federal-Greek Revival style.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Henry St. John Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, 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 228-6
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-6C, 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.
10 of 14
ILPC Minutes
September 9, 2014
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the
new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities,
and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be
substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the construction of the
proposed new chimney will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features
and spaces that characterize the property.
Also with respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the proposed new
chimney is, compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the
property and its environment.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of the
existing half round gutters with larger, 6” half round gutters and larger 4” round
downspouts on the main Clinton Street façade, the replacement of the existing K-style
gutter on the Clinton Street porch with a 5” half round gutter and 3” downspout, the
replacement of the existing K-style gutters elsewhere on the building with new 5” K-style
gutters with appropriate downspouts, and the replacement of the existing half round
gutters on the rear of the building with 5” K-style gutters and appropriate downspouts,
will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that
characterize the property. The Commission notes that the gutters on the rear of the
building are significantly less visible to the public than those on the primary façade.
With regard to Standard #6, as documented by the owner in their Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness and based upon personal observation by members of the
ILPC, the deterioration and physical performance of the half-round gutters does require
their replacement. The Commission notes the City of Ithaca’s Historic District and
Landmark Design Guidelines allow the replacement of half-round gutters with K-style
gutters when it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that such
replacement is necessary for the adequate management of water run-off to protect the
historic resource. The proposed new work will sufficiently match the old in design,
color, texture, material, and other visual qualities.
11 of 14
ILPC Minutes
September 9, 2014
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 228-6, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0
Yes
S. Stein
D. Kramer
S. Gibian
K. Olson
E. Finegan
No
Abstain
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
• None.
III. OLD BUSINESS
• None.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
• Presentation of Proposed W. State St. & S. Albany St. Local Historic District Nomination ―
Christine O’Malley, Preservation Services Coordinator, Historic Ithaca
C. O’Malley walked through a detailed presentation of the history, signifiance, and boundaries of the
proposed Historic District, which would comprise the following properties:
310 W. State St. (1880)
314 W. State St. (1885-86)
110 S. Albany St. (1888; additions in 1899)
317 W. State St., (1892)
108 S. Albany St. (1899)
301 W. State St. (1903, 1908 automobile garage ― contributing)
307 W. State St. (c.1921-23)
Summary of Proposed W. State St. & S. Albany St. Local Historic District
“The proposed district contains seven very good remaining examples of residential architecture
constructed between the period from 1880 to c.1922 when the West State Street and South Albany area
was a desirable and prominent residential location in Ithaca. Now primarily a commercial
neighborhood, this proposed district contains examples of Stick style, Queen Anne style, second phase
Italian Renaissance Revival and Craftsman residential architecture. West State Street, originally known
12 of 14
Approved by ILPC: 10/14/14
as Owego Street, was a principal thoroughfare leading from the inlet and railroad station areas into the
downtown core of Ithaca. On its westernmost end, State Street originally featured a mix of commercial
structures and small businesses. Travelling west to east toward the downtown core in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, one would have encountered commercial, residential and
religious buildings that created a prominent entry to the heart of Ithaca.
The district is historically significant because the residences served as the homes for several locally
prominent businessmen and a local physician. Several of these individuals were also active in local
politics and civic life. The district is also architecturally significant because the houses were designed
by early Ithaca architect A.B. Dale, Cornell-trained architects A. B. Wood and Arthur Gibb, Ithaca
architect John Wilgus, and Auburn architect John Alnutt. The proximity to downtown Ithaca and to the
nearby fashionable houses constructed from the 1870s through 1900 on land acquired by businessman
and developer Charles M. Titus (1832-1907) made this area appealing. Those houses are now in the
Henry St. John Local Historic District and the houses in this proposed district serve as an ideal
complement to this existing district. Two large buildings that originally dominated this area are now
lost but their original presence reveals why it was attractive to construct large houses in this proposed
district starting in 1880. Charles M. Titus’ own house stood at the south side at 315 West State Street.
A grand Italianate house with a cupola on a large lot (fig. 5), it was demolished in the post-World War
II period. In the 1860s, Titus’ large house and lot occupied approximately half of the block bounded by
Owego (now State), Plain, Green and Albany Streets. Between 1888 and 1921, portions of this Titus
land were sold and five of the seven houses in this district were built on the former Titus property. On
the north side of West State Street, the State Street Methodist Episcopal Church (fig.4) originally stood
at the northwest corner at Albany Street with its tall, brick bell tower reaching up to the sky as a visible
landmark. The church was built in 1879 and stood as a commanding presence on the street until it was
demolished in 1961.
The period of significance is 1880 through c.1922. The houses are significant examples of residential
architecture in modes that were popular in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including
Stick, Queen Anne, second phase Italian Renaissance Revival and Craftsman styles. Three of the
houses retain their early automobile garages (although one has been altered) and one of them maintains
a particularly high level of integrity, offering excellent evidence of an early-twentieth century
automobile-related structure. These houses, with the exception of one, are now actively used and
maintained as prime office spaces. They stand as a visible record of this era of residential development
in Ithaca.”
L. Truame asked the Commission if it would like to move forward with the nomination process, in light
of what it has heard this evening. The Commission members replied, yes.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by D Kramer, and seconded by S. Gibian, Commission members approved the following
meeting minutes, with no modifications.
• August 12, 2014 (Regular Meeting)
As moved by S Gibian, and seconded by K. Olson, Commission members approved the following
meeting minutes, with no modifications.
• August 27, 2014 (Special Meeting)
13 of 14
ILPC Minutes
September 9, 2014
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:40 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Megan Wilson
City of Ithaca Planning Division
14 of 14