HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2015-01-13Approved by ILPC: 02/10/2015
1 of 16
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – January 13, 2015
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice-Chair
Susan Stein
Michael McGandy
Katelin Olson
Stephen Gibian
Jennifer Minner
Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison
Bryan McCracken, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 309 E. Buffalo Street, East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Enlarge Window to Meet
Egress Requirements
Applicant Jim Merod recapitulated the salient details of the proposal, which involves replacing an
existing two-over-two wood window on the south elevation of the building with a larger wood window.
He explained that the second-floor apartment has not been renovated or significantly altered since the
property was purchased by the current owner. The window replacement would be just one component
of a larger interior renovation project. The window would face another building with no windows and
would not be visible from the street. It would be 3” taller and 4” wider than the existing window; and
the existing aluminum siding would be cut back to enable the installation of the larger window. Any
removed exterior trim would be replaced with wood matching the existing trim.
S. Gibian asked if the applicant plans on enclosing the sun porch, as proposed in the application. B.
McCracken explained that the applicant actually submitted two separate applications, the first of which
involved the porch enclosure; however, that particular component of the project has been eliminated
from the current scope of work. The porch will not be altered as part of this project.
M. McGandy asked if the applicant proposes to shorten the window labeled “C” in the submitted
drawing. B. McCracken replied that this was also eliminated from the scope of the project in the
resubmitted application. Rather than altering the window, interior trim would be installed to allow for
the placement of the kitchen cabinet. This work has been approved at the staff level.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by K. Olson, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There
being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K.
Olson.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 309 E. Buffalo St. is located within the East Hill Historic District, as designated under
Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1986, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, originally submitted on December 29, 2014 and resubmitted on January 6,
ILPC Minutes
January 13, 2015
2 of 16
2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
by James Merod, contractor, on behalf of property owner Robert Gates, including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Changes(s); (2) two sheets of drawings illustrating the locations of the proposed
changes and (3) four photographs of the building’s exterior, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the East
Hill Historic District for 309 E. Buffalo 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
replacement of a two-over-two wood window in the second-story of the south (rear)
elevation with a dimensionally larger two-over-two, wood window to comply with Egress
Requirements, and the installation of interior trim, painted flat black, to block 6” portion of
the lower sash of the east elevation’s second-story window to allow for the placement of a
kitchen cabinet, and
WHEREAS, the installation of interior trim has been approved at the staff level as it will neither remove
distinctive materials nor materially alter exterior features and spaces that characterize the
property, 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 January 13,
2015, 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, 309 E. Buffalo St.
was constructed between 1855–66 in the Greek-Revival style. The south (rear) elevation has
had several alterations, including a two-story porch addition, which was completed during
the 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.
ILPC Minutes
January 13, 2015
3 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 228-5 of
the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to
the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The
removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize
a property will be avoided.
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 replacement of an existing
two-over-two wood window with a dimensionally larger two-over-two wood window will
not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the
property. The subject window is located on the building’s rear elevation and not visible from
the public way. The proposed Jeldwen-brand replacement window maintains the light
configuration of the original window.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new window is compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the 309 E. Buffalo St. and
the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
ILPC Minutes
January 13, 2015
4 of 16
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Stein
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, D. Kramer, M. McGandy, K. Olson, S. Stein, J. Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
B. 707 E. Seneca Street, East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Construct New Apartment
Building with 6 Three-Bedroom Units
Applicants Tom Schickel, Sophia Goehner, Charlie O’Connor, and Todd Fox appeared before the
Commission and presented revised plans for the proposed apartment building.
T. Schickel outlined the following recent adjustments to the design:
changed trim from arctic white to a sandstone color, which should unify and subdue building’s
appearance;
changed portion of the siding in the front to shingles, to add additional detailing;
enlarged windows to reflect size and scale of historic windows in neighborhood;
made other adjustments to spacing of siding and joints to align them with bottoms/ tops of windows;
eliminated two feet from building height to reduce massing;
moved basement door on west side of building to the east.
Regarding the building footprint, T. Schickel stressed that the new building would have neither the
largest, nor the smallest footprint in the Historic District, and that it should fit overall within the context
of the neighborhood.
T. Schickel submitted the planting plan for the site, which will include new foundation plantings along
the north (primary) façade, as well as retention of much of the mature vegetation and open lawn space in
the backyard. An existing fence separating the property from the East Hill School Cooperative property
would also remain.
T. Schickel explained that the existing retaining wall depicted on the site would be extended to support
the five exterior parking spaces.
S. Stein observed that it looks as though the driveway reaches right up to the property line. She asked if
any neighbors expressed any concerns about that. T. Schickel replied, not that he is aware of. It is
permitted by zoning. He added that the net area of pavement would be about the same.
M. McGandy asked if the applicant plans to purchase the adjacent property, as was mentioned before.
T. Fox replied that has not moved forward yet.
M. McGandy asked if there were any possibility the applicant would return to the Commission with a
proposal to alter the amount and/or configuration of the parking. T. Schickel replied, no. M. McGandy
asked if any other changes to the design would be likely. T. Schickel replied, not that he is aware of;
however, the project does require approval from the Planning and Development Board, which may
ILPC Minutes
January 13, 2015
5 of 16
request some modifications. But he does not anticipate any reason to change the parking. The proposal
includes nine parking spaces, which is all that is needed.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by J. Minner, 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.
K. Olson remarked that the project is greatly improved since the original design.
S. Gibian noted he does not believe maxing out the use of square footage is the best approach in a
Historic District. He added that ― while the front half of the building has definitely been made better
articulated ― the rear of the building has not. He observed that the backyard retaining wall is very large
and asked if there were any way the same function could be achieved with a smaller wall or the use of
grading.
T. Schickel replied that grading would involve a pitch greater than 2-to-2, which would be very steep.
1-to-3 is about the steepest one could reasonably mow, for example. S. Gibian responded that the
grading would nonetheless be far more attractive than the retaining wall.
K. Olson observed that the applicant can always use turf that does not require mowing.
S. Gibian indicated that, in spite of his remaining concerns, he would most likely approve the project;
however, he would like the retaining wall issue explored more thoroughly.
T. Schickel replied there needs to be some kind of retainment at that location to keep the neighboring
property on the west side from filling in.
M. McGandy asked if the prospective purchase of the property in the rear would make a difference with
respect to the retaining wall. T. Schickel replied, yes, since that part of the site could then be made
significantly less steep.
T. Schickel indicated that if the Commission could at least approve the project on a conditional basis, it
would give the applicant some flexibility.
T. Fox assured the Commission that he would seriously endeavor to reduce the retaining wall.
J. Minner suggested the Commission simply encourage the Planning and Development Board to
evaluate the retaining wall issue.
B. McCracken remarked that the Commission could approve the proposal on its overall merits today,
and leave the more specific site-related issues for a later review.
E. Finegan noted the project is much-improved and fits in better on the street. He would probably vote
to approve it, but he would like the Commission to have some flexibility with the wall.
ILPC Minutes
January 13, 2015
6 of 16
S. Stein indicated she has had a problem with the size of the project all along. The applicants appear to
have sought the absolute maximum possible size. The amount of paving is also a concern. Having said
that, she appreciates many of the improvements.
D. Kramer agreed with most of the Commission’s comments: it is anenormous improvement. He agreed
with S. Stein about the size of the project, compared to the lot size; however, it should not be terribly
noticeable from the street. He has no objections to the project.
M. McGandy agreed. He would, however, strongly suggest the applicants return to the Commission
with a landscape/hardscape plan.
T. Schickel replied that the project approval process has to follow a tight schedule for both the Zoning
Variance and Site Plan Approval. If the applicants cannot obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
entire project today, it would delay the whole project. The applicants cannot afford to lose another
month. He asked why the Commission could not simply approve the project with an explicitly stated
preference regarding the retaining wall and any associated issues. Alternatively, the Commission could
delegate approval of the retaining wall to the staff level. (It may be possible to construct a lower
retaining wall and combine that with some grading, as a hybrid approach.)
S. Goehner suggested a green wall, since it would not be as visually jarring.
B. McCracken noted that one approach would be to approve the five rear parking spaces, but just not
specify how they should be configured.
T. Schickel remarked that if the applicants do not purchase the rear property, they would not have to go
before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) at all. So the Certificate of Appropriateness should probably
be issued based on the assumption they will not have access to that property (with a condition that if the
applicants do end up purchasing the property, they would be required to come back to the Commission).
K. Olson observed that the Planning and Development Board may require changes to the landscaping
design, in which case the applicants would need to return to the Commission anyway. She agrees with
M. McGandy about separating the two portions of the project.
J. Minner encouraged the applicants to consider pervious pavement, if at all possible. T. Schickel
replied he is skeptical it is an ideal location, since there is basically only bedrock underneath the site,
with no place for water run-off to go. His intent is to handle run-off with on-site retention.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 707 E. Seneca St. 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 November 25, 2014 was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Thomas Schickel, architect, on behalf of
property owner 707 E. Seneca Street, LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives
ILPC Minutes
January 13, 2015
7 of 16
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2)
twelve sheets of detailed drawings including a title sheet, street view elevation, boundary
and topographic map, site layout and planting plan, grading plan, utility plan, site details
plan, floor plans, elevations, site elevations, site sections and renderings; (3) samples of
selected HardiePlank and HardieTrim cladding materials, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
707 E. Seneca St. 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
construction of a three-story, multi-unit apartment building and installation of five
exterior parking spaces and associated access drive on the vacant lot at 707 E. Seneca St.,
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
January 13, 2015 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.
The East Hill Historic District is comprised of 264 contributing elements, and contains
some of the finest examples of 19th and early-20th century architecture in the City of
Ithaca. The district’s architecture reflects the City’s growth from a small industrial
community to an influential and prominent educational center, a result of the founding of
Cornell University and the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
The East Hill Historic District retains a high level of integrity.
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
ILPC Minutes
January 13, 2015
8 of 16
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-5
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible
with the historic character of the district within which it is located.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
With respect to Principle #3 and Standard #9, the proposed three-story, multi-unit
apartment building and associated site work is compatible with the historic character of
the East Hill Historic District, and more specifically, with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features of the property and its environment. The three-story height and
massing of the proposed new building is consistent with the height and massing of the
larger contributing properties within the district. The perceived height of the new
building is minimized by the steeply sloped topography of the site, and the perceived
mass of the new building is minimized by the varied projections, porch and detailing of
the primary façade. Parking for the project is located within and behind the new building,
minimizing its visual impact on the district. Interior parking options have been
maximized.
Also with respect to the Standard #9, the proposed three-story, multi-unit apartment
building and associated site work will be differentiated from surrounding historic
structures through the use of contemporary construction techniques and materials, and
relative simplicity of the overall design. As indicated on the elevation drawing submitted
on December 30, 2014, contemporary materials to be used on the exterior of the building
include: GAF, Timberline Natural Shadow Lifetime shingles in Slate; HardieShingles
with a smooth finish in Countrylane Red; HardiePlank lap siding with smooth finish in
Cobble Stone; HardieTrim with smooth finish in Cobblestone; and Anderson A-Series, 1-
over-1 double-hung fiberglass windows in Sandstone. The foundation of the new building
will be constructed of concrete masonry units and covered with a textured parging.
Poured concrete will be used for the new sidewalks.
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 East Hill
Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
ILPC Minutes
January 13, 2015
9 of 16
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with
following conditions:
• The ILPC will review and provide final approval of all landscape features or site
modifications associated with the installation of the five exterior parking spaces. This
includes, but may not be limited to, grading and the construction of retaining walls,
stairs, fences, and/or any other features.
• Any changes required by other involved agencies to the approved plans will be
resubmitted to the ILPC for review and approval.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: M. McGandy
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, D. Kramer, M. McGandy, K. Olson, J. Minner
Against: S. Stein
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
C. 306 N. Cayuga Street, DeWitt Park Historic District ― Proposal to Install Wheelchair Lift
Applicants Jason Demarest and Jeff Kalnitz recapitulated the salient details of the project, noting the
house is being converted into a 5-unit apartment building and the installation of the wheelchair platform
lift is necessary to meet ADA accessibility requirements for one of the units.
J. Demarest explained that the first floor is split front-to-back and the rear apartment is the easiest to
access with a lift. To that end, the rear section of railing would be modified to create the lift gate. The
alteration would not resemble the house.
S. Gibian asked if the applicant had considered any other locations for the lift. J. Demarest replied that
he did examine another location, the inside corner of the house and rear porch junction; however, it
would have posed some serious drainage issues and neccessitated moving some of the parking to
another portion of the site.
J. Kalnitz explained that the inline drain is inoperable in the proposed alternate lift location.
Modifications of the gutters in the rear would be necessary to keep water from falling on the wheelchair
lift. He added that the currently proposed location also has the advantage of not being as noticeable to
the public. The proposed location is also level and there is more space for maneuverability.
J. Demarest added that the north side of the property also has a wooden fence, which would serve to
screen the lift.
K. Olson observed that the new 42-inch pipe railing was not mentioned anywhere in the application. J.
Demarest replied that he actually submitted that proposal to City Planner Megan Wilson and she
approved it as a staff-level approval on 8/27/14.
ILPC Minutes
January 13, 2015
10 of 16
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded
by S. Gibian.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 306 N. Cayuga St. is located in the DeWitt Park Historic District, as designated under
Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1971, and as listed on the New
York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1971, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness dated December 30, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Jason K. Demarest, architect for
property owner Jeffrey Kalnitz, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively
titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) two detailed
architectural drawings; (3) one photograph showing existing conditions of the property,
and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building & Structure Inventory Form for
306 N. Cayuga Street, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s) the project involves the
installation of a wheelchair platform lift and the modification of the first-story railing of
the northernmost bay of the west elevation’s two-story porch, 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 Certificate
of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on January
13, 2015, 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 DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the DeWitt Park Historic District is
1820 – 1930.
As indicated in the New York State Building & Structure Inventory Form, 306 N. Cayuga
Street, known as the Williams-Speno-Fisher House, was constructed in 1906 for Roger B
ILPC Minutes
January 13, 2015
11 of 16
Williams, a prominent Ithaca businessman, and was designed by locally prominent
architect Clinton L. Vivian. It is an important example of American Renaissance design.
Constructed within the period of significance of the DeWitt Park Historic District and
possessing a high level of architectural integrity, the property is a contributing element of
the DeWitt Park Historic District.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district.
In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-5
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to
the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
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 installation of a
wheelchair platform lift and modification of the porch railing 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 porch railing modifications are
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
ILPC Minutes
January 13, 2015
12 of 16
With respect to Standard #10, the wheelchair platform lift can be removed and the railing
replaced in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the
historic property and its environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on findings set forth above, the installation of a wheelchair platform lift and
modifications to the porch railing will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the property and the DeWitt Park
Historic District as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the installation of a
wheelchair platform lift and modifications to the porch railing meets criteria for approval
under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
installation of a wheelchair platform lift and modifications to the porch railing.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Gibian
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, D. Kramer, M. McGandy, K. Olson, S. Stein, J. Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
None.
III. OLD BUSINESS
None.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
• Old Library Site Redevelopment ― Four Proposals
(1) Seventy-Six For-Sale Owner-Occupied Units & Eight For-Rent Apartments (DPI
Consultants, LLC)
Robert DiPaola, DPI Consultants, presented the proposal.
S. Gibian asked if any documents illustrate the relationship of the proposed project to the
existing buildings. R. DiPaola replied there should be one in the proposal.
K. Olson asked if height specifications are available. R. DiPaola replied the proposal contains a
section drawing through the building that depicts the section elevations.
ILPC Minutes
January 13, 2015
13 of 16
K. Olson stressed that the greatest problem with many proposed buildings in Historic Districts
tends to be their massing. This particular proposal looks like a beautiful building, but it is
probably too large. D. DiPaola replied that he met with the City Economic Development
Working Group, which indicated a height variance would probably not be well received; so he
is already aware that the building will need to be scaled down a little (probably removing the
top level), but with the addition of four penthouses that would be stepped back to be less
visible.
D. Kramer noted that he owns two buildings across the street and he is very familiar with the
area. In that context, he would have to say the size, mass, and scale of the project seem
outsized for the location. He also does not see that the project establishes much of an
architectural/historical relationship with many of the neighboring buildings (e.g., the adjacent
bed and breakfast). D. DiPaola replied that the project’s scale would be similar to that of the
existing Old Library building, but he envisions that texturally and materially it would fit more
into the Historic District. He stressed that one does need a certain minimum threshold of units
to get a return on any investment.
M. McGandy remarked that the Commission would be very interested in seeing greater
articulation and a reduced massing. In addition, the quality of the materials will be crucial. The
project should also not seek to mimic the existing architectural styles in the Historic District.
D. DiPaola replied that the project is still very early in the design process and he is confident an
appropriate compromise could be reached.
S. Gibian asked how the project would relate to the Presbyterian Church. D. DiPaola replied he
does not have an answer to that question. S. Gibian observed that the other houses on the block
line up with each other nicely, with a 10-foot setback from the sidewalk. D. DiPaola replied
that when the project rendering was generated, it was not clear there would be a 10-foot setback
requirement, but he would imagine it would be close to that.
K. Olson expressed qualms with approving the complete demolition of a building that was built
in a unique time and place, and that has some intrinsic historic value. Demolition is not a
decision to be taken lightly. She noted that the building is only a few years out from the 50
year threshold for designation.
J. Minner agreed. She added it would very helpful for the Commission to have more complete
historical information on the existing Old Library.
D. DiPaola responded that the Old Library building is encumbered with many challenges that
need to be resolved (e.g., energy efficiency, asbestos, insulation); so any re-use of the existing
building would necessarily dramatically alter it.
(2) Cayuga Community Education Center for Lifelong Wellness (Franklin Properties,
MCK Building Associates, STREAM Collaborative, & Taitem Engineering, P.C.)
Applicants Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, and Douglas Southerland, Franklin
Properties, presented the proposal.
ILPC Minutes
January 13, 2015
14 of 16
N. Demarest explained that the existing building would be re-used (2/3 for residential and 1/3
commercial). There would also be a small community space. The project team is exploring the
National Trust for Historic Preservation’s green building standards. The focus on the design is
to make the building more universally accessible. Windows would need to be punched into the
façade. The building height would remain the same and the loading dock replaced with
parking. They would also increase and enhance the amount of greenspace, while respecting the
sensitive southern border of the property. N. Demarest noted that re-using the building will
enable the associated savings to be re-invested in the façade and other treatments of the
building.
E. Finegan asked if there are any environmental hazards that would need to be dealt with. N.
Demarest replied, yes ― asbestos (although it is likely that this material will only be minimally
disturbed).
J. Minner remarked she very much likes the proposal, with its re-use of the existing building, its
general compatibility with the neighborhood, and the use of greenspace. K. Olson agreed.
M. McGandy indicated he also likes the proposal, especially the use of wood on its own terms
(although it remains to be seen to what extent it would look as though it belongs on Cayuga
Street).
(3) Ithaca Senior Apartments (SWBR Architects, Ithaca Housing Authority, Rochester’s
Cornerstone Group Ltd., & Cayuga Housing Development Corporation)
Applicants Carol Oster, Rochester’s Cornerstone Group, Brenda Westfall, Ithaca Housing
Authority, Joseph Gibbons, SWBR Architects, and Roger Brandt, Rochester’s Cornerstone
Group presented the proposal.
J. Gibbons explained the project would be an affordable housing project for seniors. The
existing building would be demolished to build a four-story, wood-frame building. Community
space would be prominently featured on the corner of the building. It would include 48 parking
spaces (36 of which would be covered/screened on the first level) and the exterior design would
use sustainable materials. The rooftop mechanical units would not be visible from the street.
The applicants are exploring the Energy Star and NYSERDA programs, as well as LEED for
Homes, possibly including solar panels on the roof.
S. Gibian asked how the building would relate/respond to some of the other buildings in the
Historic District. J. Gibbons replied, through color and materials. He conceded it would not
architecturally appear particularly like most of the surrounding buildings.
Bryan McCracken observed there is a ten-foot setback requirement on the Court Street side. J.
Gibbons responded the applicants would most likely seek a Zoning Variance for that.
D. Kramer asked if the Court Street side would resemble the elevation drawing that was
presented. J. Gibbons replied, yes.
ILPC Minutes
January 13, 2015
15 of 16
E. Finegan remarked that the massing and scale of the building do not seem responsive to the
surrounding residential area.
J. Minner asked if fiber cement is the only material being considered. J. Gibbons replied that
they could propose different materials (e.g., wood siding).
S. Gibian noted the building seems a little too urban for its immediate surroundings, although
he likes some of the articulation on the façades. He is also skeptical having the building butting
right up to the street on both sides is the best approach.
K. Olson expressed appreciation for the affordable housing focus of the project, which is really
important to the community.
E. McCollister expressed concern that the applicants would seek a Zoning Variance to bring the
building out to the street. She would recommend against doing that.
Bryan McCracken asked if the applicants had considered a use other than parking on the ground
floor. J. Gibbons replied they could possibly consider something else, depending on the
parking needs.
D. Kramer remarked that, as a neighbor, the building seems somewhat inhospitable to the
smaller, more vernacular residential buildings across the street. He would prefer to see a
lighter, more open, and more articulated design.
(4) Four-Story Mixed-Use Building with 48 Apartments & Lifelong Senior Center (Travis
Hyde Properties & HOLT Architects)
Graham Gillespie, HOLT Architects, Michael Barnoski, HOLT Architects, and Frost Travis,
Travis Hyde Properties, presented the proposal.
G. Gillespie explained the proposal focuses largely on the needs and programs of Lifelong, but
the applicant are also examining the site more holistically and searching for its highest/best use.
M. Barnoski indicated the applicants sought to draw out the center of the building and make it
as open as possible to complement the large park across the street. The applicants also sought
to establish a relationship with the adjacent church, with a smaller three-story building segment.
The building would include a community space on the corner, a butterfly roof to keep the
building as low to the ground as possible, and a pedestrian connection through part of building.
The first two floors would be dedicated to Lifelong, while the first floor facing Court Street
would include some offices and a community center. Above these first floors, there would only
be housing. Parking would be situated between the building and the residential housing further
down the site.
G. Gillespie added that the parking for the building would be minimal, consistent with the
overall downtown urban and more sustainable approach being taken.
M. Barnoski remarked that the building would be divided into more finely articulated segments,
using stone, brick, etc. to reflect the nearby buildings. The top of the building would be set
ILPC Minutes
January 13, 2015
16 of 16
back and would feature more glass than other parts of the building. Along the interior of the
building, there would be more greenspace. G. Gillespie added that it would also include green
roofs.
D. Kramer remarked that it is a very thoughtful proposal. S. Gibian agreed.
K. Olson remarked that the project shows considerable sensitivity to the particularities of its
location, including the park; however, more could probably be done on the Court Street side,
which she is having difficulty envisioning. It should read more like its neighbors.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by S. Stein, and seconded by D. Kramer, Commission members approved the following
meeting minutes, with no modifications.
• December 9, 2014 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• D. Kramer suggested that Chair Finegan serve another year as Chair. There were no objections.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:56 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission