HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2009-02-12Approved by ILPC – 7/9/09
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
February 12, 2009
Present:
Alphonse Pieper, Chair
Nancy Brcak
George Holets
Susan Jones
Susan Stein
Lynn Truame
Mary Tomlan, Common Council Liaison
Leslie Chatterton, Staff
Megan Gilbert, Staff
Dan Hoffman, City Attorney
Chair A. Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. and read the legal notices for the public
hearings.
I. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Former Ithaca Gas Works, Individual Landmark – proposal for demolition
Chair A. Pieper clarified for the public’s benefit that that the application is for
demolition; there is no mechanism under local law to allow for the rescinding of the
building’s historic designation. He also noted that a letter from NYSEG indicates that the
ability to clean up the site after demolition is a secondary benefit and while other clean up
measures may be costly, they are not necessarily impossible. The letter goes on to state
that discussions about these measures should continue between NYSEG and the DEC,
and this meeting is not the proper forum for discussions on this topic. A, Pieper clarified
that there is no restriction on topics members the public may address, but the
Commission will be considering the proposal for demolition only.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by N. Brcak, Chair A. Pieper opened the public
hearing.
Donald Smith, Ithaca, stated that he appreciates the historic and aesthetic value of the
building, and while he understands the cost of rehabilitation to the school district, it
seems that the building is proposed for demolition because it is nuisance, not because it is
necessary. He would like to see the building preserved as long as it would not be a threat
to health now or in the future. He also noted the school district has not challenged the
clean-up plans as being unsafe. He believes the City should take on some responsibility
for the building.
Stephanie Vaughn, Ithaca, spoke against the proposed demolition. She noted that this
building’s historic value will be lost to future generations if the proposal is approved.
This case provides many educational opportunities for students and community members
in terms of the science of the clean up and the record of history. She also indicated that
she would like the renovated building become an anchor project for neighborhood
improvements.
Stiller Zusman, Ithaca, spoke in favor of the proposed demolition, noting that the
financial impacts of the site’s clean-up will fall upon NYSEG customers and the impacts
1
Special Note: All written comments from this meeting are on file in the Department of Planning & Development.
ILPC Minutes Approved by ILPC – 7/9/09
February 12, 2009
of future liabilities to the school district will fall upon district tax payers. Neighborhood
residents are both and will bear the expense of maintaining the building.
Cynthia Brock, Ithaca, spoke in favor of the proposed demolition. She noted that she
believes the rehabilitation could lead to economic revitalization of the neighborhood but
doubted that it would happen in her lifetime. The school district has demonstrated their
ability to be custodians of this building over the last 30 years and this same level of
attention is likely to continue for the next 30 years. Attention and funding needs to be
focused on buildings that house children, not vacant buildings. She stated that a few
years ago the ILPC gave the school district the option to remove the historic designation
of the building. While the option was not taken at that time, the idea must still be
available since it was presented recently.
Joe Simone (NYSEG) noted that demolition is not the only way to achieve the secondary
benefit of a remediated site. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has
the authority to determine if excavation of the site is necessary. The Commission must
focus its deliberations on the primary issue, the cost of the rehabilitation. While NYSEG
would welcome a solution that allows a full clean up, the cost to ICSD tax payers must be
the deciding factor when considering this proposal.
Janis Kelly, Ithaca, spoke in favor of the proposed demolition. The building will never
be used for the primary job of the Ithaca City School District, which is educating
children. The demolition of the building will provide a site for redevelopment to spur
revitalization of the area. To not demolish the building would create a shrine to toxins.
Beth Kunz, Ithaca City School Board, Ithaca, spoke in favor of the proposed demolition.
While she appreciates the historic value of the building, to deny the application to
demolish the building will saddle the school district and its tax payers with an economic
hardship. The district cannot afford to rehabilitate the building and certainly would not
be able to do it right away. The building is a danger and liability. The site could be used
as green space for BJM, one of the few schools in the district that does not have any
green space.
Neil Zusman, Ithaca, spoke in favor of the proposed demolition. He noted that when the
building was designated in 1978, no one knew that it sat upon a toxic super fund site. He
asked the Commission to remove any impediments to the complete clean up of the site
but to maintain its vigilance and authority over developers to preserve the site’s historical
and cultural significance.
Chair A. Pieper read the names of authors of written comment and stated whether they
support or oppose the proposed demolition of Markles Flats. He also noted that the
Commission has received five petitions signed by 12, 25, 12, 28, and 19 people
respectively.
2
ILPC Minutes Approved by ILPC – 7/9/09
February 12, 2009
The public hearing was closed on a motion by S. Stein, seconded by G. Holets.
Staff explained that the 6-month window that C. Brock claimed was to remove historic
designation was actually to allow the school district to join NYSEG’s lawsuit. The
removal of the building’s historic designation has never been an option.
1) Declaration of Lead Agency Status for Environmental Review
Staff explained that resolution RA-1 was the declaration of lead agency. The Planning
Board was identified as a possible involved agency, and they have agreed to let the ILPC
serve as lead agency.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Brennan, seconded S. Stein
WHEREAS, the proposed demolition of the former Ithaca Gas Works at the northeast
corner of West Court Street and North Plain Street is a "Type I Action"
pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and is
a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require that a lead agency
be established for conducting environmental review of projects in
accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code specify that for actions
governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that
local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding
or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, at the regular monthly meeting held on January 14, 2009, the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission adopted a resolution declaring its
intent to be lead agency for the environmental review of demolition of the
former Ithaca Gas Works and so notified the Board of Planning &
Development, another possible involved agency, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Planning & Development has agreed that the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation should serve as lead agency for the
environmental review, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission does hereby declare
itself lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed demolition
of the former Ithaca Gas Works.
3
ILPC Minutes Approved by ILPC – 7/9/09
February 12, 2009
RECORD OF VOTE: Carried 6-0-0
Yes
A. Pieper, Chair
N. Brcak
G. Holets
S. Jones
S. Stein
L. Truame
No
0
Abstain
2) Determination of Environmental Significance
Staff explained the Commission members received in their packets copies of the FEAF.
The Commission reviewed the FEAF (attached) and the responses prepared by staff.
L. Truame clarified that Question 12 in Part I inquired about the loss of open space or
recreational area.
Staff explained that conflict with adopted plans or goals because it conflicts with
landmarks ordinance and Council’s designation of building as historic landmark.
A. Pieper asked if anyone disagreed with the responses to the FEAF. Commission
members indicated no objection.
Staff asked if there was any discussion. Commission members had no further comment.
After the resolution was read, City Attorney Dan Hoffman suggested adding the
following language as the first “RESOLVED.”
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca LPC hereby adopts as its own the contents and conclusions
of the FEAF as read into the record at this meeting, and be it further
This amendment was moved by N. Brcak and seconded by S. Stein.
RECORD OF VOTE: Carried 6-0-0
Yes
A. Pieper, Chair
N. Brcak
G. Holets
S. Jones
S. Stein
L. Truame
No
0
Abstain
0
4
ILPC Minutes Approved by ILPC – 7/9/09
February 12, 2009
The Commission proceeded with a vote on the resolution.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by S. Jones
WHEREAS, the Former Ithaca Gas Works is a designated local landmark as provided
for in Section 228-3 and 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an application for
a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the Former Ithaca Gas Works
has been submitted by the property owner, the Ithaca City School District,
and
WHEREAS, the proposed demolition is a "Type I Action" pursuant to the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act and is a Type I Action under the
City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, as lead agency, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission has
reviewed the FEAF and the application materials submitted by the Ithaca
City School District including the following: 1) The letter describing the
action from Superintendent of Schools Dr. Judith C. Pastel, dated
December 17, 2008; 2) Exhibit 1 – the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission Application for Certificate of Appropriateness completed by
ICSD; 3) – the Full Environmental Impact Form (FEAF) Part 1 completed
by ICSD, (Exhibit 2) (; 4)– Markles Flats - Study to Evaluate:
repair/Rehabilitation Cost, Demolition Cost & Structural Soundness
conducted by Johnson-Schmidt & Associates Architects and dated
December 12, 2008 (Exhibit 3), and 5) Markles Flats Building, Ithaca
City School District, 2008, Building Evaluation from Hunt Engineers,
Architects, & Surveyors dated December 2, 2008, (Exhibit 4) 6)
Condition Assessment Report, Markles Flats Building W/E 358-001
prepared by Wozniak Engineering (Exhibit 5) 7)– Markles Flats 2005
Remediation Estimate Envirocontrol Technologies, Inc. dated November
28, 2005, (Exhibit 6) and 8) the FEAF parts 2 & 3 completed by Leslie
Chatterton, Historic Preservation Planner, City of Ithaca
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission considered an application
for a Certificate of Appropriateness from the New York State Electric and
Gas Company to demolish the former Ithaca Gas Works, and
WHEREAS, after review under the NYSEQRA and the CEQRA the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation
Issued a positive declaration requiring completion on the applicant’s part
of a Environmental Impact Statement exploring alternatives to the
demolition, and
5
ILPC Minutes Approved by ILPC – 7/9/09
February 12, 2009
WHEREAS, in the present case the ILPC has reviewed the Full Environmental
Assessment Form (FEAF) including Parts I, II, and III, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has identified five potential large impacts of the action to
demolish the former Ithaca Gas Works, one under IMPACT ON
AESTHETIC RESOURCES, two under IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, and two under IMPACT ON
GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR
NEIGHBORHOOD, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the action to demolish the former Ithaca Gas Works
was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on February 12,
2009; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca LPC hereby adopts as its own the contents and conclusions
of the FEAF as read into the record at this meeting, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission has determined, as set
forth in Part III of the FEAF, that the proposed action will result in a
significant environmental impact, and the project, as proposed, does not
provide any means for mitigating these impacts, and
RESOLVED, that the preparation of an dEIS is required before further Commission
decisions can be made regarding the proposal, and be it further
RESOLVED, that a Positive Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law be filed according to the requirements contained in Part
617 thereof and for purposes of the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance be filed according to the requirements contained in Section
176-10(2) thereof.
RECORD OF VOTE: Carried 6-0-0
Yes
A. Pieper, Chair
N. Brcak
G. Holets
S. Jones
S. Stein
L. Truame
No
0
Abstain
0
6
ILPC Minutes Approved by ILPC – 7/9/09
February 12, 2009
L. Truame asked for an explanation of the environmental review process for the public. D
Hoffman explained that a government agency must conduct environmental review of all
actions that come before it as required, and the demolition of an historic landmark is an
action that requires environmental review. The first step in environmental review is the
preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF). ICSD completed Part I
of the FEAF. The ILPC is responsible for the preparation of Parts II and III (required
when any potential large impacts are identified in Part II), which were drafted and
recommended by staff prior to review of the FEAF. Based on this information, the
Commission determined that the demolition of the building would have a significant
impact and issued a positive declaration of environmental significance. The applicant
must complete a draft environmental impact statement (dEIS), and there are certain
requirements for this document. Once the final environmental impact statement (fEIS) is
completed, the Commission legally has all of the information it needs to make its
decision.
Another phase is scoping where the Commission determines what the applicant should
identify in the dEIS. The dEIS typically focuses on areas that were identified as potential
large impact. State law requires that alternatives to the proposed action are considered so
that the Commission is aware of other options that are out there that may mitigate the
impacts of the proposed action. The ILPC can have an informal discussion about the
content of the EIS rather than formal scooping.
Chair A. Pieper asked Commission members to speak about what they would like to see
explored in the EIS.
G. Holets stated that he would like to see a careful assessment of the pros and cons of (1)
demolition of the building, (2) restoration of the building, and (3) use of the building for
an alternate use. He acknowledged that there has been a lot of concern about dangers to
the community and small children and added that there were alternatives for cleaning up
the site completely that came out of NYSEG’s previous application. He is not certain
that there is not a more creative way of dealing with the building and does not want to
throw out a 19th century building because of public opinion.
Staff clarified that scope cannot include clean up options.
L. Truame would like to see options for transferring the building to another owner who is
not in the same financial position as the school district. ICSD has mentioned gifting the
building to City, and sale of the building to a private owner is another option.
Chair A. Pieper would like to see a clarification of the costs for rehabilitation. Movement
of the building could also be an option.
S. Stein and S. Jones agreed with the criteria presented.
7
ILPC Minutes Approved by ILPC – 7/9/09
February 12, 2009
N, Brcak also agreed and noted the case of a school in Topeka has historic significance
for its role in the civil rights movement but City wanted to get rid of it for health reasons.
They were able to find a buyer who restored the building to a civil rights museum. She
wondered if something similar could happen here and added that finding a different
owner would preserve the building while removing the burden from the district’s
taxpayers. She also suggested looking into grant opportunities relating to historic
preservation.
B. Tyson reviewed the potential large impacts as identified by the Commission and stated
that they all strike him as reasonable. State and City law would require him to focus on
these as part of EIS. There is also a requirement to consider the impacts of a “no action”
alternative. He feels a buyer search is outside the realm of what should be considered
and the district cannot gift the building. He stated that the alternatives to demolition are a
rehabilitation of the building, retention of the building with some restorations, or no
action. These are clearly defined alternative analyses under state law. Stating that he
does not agree with some content recommended for EIS, he noted that ICSD will submit
an EIS to be considered.
L. Truame expressed concern that the EIS would not consider any viable alternatives
other than “moth-balling” the building. B. Tyson identified “do nothing,” renovation,
preservation, and demolition as alternatives. L. Truame noted that ICSD’s application
itself mentions an offer to the City and she would like more info on that. B. Tyson stated
that this would not be through the SEQR process but maybe could occur through informal
discussion
N. Brcak stated that it appears as though ICSD only cares about tearing the building
down. B. Tyson responded that this is true because retaining the building conflicts with
the district’s intended use and would be too expensive. N. Brcak suggested grant funding
again.
D. Hoffman stated that both City and State law dictate certain matters that must be
addressed in an EIS. He offered to review all of them but wanted to draw the
Commission and the applicant’s attention to a couple of points. One item that must be
included is a description of mitigation measures. Quoting from the City Code, also
included should be a "description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to
the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project
sponsor. The description and evaluation of each alternative should be at a level of detail
sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed. The range of
alternatives should include the No-Action Alternative. The No-Action alternative
discussion should evaluate the adverse or beneficial site changes that are likely to occur --
in the absence of the proposed action. The range of alternatives may also include, as
appropriate, alternative sites, alternative technology, alternative scale or magnitude,
alternative design, alternative timing, alternative use and alternative types of action.”
Chair A. Pieper indicated that he believed it is important to explore alternatives to
demolishing the building, including sale to other owners.
8
ILPC Minutes Approved by ILPC – 7/9/09
February 12, 2009
Judith Pastel, Superintendent of ICSD, stated that she has not been approached by anyone
and neither has the Mayor. L. Truame noted that she had read language about a transfer
to the City in Part 1. J. Pastel said that a long time ago she was talking with City officials
and said she could not gift the building but would sell it for $1. The City would not take
it because of debt service.
Chair A. Pieper stated that he did not find it unreasonable to ask ICSD to look at other
options, even if they ultimately prove to be not feasible. B. Tyson responded that J.
Pastel’s comments would be the extent of the exploration of this alternative.
Chair A. Pieper said that the Commission has explained what it is looking for and that is
all that can be said at this point.
After clarifying that the public hearing on this proposal was held at the beginning of the
meeting, the Commission agreed to hear an additional comment from the school district.
B. Tyson also presented the transcript from last month’s meeting and asked that the
Commission consider the presentations at the January meeting in their deliberations.
J. Pastel noted that six of the nine members of the Board of Education were present at the
meeting. Board President Robert Ainslie read an affidavit regarding the proposed
demolition and presented a written copy for the record. He also added that on a personal
note, he could never vote to spend two million dollars on the Markles Flats building. The
district has been pushing to renovate many of its buildings, and it is inconceivable to
spend the money on this particular building.
B. 2 Fountain Place, East Hill Historic District – proposal for fence installation
Rick Couture, Associate Vice-President for Facilities at Ithaca College, and Peter
Trowbridge and Noah Demearest of Trowbridge & Wolf were present to address the
Commission concerning the proposal. R. Couture noted that the ornamental fence is part
of a larger project at 2 Fountain Place. P. Trowbridge explained that they had met with
Leslie Chatterton and JoAnn Cornish to review a preliminary schematic plan that had
numerous improvements including this fence, but they had not drawn the fence to their
attention. At that time, staff said there was no need for site plan approval since it is a
single family house. The improvements were really safety and compliance issues. He
described the fence and the reasons for the proposed installation as the need to limit
liability and protect the property from deer browse.
N. Brcak asked how many running feet the fence would cover, and N. Demearest
responded that it would run for a little more than 100 feet. P. Trowbridge also added that
the primary reason for the installation is to address safety concerns, and while the fence
may deflect some deer, it is not the primary rationale.
Chair A. Pieper asked what were alternatives that they had looked at it lieu of the fence.
P. Trowbridge responded that they had wanted transparency in lieu of an evergreen
9
ILPC Minutes Approved by ILPC – 7/9/09
February 12, 2009
hedge. Also, it is difficult to even grow grass in this particular area. Chair A. Pieper
added that the fence that has been chosen does not come close to the quality and
workmanship that exists on that street and even on this house. The chosen fence does not
match the houses that are there.
M. Tomlan stated she would find it hard to think that people would plow through ground
cover (not grass) to go down the slope. P. Trowbridge responded that people are already
headed down the slope by the time they would get to the ground cover. It was not an
aesthetic decision to install the fence. He added that the fence can be removed and the
character of the property and the adjoining sites would not be affected.
S. Stein noted that she would like to know more about the original site plan since
plantings on the three properties were all planned.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by N. Brcak, Chair A. Pieper opened the public
hearing.
Vincent Mulcahy, 3 Fountain Place, spoke against the proposal. He stated that he had
previously sent a letter to Commission. He shared a communication from Noah
Demearest that suggested that safety was not necessarily the primary rationale for the
fence. He believes the project was undertaken to enlarge the event space. He read his
written comment into the record.
Jane and John Marcham, 414 East Buffalo Street, also shared written comments. John
added that the intention to have guests walk directly from the patio to Fountain Place
raises a question about parking on the street. He passed around a photograph showing the
view from their home to 2 Fountain Place that shows past plantings. He also noted that
in the past they have had good relations with the Ithaca College presidents and wished
they could have discussed this informally rather than here at the ILPC.
The public hearing was closed on a motion by S. Stein, seconded by G. Holets.
M. Tomlan presented an historic photo of 2 Fountain Place. She noted she has found
information about fences at three William Henry Miller houses. N. Brcak added that
there was no fence around his own house, and asked if M. Tomlan meant that fences were
uncharacteristic of his properties (M. Tomlan agreed). N. Brcak also added that the
original owners chose the house because of the views and the connection with nature. To
fence off the site does not seem in keeping with original intent. She is puzzled about an
ornamental fence that is intended to limit liability.
Chair A. Pieper noted he was surprised that the applicant did not look at other ways to
solve the liability problem. This proposal meets some requirements the ILPC follows,
but he is not sure about other requirements.
10
ILPC Minutes Approved by ILPC – 7/9/09
February 12, 2009
S. Jones stated that she felt there were other ways to meet the stated goals of the proposal,
and she would like to see alternatives explored.
S. Stein agreed.
G. Holets suggested something smaller. He felt that the argument that guests will not
watch where they are walking seems a bit far-fetched. The fence seems rather striking
from the photographs in terms of an attempt to keep the public out. It seems, that in light
of the discussion, it was intended that this site be kept open.
Staff noted that the Commission has approved fences like this before, and if they are
going to deny this one, they need to explicitly state the reason for doing so. S. Stein noted
that the previous cases have involved much busier streets. L. Truame referred to
Standard #,2 indicating that the openness of the site characterizes the property.
Staff asked if any fence here in this location would meet Standards #2 and #9, and N.
Brcak responded that nothing that has been proposed here would be acceptable.
Staff asked about the idea of plantings. N. Brcak stated that she thinks ivy or other
ground cover could be planted further back into the lawn so that it is not too late by the
time the guests reach it.
Chair A. Pieper stated that the fence would not be approved, but plantings would be.
RESOLUTION: Moved by N. Brcak, seconded by G. Holets
WHEREAS, 2 Fountain Place is located in the East Hill Historic District as provided
for in Section 228-3 and 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an application for
a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Peter Trowbridge of
Trowbridge & Wolf on behalf of property owner Ithaca College for review
by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, (ILPC), and
WHEREAS, the action under consideration is the installation of a fence, and
WHEREAS, the project 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 ILPC has reviewed the submitted documentation dated January 19,
2009, including a narrative description of the proposal submitted by Peter
Trowbridge, photographs of the property and the proposed location of the
fence, photographs of similar ornamental fencing, and a site plan showing
the proposed location of the fence, and
11
ILPC Minutes Approved by ILPC – 7/9/09
February 12, 2009
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 a Certificate of
Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting
on February 12, 2009, and
WHEREAS, 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 East Hill
Historic District is identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic
District Summary Significance Statement as 1830-1932.
Constructed in the 1890’s, the building is architecturally and historically
significant as an example of Romanesque style architecture with some
influence of Queen Ann style.
Constructed within the district’s period of significance and
retaining a relatively high level of integrity 2 Fountain Place is a
contributing element of the East Hill Historic District and is a
cornerstone of the Fountain Place Historic District of 1974.
As addressed in the narrative dated January 19, 2009 and shown on
the submitted site plan, the proposal involves the installation of an
ornamental fence along the front (west) and part of the north side
of the property. The fence will be a 36” high post and picket style
steel fence and will be painted black.
The purpose of the proposed fence is to limit liability from a
possible fall down the steep embankment along the front sidewalk.
In addition, the proposed fence will help protect plantings from
deer browse and delineate property lines.
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 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code.
12
ILPC Minutes Approved by ILPC – 7/9/09
February 12, 2009
In making this determination the Commission is guided by the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in
this case specifically the following Standards:
#2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and
preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features
and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
#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.
#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.
As shown in the provided site plan and photographs, the installation of the
ornamental fence will alter features and spaces that characterize the
property in keeping with Standard #2.
The fence is differentiated as a new element but is not compatible in
massing, size and scale to protect the historic integrity of the property and
its environment in keeping with Standard #9.
WHEREAS, the proposal will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance of the East Hill Historic District, as
set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the
proposal does not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a)
of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE: Carried 5-0-1
Yes
A. Pieper, Chair
N. Brcak
G. Holets
S. Jones
S. Stein
No
0
Abstain
L. Truame
13
ILPC Minutes Approved by ILPC – 7/9/09
February 12, 2009
C. Phi Kappa Tau, 106 The Knoll, Cornell Heights Historic District – proposal for
window replacement
No one was present to address the Commission. Staff noted that the applicant submitted
an application for 74 windows but they were treated differently. The application was
confusing, and it was difficult to craft a resolution to explain the proposal. The chart in
the window survey is different from the proposal in the narrative. Staff asked for input
from the Commission about what to say to the applicant to get clarification. Many of the
reasons provided for replacement are not typically reasons that the Commission accepts
for replacement of windows (air infiltration, sash cord missing). The ILPC wants more
information about the need for replacement as opposed to repair. They would also like to
visit the site, and staff will arrange a site visit.
II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR
A. Administrative Matters
None.
B. Public Comment on Matters of Interest
None.
C. Communications
None.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
None.
V. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. by Chair A. Pieper.
Respectfully Submitted,
Leslie A. Chatterton, Secretary
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
14