Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2014-11-18Approved by ILPC: 12/9/14 1 of 16 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes – November 18, 2014 Present: Ed Finegan, Chair David Kramer, Vice-Chair Susan Stein Michael McGandy Katelin Olson Stephen Gibian Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison Megan Wilson, Staff Debbie Grunder, Staff Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 325 S. Geneva Street, Henry St. John Historic District ― Retroactive Request for Approval of Replacement Window in Carriage House Applicants Mary Pat Brady and Kate McCullough recapitulated the salient details of the project, stating that they had replaced the original six over six windows in the carriage house with a salvaged one over one historic window. They were unaware that this required approval by the ILPC and are seeking retroactive approval of the replacement windows. They tried to find an identical six over six replacement window, but despite numerous attempts, they were unable to locate one. S. Gibian asked whether it was just the sashes that were replaced or the entire window. K. McCullough stated that both sashes were replaced with one over one sashes. M. McGandy noted that the applicants’ carpenter stated the window could not be repaired and asked if anyone could vouch for Ron Chapman’s work. E. McCollister stated that he is very good, and M. Wilson stated that L. Truame also stated she was comfortable with his assessment. K. Olson stated that this should be handled like any other hearing before the Commission and could not be treated differently because the work has already be completed S. Finegan suggested that the ILPC ask the applicants to replace the window to a 6 over 6 within a set period of time since the original window is identified as a character defining feature of the building. The Commission agreed to provide a year’s time to replace the window. K. Olson recommended that the applicants look into whether new sashes can be made, using the existing glass, rather than searching for a replacement. Public Hearing On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the public hearing. M. Wilson indicated that the Commission received a letter in opposition to the alterations from Daniel H. Hirtler, 327 S. Geneva St. Said letter was distributed to Commission members, read into the record, and attached to the minutes. ILPC Minutes November 18, 2014 2 of 16 Stacey Snyder, 329 S. Geneva Street, spoke in support of the project and the on-going work of the property owners to restore the property. There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson. RESOLUTION: RA – 325 S. Geneva Street WHEREAS, 325 S. Geneva 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 October 22, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Mary Pat Brady including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) a sheet of three photographs showing the carriage house and replacement window, an adjacent property, and the original window, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the Henry St. John Historic District for 325 S. Geneva 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 the replacement of an original six over six wood window with a one over one wood window on the front façade of the carriage house, which work has already been completed, and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on November 18, 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, 325 S. Geneva Street was constructed ILPC Minutes November 18, 2014 3 of 16 between 1876 and 1877. The carriage house was constructed prior to 1904 and is architecturally significant as an intact example of a late 19th century carriage house, retaining its original form and massing, windows, and board and batten siding. 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. 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. 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 November 18, 2014 4 of 16 With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of the original six over six window will remove distinctive materials and will alter features and spaces that characterize the property. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as shown in the photograph of the original window and as described by Ron Chapman, the severity of the deterioration of the window requires its replacement. The proposed one over one wood replacement window will not match the old in design, color, texture, material, and other visual qualities. Despite diligent efforts to find an appropriate matching six over six replacement window, the applicant was unable to do so. The ILPC finds the proposed one over one window to be an acceptable temporary replacement until an appropriate six over six wood replacement window can be found. Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed one over one wood replacement window is not compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment but is considered an acceptable temporary replacement until an appropriate replacement can be located and installed. With respect to Standard #10, the temporary one over one replacement window 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 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 with the following conditions:  The applicant shall obtain staff approval and install a six over six wood window within one year.  Failing location of an appropriate window, the applicant will return to the ILPC. Moved by: K. Olson Seconded by: M. McGandy In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, D. Kramer, M. McGandy, K. Olson, S. Stein Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 1 ILPC Minutes November 18, 2014 5 of 16 B. 210 Eddy Street, East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Add One Parking Space Applicant Brian Buttner for property owners Greg Halkiopoulos and Matoula Halkiopoulos recapitulated the salient details of the project, noting that following discussion at previous ILPC meetings, the proposal is to add one parking space adjacent to the existing parking at the south side of the house, with associated plantings and a retaining wall. The existing parking area would be extended into the rear yard to provide additional space for maneuvering vehicles. The Commission discussed the visual impacts of adding additional paved area to the property, particularly views from the adjacent property. It was noted that this new project would result in significantly less earth moving and paving than previous proposals. The landscaping and open space have been identified by the ILPC as a character defining feature of the East Hill Historic District, and Commissioners expressed concern about reducing the open space by extending the paving into the back yard. Chair Finegan stated he supports adding one parking space but does not support the extension of the parking area into the back yard. K. Olson and S. Gibian stated they felt the same. M. McGandy and S. Stein stated that they are not in favor of this project, due to the visual impacts on the district. D. Kramer expressed concern that information on the retaining wall and planting was not included for the Commission’s review. He would like to see more information on these aspects of the project before final approval of the retaining wall and landscape screening. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by K. Olson, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, spoke in opposition of the proposed alterations, reiterated her concerns stated in her letter that was made available to the Commission prior to the meeting and attached to the minutes. There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by K.Olson, seconded by S. Stein. RESOLUTION: RB - 210 Eddy Street 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 October 15, 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) ILPC Minutes November 18, 2014 6 of 16 three sheets of photographs of existing conditions at the property; and (3) a site plan depicting the proposed changes, and 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) and shown on the site plan, the project involves the creation of one additional parking space adjacent to the existing space at the south side of the house, the extension of the existing parking area into the rear yard, and the installation of a retaining wall with associated landscape plantings, and WHEREAS, a previous application to create two additional parking spaces to the north side of the property and one additional parking space on the south side of the property was denied by the ILPC on September 9, 2014 due to negative impacts on the character of the historic district, and WHEREAS, after discussion with the ILPC at the November 18, 2014 meeting, the applicant agreed to withdrawal the request to extend the parking area into the rear yard, and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on November 18, 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. ILPC Minutes November 18, 2014 7 of 16 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. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the addition of the proposed parking space will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The proposal requires minimal grade change that does not substantially impact the slope and green space that characterize the East Hill Historic District. Also with respect to Principle #2, Principle #3, and Standard #9, with the addition of the proposed space, the parking area is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. ILPC Minutes November 18, 2014 8 of 16 With respect to Standard #10, the proposed parking space 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 approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following condition: • The applicant shall return to the ILPC for approval of the retaining wall, other hardscape elements, and the vegetative buffer along Eddy Street. Moved by: D. Kramer Seconded by: S. Gibian In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, D. Kramer, K. Olson Against: M. McGandy, S. Stein Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 1 D. 410 University Avenue, University Hill Historic District D. Kramer stated that 410 University Avenue is a lovely house that had a beautiful porch on the rear façade. The porch is now gone, demolished without approval from the ILPC. He would like to know what happened to the porch. In addition, the back yard is strewn with plaster and other construction debris. Property owner Mark Howe addressed the Commission. He stated that the porch collapsed while he was working on it and was removed. He received a building permit for interior work, and he did put the construction debris in the rear yard. Commission members informed M. Howe that he needs approval from the ILPC for any work on the exterior property. M. Wilson noted that he also needs a building permit and suggested he contact the code inspector immediately to begin the process. She will follow up with him regarding retroactive approval by the ILPC. (D. Kramer left the meeting) C. 420 E. Seneca Street, East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Install Solar Panels Applicant Mike Reed, Astrum Solar, (on behalf of property owners Margaret and Seth Soulstein) recapitulated the salient details of the project, which involves the installation of solar panels on the west- facing roof slope. The west-facing slope is the only option for the solar array, as the east-facing slope ILPC Minutes November 18, 2014 9 of 16 does not receive enough sunlight and the carriage house is blocked by vegetation. The installation will be completely reversible in the future. M. McGandy asked if it would be possible to move the solar panels toward the north end of the roof, where they would be less visible from the street. M. Reed responded that it would likely be possible to move them toward the rear portion of the roof by about a foot and agreed to move them as far back as possible. Commission members noted that several solar panels have been submitted recently and of all of the proposals, this will likely have the least impact on both the individual building and the district as a whole. In particular, it was noted that solar panels will not have a significant visual impact due to a tall adjacent building, the low roof pitch, the setback of the panels, and the color of the existing roof. Public Hearing On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by K. Olson, Chair Finegan opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by K.Olson, seconded by S.Stein. RESOLUTION: RC – 420 East Seneca Street WHEREAS, 420 E. Seneca Street is located within 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 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated October 29, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Michael Reed of Astrum Solar on behalf of property owner Margaret Soulstein, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Project Description and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) six sheets of detailed drawings and specifications for the proposed array; (3) product information for the proposed solar panels; and (4) two color photographs of the house from E. Seneca Street, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 420 E. Seneca Street, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Project Description and on the cover sheet of the detailed drawings and specifications, the project involves installation of seventeen solar panels on the west roof slope, facing 418 E. Seneca Street, 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 ILPC Minutes November 18, 2014 10 of 16 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 ILPC meeting on November 18, 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, 420 E. Seneca Street was constructed in the early 1850s and is significant as a Greek Revival residence that retains the essential elements of its original appearance. 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 ILPC Minutes November 18, 2014 11 of 16 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 installation of solar panels on the west roof slope 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 solar array is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. The ILPC has made the following findings in this determination: • The solar panels will not be installed on the principal elevation. • The solar panels will be set back from the front of the roof, making them less visible from the public way. • There is a tall adjacent structure on the downhill side, making it difficult to see the solar panels from the public way. • The roof has low pitch and consists of black materials, making the black solar panels less visible from the public way. • The applicant has examined less visible alternate locations but these locations do not meet the minimum requirements for the solar installation. With respect to Standard #10, the solar array 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 approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions: • Solar panels shall be set back toward the north edge of the roof to the greatest extent possible • The flexible conduit shall be painted to match the exterior of the property. Moved by: S. Stein Seconded by: M. McGandy In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, M. McGandy, K. Olson, S. Stein Against: 0 Abstain: 0 ILPC Minutes November 18, 2014 12 of 16 Absent: D. Kramer Vacancies: 1 D. 410 University Avenue, University Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Asphalt Shingle Roof with Metal Roof Applicant Mark Howe summarized the project, which involves replacing a deteriorated asphalt shingle roof with a metal panel roof. S. Gibian asked the applicant why he chose to replace the roof with metal instead of asphalt shingles. M. Howe responded that he chose the metal roof because he likes the appearance and reduced maintenance. S. Gibian noted that the proposed metal panel roof is identified as ideal for barns and agricultural buildings, and he does not find it appropriate for a residential building. He would consider a true standing seam metal roof but would not support this proposal. M. Howe asked about the process to replace the roof with new asphalt shingles. M. Wilson stated that would be considered an in-kind replacement and could be approved at the staff level. M. Howe would need to present the shingle color for approval. M. Howe also asked about replacing the existing gutters. There are currently 4-inch half-round gutters that do not seem adequate for the water volume. The Commission noted that they would request the replacement gutters also be half-round but a larger gutter could be installed. The Commission agreed to allow a staff-level approval on this as well. Based on the feedback from the ILPC, M. Howe withdrew the proposal. E. 608 E. Seneca Street, East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Install Sauna in Existing Garage Applicant Rob Licht (on behalf of property owner Steven Wolf) summarized the proposal. Changes to the exterior of the building include the installation of an entry door, exterior light, wall-mounted vent on the rear façade, and a metal chimney as well as the addition of a wooden privacy screen. The changes to the building itself will be on the rear façade of the garage and will not be visible from the street. K. Olson asked if the picture of the privacy screen is the one to be used. R. Licht replied that yes it will, but it won’t be visible from the street. When asked about the total height, R. Licht noted that it would not exceed 5’ from grade. 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 S. Stein, seconded by K. Olson. RESOLUTION: RE – 608 East Seneca Street ILPC Minutes November 18, 2014 13 of 16 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, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated October 28, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Rob Licht on behalf of property owner Steven Wolf, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a job summary of the proposed wood-fired sauna; (3) seven pages of detailed drawings and specifications, including a site plan, a plan view, elevations, and detailed section drawings, 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 project involves the installation of a sauna within the rear half of the existing one car garage, including the installation of an entry door, exterior light and a wall-mounted vent on the rear façade, the installation of a metal chimney, and the addition of a wooden privacy screen, and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on November 18, 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, 608 E. Seneca Street was constructed around 1864 in the Greek Revival style. The existing garage was also constructed during the period of significance, first appearing on the Ithaca Sanborn Map of 1919. 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. ILPC Minutes November 18, 2014 14 of 16 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 #1 A property shall be used for its intended historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #1, the use of a portion of the existing garage as a sauna is a change from the building’s historic purpose and will require only minimal changes to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of a half light door, an exterior light, an 8’ by 14’ vent grill on the rear façade of the garage, a four-foot metal chimney on the rear portion of the garage roof, and the addition of a wooden privacy screen (not to exceed 5’ from grade) on top of an existing concrete retaining wall 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 entry door, exterior light, vent, metal chimney, and privacy screen are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. ILPC Minutes November 18, 2014 15 of 16 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 approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Moved by: S. Gibian Seconded by: S. Stein In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, M. McGandy, K. Olson, S. Stein Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: D. Kramer Vacancies: 1 II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST • None III. OLD BUSINESS • 707 E. Seneca Street ― Informal Preliminary Discussion of New Construction Project Tom Schickel presented the project on behalf of property owner Todd Fox. He noted that changes had been made since his last presentation to address the ILPC’s concerns about the size of the building. In particular, the porch has been enlarged, the dormers have been redesigned, and bumpouts have been included to add articulation to the north and south facades. He added that the project may need a zoning variance to address a lot area deficiency for the building as currently designed. Commission members noted that they appreciated the indoor parking provided under the building and encouraged the applicants to reduce the parking area in order to provide more green space, noting that it is a character defining feature of the East Hill Historic District. S. Gibian noted that the gabled dormers of the previous design have been replaced by shed dormers, and he prefers the design of the original dormers. The ILPC expressed continued concern over the size and massing of the building. The proposed building reads as a four-story building and seems too large for the lot. The issue is not only the building’s footprint but rather the overall massing. K. Olson suggested that the project team look at the size and massing of other buildings in the historic district as well as lot dimensions. It is something that she is going to investigate, and she encouraged the applicants to do the same. It was noted that the building is still rather utilitarian in design and looks stolid and rectangular. Less styling and detail make the building appear more imposing. More articulation, both in design elements and materials, should be included. ILPC Minutes November 18, 2014 16 of 16 Several Commission members noted that the building’s design is a tradeoff between the desired number of apartments and compatibility with the historic district. Reducing the number of apartments allows for more flexibility in design and massing. This could also address the zoning issues the applicants are facing. IV. NEW BUSINESS • None. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by S. Stein, and seconded by K. Olson, Commission members approved the following meeting minutes, with no modifications. • October 14, 2014 (Regular Meeting) VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS • Update on Historic Preservation Planner Position. M. Wilson reported that Bryan McCracken accepted the position of Historic Preservation Planner and will start on Monday, November 24, 2014. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:15 p.m. by Chair Finegan. Respectfully Submitted, Megan Wilson, Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission