Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2015-11-10Approved by ILPC: January 26, 2016 1 of 16 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes — November 10, 2015 Present: Ed Finegan, Chair David Kramer, Vice-Chair Susan Stein 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 5:31 p.m. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST John Schroeder, Planning and Development Board member, spoke regarding the proposed 400-404 Stewart Avenue (former Chapter House) reconstruction project, noting that while he is delighted it is being rebuilt, he has serious concerns about the architectural expression of the proposed design. As City Historian Mary Tomlan indicated in a recent written opinion to the Commission, the proposed design would create a false sense of history for the building. Schroeder emphasized that the whole concept of the Chapter House should evoke the Middle Ages, specifically within the context of colleges and fraternities. The iteration of the building with rich chocolate brick, handcrafted wood, and stone slate would be vastly more evocative of that tradition than the white brick design being proposed. He is not advocating for an exact recreation of the Chapter House, but it should at least evoke many of the themes he described. Tom Shelley, Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) and Tompkins County Environmental Management Council (EMC) member, expressed concern with the reconstruction of the entryway to the City Cemetery. He spoke with City Historian Mary Tomlan, who was consulted about the project, and she had been under the impression it would be done in face-stone. He asked what the City could do to address the situation. John Schroeder responded that the sequence of events began when he discovered a car had crashed into one of the pier walls. It has taken several years to address. The original intent was for the new stonework to match the existing stonework exactly, which is not what happened. The original stone had been bush-hammered. While the new stones are roughly the same size as the originals, the contractor did not bush-hammer the surface of the new stones; they were machine cut instead. Schroeder explained that the original stone was hammered in such a way as to create dimples. He added there has been some misunderstanding by the Department of Public Works (DPW) that the intent was to artificially age the stone; but it should have been bush-hammered to replicate the appearance of the original stones when they were installed in the mid-1880s. The whole situation appears to be an open question. The DPW sided against bush-hammering the stones. Any final resolution of the issue will now need to be delayed until the Spring. He suggested the Commission make a recommendation to the Board of Public Works (BPW). E. McCollister added that Common Council also received complaints about the City Cemetery project. She agreed the new portion of the wall appears quite jarring. She indicated she would speak to the Common Council liaison to the BPW about the issue. ILPC Minutes November 10, 2015 2 of 16 B. McCracken indicated he would draft a resolution and circulate it to the Commission. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 707 E. Seneca St., East Hill Historic District Retroactive Request for Approval of Retaining Wall Applicants Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals, and Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, presented an overview of the proposed project, noting one of things they struggled with early in the design process was the retaining wall. It was difficult to visualize how much of it would be visible and how steep it would be at the base of the hill. They eventually proposed a two-step retaining wall, which was approved by the Commission; however, they have now discovered the steepness of the slope is not anywhere near as much as anticipated. N. Demarest indicated that in his opinion it is now unnecessary to build the second wall. The amount of exposed concrete in both scenarios is exactly the same. Therefore, the current proposal is to go ahead and install the plantings, but without the second wall. The wall would be covered with Virginia Creeper, after a short growing period. The applicants would also fill in the area of erosion on the corner. S. Stein asked if the applicants could face the cement, so it does not appear so flat. N. Demarest responded that particular point was raised with both the Planning and Development Board and the Commission, but it was agreed to simply leave it as natural concrete. He stressed that the entire wall would be covered. Public Hearing On a motion by J. Minner, seconded by S. Stein, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein. M. McGandy recalled that the Commission originally had concerns with the amount of unaesthetic poured concrete. He agreed installing some facing stone would make a difference. D. Kramer agreed with M. McGandy in principle; however, the Commission already approved that original concrete wall and he would not feel comfortable revisiting it. B. McCracken recommended the Commission add the condition about adding some fill around the corner area of the wall. No objections were raised. RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 707 E. Seneca St. is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated October 27, 2015 was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Noah Demarest on behalf of property owner 707 E. Seneca Street, LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a ILPC Minutes November 10, 2015 3 of 16 photograph of existing landscape feature; and (3) a rendering of the completed landscape feature once vegetation is planted, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 707 E. Seneca St. and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project is the retroactive request for approval of a single-tier, poured-concrete retaining wall with associated plantings, and WHEREAS, a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued at the January 13, 2015, regular ILPC meeting for the construction of a three-story, multi-unit apartment building and five exterior parking spaces and associated drive with the condition that the applicant return to the ILPC for final approval of the landscape features associated with the exterior parking spaces, and WHEREAS, a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued on March 10, 2015 for the construction in the rear yard of a two-tiered retaining wall with a poured-concrete upper tier and a dry- stacked, cut-limestone lower tier, which would allow for on-site exterior parking, and WHEREAS, a single-tier, poured concrete retaining wall was installed instead of the approved two-tier retaining wall, 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 original Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on November 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. The East Hill Historic District comprises 264 contributing elements, and contains some of the finest examples of 19th and early 20th century architecture in the City of Ithaca. The district’s architecture reflects the City’s growth from a small industrial community to an influential and prominent educational center, a result of the founding of Cornell University and the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. ILPC Minutes November 10, 2015 4 of 16 The East Hill Historic District retains a high level of integrity. 707 E. Seneca St. was a vacant lot prior to the construction of an apartment building on the site in 2015. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards: Principle #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible with the historic character of the district within which it is located. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. With respect to Principle #3 and Standard #9, the retaining wall, for which work has already been completed, is compatible with the historic character of the East Hill Historic District, and more specifically, with the massing, size, scale, and landscape features of the property and its environment. Site grading minimizes the visual impact of the installed retaining wall, which is exposed approximately 4’ above grade. Furthermore, the impact will be minimized through the use of landscape materials, including Virginia Creeper, Forsythia, and Lily of the Valley, that will grow around and on the retaining wall and obscure this hardscape features. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with condition: ILPC Minutes November 10, 2015 5 of 16 • Fill will be placed around the southwest corner of the retaining wall to reduce its height from approximately 7’ to 4’. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: S. Gibian Seconded by: D. Kramer In Favor: S. Gibian, D. Kramer, S. Stein, M. McGandy, J. Minner, E. Finegan Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: K. Olson Vacancies: 0 B. 305 Thurston Ave., Cornell Heights Historic District Proposal to Construct Shed B. McCracken observed it does not appear the applicant is present; so he will present the application information on his behalf. He explained that the shed on the property was last year destroyed in a storm, when a tree fell on it. Removal of the non-descript shed was then approved at the staff-level. Subsequently, the applicant submitted an incomplete application for a new shed. Historic Preservation Planner Lynn Truame recommended the applicant return with a more complete proposal, more in keeping with the Historic District. The applicant contacted B. McCracken approximately a month ago with an application for a ready-built shed. B. McCracken responded to the applicant that type of shed would not be appropriate. The applicant revised the proposal shortly thereafter to include a board and batten shed (completely removable). The applicant recently contacted B. McCracken with yet another proposal to use novelty (shiplap) siding (commonly used on secondary buildings during the districts period of significance), instead of board and batten siding. It would be a 10’ x 12’ shed, with a shed roof and no windows. The applicant did not specify the door. S. Stein noted it would be right behind her house; and she does not think the color would be appropriate. The proposal should be considered more seriously in terms of how it would fit into the community. B. McCracken responded that he will ask the applicant what he is planning on painting it. He noted the original intention was to build the shed before Winter, so there would be a place to store garbage. Given the delay in obtaining all the information from the applicant, however, the current plan is to delay construction until Spring. D. Kramer suggested the Commission table the application at this time. S. Stein agreed, noting it would be better to see a more complete application. B. McCracken indicated he would work with the applicant and get a more detailed application. The application was TABLED until the next meeting. C 527 E. State St., East Hill Historic District Proposal to Demolish & Reconstruct Three-Story Porch Applicant Daniel Francis presented an overview of the proposed project, noting he would like to make sure the porch is well enough secured to permit the project to move forward. All the beadboard has been ILPC Minutes November 10, 2015 6 of 16 salvaged and stored in the garage. Probably at least some of it should be reusable, although he does not yet know for certain what its condition is. B. McCracken noted that during its site visit the Commission discussed an incremental demolition process. The next step will be for the Commission to agree on the path forward for the remainder of the porch. D. Kramer suggested oversight and approval of the project be delegated to staff. S. Stein agreed. B. McCracken remarked he will continue working with the applicant on the demolition of the porch. Once the architect, Jose Guisado, returns, a conversation can be held with him and the owner to determine how to proceed with the reconstruction phase. S. Gibian noted he has several concerns with the proposed reconstruction design (e.g., how it matches the original). B. McCracken replied S. Gibian should e-mail him and he can relay those concerns to the architect. Public Hearing On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by S. Stein. D. 309 N. Tioga St., DeWitt Park Historic District Proposal to Install Landscape Sign Applicant Katrina Medeiros presented an overview of the proposed project on behalf of the property owner, noting there is a definite need to address the problem of people parking in prohibited areas. The best solution seemed to be to make the signage more visible. So the applicant proposes removing the current sign and installing a new, more visible sign for people coming into the lot. It would have a similar color scheme and size as the existing sign, but would be set at an angle. S. Stein asked if the new sign would meet City requirements. B. McCracken replied the Building Division does not appear to have any objections to it. 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 S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 309 N. Tioga St., is located in the DeWitt Park Historic District, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1971, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1971, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness dated October 30, 2015 was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Cayuga Signs, Inc. on behalf of property owner T.B.A., Inc., including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled ILPC Minutes November 10, 2015 7 of 16 Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) a rendering illustrating the proposed alterations, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 309 N. Tioga St., and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, the proposed project involves removing an existing 18”x24” “private parking” sign mounted to an existing sign post, and installing a new 24”x36” “Private Parking” sign mounted to a new landscape sign post, and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on November 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 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, 309 N. Tioga St. was constructed in 1975 and is considered a non-contributing resource in the DeWitt Park Historic District. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6 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 November 10, 2015 8 of 16 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. As a non-contributing structure, 309 N. Tioga St., by definition, does not possess historic materials or features that are subject to protection under the Principles enumerated in Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The ILPC’s evaluation of the proposed work is, therefore, limited to the assessment of the impact of the proposed work on adjacent historic structures in the district and on the DeWitt Park Historic District as a whole, with the guiding principle being that the proposed work must not further reduce the compatibility of the non-contributing structure with its historic environment. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the removal of any existing sign and its replacement with a new pole-mounted landscape sign will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Also with respect to Standard #9, the proposed sign is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. 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 309 N. Tioga St. and the DeWitt Park 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 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. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: S. Stein Seconded by: D. Kramer In Favor: S. Stein, D. Kramer, M. McGandy, E. Finegan, J. Minner, S. Gibian Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: K. Olson Vacancies: 0 E. 416-418 E. State St., East Hill Historic District Proposal to Install Vehicular Turnaround & ADA-Compliant Sloped Walkway, and Replace Front Stoop B. McCracken noted that, since there have been significant project changes since the review of the initial application and the Public Hearing in September, he recommends the discussion be opened up to any members of the public who would like the opportunity to comment. ILPC Minutes November 10, 2015 9 of 16 Applicants Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, Ben Rosenblum, Owner, Avi Smith, The Argos Inn, and Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect, presented an overview of the proposed project. S. Whitham noted the following project changes: • Bar was moved towards the front of building. • Applicants have worked with professional sound engineer who is drafting a report of his findings. • Applicants removed the in-and-out circular vehicular driveway in front. • Project would have a stronger connection with the Argos Inn and would exit into that property’s parking area. • The smoking area would be situated in the transition area between the project and the Argos Inn. Public Hearing On a motion by J. Minner, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. Kathrin Achenbach, 108 Schuyler Pl., indicated she would like to thank the applicants for arranging the meetings with the neighbors; however, the main problem revolves around people gathering outside. No matter where the proposed smoking area is located, those people will be heard by the neighbors. That kind of noise is very difficult to control. There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein. E. Finegan remarked that the noise issue is beyond the Commission’s purview. D. Kramer noted the Commission received some very thoughtful letters about the change in use of the property and whether it is genuinely appropriate for a Historic District. He wondered what the Commission’s position is regarding approving external changes resulting in a change in use that may not be appropriate. B. McCracken responded it would be a difficult situation for the Commission to deny an application merely on the basis of a change in use. D. Kramer observed that while a change in use from a single-family to multiple-family residence would still be a housing use, the proposed project is a significantly more radical change in use. J. Minner responded it is nonetheless a permitted use as of right. The Commission should confine itself to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation in making its determination, based on the architecture and landscape features of the property. S. Stein observed it has also been a long time since the property has been used for a residential use. ILPC Minutes November 10, 2015 10 of 16 S. Gibian remarked that Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, of the City Code does include the following statement under §228-2, Purpose: “C. Protect the value of historic properties and their owners’ investment in them, and stabilize historic neighborhoods.” B. Rosenblum replied the project would increase the value of the building and the surrounding properties. D. Kramer noted the neighbors appear to be unanimously against approving this project. E. McCollister noted that there nonetheless remains the quality of life issue. There have been many instances of property owners leaving a particular neighborhood as a result of a single project, in areas where there is already a fragile dynamic. J. Minner noted that the applicant mentioned restoring the building; however, for purposes of clarification, the proposed project does not constitute a case of restoration. It is really an adaptive reuse project. She also observed that the applicants would be adding more asphalt to what was previously greenspace. She asked if the applicants considered whether there is sufficient screening of the parking area, or explored using pervious pavement. Whitham replied that developers have not had very much success with pervious pavement in this particular climate. M. McGandy asked if the applicants have elevations or perspective views to provide the Commission. J. Demarest replied, not yet. D. Kramer remarked that he has to take the language of “value” contained in the ordinance seriously, and the neighbor’s fears relating to that. M. McGandy disagreed with that interpretation of the ordinance. It does not refer to market value. J. Minner responded the Commission needs to make decisions based on the criteria it has before it. It is not within its purview to legislate what use belongs in the neighborhood. S. Stein indicated she finds the revised project acceptable. RESOLUTION: Moved by J. Minner, seconded by S. Stein. WHEREAS, 416-418 E. State St. is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated July 29, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Scott Whitham on behalf of property owner Ben Rosenblum/East State, LLC, ILPC Minutes November 10, 2015 11 of 16 WHEREAS, at the regularly scheduled meeting of the ILPC on September 22, 2015, the application was tabled pending the submission of revised and additional information from the applicant, and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted additional information to the ILPC on October 27, 2015, including: (1) a letter from Scott Whitham to the ILPC outlining the changes in the proposal; (2) five sheets of drawings illustrating existing conditions and the proposed changes, and addressing logistical concerns; and (3) two sheets of photographs documenting existing conditions and proposed design details, and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted additional supplemental information to the ILPC on November 6, 2015, including (1) a letter from Scott Whitham to the ILPC outlining the changes in the proposal since the October 27th submission; (2) two sheets of drawings titled “Existing – Proposed Elevations and “Proposed Landscape Plan;” and (3) two sheets of details and product specifications for the proposed materials, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 416 E. State St. and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative in the letter to the ILPC dated October 27, 2015 and November 6, 2015, the project involves: installing a concrete ADA-compliant walkway in the front (south) yard, a concrete access stairway and “smoking area” along the west property line, a retaining wall along the access walkway, and asphalt-paved turnaround space; replacing existing roll-up loading dock door on the south façade with a fully-glazed, black- anodized, aluminum, roll-up door; and replacing and enlarging the front stoop, 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 meetings on September 22, 2015 and November 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 State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 416 E. State St. was constructed as a modest, gable-fronted residence in 1881. Located near the boundary ILPC Minutes November 10, 2015 12 of 16 of the downtown commercial district, the property was converted to commercial use and two non-contributing additions were added to the primary building in the mid-20th century. Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District. The project under consideration involves paving portion of the front yard of the property with an ADA-compliant walkway and a turnaround. As determined previously by the ILPC, the topography, landscaping, and yard areas of the properties located in the East Hill Historic District are significant character defining features of the 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 #1 A property shall be used for its intended historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. ILPC Minutes November 10, 2015 13 of 16 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 walkway, stairway, retaining wall, turnaround space, door, and an enlarged stoop will not remove distinctive materials will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed walkway, stairway, turnaround space, retaining wall, door and stoop are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, the proposed walkway, stairway, retaining wall and turnaround space can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment. As expressed by East Hill Historic District residents in numerous letters and comments, the ILPC notes that the noise generated by the change in use from an industrial space to a bar/lounge has the potential to have an adverse impact on the historic social and residential character of the district, which is not in keeping with Standard #1. As the impact of noise falls under the purview of the Planning and Development Board, the ILPC encourages the members of that board to consider the ILPC’s perspective during their deliberations. 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 416 E. State St and the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: J. Minner Seconded by: S. Stein In Favor: J. Minner, Stein, E. Finegan, M. McGandy Against: D. Kramer, S. Gibian Abstain: 0 Absent: K. Olson Vacancies: 0 III. OLD BUSINESS • 400-404 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District Early Design Review Applicants Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect, John Hoey, Chapter House Owner, and Sebastian Mascaro, Property Owner, presented an overview of the proposed project. ILPC Minutes November 10, 2015 14 of 16 ILPC Minutes November 10, 2015 15 of 16 D. Kramer noted that the blank sidewall is unfortunate. He suggested elaborating on it in some fashion. J. Demarest replied the applicants will see what might be possible. J. Demarest asked how the Commission feels about inserting a false brick door opening on the other wall. J. Minner responded that the building is not being exactly reconstructed, so she would be open to that suggestion, to alleviate the blankness of that wall. M. McGandy indicated that having a false window facing north seems appropriate. S. Gibian noted he does not like the way the mansard roof is truncated. Also, in examining the historic building photograph, the mullions in the proposed design look a little too thin. J. Demarest replied he would be happy to make any changes the Commission likes. S. Gibian also noted he is not sure if he likes the rear balcony set back. J. Demarest replied that the Building Code actually requires it; but he can explore some potential changes to it. Christine O’Malley, Historic Ithaca, remarked that she examined the street-level windows in the historic photograph that served as the inspiration and she would advocate for a more post-World War II appearance for the windows, since she does not believe the applicants could successfully duplicate the full prism glass appearance of the original building. • 406 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District Discussion Applicant Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect, noted it would be helpful to know if the Commission objects to the peak-like roof emerging above the ridge of 400-404 Stewart Ave. (There would still be a stoop and a porch.) J. Minner responded she likes the entire design. M. McGandy noted he likes the height. IV. NEW BUSINESS • 310 W. State Street, Downtown West Historic District — Property Condition Review & Potential Action B. McCracken reported he has been approached by members of the public and Building Division staff about the condition of the building; and they would like the Commission to discuss the situation and determine if it would be comfortable with the City issuing an official citation to the property owner. D. Kramer replied, absolutely. B. McCracken indicated, in that case, Director of Code Enforcement Mike Niechwiadowicz will issue the citation, at which point the property owner will have 30 days to reply. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein, Commission members approved the following meeting minutes, with no modifications. • October 13, 2015 (Regular Meeting) ILPC Minutes November 10, 2015 16 of 16 VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS • Update: Historic Preservation Planner Office Hours B. McCracken reported that funding for the full-time (35 hrs./week) Historic Preservation Planner position was approved by Common Council. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:34 p.m. by Chair Finegan. Respectfully Submitted, Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission