No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2016-03-08Approved by ILPC: April 12, 2016 1 of 21 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes — March 8, 2016 Present: Ed Finegan, Chair David Kramer, Vice Chair Michael McGandy, Second Vice Chair Susan Stein Stephen Gibian Jennifer Minner Nancy Brcak, Alternate Seph Murtagh (Common Council Liaison) Bryan McCracken, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. I. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION & PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD  312 N. Cayuga St., (Old Tompkins County Library) DeWitt Park Historic District — Presentation of Revised Project & Discussion Present: Planning & Development Board: Garrick Blalock, Chair John Schroeder, Vice Chair Jack Elliott John Schroeder Mackenzie Jones-Rounds Lisa Nicholas, Staff JoAnn Cornish, Staff Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning D. Kramer recused himself from consideration of the proposed project, following the recommendation of the City Attorney’s Office. Applicants Graham Gillespie and Tom Covell, HOLT Architects, Frost Travis, Owner, and Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP, walked through the details of the proposal. ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 2 of 21 K. Michaels explained that the applicants reviewed the feedback from the 1/26/16 joint meeting and worked further on the building design and site plan. They would like additional feedback and consensus on the overall direction of the design. She walked through the following points and highlights:  Applicants explored the preferred design option from the joint meeting and added further detail.  The courtyard greenspace has been left largely undefined at this point.  Vegetative buffers have been added along both sides of sidewalk and the parking area.  Special corner area was retained to make it feel more plaza-like and respond to building entrances.  The building’s mass has been pulled away from DeWitt Park Inn.  Building’s placement has been made as responsive as possible to that of surrounding buildings.  10-foot setback has been retained.  Architectural recesses and projections have been introduced into the façade.  Building’s wings have been off-set to break up the plane on the Court Street façade.  Upper stories have been set back.  Cayuga Street façade has been punctuated and differentiated with varying materials and projections.  Court Street façade will include a warm-looking wood material surrounding the balconies.  Overall, the massing and volume of the building have been broken down, making the building appear more like smaller units, to be more compatible with the residential scale of the neighborhood.  All existing street trees on the Cayuga Street side will be retained. G. Gillespie noted much of the discussion at the last joint meeting concerned the Court Street façade and its relationship to the residential buildings across the street. As a result, the applicants are exploring adding porches/balconies and have spent considerable time developing the colors of building materials to break up the façade. The building would retain the stone base, but the applicants are trying to modify and differentiate it (e.g., rusticated in some areas, plainer in others). Balconies will add depth and shadow lines to the façade. Gillespie stressed that more detail-work needs to be done (e.g., window configurations, internal programming details, building materials). The applicants would like to know whether the current preliminary design is what the Commission and Board are looking for. G. Gillespie added that one other major change is that the earlier roof design has been eliminated, with a flat roof planned instead. ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 3 of 21 M. Jones-Rounds asked the applicants to discuss the roof line in more detail. In her opinion, a flat roof would actually appear the least residential-like design. She would prefer to see peaks and pitches. G. Gillespie replied that due to zoning limitations the building would lose too much of the top floor, with a peaks and pitches roof. J. Minner agreed with M. Jones-Rounds that a flat roof makes the building appear too formulaic. J. Schroeder asked what the primary building material would be for the top three floors. G. Gillespie replied, most likely Hardie Panel®. J. Schroeder replied his concern with any fibreboard would be to avoid it looking too flat and artificial. It needs to show clear shadow lines and appear as three- dimensional as possible. He added that the top of the building seems unfinished. N. Brcak agreed with the need to differentiate the fourth floor. Fenestration is another way the applicants could differentiate various portions of building. She suggested the applicants consider replacing some of the commercial rental units with townhouses, to break up the façade and make it appear more residential and human-scaled. M. McGandy observed that both Commission and Board members appear concerned with the disproportionate horizontality of the building’s Court Street façade — that street wall is still very imposing. He also asked the applicants for more detailed designs of the “Courtyard/Green Space,” since concerns were expressed with how it connects to DeWitt Park. Since that space has now been made into a more private space, he would like to see some kind of corridor/drive through to the Court Street side of the building. M. McGandy also asked if the applicants really require as many parking spaces as have been proposed. K. Michaels replied that Lifelong uses its large surface-parking lot right now and will continue to need those spaces. Moreover, local community members expressed repeated concerns that eliminating off street parking spaces would be a hardship to the residents and the rest of the neighborhood. She noted the building is projected to have 54 residents, plus 30 Lifelong staff, but only 62 parking spaces are proposed. ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 4 of 21 M. Jones-Rounds noted that Lifelong programs typically run during the day, so there may be an opportunity for a shared parking arrangement. F. Travis replied that Lifelong also conducts numerous evening programs. K. Michaels added that Lifelong serves a considerable number of people who are mobility-challenged. M. Jones-Rounds asked if the applicants could provide information on the maximum number of cars Lifelong currently uses, and other relevant statistics. J. Cornish observed that navigating from the current Lifelong parking lot can be extremely difficult; so creating an ideal space for the parking will be challenging. Schroeder expressed concern that the parking area projects to the street. He asked if it could be set back more. M. Jones-Rounds indicated she believes the project is now ready for Site Plan Review. M. Darling noted he has no further comments to make, although he appreciates the project’s need for sufficient parking. S. Gibian indicated he has no strong objection to the amount of proposed parking. He would also be willing to proceed with formal review of the project, assuming something can be done about mitigating the visual impact of the fourth story. J. Minner remarked she does not believe fibreboard meets the compatibility standards for Historic Districts. She agreed with M. McGandy’s concerns with the amount of parking. She added that the roof appears unfinished to her (i.e., too commercial-looking for the location). She is not sure another joint design review meeting should be necessary. J. Elliott noted he believes the contextuality of the building design is important, but only to so much of an extent. He does not think the project absolutely has to appear like a row of townhouses, merely to reflect the buildings across the street. He supports articulating the façade and using different building materials. But the street is already undergoing a transition and many of the residential buildings actually function as businesses. The building is also clearly a new building and not an historic facsimile, so he does not have a problem with its more contemporary design (other than more finely tuning some of the detailing). He believes the project is ready for Site Plan Review. E. Finegan noted that he agrees that parking is quite scarce in the neighborhood, but he would like to see the parking landscaped more effectively into the property, especially near the properties along Geneva Street. He noted the Commission is most concerned with the building’s massing, size, and scale, so the proposal is far better in those respects than it was. He likes N. Brcak’s suggestion for building townhouse elements along Court Street. He believes the project is going in the right direction. J. Schroeder noted his main concerns are the appearance of the fourth story and the need for more traditional building materials. The stone base could be approached in many different ways (e.g., rusticated stone base could be used for low wall elements and also used in landscaping areas or screening the parking lot). He noted the entire building needs some more delicate touches (e.g., mirroring the proposed wood elements with vertical slits on other parts of the building), including breaking up the façade and adding more of a sense of visual detail. ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 5 of 21 G. Blalock indicated he is in broad agreement with the majority of the comments made so far; he does not see any significant inconsistency in the opinions of the Board and Commission. L. Nicholas noted the project can continue to be reviewed during joint Board-Commission meetings, if people decide that is the best approach. N. Brcak agreed the project is moving in the right direction. M. McGandy agreed. S. Stein expressed concern with the proposed Lifelong space and its accessibility to parking. That issue needs to be addressed. There does seem to be an excess of proposed parking. II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by J. Minner, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. Tom Seaney, DeWitt Park Inn, noted there is very little historical about the proposed building. It looks like a modern hotel. He is also concerned with its overall energy use and environmental footprint. Christine O’Malley, Historic Ithaca, encouraged continuing the joint meetings. She is glad some comments were made about the fourth floor looking deficient and that building materials have been cited as a concern. Fibre-cement board would not be suitable for this kind of project; Historic Ithaca would prefer to see higher-quality materials. Nancy Medsker, DeWitt Park Inn, noted she has a problem with the building design, in particular the first floor. It is still very massive-looking. Barbara Smith, 121 Northview Rd., noted she would have preferred to see a re-use of the existing building. She would also have liked to see an interior park. Very few downtown spaces provide an opportunity to congregate indoors, besides places of worship. There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 400-404 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District — Proposal to Remove Mansard Roof from North Side of Reconstructed Building Applicant Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect, described the details of the revised proposal, noting he recently had to resolve a Building Code issue that arose with the encroachment of the roof over the property line (which is not permitted). Building Code requires a two-foot separation. The building will now include a parapet-wall termination for the mansard roof. There will also be solder courses at the floor lines, turning the brick at the corner. He proposes using a product called “Brick Block” (a concrete block scored to look like brick), painted to blend with the color of the brick turning the corner on the north wall. ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 6 of 21 D. Kramer expressed concern with the blank façade; and he does not believe the proposed new material looks particularly good. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by J. Minner, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer. M. McGandy noted he does not like the change in materials; he is not persuaded by the financial argument for the Brick Block. S. Stein indicated she has no fundamental objection to it. B. McCracken asked if the applicant had ever seen that product installed. J. Demarest replied, yes. It looked like a real brick wall. M. McGandy indicated he would vote against any proposal that employs the Brick Block material or other artificial brick. D. Kramer agreed with M. McGandy. The project represents the most iconic building the Commission has been recently charged with approving and he would much prefer the brick. J. Minner asked if there is anything in the Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines about real vs. artificial brick. B. McCracken replied, no. The Commission has approved cementitious siding on additions and new construction. It is up to the Commission whether it finds this particular use acceptable or not. S. Gibian noted it would be helpful to see the actual block material in person. He is concerned the eight- inch header joints on the proposed blocks would stand out. J. Demarest responded that, if he could obtain approval for the project this evening, the brick may be acceptable to the owner. RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 400-404 Stewart Ave. 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 February 23, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Jason Demarest on behalf of property owner MSW Management, LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) two sheets of architectural drawings, titled “Concept Perspectives” and “Exterior Elevations;” and (3) product specifications for Brick Block, manufactured by Westbrook Concrete Block, and ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 7 of 21 WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 400-404 Stewart Ave. and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, after the required Public Hearing at its regularly scheduled meeting on January 26, 2016, the ILPC approved the construction of a three-story, mixed-use building to replace the building at 400-404 Stewart Ave. that was severely damaged in a fire on April 13, 2015, and WHEREAS, the original plan for the north elevation included a brick-clad first and second story and a projecting mansard roof on the third story, and WHEREAS, after the ILPC issued its approval, the Building Division determined during its review of the plans that the projecting mansard roof on the north elevation did not meet minimum fire-separation requirements, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the proposed design alteration involves removing the mansard roof from the north elevation and using a painted “Brick Block” as the cladding material instead of brick, and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on March 8, 2016, 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, 400-404 Stewart Ave. was constructed between 1904 and 1910 as a large brick-veneered commercial building on a primarily residential street. 400-404 Stewart Ave., known locally as the Chapter House, was completely destroyed by a fire in April 2015. The lot is currently vacant. ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 8 of 21 The proposal under consideration involves the removal of the mansard roof from the design plan for the north elevation, which will create an unarticulated three-story masonry wall. It also includes using painted “Brick Blocks,” a concrete masonry unit (CMU) with scored lines that replicate the texture of brick, instead of the approved brick cladding. 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 #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible with the historic character of the district within which it is located. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. With respect to Principle #3 and Standard #9, the proposed removal of the mansard roof from the design plan for the north elevation is compatible with the historic character of the East Hill Historic District, and more specifically, with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Principle #3 and Standard #9, the proposal to use painted “Brick Block” on the north elevation instead of brick cladding is not compatible with the historic character of the East Hill Historic District, and more specifically, with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal to eliminate the mansard roof from the north façade 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 228-6, and be it further, RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposed “Brick Block” material will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further, ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 9 of 21 RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines the proposal to remove the mansard roof from the north elevation meets criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines the proposed “Brick Block” material does not meet 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 for the removal of the mansard roof on the north elevation with the following condition(s):  The north elevation shall be clad in the same brick used on the east façade and the south and west elevations. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: S. Gibian Seconded by: D. Kramer In Favor: S. Gibian, D. Kramer, J. Minner, E. Finegan, S. Stein, M. McGandy Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: K. Olson Vacancies: 0 B. 406 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District — Proposal to Construct Three-and-One-Half- Story Building Applicant Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect, described the details of the proposal, noting that not much has changed since the Commission last reviewed it, except the glazed-in exterior entry stairway, composed of a steel structure, steel stairs, concrete, and wood railings (all painted black to look like a uniform steel structure). The design also now includes the simulated-divided-light windows (four-over-one) only on the front of the building. The siding will be smooth fibre-cement clapboard, with shake siding on everything above the first floor (Hardie® shingle with wood grain texture). Asphalt shingles will be on the roof and wooden posts/brackets on the front-entry porch. The foundation will be composed of stone and stone veneer. D. Kramer indicated he would like to see a custom-built door, as shown on the original design. J. Demarest replied he would encourage the owner to agree to that. Public Hearing On a motion by J. Minner, seconded by S. Gibian, 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. RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 406 Stewart Ave. 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 ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 10 of 21 WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated February 23, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Jason Demarest on behalf of property owner 406 Stewart Ave., LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) four sheets of architectural drawings, titled “Site Plan,” “Concept Perspective,” “Exterior Elevations,” and “Exterior Materials Schedule,” and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 406 Stewart Ave. and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, on April 13, 2015, a fire damaged the buildings at 400-404, 406, and 408 Stewart Ave. and 116 Osmund Pl., and WHEREAS, on April 13, 2015, the Director of Code Enforcement ordered the demolition of the remaining structure at 406 Stewart Ave. due to the severity of the damage caused by the fire, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the construction of a three- and one-half-story apartment building on the vacant lot at 406 Stewart Ave., and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on March 8, 2016, 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, the Shingle Style building at 406 Stewart Ave. was constructed as a single-family residence between 1893 and 1898, but was later converted to multiple apartment units. The contributing resource at 406 Stewart Ave. was completely destroyed by a fire on April 13, 2015. The lot is currently vacant. ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 11 of 21 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 #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible with the historic character of the district within which it is located. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. With respect to Principle #3 and Standard #9, the proposed three-and-a-half-story building is compatible with the historic character of the East Hill Historic District, and more specifically, with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. The three- and one-half story height and massing of the proposed new building is consistent with the height and massing of larger contributing residential resources within the District; and the highly articulated east (primary) façade exhibits elements found in contributing resources throughout the District, including the Palladian window, 8-over-1 windows, bracket-supported projecting gable, flared walls, and coursed stone foundation. The size, massing and articulation effectively integrate the new building into the surrounding historic environment. The ILPC notes the steel, wood, and glass staircase on the south side of the building, which is needed for access to the third-floor apartment and cannot be located on any other elevation due to lot line restrictions, resembles a metal fire-escape. The Commission has routinely determined that the placement of fire escapes on primary façades or highly visible secondary elevations is not appropriate for contributing buildings within the City’s Historic Districts. However, it finds the proposed placement of this type of structure on this particular building is appropriate for the following reasons: the building is not a contributing resource in the East Hill Historic District; the fire escape-like structure is not on the primary (east) façade; it cannot be placed on the rear (west) elevation due to zoning restrictions; it is substantially set back from the south corner of the primary façade, subordinating it to the primary building and making it less visible from the public way; and its articulated design and mix of materials differentiates it from other utilitarian examples found in the District. ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 12 of 21 Also with respect to the Standard #9, the proposed three-story, mixed-used building will be differentiated from surrounding historic structures through the use of contemporary and traditional building materials, and modern building techniques. Materials and details to be used include: Landmark® line architectural-style shingles by CertainTeed in Charcoal Black; HardieShingle® siding with a straight edge and smooth finish; HardiePlank® clapboard siding with a smooth finish; HardieTrim® with a smooth finish; coursed bluestone; aluminum-clad wood windows by LePage Millwork; and half-round gutters. 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 228-6, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions:  Door on east (primary) façade shall be custom-milled to replicate door depicted in submitted rendering of the building. Door will be wood and have a glazed upper half and a paneled lower half. The door’s glazing and panels shall match as closely as possible the configuration of those depicted in the rendering. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: S. Stein Seconded by: M. McGandy In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, J. Minner, S. Gibian Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: K. Olson Vacancies: 0 C. 410 N. Cayuga St., DeWitt Park Historic District — Proposal to Remove Rear Porch, Change Roof Line, & Add Windows (S. Gibian indicated he is recusing himself from consideration of the project.) Applicant Stephen Gibian and owner Jeffrey Moses described the details of the proposal. The principal building façade of building is the west one, facing the road; the secondary principal façade is the south porch. The façades affected by the proposal represent the third-best and worst façades. S. Gibian noted the north façade is a hodge-podge of additions and alterations. One of the two existing 9-over-6 double- hung windows would be slightly relocated. The existing porch and steps are ill-constructed and exceedingly low. Another potentially contributing element is the parapet, which would be retained and repaired, raising only the eave of the addition to provide adequate head room. ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 13 of 21 S. Gibian noted the only other possible contributing feature is the basement entryway, which is deteriorated. There is no need for two basement entryways, so it would be filled with stone. The proposed new space would involve converting the laundry room and pantry into a sun room and dining room space (with views into the backyard). The sun room would feature two bands of windows, with wood trim in between. The picture window in kitchen would also be replaced with a double-hung window. All the windows, siding, and trim would be wood. The roof would be EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber), since there are not many possible alternative materials; however, with the very low pitch it would not be very visible. D. Kramer remarked it seems like a great proposal. M. McGandy agreed. J. Minner asked how the alterations would be differentiated from the existing historic structure. S. Gibian replied that the window sill design on the Marvin windows is thinner than that of the old windows. In addition, there are no grouped windows on the entire house; so that is another distinction. 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 J. Minner. RESOLUTION: Moved by J. Minner, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 410 N. Cayuga St. is located in the DeWitt Park Historic District, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1971, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1971, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness dated February 23, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Stephen Gibian, R.A. on behalf of property owners Julia Markovits and Jeff Moses, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) five sheets of drawings, titled “Survey,” “Photos of Existing,” “First Floor Plan, Elevations – Existing,” “First Floor Plan, Elevations,” and “Window Information,” and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 410 N. Cayuga St., and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the removal of a rear porch, the relocation of a 9-over-six window in the north wall, the replacement of a picture window in north wall with a smaller double-hung window, the demolition of the roof, west, and south walls of the rear service wing, the construction of a new sun room with raised roof eaves and multiple windows on the footprint of the demolished service wing, the installation of an additional window in the west wall of the main block, and the infill of a basement entrance with stone, and ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 14 of 21 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 March 8, 2016, 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, 410 N. Cayuga St. was constructed before 1851 and exhibits the massing of the Federal Style and detailing of the Italianate Style, particularly the wide, bracketed eaves. Constructed within the period of significance of the DeWitt Park Historic District and possessing a high level of architectural integrity, the property is a contributing element of the DeWitt Park Historic District. The proposal under consideration involves removing the roof and two walls of a service wing addition that was constructed before 1910, during the DeWitt Park Historic District’s period of significance. The service wing’s character-defining parapet wall, which is the only part of this extension that is visible from the public way, will be retained and incorporated into the design of the new sun room addition. Although the porch was constructed between 1910 and 1919, during the district’s period of significance, it is not visible from the public way, and its simple form and lack of detailing are not consistent with the form and detailing of the property. 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 March 8, 2016 15 of 21 Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard #4 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the alterations to the service wing, removal of the porch and basement entrance, replacement of a window, relocation of a window, and installation of a new window will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #4, the porch and basement entrance have not acquired significance in their own right. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed alterations to the service wing and new windows are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment, and 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 410 N. Cayuga 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 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: J. Minner Seconded by: D. Kramer In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, J. Minner Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Recused: S. Gibian Absent: K. Olson Vacancies: 0 ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 16 of 21 D. 302 Wait Ave., Cornell Heights Historic District — Proposal to Install Exhaust Vents & Secondary Entrance Applicant Michael Stewart, on behalf of property owner Cornell University, described the details of the proposal, noting the project grew out of the need to relocate the kitchenette to the first floor, as well as enlarging it and making it more functional. Two cooking appliance vents to the exterior will be needed, using standard vent covers (painted yellow to match rest of façade). The other part of the proposal relates to there only being one entrance in/out of building. The applicants would like another on the east side. Since the building already projects onto the Wait Avenue-Triphammer Road intersection, it would be minimally visible. The entrance landing would be composed of pressure-treated wood. (Using painted wood would have required constructing a canopy.) The applicants also propose installing an exterior light fixture, which would be minimally invasive and not from surrounding properties. The Building Division requires that the landing be six inches wider to ensure enough push-clearance for the latch side of the door. The applicants would be amenable to either unstained or stained pressure-treated wood. E. Finegan noted the pressure-treated wood is acceptable, but he would imagine the applicants would prefer to stain it at some point, for it to blend in. S. Gibian observed the building features a single continuous trim, so the new entrance would be the only opening in the entire building that cuts through that trim line. 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 D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein. D. Kramer asked about the fate of the tree. M. Stewart replied, either they would trim its lower branches, or replant it. He would be happy to add that to the project scope. S. Gibian asked if it would be possible to re-center the door. M. Stewart replied, in light of the location of the walls, he does not believe so. S. Gibian asked if the record could officially reflect that the entrance would be on the façade that is not in the public way. RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 302 Wait Ave. is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated February 24, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Michael Stewart on behalf of property owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) an architectural drawing, titled “Exterior Elevations – Rear Entry;” (3) an aerial photograph illustrating the location of the property; (4) two photographs illustrating the locations of the proposed changes; and (5) three sheets of specifications for a light fixture, door, and vent, and ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 17 of 21 WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 302 Wait Ave., and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the installation of two exhaust vents on the north elevation and a new entrance and pressure- treated wood stoop on the east elevation, and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on March 8, 2016, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights Historic District is 1898-1937. As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 302 Wait Ave. was constructed in 1899 for a professor of agronomy at Cornell University, John L. Stone. Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell Heights Historic District. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards: ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 18 of 21 Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of two exhaust vents and secondary entrance will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The ILPC notes the location of the secondary entrance on the east (rear) elevation significantly reduces its visual impact on the Historic District. This elevation is not highly visible from the public right-of-way. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed vents, door, light fixture, and stoop are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, the exhaust vents and secondary entrance can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following condition(s):  The pressure-treated materials used to construct the new entrance platform shall be stained a medium-to-dark brown color within one year of the completion of the project. ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 19 of 21 RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: D. Kramer Seconded by: M. McGandy In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, J. Minner, S. Gibian Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: K. Olson Vacancies: 0 IV. OLD BUSINESS  Ithaca City Cemetery Wall — Report on BPW Meeting B. McCracken reported that he attended the February 22nd, 2016 Board of Public Works (BPW) meeting, when the Board discussed the Commission’s resolution asking that the replacement wall appear more like the original wall installed in 1865. While the Board appreciated the Commission’s position, its primary concern was about the lack of funding for fixing the wall. The original assumption was that the contractor who performed the repair work would complete the repairs, but that no longer seems to be the case. BPW would therefore like to know how much the project would cost. B. McCracken will contact Assistant Civil Engineer Lynne Yost and obtain a price quote. He noted the Board was agreeable to the Commission’s request for heightened communication between the two bodies; however, it did not seem amenable to actively reaching out to the Commission.  311 College Ave., The Nines — Continued Discussion B. McCracken indicated he included this agenda item to continue the conversation initiated at the last meeting. He noted he was approached by one of the building’s owners, who expressed interest in participating in the conversation to determine what impact the designation would have on him. Owner Mark Kielmann indicated that owning the property constitutes a large part of his retirement plan. Were it to be designated, he is apprehensive that it would cause him serious economic hardship. B. McCracken responded that the building features one of the few remaining façades that reflects what Collegetown used to be. As Collegetown continues to see substantial redevelopment of properties that represent so much of what was historically distinctive in Collegetown, The Nines building becomes increasingly important. B. McCracken stressed that designation would not preclude additions or interior renovations being made to the building. He does not believe the owners’ financial investment in the building would be particularly impacted. Harold Schultz asked how long the designation process would take. B. McCracken replied that although considerable research has already been conducted, more needs to be done — the process could take several months and it would also need to be approved by both the Planning and Development Board and Common Council. He added that the City does provide property tax abatement for the rehabilitation of historically significant structures; and there would also be Federal and State historic income tax credits available. ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 20 of 21 V. NEW BUSINESS  East Hill Historic District Expansion — Discussion B. McCracken indicated this is the first time he is bringing the proposal to the Commission to solicit its feedback. There are historically significant properties in the proposed expansion area that have received attention in the past, but which were never included in the Historic District. The proposed expansion would include properties along N. Aurora Street, running north along Cascadilla Creek, and then everything to the east of that, including some properties on Linn Street. B. McCracken would collaborate with Historic Ithaca and City Historian Mary Tomlan on the designation process. He then introduced three property owners, who have asked to speak to the Commission. Bryan Warren, Warren Real Estate, co-owner of 201-07 North Aurora St., expressed concern with the proposal, given that he made a significant investment in the 201-07 North Aurora St. buildings with the intent to redevelop them. He does not know what the designation process entails and would like to learn more about it. B. McCracken responded that the proposal was prompted by examining the East Hill Historic District boundary line and noticing it does not include buildings that have been very significant to the history of Ithaca. Furthermore, there are very few commercial historic properties in the city. All the buildings he proposes to designate are contributing structures and would fit well within the context of the East Hill Historic District. B. Warren replied that the 201-07 North Aurora St. buildings are highly deteriorated inside and represent a veritable safety hazard, according to the architects he consulted. He would be very concerned with the cost associated with preserving them, were they to be designated. Todd Fox, Modern Living Rentals, co-owner of 201-07 North Aurora St., remarked that when one examines the properties further up on Seneca Street one could not argue that they have any historic significance. Had he and his business partners known 201-07 North Aurora St. was going to be designated as part of an Historic District, they would never have bought the properties. (Also present: Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals, co-owner of 201-07 North Aurora St.)  421 N. Albany St., The Dennis-Newton House, Individual Local Landmark — Update & Discussion B. McCracken reported that the Dennis-Newton House was recently listed on the Preservation League of New York State’s “Seven to Save” list of endangered properties. Some renovation work has begun to take place on the building. The owner appears to intend to perform all the work himself. It is a large project, so will take considerable time to complete. The owner appeared in court for the first time last week and strict deadlines for completion are being established. ILPC Minutes March 8, 2016 21 of 21  Ferris Pl. Stone Paving, East Hill Historic District — Update & Discussion B. McCracken reported that Superintendent of Public Works Michael Thorne approached him about the condition of the stone paving that poses an immediate public safety concern. City Code permits the Department of Public Works to directly repair anything that poses a public safety risk, without consulting the Commission. M. Thorne and B. McCracken then agreed on a process for removing the stones, performing repairs, and then re-laying the pavers. If that changes, DPW will be required to go through the formal Certificate of Appropriateness application process. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer, Commission members approved the following meeting minutes, with no modifications.  February 9, 2016 (Regular Meeting) VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS  None VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:23 p.m. by Chair Finegan. Respectfully Submitted, Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission