HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2015-04-14Approved by ILPC: 05/12/2015
1 of 30
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – April 14, 2015
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice-Chair
Katelin Olson
Stephen Gibian
Jennifer Minner
Michael McGandy
Ellen McCollister (Common Council Liaison)
Bryan McCracken, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. B. McCracken asked if one agenda item
originally scheduled for later in the meeting could be discussed first (“Proposal to Replace Stone
Sidewalks with Concrete”). No objections were raised.
I. OLD BUSINESS
• 218 & 220 Eddy St., East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Stone Sidewalks with
Concrete
B. McCracken reported that after the last Commission meeting he consulted with a colleague who works
for the New York City Landmark Commission, which regularly considers proposals related to stone
paving and sidewalk materials. According to this colleague, existing stone slabs are re-used, whenever
it is possible to lift the stone, fix the foundation, and re-lay the original slabs. He also consulted with a
community developer in Potsdam, New York, which has sandstone sidewalks. Potsdam manages its
own heaving sidewalks by first ensuring they have a proper foundation and simply flipping the
sandstone over to create a new wearing surface. B. McCracken tried contacting some contractors about
their technique for performing that kind of work, but was not successful.
Judging from B. McCracken’s findings, E. Hathaway responded, it appears the City is still left with the
two original options: replacement of the sidewalks with either concrete or bluestone. He recently spoke
with some contractors who were reluctant to take responsibility for the consequences of trying to
preserve the slate. He still believes replacement with concrete would be the most functional.
Furthermore, the City’s Disability Advisory Council (DAC) indicated that they feel wet/icy bluestone is
more difficult to negotiate, than wet/icy concrete.
B. McCracken noted he appreciates DAC’s concerns. There are, however, specific provisions in the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that explicitly allow for the retention of historic features. The
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that, as designated character-defining features in
the City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines, stone sidewalks could be exempt
from ADA requirements.
E. Hathaway responded that at this juncture in the process it may be appropriate to forward the issue to
Common Council for its decision.
E. McCollister responded that the Planning and Economic Development Committee recently discussed
the subject and no one appeared to support keeping the existing slate. While the Committee members
appreciate it is a character-defining feature, they believe that disability- and safety-related concerns
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
2 of 30
trump its historical value. They would like to see a uniform replacement with concrete along the entire
length of the sidewalk.
D. Kramer observed that the greater concern is what the City policy on slate sidewalks will be city-wide.
E. McCollister indicated she would advocate on behalf of the Commission for a limited decision on the
issue by Common Council.
K. Olson asked if Common Council may at least be amenable to having the slate removed for re-use,
since that has been done in other communities. It would be worth using this project as an opportunity to
experiment to see what could work.
E. McCollister replied that is certainly an argument worth making. She cautioned that Common Council
may consider the entire issue within the context of having just approved the new Downtown West
Historic District (which turned out to be more contentious than anticipated), which elicited a little
skepticism about the Commission’s role in defining the city’s built environment.
K. Olson observed that the Commission has consistently prohibited private citizens from replacing slate
sidewalks with concrete, so it would be to the City’s benefit not to appear to apply a different standard to
its own projects. E. McCollister responded that the difference in this case is that public sidewalks are in
the public realm and ADA-related concerns are therefore commensurately more important.
M. McGandy asked how re-using the slate would work in practice. E. Hathaway responded that he
could not speak for the contractor and where they may choose to dispose of the slate.
M. McGandy remarked that he hopes proper re-use of the slate could be made a condition of the work.
E. Finegan asked how the Commission should proceed. E. McCollister suggested the Commission
should simply act as it believes it should and Common Council can review the issue afterwards.
K. Olson suggested the Commission send a formal recommendation for handling the issue to Common
Council. The Commission could conceivably even meet with Common Council. E. McCollister replied
that a joint meeting of some kind would probably be instructive for Common Council. She will mention
the idea to the Planning and Economic Development Committee chairperson.
B. McCracken noted it sounds like the Commission is prepared to deny the application. He added that
Commission members may also like to discuss the issue with the City Administration Committee.
E. Hathaway noted the discussion of identifying an alternative or compromise solution (e.g., leveling or
grinding) should probably not be lost. B. McCracken indicated that could be included in the resolution,
along with the findings of his investigation.
S. Gibian remarked that flipping the slate slabs over would probably not be practicable in this case, since
their undersides are not level.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
3 of 30
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 218 Eddy Street and 220 Eddy Street are 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 February 2, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Eric Hathaway on behalf of the City of
Ithaca Engineering Department including the following: (1) two narratives respectively
titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a map of
existing stone sidewalks; (3) cost estimates from ACP Masonry and Reilly Masonry; (4)
four photographs documenting the condition of the existing bluestone sidewalks; (5) a
sidewalk evaluation diagram; and (6) an aerial photograph of the project location, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
218 Eddy Street and 220 Eddy Street and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District
Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s) the project involves
replacing approximately 525 sq ft or approximately 100 linear feet of stone sidewalk
with concrete, and
WHEREAS, an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of the stone
sidewalk fronting 220 Eddy Street with concrete, submitted by the property owner
Jonathan O’Connor, was considered and denied by the ILPC at their regularly scheduled
meeting on September 10, 2013. The ILPC determined that the documented and observed
condition of the stone sidewalk at 220 Eddy Street did not necessitate its wholesale
replacement, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC notes that stone sidewalk in the City of New York’s designated historic districts
are regularly lifted and reset, a process that could be used to address some of the
condition issues exhibited in the section of sidewalk in question. The ILPC also notes
that the Americans with Disabilities Act provides for exceptions for the purpose of
historic preservation under Section 36.405. The retention of designated historic features
that do not meet ADA requirements is allowed if the alteration of these features to meet
the standards will threaten or destroy the historic significance of the features.
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
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
4 of 30
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
March 10, 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 Building Structure Inventory Form, 218 Eddy Street and
220 Eddy Street were both constructed between 1882 and 1883 during the East Hill
Historic District’s period of significance. 218 Eddy Street is considered a Colonial
Revival residence; 220 Eddy Street is considered a Queen-Ann Style residence.
The proposal in question concerns the stone sidewalk in front of 218 Eddy Street and 220
Eddy Street. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the most commonly used material for
public sidewalks in the City of Ithaca was native bluestone. Since that time, concrete has
become the material of choice for public sidewalks, and many of the city’s original stone
sidewalks have been replaced with this material. As documented in the “Inventory of
Flagstone (Slate) Sidewalks in Ithaca’s Historic Districts” prepared Mary Raddant
Tomlan and dated March 2000, relatively few sections of stone sidewalk remain within
the East Historic District and the sections fronting 218 Eddy Street and 220 Eddy Street
represent one of the longest, almost-continuous runs of stone sidewalk in the district.
Stone sidewalks, also referred to as flags, flagging or slate, have been recognized as a
character-defining feature of Ithaca’s historic districts in The City of Ithaca Historic
District and Landmark Design Guideline. Constructed within the period of significance
of the East Hill Historic District and possessing a high level of material integrity, the
stone sidewalks fronting 218 Eddy Street and 220 Eddy Street are contributing elements
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:
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
5 of 30
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 #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
Standard #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the
new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities,
and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be
substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
As noted above, stone sidewalks represent a distinctive construction technique and type
of craftsmanship that characterize Ithaca’s historic districts. They also provide insight
into the history and development of these areas. Therefore, with respect to Principle #2,
Standard #2 and Standard #5, the replacement of the existing stone sidewalk fronting 218
Eddy Street and 220 Eddy Street in its entirety with concrete will remove distinctive
materials and features, and will alter spaces that characterize these properties and the East
Hill Historic District. As with other proposals that involve removing historic elements,
the ILPC recommends that the removed slabs be retained as property of the City of Ithaca
and stored for future reuse.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as in shown in the photographs provided by
the applicant, the severity of the deterioration of the stone slabs comprising the sidewalk
fronting 218 Eddy Street and 220 Eddy Streets do require their replacement due to the
lack of functional integrity and deferred maintenance. The proposed new work will not
match the old in design, color, texture, material and other visual qualities. The ILPC
recognizes that stone slabs typically cannot support regular vehicular traffic without
breaking and will, therefore, allow the replacement of severely deteriorated stone slabs at
driveway crossings with concrete, as noted in the City of Ithaca Historic District and
Landmark Design Guidelines.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of 218 Eddy Street and 220
Eddy Street and the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it
further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal does
not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it
further
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
6 of 30
RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: M. McGandy
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, K. Olson, J. Minner, D. Kramer, M. McGrandy
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein
Vacancies: 0
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hibbard Block, 102 W. State St., Clinton Block Historic District ― Proposal to Replace
Doors
Applicants Elly O'Brien, Handwork Cooperative Craft Store, and Tom Fritz, Fritz Contracting, LLC,
recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. T. Fritz remarked that he is proposing a single,
custom door that closely matches the existing doors. (He added that he sees no practicable way of
‘fusing’ the original doors together, as had been suggested.)
S. Gibian observed that the proposed door would barely fit into the recessed alcove.
D. Kramer noted he wishes the applicants could have saved the original doors, but the current proposal
sounds like a reasonable replacement.
B. McCracken observed that the doors were originally intended to swing both ways; but at one point
doorstops were added, so strictly speaking the doors have already been modified.
J. Minner noted that the applicants have made a reasonable case for installing a custom door that
matches the original doors.
S. Gibian noted there is a discrepancy between the submitted specifications and the drawings. T. Fritz
replied the specifications are correct. S. Gibian observed it does not seem the dimensions on the
existing doors would correspond exactly to the proposed door. T. Fritz replied that the new door would
not match precisely: the new custom door reflects what is available.
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Jenni Cunningham-Ryan, Mighty Yoga, showed Commission members a video of the doors being
opened. She calculated the number of door openings/closures at ~120,000/year, for Mighty Yoga studio
clients alone. She stressed the current doors are very challenging to negotiate, especially when carrying
anything.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
7 of 30
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy,
seconded by D. Kramer.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 102-104 W. State Street is located within the Clinton Block Historic District, as
designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1980, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated February 6, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Handworks Cooperative, including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Change(s); (2) a project estimate from Benchmark Construction; (3) two
letters of support for the proposal from building tenants; (4) five photographs
documenting the existing conditions; (5) a copy of the ILPC minutes from June 11,
2009; and (6) a copy of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 102-
104 W. State St, and the City of Ithaca’s Clinton Block Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
replacement of paired, 23” X 89” wood, double doors with a single, 44 ½”X 86 ½”
commercial-grade wood door, 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
April 14, 2015, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
The period of significance for the area now known as the Clinton Block is identified in
the City of Ithaca’s Clinton Block Historic District Summary Significance Statement as
1830-1901.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 102-104 W.
State St., also known as the Hibbard Block, was constructed in 1847 and is one of the few
examples of Greek Revival commercial architecture that retains many of its original
architectural features.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
8 of 30
Constructed within the period of significance of the Clinton Block Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Clinton
Block Historic District.
The historic configuration of the doors in question is a significant character defining
feature of the Hibbard Block. Paired double doors were once a common feature of
commercial buildings in the downtown commercial district; however, few examples
survive today.
The purpose of this proposal is to improve security and energy efficiency.
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.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
9 of 30
Standard #10 New additions, exterior alterations, 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 will be unimpaired.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of the double
doors with a single wood door will remove distinctive materials but will not alter features
and spaces that characterize the property because the replacement doors replicate the
design of the originals.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as shown in the five photographs provided
with the application, the severity of the deterioration of the paired double doors does
require their replacement. The proposed new work will match the old in design, color,
texture, material and other visual qualities.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed single, 44 ½”X 86 ½”,
commercial-grade, wood door is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features of the property and its environment. As noted in the project quote
from Benchmark Construction, the custom wood replacement door will be crafted to
match the appearance of the existing paired double doors. The historic proportions of the
double doors’ rails and stiles would be approximately replicated in the new replacement
door and an astragal will be applied to the vertical center of the door to suggest a paired
door configuration.
With respect to Standard #10, the replacement of the double doors with a single door 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 Clinton
Block 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 existing doors will be retained and stored on-site in a secure and dry location.
The existing door handles shall be reused, if possible, or new hardware shall be made to
match the existing in design and material.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
10 of 30
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Gibian
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, M. McGandy, D. Kramer
Against: K. Olson
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein
Vacancies: 0
B. Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity Lodge, 13 South Ave., Individual Local Landmark ―
Proposal to Install Iron Stair Handrails
Applicant Randall Nesbitt, Infrastructure Properties and Planning, Cornell University, described the
proposed project, noting the gutter above the south porch has a downspout from the upper roof that has
been overshooting the smaller copper gutter and falling onto the concrete stairs below, contributing to
their deterioration. The applicant proposes to increase size of gutter on the north eave of porch, rotate
the elbow, and install a new larger gutter that would transition back to a normal-size gutter at the
northeast corner of the building.
The applicant would also add handrails to both sides of the landscape, radial, and concrete stairs. Julius
Blum iron handrails are proposed.
S. Gibian asked if the applicant would be re-setting the foundation for the stairs. R. Nesbitt replied, not
unless the architect miscounted the treads. One larger tread would need to be added to allow the scroll
handrails to terminate. Since the original stone is Gouverneur Marble, which is no longer quarried, the
replacement stone would match it as closely as possible.
M. McGandy asked about the new half-round gutters. R. Nesbitt replied he believes the existing ones
are 5” and the new ones would be 6”. M. McGandy responded that the issues of the overshooting water
and the volume of water are two separate problems. He suggested the applicant address the
overshooting water first and then determine the best solution for handling the water volume. R. Nesbitt
agreed that is a rational approach.
B. McCracken noted a condition could be included in the resolution that the replacement of the existing
5”-gutter with a new 6”-red copper gutter could be approved at the staff level, if the capacity of the 5”-
gutter is not sufficient to handle the volume of roof run-off, once the downspout has been reoriented.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, 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 K.
Olson.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
11 of 30
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, the Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity Lodge (the Deke House), 13 South Ave, is an
individual local landmark, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code in 2004, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of
Historic Places in 1991, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated February 25, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Randall W. Nesbitt on behalf of
property owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2)
four architectural drawings illustrating the details of the proposal; and (3) three
photographs documenting the existing site conditions, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 13
South Ave, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
installation of handrails on the landscape, radial and concrete stairs, reorientation of a
downspout, and enlargement of a half round gutter, 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
April 14, 2015, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As indicated in the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, the Delta
Kappa Epsilon Fraternity Lodge (the Deke House) was constructed in 1893. It is
historically and architecturally significant as a distinctive example of a late-19th century
fraternity lodge and as an intact representative of the Romanesque Revival Style as
interpreted by the locally significant architect, William Henry Miller.
The landscape and radial stairs leading to the primary entrance were an integral part of
William Henry Miller’s original lodge design. While his plans originally specified
“bluestone” as the preferred material for these features and the National Register of
Historic Place Registration Form identifies them as such, the landscape stairs are
constructed of the same St. Lawrence marble (Gouveneur marble) used extensively
Approved by ILPC: 05/12/2015
12 of 30
throughout the primary structure. Added in 1906, the concrete stairs and copper half-
round gutters were installed during the property’s period of significance, 1893-1910, and
contribute to its overall architectural significance and 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
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 #1 The historic features of an individual landmark shall be altered as little
as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with the historic character
of the landmark.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #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 #1, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of handrails to
the landscape, radial and concrete stairs will not remove distinctive materials and will not
alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The Julius Blum iron handrails
and support posts will not have a significant visual impact on the property or adversely
affect the distinctive materials that characterize the property. Vertical support posts for
the Julius Blum handrails shall be anchored to footings installed beneath to the landscape
stairs to prevent future damage to the St. Lawrence (Gouveneur) marble.
The proposed Julius Blum iron handrails and gutter are compatible with the massing,
size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment in keeping with
Principle #1 and Standard #9.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
13 of 30
Also in respect to Principle #1, Standard #2 and Standard #9, the reorientation of an
existing downspout will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and
spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Standard #10, the handrails can be removed in the future without
significantly impacting the essential form or integrity of the property or 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 Delta Kappa
Epsilon Fraternity House (Deke House) at 13 South Ave 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 replacement of the existing 5” gutter with a new 6” red copper gutter can be
approved at the staff level if the capacity of the 5” gutter is not sufficiently adequate
to handle the amount of roof runoff once the downspout is reoriented.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, K. Olson, J. Minner, M. McGandy, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein
Vacancies: 0
C. Sage Chapel, 147 Ho Plaza, Individual Local Landmark ― Proposal to Install Roof Vent &
Modify Existing Door & Casement Window
Applicant Randall Nesbitt, Infrastructure Properties and Planning, Cornell University, described the
proposed project. He noted that ventilation would be treated according to the archive documentation for
air conditioning. In terms of the door, the applicant will try to achieve the exact appearance of the door
in the photograph. R. Nesbitt remarked there will be some door handle remnants. He would also like to
retain the existing hinges, which match virtually all the other hinges in the building. The door will have
a plate without a knob, but with a cylinder lock. The door would be used strictly for maintenance
purposes.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, 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 K.
Olson.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
14 of 30
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson.
WHEREAS, the Sage Chapel, 147 Ho Plaza, is an individual local landmark, as designated under
Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1990, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated February 25, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Randall W. Nesbitt on behalf of
property owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2)
three architectural drawings illustrating the details of the proposal; (3) five photographs
documenting the existing site conditions; and (4) a memo with three attachments from the
Cornell Campus Planning Office dated May 15, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 147
Ho Plaza, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
modification of several exterior features to accommodate the installation of an ADA
compliant bathroom within an antechamber off the north transept, which will include the
installation of a vent stack, addition of a baffle and louvered vent to a basement-story
casement window, and alteration of door glazing, 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
April 14, 2015, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As indicated in the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, the Sage
Chapel, 147 Ho Plaza, was constructed beginning in 1872 and completed in 1875 and is
architecturally significant as an outstanding example of the High Victorian Gothic Style.
Designed by Cornell University’s first professor of architecture, Charles Babcock, and
constructed by locally significant builder, John Snaith, Sage Chapel is historically
significant as an example of the work these locally significant individuals.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
15 of 30
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 #1 The historic features of an individual landmark shall be altered as little
as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with the historic character
of the landmark.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #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 #1, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of a vent
stack, addition of a baffle and louvered vent to a basement-story window, and alteration
of an existing door will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and
spaces that characterize the property. The vent stack will be located on a secondary-
elevation roof slope below the roof ridge and behind a buttress and a parapet,
significantly reducing its visibility from the public way. The baffle and louvered vent
installation in the western-most, basement-story window on the north elevation of the
north transept is consistent with guidance provided by the ILPC regarding the use of
window air conditioning units in historic buildings to Cornell University in May, 1990.
After one glass pane is removed, the opening will be filled with a metal baffle fitted with
a louvered vent and painted to match the existing color of the window sash. The door’s
non-historic wire-mesh-reinforced glass and handle hardware will be removed and
replaced respectively with acid-etch, black back-painted tempered glass and a US-10
Finish plate with cylinder lock. A new bronze threshold will replace an existing metal
threshold, and the existing stone sill will remain unchanged.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
16 of 30
Also with respect to Principle #1 and Standard #9, the proposed vent stack, baffle with
louvered vent, and modified door glazing and hardware are compatible with the massing,
size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the vent stack, baffle and louvered vent and modified door
glazing hardware 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 Sage Chapel
at 147 Ho Plaza 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:
Moved by: D. Kramer
Seconded by: K. Olson
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, K. Olson, J. Minner, M. McGandy, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein
Vacancies: 0
D. 115 Ridgewood Rd., Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Construct Small
Addition & Modify Window
Applicants Brian Buttner, Applied Design Research Associates, and David Ruff, Property Manager,
described the proposed project. B. Buttner noted the primary project involves the renovation and
upgrade of the old existing kitchen. They would completely replace the interior finishes and cabinetry,
and upgrade the plumbing. The existing cold/freezer storage is insufficient, so that would be relocated
into a new cooler room, opening up space in the kitchen to create a ‘racetrack’ system for preparing
meals. The applicants would also remove the obsolete, unused chimney, so that the dishwashing system
can be moved against the wall. (The chimney was roofed-over years ago, so it is no longer visible to the
public.)
B. Buttner indicated they would replace the existing double window behind the three-bay sink with a
new window with a higher sill to align with the steel sink backsplash, so the interior window frame
would no longer be susceptible to water and debris falling behind the sink and rotting the window
interior. The window would be converted from double-hung to fixed-pane on the bottom, with an
awning unit on the top, so it would have the same split system of the existing window. They will also
need to remove a double window from the east wall of the existing dining room to make space for the
cold storage. One of the two windows being removed would be reused.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
17 of 30
E. Finegan asked where the window would be re-used. B. Buttner replied it would be used as an
extension of the cooler room, off the south wall. (He does not have a prepared elevation, since it is
pretty basic window.)
D. Kramer asked when the kitchen had been added to the building. B. Buttner replied, sometime in the
1940s.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There
being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by J.
Minner.
RESOLUTION: Moved by J. Minner, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 115 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 March 18, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Brian Buttner, RA on behalf of property
owner Sigma Delta Tau, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) three sheets of
photographs documenting the existing conditions; (3) six sheets of architectural drawings
illustrating the proposed changes; and (4) a New York State Short Environmental
Assessment Form (SEAF), and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 115
Ridgewood Road, 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 the
construction of a 10’ 6” by 14’ single-story, flat-roof addition on the east elevation of
building and modifications to existing windows, 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
April 14, 2015, now therefore be it
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
18 of 30
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, 115 Ridgewood
Road was constructed between 1916 and 1917.
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.
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 #3 Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time,
place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historic development, such as
adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not
be undertaken.
Standard #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
19 of 30
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, Standard #5 and Standard #9, the construction
of a single-story, flat-roof addition will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter
features and spaces that characterize the property.
The proposed addition is not located on the building’s primary façade and is not visible
from the public way and, therefore, will not adversely impact the visual quality of the
property.
Also, with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed addition is compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
With respect to Standard #3 and Standard #9, the proposed addition will not create a false
sense of historical development. The massing of the addition is apparent as a distinct
form and does not falsely appear to be part of the original structure. The addition’s
materials and level of detailing do allow the viewer to readily identify the addition as
such.
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed addition can be removed in the future without
impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment.
The proposed modifications to the paired, 6-over-1 windows in the one-story, west-
elevation addition will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and
spaces that characterize the property in keeping with Principle #2, Standard #2, and
Standard #9. The modifications include shortening the existing window openings and
replacing the existing double-hung windows with new wood units that have single-light,
awning-style lower sashes and six-light, fixed upper sashes.
Also in keeping with Principle #2, Standard #2 and Standard #9, the proposed window
modifications are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of
the property and its environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell
Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
20 of 30
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:
Moved by: J. Minner
Seconded by: M. McGandy
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, K. Olson, J. Minner, M. McGandy, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein
Vacancies: 0
E. 102 E. Court St., DeWitt Park Historic District ― Proposal to Repair Porch, Chimney, &
Deteriorated Exterior Elements
Applicant Jerry Stevenson, McPherson Builders, Inc., described the proposed project, noting it was
initiated in response to a Building Division complaint. The applicants will try and reconstruct the
building as closely as possible to its historic state.
D. Kramer disclosed that the owner, Aaron Pichel, is both a friend and a neighbor. The state of the
building has been a genuine source of concern for some time. Given the extensive nature of the project,
he wonders when the work would begin. J. Stevenson replied, Spring-Summer 2015.
M. McGandy asked the applicant what he believes the likelihood is he will encounter significant
surprises in the structure’s interior that would require changing the proposed plans. J. Stevenson replied
that the applicants have taken that into account, since they know there are areas they cannot see/access
(primarily in the roof structure). They will not know the condition of the roof rafters, until they open up
the roof. He stressed that the applicants’ goal is to retain/maintain as much of the structure as possible.
He added that all the structural repairs would be internal and not visible to the public.
M. McGandy remarked that he just wants to make sure the applicant is not forced to stop the work and
return to the Commission in the event something unexpected is discovered. He suggested allowing for
staff-approval, should that turn out to be the case.
J. Stevenson noted the application was based upon the Building Division’s original letter requesting the
repairs; so it primarily addresses the porch and chimney. But it is certainly the owner’s intent to submit
another application to the Commission to address any other repairs deemed necessary by the
Commission and/or Building Division.
K. Olson expressed concern the applicant may encounter problems with the pressure-treated wood being
used for the porch and columns. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommends water-
repellent wood. J. Stevenson replied he does not believe it should be a problem, since the pressure-
treated wood would not be in a highly exposed location. He noted he does not yet know the condition of
the column bases, since they are enveloped in tin.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
21 of 30
D. Kramer indicated he is concerned with something he sees in the photograph ― the southwest second-
story window appears to be a vinyl replacement, out-of-keeping with the other window treatments. He
would like to know the status of that window. B. McCracken responded that he will investigate the
issue further to see if it was installed before the Historic District’s designation.
J. Stevenson re-iterated that the applicants will develop a second list of further work to be done, so that
window could be included in that.
S. Gibian suggested the applicant not employ poplar wood anywhere it could absorb water. J. Stevenson
replied he would only use it for the porch ceiling. Anything in an exposed location would be white pine
(which is probably what was there originally).
Public Hearing
On a motion by J. Minner, 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 J.
Minner.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson.
WHEREAS, 102 E. Court Street, 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 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness dated March 23, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by McPherson Builders, Inc. on behalf of property owners
Aaron and Michael Pichel, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a detailed narrative
titled Project Work Scope; and (3) six photographs documenting the existing conditions and
specifying treatments to specific elements, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building & Structure Inventory Form for
102 E. Court Street, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the reconstruction of a portion of the northwest chimney and
the restoration of the severely deteriorated front porch, including repairs/replacement of
structural roof members and sheathing, repairs/replacement in-kind of slate roof tiles,
reconstruction of large sections of cornice, removal and replacement in-kind of the porch
ceiling, removal and reconstruction of the porch floor structure, and repairs and/or partial
replacement of deteriorated porch column bases 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
April 14, 2015
22 of 30
WHEREAS, in a letter from the Building Commissioner, Phyllis Radke, dated July 20, 2009, property
owner and resident, A. Pichel, was cited under Chapter 146-9B of the Municipal Code for
the severely deteriorated and unsafe front porch and northwest chimney at 102 E. Court
Street, and ordered to make the necessary repairs/removals following proper review and
approval by the ILPC, and
WHEREAS, in a letter from the Acting Building Commissioner, Michael Niechwiadowicz, dated July 3,
2013, A. Pichel was again cited under Sections 146-9B and 228-11B of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code and Sections 304.1, 304.2, 304.4, 304.6, 304.7, 304.10 and 304.11 of the
Property Maintenance Code of New York State for the severely deteriorated and unsafe
front porch, northwest chimney, and other deteriorated exterior materials at 102 E. Court
Street, and ordered to make the necessary repairs/replacements following proper review and
approval by the ILPC, and
WHEREAS, A. Pichel failed to comply with the orders specified in the letters dated July 20, 2009, and
July 3, 2013, a violation of Section 146-2 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, A. Pichel was formally charged with numerous violations of the City of Ithaca Municipal
Code and New York State Property Maintenance Code, including Failure to Maintain a
Property Within the DeWitt Park Historic District and Failing to Obey Orders of the
Building Commissioner, in July 2014, and
WHEREAS, A. Pichel plead guilty to 122 counts of violations on March 11, 2015, and agreed to remedy
the violations cited in the letters from the Building Commissioners on July 20, 2009, and July
3, 2013, and bring 102 E. Court Street into compliance with all codes within a period of
approximately six months, and
WHEREAS, the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness now under consideration is a
requirement of the plea agreement, 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 April 14, 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, 102 E. Court
Street was constructed during the district’s earliest period of development in 1828. This
property is an excellent example of the Transitional Federal Style, with the main body of the
Approved by ILPC: 05/12/2015
23 of 30
building clearly depicting the size, massing, symmetry, and detailing of the Federal Style and
the colossal temple-front porch being more reflective of the Greek-Revival tradition. The
residence was built for Captain Charles Humphrey, a War of 1812 veteran, an attorney and a
Congressman, on land purchased from Simeon DeWitt.
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.
The paired chimneys at both gable ends of the symmetrical Court Street façade are typical of
Federal Style and are distinctive character defining features of this property. The front
porch is both architecturally and historically significant. Its colossal size, four hand-carved
Ionic columns, denticulated cornice and wide frieze and architrave are typical of the Greek-
Revival Style. While typical of Greek-Revival residences constructed during earliest decades
of the district’s period of significance, temple-front buildings are not widely represented
within the DeWitt Park Historic District. In addition, the house was constructed by locally
prominent contractor, Ira Tillotson, who is also credited with the construction of the locally
and nationally designated Clinton House. The columns on this property and those on the
Clinton House were carved by the same craftsman.
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 #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
Standard #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the
new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities,
Approved by ILPC: 05/12/2015
24 of 30
and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be
substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #5, the reconstruction of the
northwest chimney and the restoration of the front porch will not remove distinctive
materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. After the initial
citation by the City of Ithaca in 2009, approximately six courses of deteriorated brick were
removed from the top of the northwest chimney and were not replaced, significantly altering
the historic character of this feature. At the same time, the previously unpainted brick
chimneys were also painted, a treatment that requires ILPC approval. These alterations were
conducted without approval from the ILPC and, therefore, remained in violation of the 2009
and 2013 orders. As part of this project, courses of brick matching the detailing of the
southwest chimney will be added to the northwest chimney to restore its historic height and
character. The ILPC notes that the paint treatment of the previously unpainted chimneys
was not approved; however, painting the new brick added to the top of the northwest
chimney is permitted to ensure the visual continuity of the repair.
The ILPC notes that prolonged deferred maintenance under the tenure of the current
property owner resulted in the loss of considerable distinctive materials and features that
characterized the front porch. The deteriorated condition of many of the remaining
materials and features that require replacement is also the result of this deferred
maintenance. Proper maintenance of the materials and features would have prevented their
deterioration and ultimately the loss of these historic elements.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as shown in the photographs provided by the
applicant, documented in the City’s order letters of July 20, 2009 and July 3, 2013 and the
Building Division’s property file and observed by ILPC staff, the severity of the deteriorated
of porch roof, cornice, ceiling, floor and column bases require their replacement. The
proposed new work will match the old in design, color, texture, material and other visual
qualities. The severely water damaged and rotten porch roof structure will be repaired or
replaced, and slate tiles salvaged from the existing porch or new tiles that match the old will
be installed. The missing sections of porch cornice will be reconstructed; their appearance
has been substantiated by photographs taken by John Auwaerter in 1992, photographs taken
as part of building inspections in 2009 and 2013, and drawings printed in Architecture
Magazine in May 1923. After the existing ceiling is removed and the ceiling rafters repaired, a
new ceiling of custom-milled, square-edged, tongue-and-groove boards will be installed. The
pediment will not be altered. Repairs to the columns will be as follows: a combination of
epoxy and wood filler will be used to stabilize and restore the profiles of the bases; and the
plinths will be replaced with a new pressure-treated wood material that matches the size and
shape of the original as documented in the Architecture Magazine drawings and observed
on-site. The remaining deteriorated porch floor and structure will be removed and replaced
with a pressure-treated wood frame overlaid with 1”x4” tongue-and-groove flooring. All
new and original porch elements will be painted.
RESOLVED, that, based on findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the 102 E. Court Street and
the DeWitt Park Historic District as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
25 of 30
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets the
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(s):
• Replacement bricks and slate roof tiles shall be approved by ILPC staff prior to
installation.
• Mortar used to repair the porch foundation shall match the old in composition, color and
texture and approved by ILPC staff.
• All wood elements shall be replaced, if required, with a solid wood material and approved
by ILPC staff prior to installation.
• All other materials shall also be approved by ILPC staff prior to installation.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: D. Kramer
Seconded by: K. Olson
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, K. Olson, J. Minner, M. McGandy, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein
Vacancies: 0
F. Fall Creek Dr., Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Install Fence
Applicants David Cutter, Campus Landscape Architect, Cornell University, and Todd Bittner, Director
of Natural Areas, Cornell Plantation, described the proposed project, noting the fineal details were not
included in the application. D. Cutter explained the proposed fence would be placed on top of the entire
existing stone wall, attached to the surface with four bolts set back from the front the wall. Where the
stone wall steps down, posts would be placed for support. At the east end, after the wall curves, a short
segment of chainlink fence would be installed to close the gap. The west end of the wall is broken,
where 14 additional feet of wall used to be; so they will rebuild four feet of the wall using remnant
stone. The final segment would comprise two segments of picket fence (5-feet high) and a segment of
chainlink fence to connect to the existing chainlink running along the gorge’s edge.
S. Gibian asked if smaller base plates could be used for the attachments to the wall. T. Bittner replied
they would prefer not to exert too much pressure on the stone wall, to minimize the likelihood of
structural failure.
M. McGandy observed there has been ongoing discussion about making that portion of Fall Creek Drive
a one-way street, or installing a berm; and he does not see anything in the application that would
preclude either of those approaches. T. Bittner agreed that there have been discussions along those
lines, but the applicants have no way of knowing what timeline may be associated with them. He
recently attended a joint City-Cornell meeting at which there appeared to be support for the one-way
street solution, but he is not sure if that will move forward.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
26 of 30
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by K. Olson, 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.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by K. Olson.
WHEREAS, 323 Fall Creek Drive 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 March 27, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by David Cutter on behalf of property
owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) two sheets of
photographs depicting the existing conditions and a rendering of the proposed changes;
and (3) a drawing titled Proposed Fencing Plan, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has determined that landscape features and view sheds are character defining
features of the Cornell Heights Historic District, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
installation of a black metal picket fence on top of the stone wall located along the south
side of Fall Creek Drive near 323 Fall Creek Drive for the purpose of improving
pedestrian safety in this area, 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
April 14, 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 Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights
Historic District is 1898-1937.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
27 of 30
While the date of construction for the natural stone wall along Fall Creek Drive is
unknown, it is materially and visually consistent with other landscape features built in the
Cornell Heights Historic District during its period of significance and is identified in
Section 7 of the National Register Nomination as likely being an original landscaping
feature within the district.
On March 13, 2012, the ILPC reviewed an application submitted by Cornell University
for the installation of a 42”-high, black, vinyl-coated chain link fence on top of an
existing metal guardrail on the north side of the natural stone wall. The Commission
found that the proposal was not in keeping with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards #2
and #9 and denied the requested Certificate of Appropriateness. In its resolution, the
Commission stated that: the fence, as proposed, would create a visual, as well as physical,
barrier that would isolate the stone wall from the rest of the district; that installation of
the proposed fence would result in a severe negative impact on the historic view shed in
this unique location; that the modern man-made material of the proposed fence, its size
(particularly its height), and its scale were not compatible with the material, size, and
scale of the low natural-stone wall; and that the height of the proposed fence was
additionally problematic for the negative impact it would have on the view from this
historic overlook, altering the unique character and historic integrity of this location
within the district.
On October 11, 2012, the ILPC reviewed another application submitted by Cornell
University for the installation of a 42”-high, black, stainless-steel wire mesh fence on top
of an existing guardrail in the same location. The Commission found that the proposal
was again not in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards #2 and #9 and
again denied the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. In its resolution, the
Commission stated that: in spite of the increased transparency of the netting material
proposed, the fence continued to create a visual, as well as physical, barrier that would
isolate the stone retaining wall from the rest of the district and its installation would result
in a negative impact on the historic view shed in this unique location; the modern man-
made netting material of the proposed fence, its size (particularly its height), and its scale
remain incompatible with the material, size, and scale of the low natural-stone retaining
wall, and the height of the proposed fence continues to be problematic for the negative
impact it would have on the view from this historic overlook, altering the unique
character and historic integrity of this location within the district.
The proposal now before the Commission differs from the proposals submitted on March
13, 2012 and October 11, 2012 in the following respects: a 36”-high black steel, picket-
style fence will be attached to the top of the natural stone wall in lieu of a black, vinyl-
coated chain link or stainless steel cable netting fence installed on the guardrail fronting
the wall.
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
Approved by ILPC: 05/12/2015
28 of 30
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 installation of a 36”-high,
black, picket-style fence with finials on top of the natural stone wall will remove
distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
The placement of the fence on top of the natural stone wall unites the two elements and
does not creates a visual or physical barrier between the historic wall and the district, as
was the case with the earlier proposals. The relatively small picket size (1” square) and
generous picket spacing (3 ¾”) create a transparent fence that does not block or
substantially obscure the historic view shed from this location.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed fence is compatible with
the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment.
The use of a modern man-made material and application of contemporary constructions
techniques will differentiate the new fence from the historic stone wall.
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed fence can be removed in the future without
impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
29 of 30
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:
Moved by: M. McGandy
Seconded by: K. Olson
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, K. Olson, J. Minner, M. McGandy, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein
Vacancies: 0
G. 132 University Ave., University Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Modify Window
The applicant was not present to discuss the application. B. McCracken noted the Commission can
either choose to review it now, or table it until the next meeting. The consensus of the Commission was
to table review of the application.
S. Gibian observed that the contents of the application were somewhat paltry (e.g., no plans, no
elevations). B. McCracken responded he will contact the applicant to let them know.
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by J. Minner, seconded by
S. Gibian.
― The application was TABLED until the next meeting. ―
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
None.
IV. OLD BUSINESS (continued)
• Discussion: 410 University Ave., University Hill Historic District ― Rear Porch Demolition
B. McCracken reported that he contacted the owner, who asked him to ask the Commission if it would
prefer that the porch be rebuilt, or demolished.
D. Kramer and K. Olson both indicated it should be rebuilt.
ILPC Minutes
April 14, 2015
30 of 30
S. Gibian observed it would be helpful to see some documentation of what the porch looked like.
B. McCracken announced that it turns out that the University Hill Historic District was never formally
certified at the national level, so the owner is not be eligible for historic preservation tax credits.
V. NEW BUSINESS
• Summer Intern: Erin Frederickson
B. McCracken noted Ms. Frederickson will complete collecting the materials for certification of the
University Hill Historic District, and also update the city’s Reconnaissance Level Survey of Historic
Resources.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by S. Gibian, and seconded by K. Olson, Commission members approved the following
meeting minutes, with no modifications.
• March 10, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:11 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission