Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2009-08-18Approved by ILPC – 1/14/10 1 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission August 18, 2009 Present: Nancy Brcak Susan Jones Alphonse Pieper, Chair Susan Stein Lynn Truame Mary Tomlan, Common Council Liaison Leslie Chatterton, Staff Megan Gilbert, Staff Chair A. Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm and read the legal notice for the public hearing. I. PUBLIC HEARING A. 427 East Seneca Street, East Hill Historic District – proposal to replace existing shed Property owners Deirdre Newberry and Rajit Manohar were present to address the Commission regarding the proposal. R. Manohar explained that the existing shed is very large and is visible from the street. They would like to replace the shed with a smaller one and repair and replace a stone wall that has fallen at the back of the property. The new shed will be situated on the lot so that the narrow side faces the driveway and street and will be screened by landscaping. He presented some options that they are considering for the new shed and noted that many of these options are cedar. They are also considering a stone shed that will be built into the stone wall once it is repaired. Public Hearing On a motion by L. Truame, seconded by N. Brcak, Chair A. Pieper opened the public hearing. There being no one to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed on a motion by L. Truame, seconded by S. Jones. RESOLUTION: Moved by N. Brcak, seconded by S. Stein. WHEREAS, 427 East Seneca Street 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 property owners Deirdre Newberry and Rajit Manohar for review by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, (ILPC), and WHEREAS, the action under consideration is the replacement of an existing shed, 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 ILPC Minutes August 18, 2009 -2- WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the submitted documentation dated August 12, 2009 including 1) a Certificate of Appropriateness Application submitted by Deirdre Newberry and Rajit Manohar, and 2) a project proposal including a narrative description of the project, photographs of the existing shed, a plan drawing of the existing conditions photographs of possible replacement garden sheds, and a plan drawing illustrating the proposal, 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 a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the ILPC meeting on August 18, 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. 427 East Seneca Street was constructed prior to 1851. The Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of 1919 does not show any ancillary structures on the property. Constructed within the district’s period of significance and retaining sufficient integrity to reflect its historic and architectural significance, 427 East Seneca Street is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District. As addressed in the narrative description and shown on the plan drawing, the proposal involves the removal of the existing 8’ x 16’ shed. The existing shed will be replaced by a 6’ x 8’ or 6’ x 10’ garden shed, either with wood siding or painted a deep green. The proposed shed will be located adjacent to an existing stone wall on the east side of the property. The narrowest side of the shed will face the driveway and street, and the shed will be screened by landscaping. The project also includes the repair and reconfiguration of two existing stone walls and the replacement of an existing gravel seating area with a stone surface. These repairs and alterations are considered in-kind work for which no additional review is required. ILPC Minutes August 18, 2009 -3- The purpose of the proposal is to replace an oversized and deteriorated shed. WHEREAS, in its evaluation the ILPC has considered the following: 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. 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 described in the narrative description and shown on the accompanying plan drawing of the proposal, the replacement of the existing shed with a smaller wood shed will not require alteration of the main house. The existing shed is not an historic feature and its removal will not impact the historic character of the property, in keeping with Standard #2. As described in the narrative description and shown on the accompanying plan drawing of the proposal, the removal of the existing shed and construction of the new shed will not destroy historic materials that ILPC Minutes August 18, 2009 -4- characterize the property. The proposed shed is differentiated as a new element and is compatible in massing, size and scale to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment, in keeping with Standard #9. The construction of the new shed will 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, in keeping with Standard #10. WHEREAS, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0 Yes A. Pieper, Chair N. Brcak S. Jones S. Stein L. Truame No 0 Abstain 0 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – July 9, 2009 Chair A. Pieper rearranged the agenda to move to the approval of minutes. On a motion by S. Stein and seconded by S. Jones, the minutes from the July 9, 2009 meeting of the ILPC were approved without corrections by a unanimous vote. Chair A. Pieper recused himself from the application to demolish the former Ithaca Gas Works building and left the meeting at 7:12 p.m. L. Truame continued the meeting as acting chair. . III. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR A. Administrative Matters None B. Public Comment on Matters of Interest Kenny Christianson, 409West Court Street, Ithaca, stated that the Markles Flats building provides the character of the neighborhood and it would be a shame to lose this character. One corner of this block is already a parking lot, and the school district cannot be trusted to treat this site better. The area has not been kept in good condition, and if the school ILPC Minutes August 18, 2009 -5- district tears the building down, the character of the neighborhood will continue to deteriorate. The building could be a good site for new businesses or business incubators. The loss of the building will be a greater risk than the contaminants underneath it. Neil Zusman, 214 North Plain Street, Ithaca, noted that he submitted comments regarding the dEIS. He explained that he was originally adamantly opposed to preserving the building so that the site could be cleaned up for the safety of his children and others. He now believes the building should be saved. He stated that he has read the dEIS and the Commission’s early responses to it. He has been a resident of the neighborhood for years and plans to be there for many more. He hopes the Commission thinks of the long term future when they make their decision. The school district is making their decisions without any regard for the needs of the city. The dEIS is not adequate in its explanation of what the school district plans for the site. The work the ILPC does will remind us of our history of how the City was powered. At the same time, he would like the site cleaned up. Eric Rosario, 228 South Geneva Street, Ithaca, thanked the Commission for their work on this difficult topic. In response to Neil Zusman’s comments, he referred to the 2005 record of decision that noted the building could be moved to clean up the site. The building form would be preserved and the site could be remediated completely. This was not addressed by NYSEG in 2005 due to cost, but NYSEG has since stated that they would be willing to explore this option now. The change in cost for moving the building versus the cost of containment is approximately $500,000. This is a rough estimate, but even if it is a little more, it is worth it because it allows remediation while preserving the neighborhood character. The DEC-approved containment will likely need to be replaced in the future. There could be creative reuses for the shell of the building. Stiller Zusman, 214 North Plain Street, Ithaca, states that the dEIS does not address the impact of doing nothing. The building has deteriorated drastically over the years that she has lived there. The school district has openly stated that it will do nothing if it cannot demolish the building, and the building will continue to deteriorate and be a hazard to the neighborhood. There could be a danger of contaminants within the building, and the crumbling building could be a danger as well. If the building is torn down, it may be forgotten. Mary Tomlan, 200 Delaware Avenue, Ithaca, was reminded by E. Rosario’s comments of her thoughts when the proposed demolition of the Ithaca Gas Works building was before the Commission previously. At that time, the Commission had already looked at Sage Hall on the Cornell campus where, in the interest of preservation, the major walls of the building were preserved by the construction of a temporary exoskeleton and the interior was demolished for new construction. She had hoped that this option would be explored in the 2005 case, which would have allowed preservation of the exterior walls while still allowing the complete remediation beneath the building. Since the inside of the Ithaca Gas Works building will need to be completely renovated, this still would be a good option. She hopes that this option is completely explored before the building is allowed to be demolished. ILPC Minutes August 18, 2009 -6- C. Communications None IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Former Ithaca Gas Works, Local Landmark – review of comments on dEIS; determination of completeness of final Environmental Impact Statement Acting Chair L. Truame explained that the Commission has received comments on the dEIS and staff has prepared responses to these comments. The Commission now needs to review the comments and responses, and accept, edit, or reject them. After this review, the Commission will vote on a resolution that determines that the fEIS is now complete. N. Brcak asked whether the comments and responses, once reviewed, would be attached as part of the fEIS, and staff confirmed they would. The ILPC reviewed the comments and their responses (attached). Staff explained the two options for fEIS: (1) Attach the comments and responses to the dEIS and address any disagreements in the findings statement; or (2) Amend the dEIS to correct any disagreements. The Ithaca City School District’s attorney is proposing that the comments be attached to the dEIS and address disagreements in the findings statement. Staff suggested that the Commission review Bob Tyson’s letter. He does not refute the Commission’s responses but states that the dEIS should not be changed now that it has been accepted and comments regarding any disagreements should be addressed in the findings statement because language in the dEIS was not refuted at the time it was being considered. N Brcak noted that there are comments in the dEIS that she strongly disagrees with and yet they are in print in a document that has been considered adequate. Staff responded that the Commission will address these statements and other concerns or disagreements in its findings statement. Acting Chair L. Truame stated that she does not need to see the dEIS changed at this point as long as the comments and the Commission’s responses are in the fEIS. She is in agreement with the responses prepared by staff. RESOLUTION Regarding Completeness and Adequacy Final Environmental Impact Statement for Demolition of the former Ithaca Gas Works by the Ithaca City School District Moved by S. Jones, seconded by S. Stein: WHEREAS, the Ithaca City School District (referred to hence as either ICSD or “the District”) has requested a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) for the proposed demolition of the former Ithaca as works, a building first occupied by the Ithaca Gas ILPC Minutes August 18, 2009 -7- Company (also known as “Markles Flats” – the name of the alternative school occupying the building in the 1970s). The building is located at the corner of West Court Street and North Plain Street on an approximately 2- acre piece of property owned by ICSD. The former gas works building is a two-story, brick masonry industrial structure with a 38’ by 93’ 4” footprint constructed in 1899 to replace an earlier building also used by the Ithaca Gas Company. Based on its association with Ithaca’s early development and the building’s architectural design, the building was designated a local landmark in 1977. Significant design elements include those that reflect its industrial function such as the rooftop retorts, as well as design features typical of late 19th architecture such as the heavy, rusticated stone window sills and lintels and the brick corbelling at the building’s eaves. The property was acquired by ICSD in 1964 from New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG); and WHEREAS, as a result of release and/or disposal of hazardous wastes associated with the building’s earlier use as a coal gas manufacturing plant, the site on which the building is located is listed as a Class 2 Site on the New York State Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites. NYSEG is currently undertaking remediation of contamination on other portions of the 2-acre site by excavating and removing contaminated soils. The remedy for treatment of identified contaminants underneath the gas works building, as agreed upon by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), is to pump out contaminants underneath the building, containing any remaining contaminants with a subsurface corrugated metal barrier at the building’s perimeter and inclusion of a system for ongoing monitoring of soil gas vapors, and WHEREAS, the proposed action consists of demolition of the building that is in deteriorated condition and that ICSD has stated, “seriously interferes with the District’s future use of the site.” Following proposed demolition the site would be remediated in the same manner as other portions of the site. ICSD states that as the owner of a fully remediate property in such close proximity to Beverly J. Martin Elementary School (BJM), the District would seek to use the property to benefit the BJM students. The District also states that the continued presence of the Markles Flats building would interfere with this use, and WHEREAS, the demolition of a building designated a local landmark under municipal law and determined eligible for listing on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places is a Type I Action subject to environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO) and ILPC Minutes August 18, 2009 -8- WHEREAS, the ILPC, as lead agency, made a positive Declaration of Environmental Significance on February 12, 2009, directing the ICSD to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed demolition of the former Ithaca gas works building, and WHEREAS, after the February 12, 2009 declaration, the ILPC communicated in writing the results of an informal scoping to assist the applicant in assembling a dEIS that would focus on matters that are of most concern to the ILPC, and WHEREAS, on March 30, 2009 ICSD submitted a dEIS to the ILPC, and WHEREAS, on April 9 2009, the ILPC, as Lead Agency for the environmental review, reviewed the dEIS for completeness and adequacy for the purpose of public review and comment, and with the assistance of City staff found the dEIS with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy, was not complete or adequate, and WHEREAS, in the resolution adopted on April 9,2009 the ILPC stipulated specific modifications, revisions and additions necessary to render the dEIS suitable for public review and comment pursuant to SEQRA and CEQRO to which the applicant agreed in the course of discussion at the meeting, and WHEREAS, in order to expedite the process, the ILPC authorized staff to determine whether said stipulations were satisfied by the revised dEIS, thus rendering it suitable for public review and comment, and WHEREAS, on June 26, staff to the ILPC determined that said stipulations were satisfied by the revised dEIS with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy, commencing the 30 day public comment period that ended on July 28, 2009, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission as Lead Agency, has responded in the fEIS to all substantive public comments and on August 18, 2009 accepted in substance the proposed response to comments distributed on August 13, 2009, with additions/clarifications agreed upon by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission as Lead Agency for environmental review, on August 18, 2009, hereby accepts for filing the final Environmental Impact statement for the demolition of the former Ithaca Gas Works, comprising the dEIS determined to be complete on June 26, 2009, the comments on the dEIS and the responses of the Lead Agency (as proposed in the document dated August 13, 2009, and with additions/clarifications agreed upon by the Ithaca Landmarks ILPC Minutes August 18, 2009 -9- Preservation Commission on August 18, 2009), as required under 6 NYCRR 617 (the SEQR regulations) and Ordinance No. 90-13 of CEQR (the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance); and be it further RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission hereby directs the Commission staff to file a Notice of Completeness of the final EIS and issue the final EIS as required under SEQR 6 NYCRR Parts 617.10 and 617.21 and CEQR Part 36-19, and to distribute the final EIS to all involved and interested agencies and the public. RECORD OF VOTE: 4-0-0 Yes N. Brcak S. Jones S. Stein L. Truame No 0 Abstain 0 Staff explained that the Commission will present a findings statement at the next meeting and then make a decision on the Certificate of Appropriateness application. The information to be used in the consideration of the Certificate of Appropriateness and a possible economic hardship appeal are included in the fEIS. Acting Chair L. Truame stated that the Commission is accepting the DEC’s explanation that the proposed remedy is adequate to protect the public health and safety and that pubic speculation to the contrary or disagreement with the DEC’s determination would not be part of the Commission’s deliberation. Staff added that the current remedy to contain contaminents underneath the building is not the Commission’s remedy; the Commission has urged other options including lifting the building and excavating underneath or moving the building to completely remediate the site. The Commission has no information regarding the duration of the current remediation measure or the technology that will be available in the future to remediate the site. M. Tomlan clarified that at the September meeting the Commission will take three votes: (1) a vote on the findings statement; (2) a vote on the Certificate of Appropriateness application; and (3) if the Certificate of Appropriateness is denied, a vote on an economic hardship appeal. Staff confirmed that this is correct. V. NEW BUSINESS None VI. ADJOURNMENT ILPC Minutes August 18, 2009 -10- There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. by Acting Chair L. Truame. Respectfully Submitted, Leslie A. Chatterton, Secretary Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission