Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2014-10-14Approved by ILPC: 11/18/14 1 of 15 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes – October 14, 2014 Present: Ed Finegan, Chair David Kramer, Vice-Chair Susan Stein Michael McGandy Katelin Olson Stephen Gibian Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison Lynn Truame, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 55 Ridgewood Rd., Cornell Heights Historic District Retroactive Request for Approval of Monument Sign Applicant Joseph Walter, Pi Kappa Phi fraternity manager, recapitulated the salient details of the monument sign, noting it is situated on the northeast of the lot at the exact same location as the previous sign. The new sign now includes the fraternity name and street address, as required by City Code. It is approximately half the size as the prior sign. He believes it is significantly more compatible with the Historic District. S. Stein noted she personally noticed that the blue sign is broken. J. Walter replied that was just a temporary sign for the purpose of passing the housing inspection. S. Stein asked what the concern with the original sign was. J. Walter responded it was a life safety issue, since the street address was missing. M. McGandy remarked the new sign is attractive. He asked if other building signs would also be changed to match the monument sign. J. Walter replied he would definitely look into that. S. Gibian asked if snow accumulation would block the view of the address for first responders. J. Walter replied he had not considered that possibility, but he would make sure the vicinity of the sign is properly shoveled. It is also conceivable the letters could be raised. S. Stein indicated she likes the sign. She noted drawing AO2 appears to show a big concerete foundation that does not really exist. J. Walter replied that foundation was installed when he became concerned with the sign’s stability. It is submerged, so it is not visible. S. Gibian observed drawing AO3 depicts a 3-inch wallstone crown. J. Walter replied that is correct. It is made of thicker stone than the rest of the sign. S. Gibian noted it seems to protrude more on one side than the other. He would prefer to see more accurate drawing details. He also noted the sawn faces of the stone are exposed, which is not ideal. Public Hearing On a motion by K. Olson, 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. ILPC Minutes October 14, 2014 2 of 15 M. McGandy asked if other Commission members had any questions or recommendations regarding where the lettering should be placed. J. Walter responded that he has not yet received the replacement letters that were ordered; but he will ensure all the Commission’s concerns about the lettering are addressed. M. McGandy remarked that the new sign is clearly an improvement on the previous sign, although the integrity of the stone may be a concern. S. Gibian agreed, noting he is concerned the sign may fall apart (some of the stones have in fact already fallen off). J. Walter explained that those stones fell off as a result of the same incident when the letters were removed. S. Stein noted it appears not enough mortar was used. J. Walter replied he will make sure there is. D. Kramer asked if the Commission is in general agreement that the address lettering should be located further towards the top of the sign. There seemed to be general agreement. J. Walter responded he could place the “55 Ridgewood Road” address above the “Psi Chapter” designation. RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by S. Gibian. WHEREAS, 55 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 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated August 1, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Sam Schraer on behalf of property owner Pi Kappa Phi Properties, Inc., including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) five sheets of architectural drawings and photographs, numbered A01-A05 and dated August 1, 2014, depicting the installed sign and its context, and WHEREAS, ILPC staff was notified by the City of Ithaca Building Division that the installed sign did not satisfy Code requirements for addressing, and WHEREAS, ILPC staff communicated this information to the applicant via e-mail on September 5, 2014, notifying them that, under the circumstances, the proposal would be rescheduled for consideration at the October 14, 2014 ILPC meeting, and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted revised sheets A01-A05, dated September 5, 2014, reflecting the altered addressing, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 55 Ridgewood Road, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and ILPC Minutes October 14, 2014 3 of 15 WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves installation of a masonry monument sign at the base of the driveway, 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 October, 14, 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, 55 Ridgewood Road was constructed circa 1918 in the English Revival style. It was originally known as Green Trees and was the home of Frank L. Morse, president of Morse Chain. The inventory form states that Morse commissioned Walter Burley Griffin, the well-known Prairie style architect, to design the house, but Griffin did not complete the commission. Instead, the home was designed by the New York architectural firm of Trowbridge and Ackerman, designers of Killenworth, the George DuPont Pratt house in Glen Cove, NY, and of the 1916 addition to Harvey Firestone’s estate, Harbel Manor, in Akron, OH. Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell Heights Historic District. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6 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: ILPC Minutes October 14, 2014 4 of 15 Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard #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 new masonry monument sign will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new sign is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, sign 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 Cornell Heights 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: 6-0-0 Yes S. Stein D. Kramer S. Gibian K. Olson E. Finegan M. McGandy No Abstain ILPC Minutes October 14, 2014 5 of 15 B. 411 Thurston Ave., Cornell Heights Historic District Proposal to Construct Patio & Make Accessibility-Related Site Alterations (partially retroactive request – work has been stopped) Applicant Susanne Solomon, Delta Chapter of the Alpha Phi sorority, recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. She walked through a presentation of the chapter house’s history and the proposed alterations. She will submit a separate application for the proposed chair lift, which she would like to install in Spring 2015. She stressed that the property really needs the proposed lighting, since there were a couple of recent break-ins, as well as the proposed walkway, to eliminate some serious trip hazards. The proposed fence would replace the current deteriorated fence and the existing railroad ties being used as retaining walls would also be removed, anywhere they are visible to the public. S. Solomon apologized for not having submitted the application to the Commission earlier. L. Truame noted she had not seen the cutsheets for the lighting fixtures in the application. She originally assumed there would only be ground-level downlighting. S. Solomon replied that Historic Ithaca indicated it would be acceptable to have some lighting further up. She displayed the different lightpost solutions Historic Ithaca approved. They would be affixed to the sitting wall pedestals, so they would be fairly low-to-the-ground. M. McGandy noted there is a lot going on with the proposed alterations, which seem primarily driven by ADA compliance-related and similar concerns. S. Solomon replied that is correct. M. McGandy remarked the whole process seems backwards to him the Commission has no understanding of what is actually happening at the house. S. Solomon indicated the chair lift cannot be installed until a proper base had been constructed. McGandy reiterated that the proposal is confusing for him. It seems somewhat of a hodgepodge of different alterations. S. Gibian asked how a wheelchair would access the inside corner of the house. S. Solomon replied it would travel on the walkway from the front of the house. The walkway paving stones would be placed closely enough together to facilitate that. Stepping stones would then lead from the front walkway to the chair lift. E. Finegan observed that what the applicant described is not fully illustrated in the plan. S. Solomon replied she thought it was. E. Finegan asked how one would travel from the parking area. S. Solomon replied a regular walkway would be installed from the parking area. D. Kramer asked what the applicant could propose in lieu of the originally proposed vinyl fencing. S. Solomon replied she would install an arbor vitae instead. E. Finegan inquired abou the lighting issue. S. Solomon responded that if the Commission does not like the proposed lighting, she would be willing to consider other options. The property just needs some kind of lighting. S. Gibian noted that he walked around the site. He would prefer it if the alterations were done the same way as the sorority across the road (i.e., bluestone with a flagstone walk and a local stone retaining wall), so eveything could be done with either local stone or bluestone. That would be more appropriate. S. Solomon replied she understands his concern. ILPC Minutes October 14, 2014 6 of 15 M. McGandy asked if there were anything about the chair lift that would alter how the Commission may view the current proposal. S. Solomon replied the house itself would not be impacted by the chair lift. The chair lift would be situated in front of the window well, at the top of the cement depicted in the application. S. Gibian noted the plans actually show the ramp ascending to the door. S. Solomon replied that was originally the plan, but it would have impacted the appearance of the house much more. She abandoned that idea, since she wanted the least impact possible. S. Stein asked about the side walkway. S. Solomon replied it would feature the same kinds of stones as the other walkway. L. Truame suggested the Commission should not approve anything that is not a part of the submitted plans. The Commission can re-examine any remaining alterations, when the applicant returns with the complete chair lift application. E. Finegan remarked that the Commission will be considering the patio, the walkway, and the lighting today. S. Gibian remarked it would make more sense for anyone in a wheelchair to go around the back of the building to get to the chair lift. S. Solomon replied that is a great suggestion. Public Hearing On a motion S. Gibian, 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. E. Finegan indicated it appears the Commission is prepared to approve the front walkway, the patio that is under construction, and the lighting system in the patio. The Commission now needs to discuss the benches. S. Solomon explained the benches would be situated along the walkway, along the side of the house. E. Finegan asked which of the submitted bench designs the applicant would choose. S. Solomon replied it is entirely up to the Commission. S. Gibian indicated the “English Garden Granite” bench would be his preference. M. McGandy asked if the Commission can realistically approve the lighting without knowing specifically which fixtures would be used. S. Solomon responded she would retract the lighting proposal at this time. S. Solomon asked if the Commission would also approve removing the existing fence. L. Truame replied, yes. It has no historic value. RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein. ILPC Minutes October 14, 2014 7 of 15 WHEREAS, 411 Thurston Avenue 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 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated August 27, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Susanne Solomon on behalf of property owner Delta Chapter of Alpha Phi, Inc., including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) three plan view sketches showing proposed new plantings, a Colonial Slate Stone walk at the front entrance of the house, a 2x3’ thermal cut bluestone stepping-stone path, three “memorial benches” adjacent to the stepping stone path, and a new patio area surrounded by a low wall that incorporates indirect lighting; (3) a “landscape estimate” that lists the proposed alterations; (4) a product cut sheet photograph of a cast concrete patio incorporating “mono cast one piece pavers;” (5) a product cut sheet for indirect lighting at a low cast concrete wall; (6) two sheets of photographs showing the already-installed patio and wall; (7) a computer print-out of three styles of fiberglass fencing; and (8) a photograph of railroad ties that it appears the owner has removed from existing landscaped areas, and WHEREAS, at the October 14, 2014 meeting, the applicant clarified that: the request for the fence was withdrawn and that plantings would be installed in that area instead; that the specific bench proposed was the English Garden Granite bench; and that there would be four benches, rather than the three depicted on the submitted materials, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the annotated property list entry from the Cornell Heights Historic District National Register Nomination for 411 Thurston Avenue, 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 creation of a patio area and walkways, the addition of new plantings and site seating, and the eventual installation of an ADA lift (which is planned for a future date and for which a separate Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness will be required), 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 sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on October 14, 2014, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: ILPC Minutes October 14, 2014 8 of 15 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, 411 Thurston Avenue was constructed in 1905-1907 in the Georgian Revival style. The major wings were added in 1937, during the district’s period of significance. Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell Heights Historic District. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6 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. 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. ILPC Minutes October 14, 2014 9 of 15 With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the construction of the proposed walkways and patio with low cast concrete wall and indirect lighting will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property and are 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 proposed new “memorial benches” will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property and are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, walkways, patio, and benches 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 Cornell Heights 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: 5-1-0 Yes S. Stein S. Gibian K. Olson E. Finegan M. McGandy No D. Kramer Abstain II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST • None. III. OLD BUSINESS • 608 E. Seneca St. Review of Gate Design (pursuant to March 11, 2014 Certificate of Appropriateness condition) Applicant Steve Wolf noted there are two issues he would like to address: (1) obtaining the required separate approval for the proposed gate; and (2) obtaining approval for a modified design of the fence panels. He explained that over the course of working on the project he conceived a simpler design for the fence panels. The original requirement for removing the top rail from a portion of the fence introduced some design problems. He now proposes the using pickets for the entire fence. ILPC Minutes October 14, 2014 10 of 15 S. Gibian reported that he reviewed the Commission’s March 11, 2014 minutes and the proposal was originally depicted as a solid fence. At that Commission meeting, it was agreed the fence would be made to resemble more of a shadow box design, with 3-inch boards. However, it does not look like the fence is actually using 3-inch boards. S. Wolf responded it was never his intention to create a solid fence. S. Gibian asked if the new fence would use 2x2s. S. Wolf replied, yes, at a 2-to-1 ratio, so they would be 4 inches apart. M. McGandy indicated he prefers fences with more openings, so that is better than the original design. E. Finegan agreed. E. Finegan asked about the gate. S. Wolf replied he originally proposed a curved lintel arch for the gate; however, he now proposes a simple Arts and Crafts-like cap over each post. D. Kramer noted he was not present for the original discussion, so he will refrain from commenting. S. Gibian noted he definitely prefers the simpler new design. S. Wolf remarked that another issue arose with the decision made at the last Commission meeting requiring that the panels adjacent to the porch be no higher than the height of the stucco feature. When the rail is extended across the entire length of the fence, keeping the fence at 6 feet in height, the top panel is compressed and the ratio between top and bottom panels is not appropriate. In his opinion, it would look far better if the top rail could be 6 feet, 2 inches tall, so the upper panel could be extended all the way. M. McGandy asked if the applicant would also extend the lintel up by two inches. S. Wolf replied, no. He does not intend to raise the horizontal bar any higher. He is simply proposing to raise the top rail two inches. D. Kramer asked if the Commission has received a complete formal proposal. L. Truame replied that it has not. She had not heard about proposed change in height until this evening, so it was not included in the resolution. S. Gibian asked from what point the 6 foot, 2 inches would be measured. He added that only two inches does not seem as thought it would make much difference. L. Truame recalled the Commission originally agreed that the fence would be 6 feet in height. S. Wolf responded that the fence has been trenched and he would install a 20-inch wide amount of vegetation, three or four inches tall, to cover the bottom rail. S. Gibian noted the original application had the gate situated closer to the house. S. Wolf replied that he moved it to make the panels symmetrical. Had it been closer to the house, there would have been an 18-foot run from the edge of the gate to property line, which would have been too long and prompted the fence to sag. It is now 16 feet from the side of the gate to the edge of the fence. ILPC Minutes October 14, 2014 11 of 15 K. Olson remarked she originally voted against the proposal, since she does not believe the design of the fence is genuinely reflective of its location. RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 608 E. Seneca 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, at the regular March 11, 2014 ILPC, meeting an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was approved to install a cedar fence at 608 E. Seneca Street, with the condition that the applicant return to the Commission with a finalized design for the gate feature of this new fence, once the design had been finalized, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated September 25, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by propert y owner Steven Wolf, including the following: (1) one narratives titled Description of Proposed Change(s); (2) one architectural sketch showing the design of the proposed new gate; and (3) one photograph of a gate similar to the proposed design, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 608 E. Seneca 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 gate has been designed with a flat horizontal top feature, rather than the originally-proposed arched feature, and the applicant also notes the design of the fence deviates from the approved design by substituting 2x2 pickets for the approved 3-4” flat pickets across its entire length, raising the height of the top rail from 6’ to 6’2”, and moving the gate further from the house so that the first fence panel and gate panel both measure approximately 4’ in width, 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 original Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on March 11, 2014, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: ILPC Minutes October 14, 2014 12 of 15 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, 608 E. Seneca Street was constructed around 1864 in the Greek Revival style. It has received a number of additions, including the prominent west side porch, all of which were added during the historic district’s period of significance. 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 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. 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 construction of the gate feature as proposed and the modification of the previously approved fence dimensions, ILPC Minutes October 14, 2014 13 of 15 will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new gate feature and fence dimensions are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, the new gate and 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 property 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 meets criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC finds that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the condition placed on the March 11, 2014 Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: 4-2-0 Yes S. Stein S. Gibian E. Finegan D. Kramer No M. McGandy K. Olson Abstain IV. NEW BUSINESS • 707 E. Seneca St. Informal Preliminary Discussion of New Construction Project Applicants Todd Fox and Sophia Goehner presented some preliminary drawings of the proposed project. Goehner stressed the immediate neighborhood features a variety of architectural expressions. The project would be integrated into the neighborhood in as modest and as non- provocative manner as possible. The front façade would be a simple symmetrical composition, while the footprint would be rectangular (like the mid-block residences along Seneca Street). The building setback would be the same distance as the one for 705 E. Seneca Street; and the building height would be in relative conformity with the surrounding buildings. A symmetrical staircase would be featured in the center of the building. The building’s dimensions would be 36 ft. by 65 ft., including a basement apartment. The basement level would house a 4-car garage in the rear. The building would have two 3-bedroom apartments on the first and second floors, with a single 3- bedroom apartment in the attic. The basement would be exposed on the west façade, due to the slope. E. McCollister asked if the project would meet setback requirements. T. Fox replied, yes. The project would not require any Zoning Variances. ILPC Minutes October 14, 2014 14 of 15 S. Goehner added that the proposed project may require the applicant to purchase a small portion of adjacent land, to house an additional apartment in the bulding. K. Olson asked what the proposed occupancy is. S. Goehner replied, 16 (student housing). K. Olson inquired into the parking requirements. T. Fox replied that 8 parking spaces would be required. Four would be situated underneath the house and four behind the house. He added that would not change if he purchased the adjacent land. D. Kramer noted he likes the design, but he is struck by the amount of blacktop that would be required, in a non-blacktopped neighborhood. S. Goehner responded they would be install a staircase and ingerate the greenspace more effectively. E. McCollister asked if there is a landscaping plan. S. Goehner replied, not yet. S. Gibian indicated he is concerned with the project’s scale. 36 ft. x 64 ft. is a big building. T. Fox responded that in comparison to the other houses in the immediate area, it is not particularly large. M. McGandy suggested including additional architectural features to differentiate/adorn the façades. S. Goehner responded the fenestration could certainly be modified. M. McGandy remarked the proposed house appears to more or less fit into the neighborhood; however, he is concerned that the applicant may appear to be trying to pack as many people as possible into it. L. Truame indicated the choice of building materials would also be a critical consideration for the Commission. For the Hardie board siding, for example, she recommended the smooth variety over the textured one. K. Olson urged the applicant to make every effort to ensure the massing is in keeping with the Historic District. She also suggested eliminating as much surface parking area as possible. M. McGandy remarked that excess water run-off is another concern. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by S. Stein, and seconded by K. Olson, Commission members approved the following meeting minutes, with no modifications. • September 9, 2014 (Regular Meeting) VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS • None. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:52 p.m. by Chair Finegan. ILPC Minutes October 14, 2014 15 of 15 Respectfully Submitted, Megan Wilson, Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission