No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetters from City of IthacaCITY OF ITHACA 1OB EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF MAYOR March 21, 1978 Ms. Lucy Breyer Historic Preservation Program Assistant Historic Preservation Field Services Agency Building 1 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12238 MAR 2 3 1978 RECEIVED NA 23 1978 City Glades Office �.- /THACA N. y, Re: Strand Theater Ithaca, Tompkins Dear Ms. Breyer: TE 272-1713 I am pleased to reply to your request for comments on the nomination of the Strand Theater to the National Register of Historic Places. In terms of what the Strand has meant to the community, I think that it has earned the distinction of a cultural landmark. As a native Ithacan, I know that many performances have taken place there, some of which I have attended, which might otherwise not have been seen in Ithaca. CODE 607 While the Strand's architecture is not exceptional, it does fit in well with its surroundings, and has a certain character which is pleasing and which I am sure many Ithacans feel is a special and enduring part of the local scene. The interior is particularly attractive. What is most important, in my estimation, is the fact that much effort has gone into renovating the Strand, to continue and expand its use as a performing arts facility. In doing this, and doing it so well, with attention to original detail, they have not only preserved the building as a reminder of what was, but have preserved the function so that the Strand serves as a place where the tradi- tions of the theater arts can continue. I feel that this is tremendously impor- tant to the life of this community. National Register status would, in my opinion, be appropriate for the Strand Theater, and would help it to succeed in its renewed role. Sincerely, Edward J. Conley Mayor OFFICE OF MAYOR CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 MEMO TO: John Meigs FROM: Mayor's Office DATE: August 21, 1978 SUBJECT: A.M.E. Zion Church TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter received today in regard to the above entitled matter for your attention. CC: Joe Rundle • Ethel Nichols NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION Agency Building 1. Empire State Plaza. Albany. New York 12238 Information 518 474-0456 Orin Lehman, Commissioner Hon. Edward J. Conley Mayor . City Hall Ithaca, NY Dear Mayor Conley: August 15, 1978 Re: A.M.E. Zion Church Ithaca Tompkins County The site identified above has been suggested as a place which may meet the criteria for listing on the National Regis- ter of Historic Places. In accordance with federal procedures, the Committee on the Registe-rs of the State Board for Historic Preservation will evaluate the property's historical, architectural, arch- eological, and/or cultural significance. If you would like to comment upon the property's significance, I encourage you to do so 'in writing at your earliest convenience in order to ensure that your comments will be considered by the Committee. I shall notify you by letter of the Board's recommendation. The National Register is the official list of the nations cultural resources worthy of preservation, and is intended to function as a planning tool for the federal government. Owners of depreciable property within the above-named site are advised that certain federal tax provisions, as provided under Section 2124 of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, may result if the Secretary of the Interior lists the property on the National Register. Materials explaining the National Register, the review proce- dures, and the tax provisions are enclosed for your information. If you have any questions concerning the National'Register program, please write or call (518)474-0479• rbp Sincerely,, s Lucy/A. Breyer Progrram Assistant Historic Preservation Field Services Historic Preservation Field Services 12/77 NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION Agency Building 1. Empire Stale Plaza Albany New York 12238 Informalion 518 474$e� Orin Lehmon. Commissioner 0479 HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1976 The Tax Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-455, Statute 1519) contains important tax provisions affecting historic preservation. Section 2124, "Tax Incentives for the • Preservation of Historic Structures" provides new tax incentives for historic preservation and changes provisions in the existing tax code which have worked against preservation. What properties are affected by Section 2124 The tax provisions of Section 2124 apply only to "certified historic structures" which are depreciable (income - producing; residential if rented) properties of historic character. To qualify for certification, a property must be: A. Listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places; B. Located in a National Register historic district and certified by the Secretary of the Interior as being of historic significance to the district, or C. Located in an historic district designated under a statute of the appropriate state or local government if the statute is certified by the Secretary of the Interior as containing criteria that will substantially achieve the purpose of preserving and rehabilitating buildings of historic significance to the district. Provisions of Section 2124 2124 (a): Permits amortization over a 60 -month period of.any capital expenditure made in connection with certified rehabilitation of acertified historic structure. 2124 (b): Eliminates business expense deduction for demolition of any certified historic structure. 2124 (c): Eliminates accelerated depreciation for structures built on the site of any certified historic structure. 2124 (d): Provides special depreciation rules for certified rehabilitation expenses made in connection with any certified historic structure. 2124 (e): Amends charitable contribution deductions on income, estate, and gift taxes to'liberalize deductions for conservation purposes (including historic preservation). To take -advan-t age=o-f-provisions_a-d,_rehabilitation expenditures must occur after June 14, 1976 and -before June 15, 1981. How to utilize the provisions of Section 2124 Owners of depreciable, certifiable historic properties should read carefully the enclosed federal regulations governing historic preservation certifications of significance and rehabilitation and certification of local statutes (36 CFR 67). Answers to general questions of procedure are contained in these regulations. National Register: To have an historic property considered for the National Register of Historic Places, contact Historic Preservation Field Services at the above address for assistance from your regional staff representative. /jf ,, tic .ItK i S• RF-'` NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION 1q,nr:y f3utk1,r r, 1 . Emb:re:;l.uc Plaia. Albany New York 12238 Information 518*r7' -'45rr Orin Lehman. Commissioner 474-0479 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places came into existence with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665). Districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects are listed on the National Register for their significance in history, architecture, archeology and culture. The National Register program is administered jointly by the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation of the Department of the Interior and by the Office of the State Historic Preservation Officer. In New York State the Commissioner of the Office of Parks Recreation has been appointed State Historic Preservation Officer. THE BENEFITS OF LISTING: and Owners of National Register sites may apply for matching grants-in-aid for acquisition and restoration (National Historic Preservation Act of 1966) . Owners of depreciable or commercial properties listed on the Register may take a rapid federal tax -write-off for the costs of certified re- habilitation (Tax Reform Act of 1976). Homeowners applying for Home Improvement Loans through banks may obtain a much larger loan because of National Register listing (Emergency Home Purchase Assistance Act of 1974). Some protection from the adverse effects of federally -financed projects is also given, in that the historic value of Register properties either listed or eligible for listing must be taken into account before federal funds are spent (National Historic Preservation Act of 1966) . RESTRICTIONS: Listing on the National Register does not restrict an owner's right to manage his property. He may sell, alter or dispose of it as he wishes. However, if you are the owner of a depreciable (commercial) historic building which is listed on the National Register and you decide to demolish it, you will not be able to deduct the cost of demolition from your Federal Income Tax. In addition, a new building constructed on the site will have to be depreciated by the straight line method (Tax Reform Act of 1976). As mentioned above, Federal agencies are restricted in that they must consider the historic value of your National Register property when planning projects which will effect it (Advisory Council Procedures). PROCEDURE FOR OBTAININGNAT_IONAL REGISTER LISTING: Before a site may be -entered on the National Register, it must be eval- uated to determine whether it meets the criteria established by the Department of the Interior. This review is conducted first by the Committee on the Registers which makes recommendations concerning the eligibility of proposed sites to the State Board for Historic Preserva- tion. If a site receives a favorable recommendation, and if the Board concurs with the Committee's action, the State Historic Preservation Officer submits an official nomination form to the Keeper of the National Register, National Park Service. If the Keeper determines that the site meets the criteria for listing, he enters the site on the National Register of Historic Places. Revised - 1/25/77 DM/ s j OFFICE OF MAYOR CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 December 28, 1978 MEMO TO: Mr. Jon Meigs, Landmarks Preservation Comm. FROM: Mayor Edward J. Conley /' L� SUBJECT: A.M..E. Zion Church - nominated to the National Register of Historic Places Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter received from Lucy A. Breyer, Program Assistant, Historic Preservation Field Services of the New York State Parks and Recreation in regard to the above entitled matter for your attention. EJC:cmh ATTACH NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION Agency Building 1. Empire State Plaza. Albany. New York 12238 Information 518 474-0456 Orin Lehman. Commissioner December 15, 1978 Hon. Edward J. Conley Mayor City Hall Ithaca, NY Dear Mayor Conley: ECE1b DEC20 1978 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Ithaca, hl. Y. Re: A.M.E. Zion Chu Ithaca, Tompkins County Following a careful review, the State Board for Historic Preservation has recommended to the State Historic Preservation Officer that the site identified above be nominated to the National Register of Historic' Places. The next step in the procedure is the preparation of an official nomination form for submission to the Keeper of the National Register in Washington, DC. If the Keeper of the Register approves the nomination, the site will be listed on the Register andweshall notify you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to write or call 518-474-0479. cb Sincerely, Lucy A Brey-r Program Assist'nt Historic Preservation Field Services ir. OFFICE OF MAYOR CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET, ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 , TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 MEMO TO: Mr. Joseph Rundle, City Clerk/Official Record Keeper FROM: Mayor Edward J. Conley DATE: March 21, 1979 SUBJECT: National Register of Historic Places -- Strand Theatre Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter received from the New York State Parks and Recreation Department stating that the Strand Theatre has been entered on the National Register of Historic Places on February 22, 1979. EJC:rb ATTACH. CC: Mr. Jon Meigs, Landmarks Preservation Comm. Ms. Barbara Theisan, Strand Theatre MAR 2 31979 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Ithaca, N.Y. 0)1 yORK S . Z Z0 1A, REG NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION Agency Building 1. Empire State Plaza, Albany. New York 12238 Information 518 474-0456 Orin Lehman. Commissioner March 9, 1979 Hon. Edward J. Conley Mayor City Hall 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mayor Conley: • `� Orin Lehman, the State Historic Preservation Officer, has asked me to notify you that the Strand Theatre, Ithaca, Tompkins County, was entered on the National Register of Historic Places on February 22, 1979. If you should have any questions concerning the National Register program, I shall be happy to answer them for you. LAB/rbp Sincerely, t Larry E. Gobrecht Nationa Register and Survey Coordinator Historic Preservation Field Services LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, at its Regular Meeting, June 14, 1978, passed the following: BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, as follows: Historic Landmark Designation for the Strand Theatre WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 32.6 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code ("Landmarks Preservation"), the Landmarks Preservation Commission on 10 April 1978 voted to designate the Strand Theatre, 310 East State Street, as a City landmark, and WHEREAS, the Board of Planning and Development, at its May meeting, approved the designation of the Strand Theatre as an historic landmark, and WHEREAS, the possible implications of the designation of the Strand Theatre as an historic landmark include the preservation of a building important to the cultural history of the City and the encouragement_ of local artists and musicians; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Common Council does hereby designate the Strand Theatre as an historic landmark of the City of Ithaca and that this designation shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication in the official newspaper. By Authority of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York Joseph A. Rundle City Clerk City of Ithaca, New York July 8, 1978 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION City Hall 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 11 April 1978 Mayor and Common Council City of Ithaca Dear Mayor and Members. of Council: j- � ti PLAY 19lb r.° � itl 1� TICS OrhttN / ITHACA, N. • • r At its meeting 10 April, subsequent to a duly -advertised Public Hearing, this Commission voted unanimously (4-0, one member abstaining by reason of possible conflict of interest) to designate the Strand Theatre, 310 East State Street, as a City Landmark. This designation is forwarded, in accordance with the City's Landmarks Ordinance, for ratification by Common Council. The Ordinance provides ninety days for Council action, permitting time for consideration by the Planning and Development Board. Please notify me when this designation is scheduled for final action. Very tr}ily yours, 7 f i,A.,.Il��/lf Jonathan C. Meigs Secretary. . cc: Planning and Development Board �MQ • C *z.0 CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF MAYOR c�. Q,,►,�1� 1,-;,460 TELEPHONE. 272-1713 CODE 607 MEMO TO: Mr. Jon Meigs, Landmark Preservation Comm. Planning Department FROM: Mayor Edward J. Conley , DATE: March 13, 1978 SUBJECT: Strand Theater - National Register of Historic Places Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter received today from Lucy A. Breyer, Historic Preservation Program Assistant, Field Services of the New York State Parks and Recreation notifying us that the Strand Theater has been suggested as a place which may meet the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places for your attention. EJC:rb ATTACH. CC: Mr. Joseph Rundle, City Clerk ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION City Hall 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 16 November 1977 Mayor and Common Council City of Ithaca Dear Mayor and Members of Council: At its meeting 11 October 1977 this Coiuuiission formally designated the Strand Theater, 310 East State Street, a City Landmark by a 4-0-1 vote on the following motion: MOVED to designate the Strand Theater, 310 East State Street, as a City Landmark because of its special character and associations with, and contributions to, the cultural life and development of the City of Ithaca, and because of the special efforts being under- taken by the present owners •to renovate and restore an active cultural facility, with particular consideration being given to sensitive refurbishing and adaptation of the interior in the original style insofar as consistent with the contemporary requirements of a flexible facility for the lively arts, notwithstanding the structure's relatively modest exterior architecture and stylistic detail. This designation is forwarded for Council action to ratify, as provided in the Landmarks Ordinance. This action should be taken by 10 January 1978. For the Couiuiissii nathan C. Meigs ecretary cc: Planning and Development Board . OFFICE OF MAYOR MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY DF ITHAC 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 1 4850 Mr. Jon Meigs, Landmarks Preservation Mayor Edward J. Conley August 15, 1979 ((Mitt° IUJG MO 21 n9ic9 Ithaca, II. Y. Comm. ELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 State Historic Preservation Officer entered the Ithaca Pottery Site, City of Ithaca, on the National Register of Historic Places Attached hereto please find a .letter received today .from Mr. Larry E. Gobrecht, National Register and Survey Coordinator, Historic Preservation Field Services of the New York State Parks and Recreation in regard to the above entitled matter for your attention. EJC:rb ATTACH. CC: Mr. Joseph Rundle, City Clerk .�pRK `ST IA 2 Ie 440 kiN 'IND REG NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION Agency Building 1, Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12238 information 518 474-0456 Orin Lehman, Commissioner August 14, 1979 RECEIVED AUG 1 5 1973 Hon. Edward J. Conley Mayor City Hall 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mayor Conley: Orin Lehman, the State Historic Preservation Officer, has asked me to notify you that the Ithaca Pottery Site, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County was entered on the National Register of Historic Places on July 17, 1979. If you have any questions regarding•the National Register program, I shall be happy to answer them for you. CAF/cb Sincerely,. �f Larry E.�.sbrecht National gister and Survey Coordinator Historic Preservation Field- Services An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY DF ITHACA 1OB EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF MAYOR MEMO TO: Mr. Jonathan Meigs, Landmarks Preservation Mr. Joseph Rundle, City Clerk FROM: Mayor Raymond Bordoni 7 DATE: May 27, 1980 SUBJECT: National Register of Historic Places Llenroc SI 1-10 C I:6 CITY CIfEICg pf° 2 Ithaca, N Yf8C f2LEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter received today from the State of New York Parks and Recreation notifying us that Llenroc has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. RB:r ATTACH. ORIN LEHMAN COMMISSIONER STATE OF NEW YORK PARKS AND RECREATION ALBANY May 16, 1980 Edward J. Conley Mayor City Hall 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mayor Conley: Subject: Llenroc Ithaca, Tompkins County April 16, 1980 We are pleased to inform you of the list- ing of subject property on the National Register of Historic Places. Should you have any questions regarding the National Register program, please write or call the Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau staff at (518) 474-0479. Sincerely, Commissioner State Historic Preservation Officer ("\**Nr• LL>e'6:-UA Sr`LA\—. Deputy Commissioner for Historic Preservation CITY OF BTHAC 1OB EAST GREEN STREET C( Gl-e2.t_/ GiaM rpt O 4 COL/ PAC K,, ITHACA, NEW YORK 1 4135 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 20, 1980 Mayor and Common Council Board of Planning & Development City of Ithaca Dear Mayor, Council and Board Members: PHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 Acting on requests from the owners of the structures involved, and following a public hearing at its October 14, 1980 meeting, this Commission formally voted to designate the buildings at 102-104 W, State St„ 106-114 N. Cayuga St„ and 116 N. Cayuga St, as the Clinton Block Historic District of the City of Ithaca, This action is referred to the Planning Board and Common Council, respectively, for recommendation and approval as provided by the Landmarks Ordinance. The structures within the district, known respectively as the Hibbard Block, Clinton Hall and Clinton House, form the last remaining unified group of buildings in the Greek Revival Commercial style, the second oldest period of architectural design represented in Ithaca, They are especially noteworthy because of the coordination embodied in their planning: Clinton Hall and the Hibbard. Block are set back from Cayuga Street the same distance as the front of Clinton House, pro- viding a pleasant, extra -wide pedestrian walkway which served the double purpose of setting off the Clinton House's elegant facade, and giving its guests a clear view of the street and the stagecoach stop at State and Cayuga Streets, This early example of enlightened development could well be copied by present-day entrepreneurs. The Commission feels that this designation will be a credit to the City, partly because it recognizes important historic structures, but also because it is expected to generate increased interest and economic activity in local preservation and rehabilitation projects. In this regard, we note that the owners of Clinton . Hall and the Hibbard Block hope to take advantage of federal income tax credits for historic preservation. If it is possible for Council to act to approve this designation before the end of the year, the tax advantage that may adhere to work already underway may enhance the project financing, and increase the viability and quality of results, "An Eoual Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Mayor and Common Council Board of Planning & Development City of Ithaca October 20, 1980 p, 2 The attached material, prepared by Preservation Coordinator Penny Dolan, gives further background and justification for this important designation. Please do not hesitate to call on us for additional information or assistance during your consideration of this -matter. Very truly you s J%n Meigs ecretary JM/s Enclosure cc: T,. Werbizky, Vice Chairperson, ILPC T. Hoard, Building Commissioner D, Lucenti M,. Pi chel P., Pri gmore P, Dolan CLINTON BLOCK HISTORIC DISTRICT The newly designated Clinton Block Historic District is composed of three buildings. They are: Clinton House, 116 North Cayuga Street; Clinton Hall, 106-114 North Cayuga Street: and the Hibbard Block,,102-106 West State Street. The three buildings are prominently linked to each other and to the early development and growth of the Ithaca community. The hotel, Clinton House, was built between 1828 and 1830 by Jeremiah Beebe, Henry Ackley and Henry Hibbard, At that time Ithaca had fewer than four thousand'inhabi- tants. The construction of such a large and elegant hotel was as much symbolic in nature as it was functional, Its construction was intended to convey the message that Ithaca was a thriving commercial and cultural center within the state, Jeremiah Beebe, one of the Clinton House developers, was a mill owner and built his residence at 308 North Cayuga Street, The house is known today as the Beebe -Halsey House and is located within the Dewitt Park Historic District, He was also a direc- tor of several banks including the Bank of Newburgh. This building is now located at 106 East Court Street, Dewitt Park Historic District, The other Clinton House developers, Ackley and Hibbard, were hatters and their business was located on the corner of Buffalo and Aurora Streets. Ackley built a home on the site where the Women's Community Building is now located. There is structural evidence to indicate that Clinton House was designed and built by Ira Tillotson, He also built houses within the community, including, in 1828, the Humphrey -Judd House at 102 East Court Street, Dewitt Park Historic District, Clinton House is a fine example of Federal -Greek Revival Transitional architecture. The portico is supported by six Ionic columns, In 1872 a two story mansard roof and a twenty -foot high cupola were added, A palladian window that replaced an oval window in the pediment was designed by William Henry Miller at the beginning of his highly successful architectural career in Ithaca, When a fire destroyed the mansard roof in 1901, it was replaced by a Colonial Revival roof and balustrade, During much of its 150 year history, Clinton House has been a center .of business, political, cultural and social activities within the community, An early founder of Ithaca, Simeon Dewitt, lived in the hotel during the latter part of his life, At least four United States presidents were guests there, The hotel was Ithaca's first professional building and housed the offices of doctors, dentists and lawyers, In 1972 Clinton House was placed on the National Register of Historic Places, Clinton House, Inc, was also formed that year and the building was slowly restored and rehabilitated by a group of community residents, Today the building continues to serve a vital function within the community, It houses Historic Ithaca, Dewitt Historical Society and a large number of offices and buildings, Its success as a preservation project has received considerable state and national recognition and interest, In 1847 Henry Ackley built Clinton Hall, and Henry Hibbard built the Hibbard Block as commercial buildings, in part to support the activities of Clinton House, Clinton Hall is one of the few Greek Revival Commercial buildings remaining in downtown Ithaca. It is of brick construction and the ground floor has early cast iron store fronts, There is a series of five frieze windows with an anthemion decorative motif under the simple and restrained cornice, Stepped gables are at the :north and south ends of the building. Originally, there was a highly decorative cast iron balcony with support brackets that was located above the first floor store fronts, It was removed in 1901. As a commercial block, Clinton Hall has contained a wide variety of businesses. The basement and first floor served as retail and office space, including an Express office and a ticket office. The second floor contained office space and. the third floor served as a public hall for meetings and traveling stage shows. The hall featured a stage with a painted stage curtain depicting allegorical scenes and the room had a dome in the center of the ceiling that was sixteen feet in diameter. In 1910, the hall housed a movie and vaudeville theater called the Manhattan Theater and Picture Show, The building had a fire five years ago and has been boarded up since that time, The Hibbard Block, 102-104 West State Street, is a three-story brick Greek Revival building with stone lintels and simple cornice, 106 West State Street, also a part of the block, was built after 1860 and features large triple windows, It is internally connected to 102-104 West State Street, The third floor of the Hibbard Block served as the meeting room for the City Club during the 1920s and 1930s, The new owners of Clinton Hall and the Hibbard Block are in the beginning stages of restoring and rehabilitating these two buildings, Many community organizations have applauded their efforts, As has been indicated, the buildings within the designated Clinton Block Historic District are a vital link to the early history, important early architecture and the ongoing development of downtown Ithaca, The owners of these buildings have requested local historic designation and find it desirable because: * Designation will insure that these important historical and architectural links in our community's heritage will be preserved for future generations, and * Historic properties within certified historic districts can qualify for income tax benefits for rehabilitation/restoration of depreciable properties under the Federal Income Tax Reform Act of 1976, The designated historic district is also a strong visual and economic link between Dewitt Mall, a highly successful adaptive Use project, and the Commons, a revitali- zation effort that is the economic and social hub of the community. The responsibility of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Cofflniission (ILPC) is to carry out the intent and purpose of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance In part, the Ordinance states that the purpose is to: "safeguard the city's historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage by preserving landmarks and districts of historical and cultural significance; foster civic pride in the legacy of beauty and achievements of the past; and strengthen the economy of the city." It is the unanimous opinion of the members of the ILPC that the designation of Clinton Block Historic District fulfills that purpose and continues Ithaca's outstanding record of recycling its useful architecture and conserving its local heritage. OFFICE OF MAYOR CITY DF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK •14850 MEMO TO: Mr. Jonathan Meigs, Landmarks Preservaa�C'.amni. Mr. Joseph Rundle, City Clerk FROM: Mayor Raymond Bordoni DATE: December 21, 1981 E: 272-1713 :CODE.607 SUBJECT: AME Zion Church - 116 Cleveland Avenue New York State Parks and Recreation Notification - property noted will be considered by the Committee -on the Registers of the New York State Board for Historic Preservation for nomination to the National and State Registers of Historic Places Attached. hereto please find correspondence received today in regard to the above entitled matter for your attention. RB:r ATTACH. CC: Mrs. Elva Holman Mrs. Nancy Schuler ,IORK `ST 0 RAND Reet NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION Agenc-y Building 1, Emotre State Plaza, Albany. New York 12238 Information 518 474-0456 . Orin Lehman, Commissioner December 18, 1981 - Honorable Raymond Bordoni Mayor DECEIVED DEC 2 1 Sal City Hall • Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mayor Bordoni: RE: AME Zion Church • '116 Cleveland Avenue Ithaca, Tompkins County We are pleased to inform you that the property noted above will b considered by the Committee on the Registers of the New York State Board for Historic Preservation for nomination to the National and State Registers of Historic Places. The National Register and. the State Register are the federal and state, governments' official l.•3ts of historic properties worthy df preservation`.- Listing in the Registers provides recognition and assistance in preserving our national, state, and local heritage. • Enclosed is a copy of the criteria under which properties are evaluated. Listing in the -National Register provides the following benefits historic properties: Consideration in the planning for federally assisted projects. .Section 106 of the. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provides that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an`'opportunity to comment on projects affecting such properties. • Eligibility for federal tax benefits. If.a. properLy•is listed in the National Register, certain tax provisions may apply. The Tax Reform Act of 1976, as amended by the Revenue Act of 1978 and the Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980, and the Economic Recovery .Tax Act of 1981e contain provisions intended to encourage the preservation of depreciable historic, structures by allowing` favorable tax treatments for rehabilitation, and • - to discourage destruction of historic buildings by elimina.l:ing certain federal tax provisions for demolition of historic structures. Beginning January 1, 1982, the Economic Recovery, Tax Act replaces the rehabilitation tax incentives available under prior :.law with a 25% investment tax credit for rehabilitations of certain historic commercial, industrial and residential rental buildings. •This can be combined with a 15 -year cost 'recovery period for the adjusted basis of the historic building. Historic buildings with certified rehabilitations receive additional tax savings because they are exempt from any requirement to reduce the basis of the b.ii1di:03 D,y tIlt:2 amours:: of Crud L. lthe Tax 1'eatment Extension Act of 1980 includes•provisions regarding charitable contributions for conservation purposes of partial interests in historically important__ land_ areas__or_-st.r_u.ct_ures. - - Con::.deration of historic values in the decision to issue a surface coal mining permit where coal is -iodated, in accord" with the surface Mining and Control Act of 1977. - - Oualification for federal grants for historic preservation •when funds are available. Projects affecting properties listed in the National Register. or recommended for listing by the Committee on the Registers of the State Board for Historic Preservation are considered Type I actions subject to the notice requirements of Section 617 of the New York State Environmental Ouality Review Act. ' • •..<�-.• -2-- Owners of private properties nominated to the National Register of Historic Places must be given an opportunity to concur in or. object to listing in accord with the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 and federal regulations 36 CFR Part 60. .Any owner or partial owner of private property who chooses to object to listing is required to submit to the State Historic Preservation Officer a notarized statement certifying that the party is the sole or partial owner of the private property, as appropriate, and objects to the listing. If a majority of the owners objects to listing, the district will not be listed. Each owner or partial owner of private property in a district has one vote regardless of.how many properties or what part of one property .that party 'owns. -If the district cannot be'listed because a majority of owners objects prior to the submission of a nomination by the state, the State Historic Preservation Officer shall submit the nomination to. the Keeper of the Nacirnal'Register for a rfieterm•in.iA i•.7.n of tIve o.. the district 1.:ii.j inc 1u.,io l 111 the National Register. If the property is then determined eligible for listing, although not form11y listed,. federal agencies will be required to•allow the Advis`4e ry Council bn Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment before, the agency may fund, license, or assist a project which will affect the property. If you choose to object to the listing of your property, the notarized objection- must be submitted to'Orin Lehman, State Historic Preservation Officer, Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau, Agent;y Building #1, Governor N.lson A. Rockefeller Empire State rlaz%+, Alhany, . New York; 12238. by January 1982 the ' Stai-.e Regiter provides the following .benefits to historic propertie: Consideration'in the planning for projects involving state agencies. :Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 provides that the Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation be given an. opportunity to comment on projects affecting listed properties. !j J Gci L. a an�ia;', 'y oii eNnr. 2e i:-es11, iii p s• i'v'd � c. property for purchase; • lease or rental for government use. -- Qualification for state grants for historic preservation when funds are available. There are no provisions in the New York State Historic Preservation Act that require owner consent prior to listing in • the State: Register of Historic Places. If you wish to comment on whether the property should be nominated to the National and State Registers, please send your. comments to the above address. Comments must be received by _ 'January -19, 1982 yin order to be considered at the Committee on the Registers next meeting. A draft copy of the proposed nomination is on file in this office and can be made available to you upon request. For more information,. please contact Janette Johnstone , Historic Preservation'Field Services Bureau, New York State Office of .Parks,• Recreation and Historic Preservation, Governor Nelson A. Rnr_,kef.?1 lar Empi r,`• Ctsto Rlza,• AL —an1 , New York, 12233, (518) 474-04.79. Enc. Sincerely, Commissioner State Historic- Preservation Officer • 1. S -s„ V� Deputy Commissioner for Historic Preservation �,tpRtc , ir;i‘2 F D 0 NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION Agency Building 1, Err.t.re State Plaza, Albany. New York 12238 Orin Lehman. Commissioner Information 518 474-0456 NATIONAL AND STATE REGISTERS CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION The following criteria are used to evaluate properties (other thanareas of the National Park Service and National Historic Landmarks) for listing on the National and State Registers Of Historic Places. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology,. engineering, and cul- ture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, work- manship, feeling, and association and. A. that ,are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or , that embody the distinctive characteristics of'a type, period, or method of construction, or.that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may^lack individual distinction; or D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. B. C. Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed his- toric buildings, properties primarily commemo- rative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories:. A. a .religious property deriving primary sig- nificance from architecturalor artistic distinction or historicalimportance; or B.. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or C. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his productive life. D. a cemetery which derives its primary sig- nificance from graves of persons of trans- cendent importance, from age, from distinc- tivedesign features, or from association with historic events; or E. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in.a suitable environmentandpre- sented-in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other . building or structure with -the same association has survived; or F. a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or. symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or G. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional impor- tance. (Title 36, Code of Federal. Regul a.tion_s Part 60.4) An Equal Cpox,unay Employer CITY OF ITHACA 1OS EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 2, 1982 Mayor and Common Council City of Ithaca TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 Dear Mayor and Members of Council: The accompanying Resolution.; -adopted by unanimous vote at a Special Meeting of the Commission held July 30th, is being sent to you for your consideration and appropriate action. The Commission takes this step at this time in the interest of resolving how the repaving of East State Street, scheduled for 1983, is to be done. Since the Board of Public Works has approved repaving with asphalt, partially on the basis that the cost of repaving with brick would be a maintenance item, it appears that only Council has the authority to require that some of E. State's brick paving be retained. The Commission strongly feels that the matter is of sufficient importance that the re- presentative governing body of the City should provide a forum for public discussion, assess input from interested parties, and decide on the merits of the issue in time to allow substitution of a 1983 Capital Project, to repave a portion of the street with brick, for the proposed asphalt paving. The ILPC had initially proposed that the brick paving be kept all the way to Ithaca Road. Having now had time to study both the information pre- pared as basis for the BPW's action, and the research material developed by Commission staff, it seems more reasonable and appropriate from economic and historic viewpoints to ask that only E. State's brick surface be kept. We are convinced that the higher initial cost of brick paving is substantially offset by its superior durability and other practical cha- racteristics, in. addition to its appearance and historic qualities. Landmarks Commission members and staff will make every effort to respond to any questions or requests for information which you may have, and to be available to discuss the matter at any time. Please let us know of any meetings at which the topic will be considered. For the Commission onathan C. Meigs Secretary Encl, cc: Supt. of Public Works —.City—Clerk _ "An Equal Opportonny :.. •inn P•p,/ar-• .. 0 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION - Brick Streets WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission strongly believes that existing brick pavements within the city should be retained, where appropriate, for their esthetic and historic values, and :WHEREAS, the Commission finds that East State Street between the Commons and Mitchell Street is an important visual feature on a major city entrance route, forming a boundary of the East Hill Historic District and a section of a major access route to the Cornell campus, and WHEREAS, E. State intersects Stewart Avenue, a brick -paved street which traverses the E. Hill Historic District and which, with the different brick paving pattern.of State, makes a significant contribution to the special character of the district, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has scheduled repaving of the brick sections of East State and Mitchell Sts. from the Tuning Fork to Ithaca. Rd. with asphalt in 1983, and WHEREAS, the estimated cost of repaving the entire brick portions of E. State and Mitchell with brick has been given as a major factor iro the decision to use asphalt, and WHEREAS, the costs of brick paving could be substantially reduced if a - shorter stretch were done, using brick salvaged from the remainder, by a contractor selected by competitive.bid from among firms experienced in brick paving, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca community has not had sufficient opportunity to express its interest in the issue, now BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission recommends to Common Council that the repaving of the portion of East State Street betweer. 0 RESOLUTION - Brick Streets page 2 -the Tuning Fork and Mitchell Street be done with brick, so that the entire stretch between Aurora and Blair Streets has a brick surface, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission respectfully requests that the Planning and Development Committee 'of Common Council examine the desirability of repaving some or all of E. State St. between the Tuning Fork and Mitchell St. with Brick, discussing the issue at a meeting during which public comment would be encouraged, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission recommends that Common Council require preparation of a Capital Project proposal for inclusion in the 1983 Capital Budget for the repaving of appropriate portions of East State Street with brick in order to conserve historic features which give Ithaca its distinctive character. RESOLUTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY at a Special Meeting of the ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION, July 30, 1982. Voting in favor: R. Di Pasquale, R. Centini, F. Moon, B. Jones, A. Lee; members M. Cutting., D. Lifton absent. Jonathan C. Meigs Secretary OFFICE OF MAYOR c: !Ty ®F ITHAC 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 'CC\ MEMO TO: Mr. Jonathan Meigs, Landmarks Preservation FROM: Mayo'r Bill Shaw DATE: August 23, 1982 SUBJECT: AME Zion Church. 116 Cleveland Avenue Ithaca, New York 14850 Comm. EPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 Attached hereto please find correspondence received today from the State of New York Parks and Recreation notifying us that the AME Zion Church has been placed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places for your attention. BS:r ATTACH. CC: Mr. Joseph Rundle r "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" J ORIN LEHMAN COMMISSIONER STATE OF NEW YORK PARKS AND RECREATION ALBANY August 16, 1982 Rev. William H. Pinder St. James AME Zion Church 116 Cleveland Avenue Ithaca, NY 14850 Subject: AME Zion Church 116 ,Cleveland Ave. Ithaca, Tompkins Co. Dear Rev. Pinder: We are pleased to inform you of the listing of subject property on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. . Should you have any questions regarding the State and National Register programs, please Write or call the Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau staff at (518) 474-0479. sl cc: attached list Sincerely Commissioner State Historic Preservation Officer Deputy Commissioner for Historic ?reservation Honorable William Shaw City Hall Ithaca, NY Harris B. Dates, Chairman Board of Representatives Tompkins Co. Courthouse Ithaca, NY 14850 Frank Liguori Tompkins.Co. Planning Board 128 E. Buffalo St. Ithaca, NY 14850 ' Matthys Van Cort, Planner City of Ithaca 108. E. Green St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Keith Smith NYS Dept. of Transportation State Campus Building #4 1220 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12232 Susan J. Cummings, President Ithaca Neighboorhood Housing Services 520 W. Green St. Ithaca, NY 14850 John Finnegan Genesee State Park & Recreation Commission Castier, NY 14427 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 108 E. Green St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Attn: Penny Dolan Craig Williams Tompkins Co. Historian DeWitt Historical Society Clinton House 116 No. Cayuga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 D. Boardman Lee 711 E. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Ms. Carol Sisler Historic Ithaca 103 W. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 OFFICE OF MAYOR Y OF ITHACA B EAST GREEN STREET ACA, NEW YORK '14850 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 MEMO TO: Mr. Raymond DiPasquale, Chair of the Landmarks Preservation Conn. Mr. Jonathan Meigs, Planning Department r FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger ;kA- �'✓ DATE: April 23, 1984 SUBJECT: New York State Office of,Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Ag Quad Historic District: Bailey, Caldwell, Comstock, East Roberts, Roberts and Stone Halls, Cornell University - TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE REGISTERS OF THE N.Y.S. BOARD FOR NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL AND STATE REGIISTERS OF HISTORIC'PLACES Attached hereto please find information received Friday afternoon in regard to the above entitled matter for your attention. ATTACH. CC: Andrea Joseph Rundle 1A �G, 1ION.h45r. Ni gc NEW PORK STATE Orin Lehman Commissioner New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Agency Building 1 Albany, New York 12238 April 18, 1984 John C. Gutenberger City of Ithaca 108 East .Green .S.t.. Ithaca, NY 14850' Dear Mr. Gutenberger, ,44 Re: Ag._Quad Historic Distric.t: Bailey, Caldwell, Comstock, East Roberts, Roberts, and Stone Halls Cornell University Ithaca-, Tompkins County We are pleased to inform you that the property noted above will be considered by the Committee on the Registers of the New York State Board for HistoricPreservation for nomination to the National and State Registers of Historic Places. The National Register and the State Register are the federal and state governments' official lists of historic properties worthy of preservation. Listing in. the Registers provides recognition and assistance in preserving our national, state, and local heritage. Enclosed is a copy of the criteria under which properties are evaluated. Listing in the National Register provides the following benefits to historic properties: , Consideration in the planning for federally assisted projects. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provides that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment on projects affecting- - such properties. Eligibility:for federal tax benefits. If a property is listed in the National Register, certain tax provisions may apply. The Tax Re-form Act of 1976, as amended by the Revenue Act of 1978 and the Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980,_and the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, as amended by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 contain pro-' visions intended to encourage the preservation of depreciable historic structures by allowing favorable tax treatments for rehabilitation, and to discourage destruction of historic buildings by eliminating .certain federal tax provisions for demolition of historic structures. On January 1, 1982, the Economic Recovery Tax.Act replaced the rehabilitation tax incentives available under prior law with a.25% investment tax 'credit for rehabilitation of certain historic commercial, industrial and residential rental buildings. This can be combined- with- -a "15 -year cost recovery -period-for---the--adjusted__ basis of the historic building. Historic buildings with certified rehabilitation receive additional tax savings because owners are allowed .to reduce the basis of the building by one-half the amount of credit. The Tax -Treatment Extension Act of 19.80 includes provisions regarding charitable' OQ3:.trihilti.ons for . aon -ery ;ti.ca ' purposes of Partial i nt.ereEt in historically important'land areas or structure. Consideration of historic values in the decision to issue a surface coal mining permit where coal is located, in accord with the Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977. Qualification for federal grants for historic preservation when funds are available. Projects affecting properties listed in the National Register or recommended for listing by the Committee on the Registers of the State Board for Historic Preservation are considered Type I actions subject to the notice requirements of Section 617 of the New York State Environmental Ouality Review Act. -2 -- Owners of private properties nominated to the National Register of Historic Places must be given an opportunity to concur in or object to listing in accord with the National Historic Preservation -Act Amendments of 1980 and federal regulations 36 CFR Part 60. Any owner or partial owner of private property who chooses to object to listing is required to submit to the State Historic Preservation Officer a notarized statement certifying that the party is the sole or partial owner of the private property, as appropriate, and objects to the listing. For a single privately owned property with one owner, the property will not be listed if the owner objects. In . nominations with multiple ownership of a single property, the property will not be listed if a majority of the owners objects. Each owner or partial owner of private property has one vote regardless of what part of the property that party owns. If the property cannot be listed because the owner or a majority of owners objects prior to the submission of a nomination to the state, the State Historic Preservation Officer shall submit the nomination to the Keeper of the National Register for a determination of the eligibility of the property for inclusion in the National Register. If the property is then determined eligible for listing, although not formally listed, federal agencies will be required to allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment before the agency may fund, license, or assist a project which will affect the property. If you choose to object to the listing of your property, the notarized objection must be submitted to Orin Lehman, State Historic Preservation Officer, Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau, Agency Building #1, Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York, 12238 by May 17, 1984 Listing in the State Register provides the following benefits to historic properties: Consideration in the planning for projects involving state agencies. Section 14.09 of'the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 provides that the Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation be given an oppor- tunity to comment on projects affecting listed properties. ••- Consideration by state agencies, upon owner request, of private property for purchase, lease or rental for government use. -- Qualification for state grants for historic preservation when funds are available. There are no provisions in the New York State Historic Preservation Act that require owner consent prior to listing in the State Register of Historic Places. If you wish to comment on whether the property should be nominated to the National and State Registers, please send your comments to the above address. Comments must be received by May 17, 1984 ,in order to be considered at the Committee on the Registers next meeting. A draft copy of the proposed nomination is on file in this office and can be made available to you upon request. For more information, please contact Janette Johnstone , Historic P-reservation--Fiel_d _S_ervice.s___Bureau, lie -T,/ -York -State- Office-of- Parks, f-fice-of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York, 12238, (518) 474-0479. Sincerely, Commissioner State Historic Preservation Officer Enc. ORK 44.,4� $ o 9 ■ �P ti0 RE- NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION pgenc: B..rtd ng ? Emere State Praza. A bany. New York '2238 Onn Lenman, Commtssroner intormanon 518 474-0456 NATIONAL AND STATE REGISTERS CRITERIA FOR EVALUATIr•`•- lowing criteria are used to evaluate properties (other than areas o .rational Park and National Historic Landmarks) for listing on the -"ationa3. and State Registers of c Places. lity of significance in American history, cture, archeology, engineering, and cul - present in districts, sites, buildings, res, and objects that possess integrity tion, design, setting, materials, work- , feeling, and association and. are associated with events that have made gnificant contribution to the broad erns of our history; or are associated with the lives of persons ificant in our past; or embody the distinctive characteristics type, period, or method of construction, hat represent the work of a master, or oossess high artistic values, or that esent a significant and distinguishable ty whose components may lack individual inction; or have yielded, or may be likely to yield, ation important in prehistory or y. Ordinarily cez:•.c.:teries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed his- toric buildings, properties primarily commemo- rative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do :meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: A. a religious property deriving primary sig- nificance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or B. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or C. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly' associated with his productive life. D. a cemetery which derives its primary sig- nificance from graves of persons of trans- cendent importance, from age, from distinc- tive design features, or from association with historic events; or E. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and pre- sented in a dignified manner as__part of a restoration master plan,.and-When no other building or structure with the sane association -has survived; or F. a -_property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or G. a property achieving significance within the • past 50 years if it is of exceptional impor- tance. (Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4) An Equal OPportunrty Employer CITY DF ITHACA 1OB EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW Y-''JRK 1 485 OFFICE OF MAYOR TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 MEMO TO: Raymond DiPasquale, Chair, Landmarks Preservation COMM. Jonathan Meigs, Planning Department ATTN: Andrea Joseph Rundle, City Clerk FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger DATE: May 29, 1984 SUBJECT: First Period Buildings Thematic Group New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University, Wing Hall Attached hereto please find correspondence received today from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation in regard to the above entitled matter for your attention. ATTACH. _"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program EATION• .k_ , Cl cc,• v 4 -4 u .r.�-may' N O m w_ y' < LL o -4 o NEW YORK STATE z Orin Lehman Commissioner New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Agency Building 1 Albany, New York 12238 Hon. John C. Gutenberger Mayor City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear. Mayor Gutenberger: May 25, 1984 ryg 2 9 'IL 1 518-474-0456 Re: First Period Buildings Thematic Group New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University: Wing Hall This is to inform you that the property cited above (Wing Hall) was inadvertently omitted from the list of propertiesnoted in our letter of May 22, 1984 informing you that the First Period Buildings Thematic Group would be considered by the Conn>.iittee on the Registers of the New York State Board for Historic Preservation for nomina- tion to the National and State Registers of Historic Places In order to proceed with the scheduled review on June 21, 1984, federal regulations require that all property owners and.. the chief elected local offical advise the state in writing that they agree to waive the normal thirty -day couuuent period between notification and consid- eration by the state review board. If you choose to exercise this option a form has been enclosed for your convenience. Please return the completed form to us as soon as possible. If you donot waive your right to comment, review of Wing Hall will be postponed until July 20, 1984 and you will be so notified. A revised notification letter for the thematic group is enclosed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Janette Johnstone at 518-474-0479. Sincerely, t c„ (Y Kathleen LaFrank Archivist Historic Preservation Field Services An Equal Opportunity Employer The Hon. Orin Lehman Commissioner New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Agency Building 1 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12238 Dear Commissioner Lehman: This will confirm that I am fully aware of the effects of listing*a property in the National Register of Historic Places. .I recognize that, under the National Historic Preser- vation Act, I am entitled to comment on the proposed listing of property within my jurisdiction. Following is the proposed listing: I hereby waive my right to comment on the proposed listing. Sincerely: P�GPEPTION.y<sr h U LL O NEW YORK STATE Orin Lehman Commissioner a z 4 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Agency Building 1 Albany, New York 12238 May 25, 1984 John C. Gutenberger City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: First Period Buildings Thematic Group, New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University: Bailey, Caldwell, Comstock, East Roberts, Fernow, Rice, Roberts, Stone and Wing Halls Ithaca, Tompkins County Dear Mr. Gutenberger: We are pleased to inform you that the property noted above will be considered by the Committee on the Register`'s of the New York State Board for Historic Preservation for nomination to the National and State Registers of Historic Places. The National Register and the State Register are the federal and state governments' official lists of historic properties worthy of preservation. Listing in the Registers provides recognition and assistance in preserving our national, state, and local heritage. Enclosed is a copy of the criteria under which properties are evaluated. Listing in the National Register provides the following benefits to historic properties: Consideration in the planning for federally assisted projects. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provides that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment on projects affecting such properties. Eligibility for federal tax benefits. If a property is listed in the National Register, certain tax provisions may apply. The Tax Reform Act of 1976, as amended by the Revenue Act of 1978 and the Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980, and the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, as amended by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 contain pro- visions intended to encourage the preservation of depreciable historic structures by allowing favorable tax treatments for rehabilitation, and to discourage destruction of historic buildings by eliminating certain federal tax provisions for demolition of historic structures. On January 1, 1982, the Economic Recovery Tax Act replaced the rehabilitation tax incentives available under prior law with a 25% investment tax credit for rehabilitation of certain historic commercial, industrial and residential rental buildings. This can be combined with a 15 -year cost recovery period for the adjusted basis of the historic building. Historic buildings with certified rehabilitation' receive- addtlonah-t"ax savings- - --____.__ because owners are allowed to reduce the basis of the building by one-half the amount of credit. The Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980 includes provisions regarding charitable contributions for conservation purposes of partial interests in historically important land areas or structures. - - Consideration of historic values in the decision to issue a surface coal mining permit where coal is located, in accord with the Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977. - - Qualification for federal grants for historic preservation when funds are available. Projects affecting properties listed in the National Register or recommended for listing byvthe Committee on the Registers of the State Board for Historic Preservation are considered Type I actions subject to the notice requirements of Section 617 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. Owners of private properties nominated to the National Register of -'"Historic Places must be given an opportunity to concur in or object to listing in accord with the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 and federal regulations 36 CFR Part 60. Any owner or partial owner of private property who chooses to object to listing is required to submit to the State Historic Preservation Officer a notarized statement certifying that the party is the sole or partial.owner of the private property,. as appropriate, and objects to the listing. For a single privately owned property with one owner, the property will not be listed if the owner objects. In nominations with multiple ownership (PE a single property, the_ property will.not be listed if a majority of the owners objects. Each owner or partial owner of private property has one vote regardless of what part of the property that party owns. If the property cannot be listed because the owner or a majority of owners objects prior to the submission of a nomination to the state, the State Historic Preservation Officer shall submit the nomination to the Keeper of the National Register for a determination of the eligibility of the property -for inclusion in the National Register. If the property is then.dete•rmined eligible for listing, although not formally listed, federal agencies will' be required to allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment before the agency may fund, license, or assist a project which will affect the property. -If you choose to object to the listing of your'property, the notarized objection must be submitted to Orin Lehman, State Historic Preservation Officer, Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau, Agency -Building #1, Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York, '12238 by June 20, 1984 Listing in the State Register provides the following benefits to historic properties: - - Consideration in the planning for projects involving state agencies. Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 provides that the Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation be given an oppor- tunity to comment on projects affecting listed properties. - Consideration by state property for purchase, lease or rental for government use. - - Qualification for state grants for historic preservation when agencies, upon owner request, of private funds are available. There are no provisions in the New York State Historic Preservation Act that require owner consent prior to listing in the State Register of Historic Places. If you wish to comment on whether the property should be nominated to the National and State Registers, please send your comments to the above address. Comments must be received by June 20, 1984 in order to be considered at the Committee on the Registers next meeting. A draft copy of the proposed nomination is on file in this office and can be made available to you upon request. For more information, please contact Janette Johnstone. , Historic _ --------Pr-e-serv_aa.i-o-n—Fi_el_d__Services_ Burea.u,. _New_.York_ State Officeof Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York, 12238, (518) 474-0479. Sincerely, Commissioner State Historic Preservation Officer Enc. CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14650 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: CIEI' CLERICS OFFICE Ithaca, 11. y. 2 -- r—^� TE PHONE: 272-1713 {' I CODE 607 • November 9, 1984 On October 17, 1984 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, an official agency of the City of Ithaca constituted under the provisions of Section 96-a of the General Municipal Laws of the State of New York, acted at its regular meeting to schedule a Public Hearing for the pur- pose of obtaining public comment on the feasibility and desirability of designating as local landmarks the following buildings within the City of Ithaca on the Campus of Cornell University and the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences: Fernow Hall Stone Hall Roberts Hall East Roberts Hall Caldwell Hall Comstock Hall Bailey Hall The Public Hearing will be held Tuesday, 27 November 1984, at 7:00 p.m. in the offices of the Department of Planning and Development, City of Ithaca, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York. Any interested party is welcome to speak for or against designation at the hearing, in person or by representative, and may submit written statements for or against designation to the undersigned, prior to the hearing. Following the hearing, or at a subsequent official meeting of the Commission, the Commission may act to designate some or all of the in- dicated buildings. Within ninety (90) days of such action, having first received an advisory recommendation from the City's Board of Planning and Development, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is required to approve or disapprove such designation, or refer it back to the Commission for modification. If approved, the City of "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance provides, basically, that "no material change in the use or appearance of a landmark . . . shall be made or permitted to be made by the owner or occupant thereof unless and until an alteration permit shall have been obtained" from the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca. Before such a permit may be issued, any proposed alteration (including demolition) must be reviewed by, and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from, the Landmarks Commission. This letter is sent to parties who may have some interest in the pro- posed designation, as required by local regulations. Your attendance at the hearing or at other meetings dealing with this subject is welcome. For further information, please contact me at the above address, phone 607-272-1713, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. weekdays. Sincerely, JM/mc Jonathan Meigs Secretary ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION -2- P CITY OF ITHACA 1OB EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 ITHACA LANDMARKS TELEPHONE: 272-1713 PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 3, 1984 J. Rundle City Clerk City Hall ...:. Y? iL, DEC 5 1984 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Ithaca, td. Y. • I CODE 607 On December 3, 1984 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, an official agency of the City of Ithaca constituted under the provisions of Section 96-a of the General Municipal Laws of the State of New York, acted at a Special Meeting to schedule a Public Hearing for the purpose of obtaining public comment on the feasibility and desirability of designating as local land- marks the following buildings within the City of Ithaca on the Campus of Cornell University and the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences: Fernow Hall Stone Hall Roberts Hall East Roberts Hall Caldwell Hall Comstock Hall Bailey Hall The Public Hearing will be held Wednesday, December 19, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in Common Council Chambers, City Hall, City of Ithaca, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York. Any interested party is welcome to speak for or against designation at the hearing, in person or by representative, and may submit written statements for or against designation to the undersigned, prior to the hearing. Following the hearing, or at a subsequent official meeting of the Commission, the Commission may act to designate some or all of the indicated buildings. Within ninety (90) days of such action, having first received an advisory recommendation from the City's Board of Planning and Development, the Common "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" r - -2- Council of the City of Ithaca is required to approve or disapprove such designation, or refer it back to the Commission for modification. If approved, the City of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance provides, basically, that: "no material change in the use or appearance of a land- mark . . . shall be made or permitted to be made by the. owner or occupant thereof unless and until an alteration permit shall have been obtained" from the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca. Before such a permit may be issued, any proposed alteration (including demoli- tion) must be reviewed by, and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from, the Landmarks Commission. This letter is sent to parties who may have a direct or indirect interest in the proposed designation, as required by local regulations. Your attendance at the hearing or at other meetings dealing with this subject is welcome. For further information, please contact me at the above address, phone number 607-272-1713, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. weekdays. Sincerely, ,)Jonathan Meigs `- Secretary ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION JCM: jv V r ITHACA LANDMARKS CITY OF ITHACA 1 OB EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 141350 C,��-y C/�C TELEPHONE: 272-1713 PRESERVATION COMMISSION CODE 607 December 20, 1984 Mayor John C. Gutenberger COMMON COUNCIL MEMBERS Chairman, BOARD OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Dear Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen: At its regular meeting December 19, 1984, this Commission held an advertised public hearing to receive public comment on a proposal to designate seven buildings of the New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell as land- marks of the City of Ithaca. Written and verbal statements favoring and opposing designation were presented. Following the hearing, Commission member Reinberger, seconded by Commission member Centini, MOVED that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission designate as individual landmarks of the City of Ithaca: Bailey Hall, Cald- well Hall, Comstock Hall, Fernow Hall, East Roberts Hall, Roberts Hall, and Stone Hall. After discussion on the motion, a vote was taken, with the result that 4 members voted for (Reinberger, Loveall, Centini, Jones); 1 against (Richardson). As provided in Sec. 301(5) of the Commission's Rules of Proc- edure, "A11 matters shall be decided by a majority vote of those (members) present . . ."; the motion was thus duly PASSED. In accordance with Sec. 32.6c of the Municipal Code, this designation is hereby filed with Common Council and the Board of Planning and Development for action, as follows: "Within sixty (60) days of the designation by the Commission, the Planning Board shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such designation td the master plan, the zoning laws, projected public improvements and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved. The Council shall within ninety (90) days of said designation approve, disapprove or refer back to the Commission for modification." A copy of the record of the hearing, and copies of written statements and support- ing documents will be transmitted to you under separate cover for•your information "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Mayor Council Members Chair, Planning & Dev. Board -2- Dec. 20, 1984 and use in preparation of your report and consideration of approval. Please feel free to contact me or Preservation Coordinator Andrea Lazarski if you have further questions on this matter. Very truly yours, 10.0010b .ionathan C. Meigs Secretary, ILPC JCM: jv cc: Members of Board of Planning and Development City Clerk, Joseph Rundle Corporate Counsel, L. Richard Stumbar, Esq. Chairman, ILPC, Raymond DiPasquale Preservation Coordinator, Andrea Lazarski David L. Call, Vice President, Cornell University Shirley K. Egan, Attorney, Cornell Dr. Clifton J. Wharton, Chancellor, SUNY Irving H. Freedman, Vice Chancellor for Capital Facilities, SUNY Donald L. Dundon, Asst. Dir., University Real Property, Office for Capital Facilities, SUNY CITY OF ITHACA CITY HALL • 108 E. GREEN STREET • ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 • (607) 272-1713 MESSAGE REPLY Joseph Rundle DATE TO City Clerk L DATE . January 23, 1985 Enclosed for your records, please find a Resolution regarding landmark designation for the State University Agricultural Buildings at Cornell which was passed at the Planning and Development Board meeting on Jan. 22, 1985. BY H. M. Van Cort Sem p N -R73 a Wheeler Group Inc, 1982 INSTRUCTIONS TO SENDER: 1. KEEP YELLOW COPY. 2. SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES INTACT. —Kf"tachment - ) /mc SIGNED INSTRUCTIONS TO RECEIVER: 1. WRITE REPLY. 2. DETACH STUB. KEEP PINK COPY. RETURN WHITE COPY TO SENDER. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD RESOLUTION Re: New York State College of Agriculture Buildings - Cornell University WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board supports the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission's designation of Bailey, Comstock, Caldwell, Stone, Roberts, East Roberts and Fernow Halls based upon their historical importance to the city, state and nation as the first buildings of the New York State College of Agri- culture established by the legislature in 1904, and WHEREAS, the significance of these buildings has been acknowledged by their listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board believes that the designations are in compliance with existing zoning and overall city planning goals, and WHEREAS, although there are plans for partial redevelopment of the site, it is maintained that a greater public benefit would be achieved through the retention of culturally significant buildings and promotion of their rehabilitation, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board recommends designation of these seven (7) buildings and forwards this designation to Common Council with the request that the city monitor the State University Construction Fund to ensure that a full Environmental Impact Statement is undertaken on the entire project area as called for by State Environmental Quality Review regulations. PASSED: 5 -yea, 1 -abstention (Nichols) January 22, 1985 1/22/85 OFFICE OF MAYOR MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY- OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 Joseph Rundle, City Clerk Jon Meigs, Planning Department James;. Dennis, • Alderman_ Robert Holdsworth, Alderman Mayor John C. Gutenberger June 13,1985 East Hill Historic District Ithaca, New York 14850 "TELEPHONE: 272-1713 Attached hereto please find a copy of a. letter received today from Commissioner Lehman notifying us that the above noted property will be considered by the Committee on the Registers of the New York State Board for Historic Preserva- tion for nomination to the National and State Registers of• Historic Places, for your attention. CODE 607 Please note that comments must be received by July IOth, in order to be considered by the °`C.mmittee.. ATTACH. CC: Landmark_ Preservation Comm. Historic Ithaca Andrea 1Laza kj' "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" PE AT=ON L 0, m n offo O NEW YORK STATE Orin Lehman Commissioner New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Agency Building 1 Albany, New York 12238 June 11, 1985 John C. Gutenberger 108 East Green Street_ Ithaca, NY 14850 RECEIVED JUN 1.31985 518-474-0456 RE: East Hill Historic District Ithaca, Tompkins Co. Dear Mr. Gutenberger: We are pleased to inform you that the property noted above will be considered by the Committee on the Registers of the New York - State Board for Historic Preservation for nomination to the National and State Registers of Historic Places. The National Register anr1 the State Register are the federal and state governments' official lists of historic properties worthy of preservation. Listing in the Registers provides recognition and assistance in preserving our national, state, and local heritage. Enclosed is a copy of the criteria under which properties are evaluated. Listing in the National Register provides the following benefits to historic properties: Consideration in the planning .for federally assisted projects. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provides that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment on projects affecting such properties. -- Eligibility for federal tax provisions. If a property is listed in the National Register certain Federal tax provisions may apply. The Tax Reform Act of 1984 revises the historic preservation tax .incentives authorized by Congress in the Tax Reform Act of 197-6, the neve-nue-Ac-t of 1978, the Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980, and the. Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which provide for a 25 percent, investment - tax credit for rehabilitating historic commercial, industrial and rental residential buildings instead of a 15 or 20 percent credit available for rehabilitation of non -historic buildings more than thirty years old. This can be combined with an 18 -year cost recovery period for the adjusted basis of the building. Certified structures with certified rehabilitations receive additional tax savings because owners are allowed to reduce the basis by one half the amount of the credit. The Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980 provides Federal tax deductions for charitable contributions for conservation purposes of partial interests in historically important land areas or structures. For further information please refer to 36 CFR 67. - Consideration. of historic values in the decision to issue a surface coal mining permit where coal is located, in accord with the Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977. - - Qualification for federal grants for historic preservation when funds are available. - - Projects affecting properties listed in the National Register or recommended for listing by the Committee on the Registers of the State Board for Historic Preservation are considered Type I actions subject to the notice requirements of Section 617 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. -2 - Owners of private properties nominated to ,the National Register of Historic Places must be given an opportunity to concur in or obi;ect to listing in accord with the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 and federal regulations.36 CFR Part 60.' Any owner or partial owner of private property who chooses to object to listing is required to submit to the State Historic Preservation Officer a notarized statement certifying that the party.is the .sole or partial owner of the private property, as appropriate, and objects to.the listing. For a single privately owned property with one owner, the property will not be listed if the owner objects. In nominations with multiple ownership of a single property, the property.will not be listed if a majority of the owners objects. Each owner or partial owner of private property has one vote regardless of what part of the property that party owns. If the property cannot be listed because the owner or a majority of'owners. objects prior to the submission of a nomination to the state, the State Historic Preservation Officer shall submit the nomination to the Keeper of the National Register for a determination of the eligibility o_f the property for inclusion in the National Register. If the property is then determined eligible for listing, although not formally listed, federal agencies will be required to allow`the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment'before the agency may fund, license," or assist a project which. will affect the property. If you choose to object to the listing of your property, the notarized objection must be submitted to Orin Lehman, State Historic Preservation Officer, Historic Preservation Field Services 'Bureau, Agency Building #1, Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York, 12238 by July 10, 1985. Listing in the State Register provides the following benefits to historic properties: -- Consideration' in the planning for projects involving state agencies. Section 14.,09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act of a980 provides that the -Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation be given an oppor- tunity to comment on_ projects affecting listed properties. •- Consideration by state agencies, upon owner request, of private property for purchase, lease or rental for government use. -- Qualification forstate grants for__h stori_c _pr..e.ser.vation when, f-und"s are available. . There are no provisions in the New York State Historic Preservation Act that require owner consent prior to listing in .the:State Register of Historic Places. If you wish to comment on whether the property should be nominated to the National and State Registers, please send your comments to the above address. Comments must be received by July 10, 1985 ,in order to be considered at the Committee on the Registers next meeting. A draft copy of the proposed nomination is on file in this office and can be made available to you upon request. For more information,.please contact Lucy A. Breyer , Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Governor Nelson A._ -Rcok-efeiYer-E-mpre State Plaza, Albany, New York, 12238, (518) 474-0479. Enc. Sincerely-, Com incere l -y -, Com nisssier State Historic Preservation Officer G4:NriON v./ Q,. .r , �q� r� n cr a o O cn a New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation o .> The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza O ▪ NEW YORK STATE 2 Agency Building 1 Albany, New York 12238 518-474-0456 Orin Lehman Commissioner NATIONAL AND STATE REGISTERS CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION The following criteria are used to evaluate properties (other than areas of the National Park Service and National Historic rarxm,rks) for listing on the National and State Registers of Historic Places. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting,. materials, work- manship, feeling, and association and A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: . A. a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or B. a building or structure removed from its original location but which -is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly • associated with a historic person or event; or C. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or, building.directly associated with his productive life. D. a cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or E. a reconstructed. building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no • other building or structure with the same association has survived; or F. a property. primarily commemorative in inten- if design, age, tradition, or symbolic valuE has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or G. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. (Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60.4) CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF MAYOR July 8, 1985 giCEIVb JUL 1 0 1985 zD 0 Can OffMOU Ithaca, M. Y. 272-1713 Mr. Orin Lehman Commissioner State Historic Preservation Officer New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Agency Building I Albany, New York 12238 RE: East Hill Historic District Ithaca, Tompkins County Dear Commissioner Lehman: I am pleased to extend the City's support for the National Register nomination of the East Hill Historic District. These buildings merit this recognition as some of Ithaca's finest residences and also for the contributions East Hill has made in the development of the City of Ithaca. Ithaca takes great pride in its heritage and has had a strong record of accomplish- ments in rehabilitating and preserving its architecture. The City has retained the original central settlement area around DeWitt Park and nominated that collection of buildings to the National Register of Historic Places in 1971. Certainly the nomi- nation of the East Hill Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places would reinforce neighborhood esteem, acknowledge the importance of this area of the City, and encourage rehabilitation of older housing stock. The City of Ithaca is honored by the National Register Nomination of the East Hill neighborhood. Sincerely, // John C. Gutenberger Mayor CC: Common Council Members Joseph Rundle, City Clerk Planning Department "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" DE 607 v�. OFFICE OF MAYOR CITY OF ITHACA 1OB EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 MEMO TO: Richard Stumbar, City Attorney FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger 9 DATE: December 13, 1985 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 SUBJECT: PUBLIC NOTICE - NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF FINAL EIS - Project #16105/106 - Replace Antiquated Academic Buildings, Phase 11 Attached hereto please find the above entitled correspondence that was received today for your attention. ATTACH. CC: Joseph Rundle, City Clerk Thomas Hoard, Building Comm. Thys VanCort, Planning Director "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of Completion of Final EIS Lead Agency: State University Construction Fund Project # 16105/106 Address: State University Plaza P.O. Box 1946 Albany, New York 12201-1946 Date December 11, 1985 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has completed and accepted a Final Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed action described below. Title of Action: Replace Antiquated Academic Buildings, Phase II New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell Description of Action: The lead agency's recommended action (Recommended Alternate No. 5B, New Construction and Limited Demolition), involves (1) the construction of new academic and support program space (75,600 total net square feet); (2) the demolition of one (1) structure, Stone Hall; and (3) the retention of two (2) structures, Roberts and E. Roberts Halls, at the Agricultural Quadrangle at the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell. Location: New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University Agricultural Quadrangle City of Ithaca County of Tompkins Potential Environmental In►pacts: The lead agency has determined that the progression of, of the Recommended Alternate No. 5B, New Construction and Limited Demolition, would result in the demolition of one (1) structure (Stone Hall) which is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places and would result in 84,100 gross square feet of existing space being surplus to the needs of the State University system. The recommended action has been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation,. Office in accordance with the requirements of Section 14.09 of the State Historic Preservation Act and has been determined to be an appropriate action subject to the following mitigative measures: (1) Prior to its demolition, Stone Hall will be fully, recorded in accordance with the 2/15/85 guidelines titled "Photographic Documentation" The Construction Fund will submit one complete copy of all documentation to the New York State Archivist for permanent storage in the State Archives, as well as to this office; and (2) Uses for Roberts and E. Roberts Halls will be fully explored • and documented. All documentation will be provided to OPRHP for further discussion. If the buildings are transferred to Cornell, they will be transferred with a covenant. that ensures that the potential for their reuse will be fully explored in consulta- tion with OPRHP. Any further discussion regarding the demolition of these two buildings will take place subsequent to a thorough investigation of reuse potential, in consultation with OPRHP. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of Completion of Final EIS Page 2 Copies of the Final EIS may be obtained from: Contact Person: Dr. I. H. Freedman, General Manager Address: State University Construction Fund P.O. Box 1946 Albany, New York 12201-1946 Phone No.: (518) 473-1135 cc: Hon. Henry Williams, Commissioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Hon. John Gutenberger, Mayor, City of Ithaca Hon. Noel Desch, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Mr. Allan Coburn, Region 7 Ms. Barbara Ebert, Director, Historic Ithaca Ms. Julia Stokes, Deputy Commissioner for Historic Preservation C/77 CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 ITHACA LANDMARKS TELEPHONE: 272-1713 PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: CODE 607 Council Members, Sean Killeen, Peggy Haine, Susan Cummings, David Lytel Steve Fontana, Chairman, Collegetown Merchants Association Neff Cassaburri,.President, Collegetown Neighborhood Council Leslie Chatterton, Preservation Planner /46.. EAST HILL NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT December 8, 1986 As you may know, the City of Ithaca was notified recently that the East Hill Historic District is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The new National Register District includes all the properties in the smaller 'local historic district,._ded gusted in 1976 (see enclosed map). Significant characteristics of the National Register District include the following: East Hill is a comparatively large historic district which includes 264 contributing elements, covering a 29 -block area. The district contains the finest examples of Ithaca's 19th and early 20th century architecture, with focus on the 1870-1920 period, the height of the area's prestige and influence. The district contains numerous houses designed by notable Ithaca architect, William H. Miller. Miller was the first student of architecture at Cornell and had a tremendous impact on the City's architectural appearance. The architecture in the district reflects Ithaca's growth from a small industrial community to the influential and prominent educational center it has become since the found- ing of Cornell University and the New York State. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The following list summarizes how East Hill properties are and are not affected by National Register Listing: "An Equal'Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Memorandum Council Members, et al. Dec. 8, 1986 page 2. The National Register Does 1. Identify historically significant buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts, according to the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 2. Enable federal, state, and local agencies to consider historic properties in the early stages of planning projects. 3. Provide for review of federally funded, licensed, or sponsored projects which may affect historic properties.* 4. Encourage the rehabilitation of income- producing historic properties which meet preservaiton standards through tax incen- tives. The National Register Does NOT 1. Restrict the rights of private property owners in the use, development, or sale of private historic property. 2. Force federal, state, local, or private projects to be stopped. 3. Provide for review of state, local, or privately funded projects which may affect historic properties.* 4. Provide tax benefits to owners of residential historic properties, unless those properties are rental' and treated as income-producing. by IRS. Finally, all income producing properties in the district are potentially eligible for investment tax credit of up to 20% for certified rehabilitation projects. For more. information about this tax incentive, call the Historic Preservation Technical Services Bureau staff of the New York State Office of Parks, Recrea- tion and Historic Preservation, Albany, NY, (518)-474-7750. East Hill residents or others requesting further information. about the National and State Register listings or local designation of the East Hill Historic District should call Leslie Chatterton, Historic Preservation Planner, 272-1713, ext. 246. LJC: jv encl. cc: Mayor John Gutenberger Cort City Clerk, C. Paolangeli Bldg. Commissioner, T. Hoard * The East Hill District is also listed on the State Register, making State projects subject to review. Areas of the district are additionally designated.under Ithaca's Landmark Preservation Ordinance, making local and privately funded projects subject to approval of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation. Commission. AMA • ®.:::NV. pa{..V.3:; : "'<MAY '.:`.?:\:;:5 :::i:O* EAST HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 1 local district National Register district —u —1 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 At the regular monthly meeting of July 15, 1987, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) acted to schedule a Public Hearing for the purpose of obtaining public comment concerning local landmark designation of Stewart Park. The Public Hearing will be held on Monday, August 24, at 7:00 p.m., Common Council Chambers, third floor, City Hall,.108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, New York. All interested parties are invited to speak for or against the designation at the hearing, either in person or by repre- sentative, and may submit written statements to the ILPC Secretary prior to the hearing. Immediately following the hearing, or at a subsequent official meeting,. the ILPC may act to designate one of the following: * significant buildings and/or structuresin the Park • significant buildings, structures and their nearby surroundings * buildings, structures, surroundings and other significant elements of the built and natural environment * the entire Park Within ninety days of such action, the City Board of Planning and Development must file a report with Common Council concerning the designation and the Common Council will then act to approve, disapprove or refer the proposal back to the Commission for modification. If approved,. the City of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 32, Municipal Code) states: it shall be the duty of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to review all plans for any and allmaterial changes of use or appearance of a landmark or of a structure, memorial or site within any historic district and it shall have the power to pass upon such plans before a permit for such activity can be granted ... This hearing has been scheduled as a result of requests from members of the public and Historic Ithaca, Inc. A report documenting the Park's history has been prepared by Historic Ithaca andwas presented to the Landmarks Com- mission at the July meeting. Public notice will appear in the local newspaper 15 days prior to the hearing as stipulated in the ILPC Rules of Procedures. Your attendance at the hearing or at other meetings dealing with this subject is welcome. 8/14/87 Leslie A. Chatterton Secretary Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF ITHACA 1OB EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 MEMORANDUM TO: Cookie Paolangeli, City Clerk FROM: Ra ;' . . sh, City Attorney DATE: Mare" 28, 1989 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 RE: Appeal of Landmarks Preservation Commission Decision 132 North Quarry Street - Jason Fane, owner I am herewith enclosing a copy of correspondence and documents delivered to me in this regard by attorney Currey on behalf of Jason Fane. This appeal is being prosecuted to the Common Council pursuant to City Code § 32.9. Could you please place this material on the Common Council agenda for the April 5th meeting under "New Business." Thank you. RWN:blh enclosure cc: Leslie Chatterton, Planning Department Charles T. Currey, Esq. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" oar idit; ;'s Itkica,17. Y. �� 22. NEW BUSINESS - AGENDA ITEM 1 CHARLES T. CURREY ATTORNEY AT LAW 109 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 607 272-3700 Ralph W. Nash, Esq. Ithaca City Attorney 108 E. Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 March 14, 1989 Re: Demolition Permit (132 N. Quarry Street) Dear Ralph: R16 22.1 Pursuant to your letter of February 6, 1989, I am enclosing herewith the following documents for action: 1. Certificate of Appropriateness submitted to the Historic Preservation Committee. 2. City Short Environmental Assessment Form submitted to the Landmarks Preservation Commission. 3. Long Environmental Assessment Form - Part I submitted to the Landmarks Preservation Commission. 4. Positive Declaration submitted by the Landmarks Preservation Commission to my office. I am also enclosing a copy of Judge Bryant's Order in this matter which was submitted to the Landmark's Preservation Commission, although I do not believe that it came from my office. I have already enclosed the written decision of the Landmarks Preservation Commission but, for the sake of completeness, I am enclosing another copy with these papers. Mr. Fane does not believe and disputes that it was established at the hearing in this matter that this garage has any special character, special historical or aesthetic interest or value or that it reflects any distinct period or style of architecture typical of garages of the 1930's. Mr. 'Fane further believes that the criteria proposed in the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance for denial of the issuance of a demolition permit were not met by the opponents of the -2 - issuance of this permit. It should be noted that, but for the action of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the City of Ithaca Building Department was prepared to issue the necessary demolition permit. Pleae advise if we need do anything further in order to perfect this appeal. As indicated on the second page of the January 24, 1989 decision, I am filing all of these documents in duplicate with the secretary of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, anticipating that one copy will be forwarded to the secretary of the Common Council. If either Mr. Fane or myself or both of us need to be present at any further hearing or proceeding with respect to the determination of this appeal, please let us know. Yours very truly, Charles T. Currey CTC:jg Enclosure cc: Jason Fane Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (tirC) 1.y PROPERTY/BUILDING ADDRESS 131 North Quarry Street, Ithaca, New York a. HISTORIC BUILDING NAME (if any) none BUSINESS NAME (if any) none 2. APPLICANf's NAME Jason Fane ADDRESS (1f different than above) 133 North Quarry PHONE 273-9463 INTEREST IN PROPERTY: OWNER ,LESSEE PROSPECTIVE BUYER OTHER (please explain) occupant 3. OWNER'S NAME (if other than above) East Hill School Cooperative, Inc. ADDRESS PHONE 4. IN WHAT CITY ZONE IS THIS PROPERTY LOCATED? (consult ILPC staff or a copy of Ithaca's Zoning Hap) S. HISTORIC/ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNATION (indicate Yes or No to as many as apply) A. Is the property locally designated as an individual landmark and/or within• a local historic district ? B. Is the property listed in the State or National Registers of Historic Places as an individual landmark and/or within a State or National Register Historic district ? C. If No to "B" above. has -the property been determined to be eligible for listing and/or has it been proposed for listing on the State and National Register of Historic Places? 6. WHAT IS THE PRESENT USE OF THE PROPERTY? (commercial. residential; industrial, etc.) garage • NUMBER -OF UNITS IF RESIDENTIAL 7. APPROVAL IS REQUESTED FOR (check one or more that describe your proposed project): exterior alteration requiring replacement or change of materials, openings. ornament.etc. repair (not in-kind) signs: historic new restoration change of use: to demolition landscape/site work new construction/addition to: other (please briefly describe) building and/or site 8. DESCRIPTION OF EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND MATERIAL CHANGES: Please describe all proposed changes in the appropriate space(s) below. Use as many as apply to your project. Hake reference to any supporting materials - plans, specifications, elevations, photographs, samples, ecc. that you are supplying as part of this application. (See ques. 10 for a list of recommended documents.) A. Exterior Surfaces: describe the existing and proposed materials - shingles, clapboard, masonry. etc. - and their use in the proposed work for the following: Walls Roof (please specify materials and method of attachment of roofing materials) Foundation B. Openings: describe the proposed changes in material. location. size and shape to the following: Window(s) Door(s) C. Ornamental Elements: describe the proposed repair. replacement. replication and/or addition of ornamental features - roof trim, porches. balconies. etc. Please in- dicate the specific location of the proposed change(s) D. Demolition: please describe the extent of the proposed demolition (some or•all of the structure(s) on the site) Total E. New Construction: please describe proposed new construction, epe.cifying whether this.is a new free-standing structure or an addition. Specify its location in relation to the rest of the building or the site. F. Signs: -please describe the proposed removal or addition of any signs. Describe new signs in terms of size. materials. graphics/typeface, colors. location, method of attachment.and illumination. C. Landscape: describe the number. type. size and location of any trees, hedges and other plant materials that are to be effected by the proposed work. Specify if new plant materials are to be introduced. none H. Site work: describe how the proposed work will effect the following: pavements. walls. fences. terraces, patios. parking areas, etc. If parking areas are to be changed or introduced. please mention their location. size, number of spaces and the type of surface .material(s) to be used. Existing garage to be demolished - no new structure to be built II I. Other work: please describe any other proposed.exterior changes to the structure(s) i or to the site that are the subject of this application. 9. DOES THE PROPOSED WORK REQUIRE A PERMIT. VARIANCE OR OTHER APPROVAL (other than ILPC)? (check one or more) Building Dept. Permit X Planning and Development Board Approval Board of Zoning Appeals Approval Other 10. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION WILL ASSIST YOUR PROPOSED WORK _(please check the information scaled architectural drawings - THE ILPC MEMBERS AND STAFF IN THEIR REVIEW OF that you are submitting): • material samples U color samples - "chips" manufacturers'/suppliers' catalogues other plane. elevations, details. etc. _specifications X photographs slides _ historical materials (photographs and/or written work that support the restor- ation, replacement or repair option you have selected) IMPORTANT NOTE: Please submit all documentation on paper no larger than 11x17 inches in•order to ensure good quality reproduction. 1 have aead. and • 6amiJian.i.zed myaet6 tach the contents o6 £hi6 appEica.tion, and do hereby concent to ita eubmiAAion and prtoceee.ing. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE January 11, 1989 SIGNATURE OF OWNER (IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT) DATE CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM 1. Project Information/to be completed by applicant orpr •. Applicant/Sponsor Jason Fane 2. Project Name 3. Project Location: 131 North Quarry Street, Ithaca, New York• 4. Is Proposed Action: G New O Expansion O Modification/Alteration 5. Describe Project Briefly: Demolition of existing garage 6. Precise Location (Road Intersections, Prominent Landmarks, etc., or Provide Map) see attached picture of garage building 7. Amount of Land Affected: Initially 700 ftil cgc}gle Sq. Ft. Ultimately 700 c o e Sq. Ft. 8. Will Proposed Action Comply With Existing Zoning or Other Existing Land Use Restrictions? GYes O No If No, Describe Briefly 9. What is Present Land Use in Vicinity of Project? `:J Residential O Industrial aParkland/Open Space 0 Commercial Describe: Single and multiple family 0 Agricultural O Other residences 10. Does Action Involve a Permit/Approval, or Funding, Now or Ultimately, From Governmental Agency (Federal, State or Local)? x Yes '-) No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval. Type City of Ithaca - Demolition Permit 11. Does Any Aspect of the Action Have a Currently Valid Permit or Approval? G Yes Q No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type 12. As a Result of Proposed Action Will Existing Permit/Approval Require Modification? . Yes rl No N/A I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name Jason Fane Date January 11._ 1989 Signature SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (SEAF) INSTRUCTIONS: In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. Environmental Assessment 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than one acre of land? Yes x No 2. Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site or to any site designated a unique natural area or critical environmental area by a local or state agency? Yes x No 3. Will project alter or have an effect on an existing waterway? Yes x No 4. Will project have an impact on groundwater quality? Yes x No 5. Will project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? Yes x No 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? Yes x No 7. Will project result in an adverse effect on air quality? Yes x No 8. Will project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes x No 9. Will project adversely impact any site or structure of historic, pre -historic, or paleontological importance or any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark district? x Yes No 10. Will project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? Yes x No 11. Will project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems? Yes x No 12. Will project cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's operation during construction or after completion? Yes x No 13. Will project have any impact on public health or safety? Yes x No 14. Will project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent populations of more than 5 percent over a one-year period or have a negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? Yes x No 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? Yes x No If.any question has been answered Yes a completed Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) is necessary. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: TITLE: Attorney REPRESENTING: Jason Fane DATE: Jan. 11, 1989 LEAF LONG ENVIRONMENTAL•ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 1 Project Information by Applicant NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verifications and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete PARTS 2 and 3. NAME AND LOCATION OF PROJECT: 131 North Quarry Street Ithaca, New York NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Jason Fane (Name) 133 North Quarry Street (Street) Ithaca, NY 14850 (P.O.) (State) (Zip) BUSINESS PHONE: 273-9463' NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different East Hill School -Cooperative, Inc (Name) (Street) NY 14850 (P.O.) BUSINESS PHONE: (State) (Zip) TYPE OF PROJECT: Demolition (PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - indicate N.A. if not applicable) A. SITE DESCRIPTION (Physical setting of overall project, both developed and 1. Character of the land: Generally uniform slope rolling or irregular x . 2. Present land use: Urban x Industrial , Commercial , Public Forest , Agricultural Other 3. Total area of project: acres, or 400 square feet. undeveloped areas) Generally uneven and Approximate Area: Meadow or Brushland Wooded Agricultural Wetland (as per article 24 of E.C.L.) Public Water Surface Area Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (indicate type) Presently 0 acres/sq. 0 acres/sq. 0 acres/sq. 0 acres/sq. 0 acres/sq. 0 acres/sq. 0 acres/sq. 400 ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ab /sq. ft. acres/sq. ft. After Completion 0 acres/sq. ft. o acres/sq. ft. o acres/sq. ft. 0 acres/sq. 0 acres/sq. 0 acres/sq. 400 acres/sq. 0 ft. ft. ft. ft. 8t4-4/sq. ft. acres/sq. ft. -2 4. (a) What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? e.g., HdB, silty loam, etc., Rock (b) Percentage well drained 100 , moderately well drained , poorly drained 5. (a) Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? Yes X No. (b) What is depth of bedrock? (c) What is depth to the water table? (in feet). feet. 6. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 0-10% 0 %; 10-15% %; 15% or greater -%. 7. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes x No. 8. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? Yes x No; Identify each species 9. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, .gorges, other geological formations)? Yes x No. Describe 10. Is project within or contiguous to a site designated a unique natural area or critical environmental area by a local or state agency? Yes x No; Describe 11. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? Yes x No. 12. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes x No. 13. Is project contiguous to, or does it contain a building or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places? Yes x No; if Yes, explain ; or designated a local landmark or in a local landmark district? Yes N( 14. Streams within or contiguous to project site: a. Names of stream or name of river to which it is tributary N/A 15. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project site: a. Name N/A ; B. Size (in acres) N/A 16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project? (e.g. single family residential, R -la or R -1b) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story) multi -family and single family residential. 17. Has the site been used for land disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Yes x No; If Yes, describe -3- B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor 0 acres or 0 square feet. b. Project acreage developed: acres initially; acres ultimately. 400 Sq. ft. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 100% d. Length of project in miles (if appropriate) or feet 200 e. If project is an expansion or demolition of existing building or use, indicate percent of change proposed: building square footage 400 ; developed acreage 0 f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 2 ; proposed 0 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per day 0 and per hour 0 (upon completion of project). h. If residential: Number and type of housing units (not structures): One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial 0 0 0 0 Ultimate 0 0 0 0 If: Commercial Orientation - check one Neighborhood City Regional Estimated Employment N/A If: Industrial; N/A N/A N/A i. Total height of tallest proposed structure: feet. 2. Specify what type of natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) and how much will be removed from the site none or added to the site none 3. Specify what type of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cover) and how much will be removed from site - acres. none 4. Will any mature trees or other locally -important vegetation bg removed by this project? Yes x No. 5. Are there any plans for re -vegetation to replace that removed during construction? Yes x No. None will be removed. -4- 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction months (including demolition). 7. If multi -phased project: a. Total number of phases anticipated b. Anticipated date of commencement phase one month year (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phases? Yes No. 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes x No; if yes, explain 15 days 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 0 is completed 0 . 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 ; after project . Explain 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes x No. If yes, explain 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes x No. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) c. If surface disposal, where specifically will effluent be discharged? 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? Yes x No. 14. a. Will project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to the 100 year flood plain? Yes x No. b. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly oFall within or contiguous to: no Cayuga Inlet, n no Cascadilla Creek, no Cayuga Lake, no Six Mile Creek, no Silver Creek? c. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to wetlands as described in Article 24 of the ECL? Yes x No. d. If yes for a, b, or c, explain 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? x Yes No. b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? x Yes No. c. If yes, give name: ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Yes x No. If yes, explain E. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site? Yes x No. If yes, explain 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes x No. If yes, specify 17. Will project affect a building or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places? Or designated a local landmark or in a landmark district? Yes x No. If yes, explain i . . -5- 18. Will project produce odors? Yes X No. If yes, describe 19. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise level during construction? Yes X No; After construction? Yes No. 20. Will project result in an increase in energy use? Yes x No; if yes, indicate type(s) 21. Total anticipated water usage per day 0 gals/day. Source of water 22. Zoning: a. What is dominant zoning classification of site? Residential b. Current specific zoning classification of site? c. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? Yes d. If no, indicate desired zoning 23. Approvals: a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes No. Specify b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? Yes X No. Specify c. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Submittal Approval (Yes -No) Required(type) (Date) (Date) Council BZA P&D Board Landmarks BPW Fire Dept. Police Dept. IURA Building' Commissioner Yes Demolition Permit C. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid them. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: TITLE REPRESENTING' DATE Attorney for Jason Fane Jason Fane January 13, 1989 City of Ithaca Planning and Developmenr 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 SEQR 617.21 Appendix E POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance Project Number Date. January 11, 1989 This notice'is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission , as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: Demolition of garage in the East Hill Historic District SEQR Status: Type I Description of Action: The proposal is the demolition of a two bay, yellow brick garage. The structure is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District, listed on the National and State Registers of Historic Places and designated locally as well. The garage was probably constructed in the 1930s. The property on which the garage is located belongs to the East Hill Cooperative, occupying the former East Hill School. During litigation following the Cooperative's attempt to evict the lessee, he asserted ownership of the property on the theory of adverse possession. The State of New York Supreme Court ruled that the Cooperative was entitled to evict the lessee, however, in accordance with terms of the lease upon termination the lessee could remove the garage from the premises. Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.) The address of the garage is 132 North Quarry Street, Ithaca, Tompkins County, although the site belongs to the East Hill Cooperative located at 111 Stewart Avenue. See map attached. SEQR Positive Declaration Page 2 Reasons Supporting This Determination: The action,may have a significant effect because demolition will result in the impairment of the character and quality of an important historical and archi- tectural resource. The action was assessed in connection with the overall setting of North Quarry Street and the East Hill Historic District and the irreversibility of the proposed demolition. The brick masonry garage is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District which despite probable alteration of the door, retains the form and detailing characteristic of the district's period of significance. The action may have a significant effect because the demolition may result in a substantially adverse change to erosion susceptibility. The action was assessed in connection with probability of occurring and controllability. At the rear of the garage, (west), the ground drops steeply and the degree to which the foundation may contribute to stabilization of the bank is unknown. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Person: Leslie A. Chatterton, Secretary to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Address: 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Telephone Number: 607-272-1713 A COPY OF THIS NOTICE SENT TO: Commissioner, Department. of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 Appropriate Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Conservation Office of the Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located. Applicant (if any) Jason Fane, Ithaca Renting Company, Post Office Box 642, Ithaca, NY 14851 Other involved agencies (if any) Regional Office VII, Department of Environmental Conservation, Syracuse, NY Conservation Advisory Council Peter Dieterich, Acting Building Commissioner Ralph W. Nash, Esq., City Attorney Charles Currey, Esq. J. 1 1 g 1 sr, rg Y 1 g. i)• 11 t•1 .510 611 604 11 11 y . 642 _ . __.. -- —j op, -- -- •-•-- . 704 l ' ' �� �JENEG�' S?REET 706 711 M 1Jx 0 O. Bot • s ij II ill ,:cwt: ` .: ^►'fir' ,,dltestItPgi �+� s`• w cs- . Er eku yi r_ !u EM. PM .v i , al ti. Ur ; i ,N I .JT' 1 • T Tr,_...Lh, 1 ry kairm.Lmor... At. an Equity Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Tompkins at the Courthouse, Ithaca, New York commencing on December 9, 1935. PRESENT: HONORABLE FREDERICK B. BRYANT, JUSTICE STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS EAST HILL SCHOOL COOPERATIVE, INC., Petitioner, ORDER v. Index No. 85-166 JASON FANE, Respondent. The above -entitled summary proceeding brought by the plaintiff to evict the defendant from the premises allegedly owned by the plaintiff, and this action having been transferred from the city court of Ithaca after defendant in his answer asserted ownership of the property on a theory of adverse possession and by stipulation an order having been entered with this court that the notice of petition and petition was to be treated as a summons and complaint and the answer to the petition was to be considered an answer to the complaint, and the action the issues so joined having duly come to be heard and having been duly tried before the undersigned at the above captioned terra of this court on December 20, 1985, and the plaintiff having 1 appeared with Bixler & Stumbar, Elizabeth J. Bixler 'of counsel, its attorneys and the defendant having appeared with Charles T. Currey, Esquire, his attorney and testimony having been given in open court, and the undersigned having heard and considered the proof offered and having made a Decision in writing dated February 19, 1986, NOW, a motion of Bixler & Stumbar, Elizabeth J. Bixler of counsel, attorneys for plaintiff, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment evicting all occupants of the garage on the real property owned by plaintiff from further occupation of the premises, and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the defendant, in accordance with the terms of the July 1, 1966 lease, may remove the garage building from the premises within sixty days of the date of entry of.judgment herein. ENTER. Dated: , 1986 Ithaca, New York Approved as to form: 4/1 adw , k4444 Charles T. Currey / Attorney for the Respondent II 2 HON. FREDERICK B. BRYANT SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850 ITHACA LANDMARKS TELEPHONE: 272-1713 PRESERVATION COMMISSION CODE 607 January 24, 1989 Mr. Jason Fane Ithaca Renting Company Post Office Box 642 Ithaca, NY 14851 Dear Mr. Fane• At a special meeting held on Thursday, January 19, 1989, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission reviewed the proposal to demolish the garage located at 132 North Quarry Street, East Hill Historic District. The Commission first undertook evaluation of the Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF and LEAF). Because the property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the East Hill Historic District, the action is defined as a Type I action. under both the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. The Commission determined by unanimous vote that the proposed demolition would result in a major impact that cannot be reduced and may cause significant damage to the environment. In reaching this decision the Commission noted that the structure is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District. As a good representative example of a 1930s garage it has a special character, special historical and aesthetic interest and value, and it reflects a distinct period and style of architecture typical of the era. It was also noted that the structure is in sound condition and that neither the owner or his representative presented a viable reason for the demolition. Additional concern was expressed regarding the stability of the slope should the garage and its foundation be removed from the site. As a result of this action the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is required before the proposal can proceed. The Commission then reviewed the Certificate of Appropriatenress application filed on January 11, 1989. Approval of the application was denied by unanimous vote. The Commission noted in discussion that the application does not meet the criteria of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance under which demolition of a designated historic resource may be approved (Municipal Code, 32.6F). 'An Equal Opportunely Employrr wqh an Alhnnal,.« p: h7n Program" Jason Fane Jan. 24, 1989 -2- Applicants.in disagreement with the Commission's decisions may take appeals to the Common Council. An appeal must be made within sixty (60) days after the action from which the appeal is made. The applicant shall file his appeal in duplicate with the Secretary of the Commission; one copy of which shall be forwarded to the Secretary of the Common Council. Appeals shall be signed by the property owner or a certified agent. In closing, the Commission would like to extend its appreciation for your cooperation in supporting the architectural and historic character of the East Hill Historic District. Sincerely, �LhGie % ��% Leslie A. Chatterton Secretary Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission LAC/mc cc: Barclay G. Jones, Chair Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Peter Dieterich Acting Building Commissioner Richard Eckstrom Plan Review Officer H. Matthys Van Cort, Director Planning and Development —Charles T. Cbrrey, Esq. 0-LC-132NQuar CITY F= ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 - OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY February 6, 1989 Charles T. Currey, Esq. 109 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Demolition Permit 132 North Quarry Street Dear Chuck: TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 This is in response to your recent letter on this matter. There is no specific form on which an appeal to Common Council is made. Please submit all information previously submitted to the Landmarks Commission together with all letters, orders or findings relative thereto made by the Commission and its staff. You should also include a statement of reasons why you feel Common Council should overturn the Commissions Decision. RWN:blh truly, , / r Ra�1hph , . Nash City A torney cc: Leslie Chatterton, Planning Department 'An Eoual C:oortun.ty E•^Moyer wren an AILrmalae :.nnn Prnaram" CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CITY CLERK CODE 607 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GUTENBERGER CITY ATTY.NASH ALDERPERSONS FROM: C. PAOALANGELI, CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 23, 1989 SUBJ: LOCAL DESIGNATION - CORNELL HEIGHTS Leslie Chatterton filed the attached document in the City Clerk's office. I am attaching it for your review. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 ITHACA LANDMARKS. . PRESERVATION COMMISSION Local Designation Cornell Heights TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 At the regular monthly;meeting held on August 14, 1989, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determined by unanimous vote that those portions of the proposed Cornell Heights National Register District located within the city limits meet criteria for local designation as stipulated in Section 32.3(3) of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. By this action, the Commission recommends to the Common Council local historic district designation. See appendix Items 1 and 2 for a map and address list of the 131 affected properties. The Commission's vote followed a public hearing at which eleven property owners and representatives spoke in favor of designation and six property owners and representatives spoke against designation. In addition the Commission Chairperson read written comments in favor of local designation from three property owners and written comments against local designation from three property owners. Prior to the vote recommending local designation, the Commission, as lead agency for the environmental review in accordance with Section 32.6 1 of Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code, Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, determined by unanimous vote that the designation will result in no major impacts and, therefore, is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment. This action constitutes a negative declaration and terminates the environmental review. The Commission based its decision that Cornell Heights meets the criteria for local designation on findings of historic and architectural significance put forward by the New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation (also the designated state historic preservation office SHPO), the New York State Committee on the Registers, and New York State Commissioner of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation, Orin Lehman. These findings, as prepared by the SHPO and presented to the Committee on the Registers at the hearing held in Albany on June 24, 1989 are item 3 of the appendix. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Local Designation —2— Cornell Heights Data supporting the Commission's recommendation for local designation was collected in the spring of 1987 during survey work undertaken with a Certified Local Government Subgrant from the SHPO. Survey work and preparation of the. National Register nomination were carried out by a 32 CFR Part 61 qualified consultant as identified in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. These qualifications define the minimum education and experience required to perform identification, evaluation, registration and treatment activities. The survey consultant, Department of Planning and Development staff and SHPO staff worked closely throughout the survey and preparation of the nomination to evaluate survey data and establish the existing boundaries for the survey area. The Commission plans to forward its recommendation for local designation to the Common Council for consideration at the meeting to be held on September 6, 1989..This report has been prepared in accordance with Section 36.6c of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, wherein it is stated that the Commission "shall file a copy of the designation with the Planning Board and with Common Council". August 21, 1989 O—LC—LocalDes.CHt Appendix Item 1 Cornell.. Heights Local Historic District Map Appendix Item 2 Cornell Heights Local Historic District Property List 1. 109 Barton Place 104 Brook Land 109 Dearborn Place 116 Dearborn Place 202 Dearborn Place 208 Dearborn Place 213 Dearborn Place 215 Dearborn Place 216 Dearborn Place 1 Edgecliff Place 101 Edgecliff Place 112 Edgecliff Place 202 Fall Creek Drive 209-11 .Fall Creek Drive_ 212 Fall Creek Drive 216 Fall Creek Drive 218 Fall Creek Drive 220 Fall Creek Drive 225 Fall Creek Drive 302 Fall Creek Drive 310 Fall Creek Drive 316 Fall Creek Drive 326 Fall Creek Drive 110-12 Heights Court 111-13 Heights Court 114 Heights Court 115 Heights Court 116-16$ Heights Court 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.c_ 44. 45: 46. 47. 48. 118 119 120 121 123 125 106 110 150 200 201 203 111 114 115 116 121 125 126 210 Heights Court Heights Court Heights Court Heights Court Heights Court Heights Court Highland Avenue Highland Avenue Highland Avenue Highland Avenue Highland Avenue Highland Avenue Kelvin Place Kelvin Place Kelvin Place Kelvin Place Kelvin Place Kelvin Place Kelvin Place Kelvin Place 49. 212 Kelvin Place 50. 1 Lodgeway 51. 5 Lodgeway 52. 6-6# Lodgeway 53. 8 Lodgeway 54. 10 Lodgeway 55. 105 Needham Place 56. 2 Ridgewood Road 57. 40 Ridgewood Road 58. 55 Ridgewood Road 59. 100 Ridgewood Road 60: 115.Ridgewood.Road 61. 122 Roberts Place 62. 123 Roberts Place 63. 124 Roberts Place' 64. =900' Stewart Avenue 65. -916 Stewart Avenue 66. 934 -Stewart Avenue 67.. 1022" Stewart Avenue 68. 1024 ,Stewart . Avenue 69. 402 The Knoll 70. '106 The Knoll 71. 111. The Knoll 72. 115.The Knoll 73 115x: The -Knoll' 74. 119 The Knoll 75. 101 Thurston Avenue 76. 117 Thurston Avenue 77. 119 Thurston Avenue 78. 121 Thurston Avenue 79. 140 Thurston Avenue 80. 201 Thurston Avenue 81. 205 Thurston Avenue 82. 210 Thurston Avenue 83. 214. Thurston Avenue 84. -223- Thurston Avenue 85. 30.5- Thurston Avenue 86. 312 Thurston Avenue 87. 315 Thurston Avenue 88. 401 Thurston Avenue 89. 410 Thurston Avenue 90. 411 Thurston Avenue 91. 504 Thurston Avenue 92. 508 Thurston Avenue 93. 520-22 Thurston Avenue 94. 534 Thurston Avenue 95. 536 Thurston Avenue 96 102 Triphammer Road Appendix Item 2 Cornell Heights local Historic District Property 97. 109 Triphammer Road 98. 110 Triphammer Road 99. 117 Triphammer Road 100. 118 Triphammer Road 101. 124 Triphammer Road 102. 150 Triphammer Road 103.. 118 Wait Avenue 104.. 120 Wait Avenue 105. _122 Wait Avenue 106. 208 Wait Avenue 107. 209 Wait Avenue 108. 214 Wait Avenue 109. 216 Wait Avenue 110. 218 Wait Avenue 111. 222 Wait Avenue 112. 228 Wait Avenue 113. 230 Wait Avenue 114. 302 Wait Avenue 115. 307 Wait Avenue 116. 308 Wait Avenue 117. 313 Wait Avenue 118. 319 Wait Avenue 119. 105 Westbourne Lane 120. 110 Westbourne Lane 121. 116 Westbourne Lane 122. 126 Westbourne Lane 123. 201# Wyckoff Avenue 124. 203 Wyckoff Avenue 125.. 205 Wyckoff Avenue 126. 301 Wyckoff Avenue 12.7. 303-05 Wyckoff -Avenue 128. 403 Wyckoff Avenue 129. 419 Wyckoff Avenue 130. 425 Wyckoff Avenue 131. 435 Wyckoff Avenue Appendix Item 3 Cornell Heights Local Designation Historic and Architectural Significance Tompkins County Cornell Heights Historic District, Ithaca Period of Significance: 1898-1937 Areas of Significance: Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Community Planning Level of Significance: Local Proposal: The Cornell Heights.Historic District is architecturally and historically significant as an exceptional intact example of a turn -of -the -century planned residential suburban development placed in an outstanding natural setting along the northern rim of Fall Creek Gorge overlooking the city of Ithaca and the southern tip of Cayuga Lake. The district's curvilinear street plan, lavish landscape features, dramatic geographical setting, strictly residential character (devel'oped on large private lots) and its historical pattern of development place it within the romantic tradition of the "ideal" residence park developed in the second half of the nineteenth century and.popularized by Frederick Law Olmsted after the Civil War. This idea gained its greatest momentum in the period after World War I,. as the upper middle class sought to retreat from the pressures of the modern industrialized city. The pattern of development here, distinguished by an association with a single land company that employed the services of landscape architect (William Webster of Rochester) and financed virtually every aspect of physical improvement in the subdivision, though not unique, was unusual in an era in which trolley suburbs along the barren fringes of large cities were being mass produced on rectilinear street plans by hundreds of speculators, contractors, and private property owners. Cornell Heights was promoted by its owners as a high- class residential suburb and it evolved in that fashion. Homes, both modest and grand, were erected here between the years 1898 and 1937. They were all built to individualized designs and several represent the. work of Ithaca's foremost turn -of -the - century architects, including William H. Miller. A further dimension of significance stems from the intimate relationship between Cornell Heights' and Cornell University. The impetus toward development of the subdivision was closely linked to Cornell University's major expansion around the turn -of -the - century, a program that had a tremendous effect on the small village of Ithaca and sparked its growth into its present size and character. At its inception, Cornell Heights was considered an "addition" or suburb of Cornell University itself and it served as home for many of the university's professors and students. Some of the leading figures n the early -twentieth century of the university resided in Cornell Heights and faculty members of national and international renown continue to make Cornell Heights their home today. Retaining a high level of integrity, the Cornell Heights, Historic District illustrates an important aspect of American planning and recalls a significant period in the history of Ithaca. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR To: From: Re: Date: dt --••-• CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 MEMORANDUM Callista F. Paolangeli, City Clerk Leslie Chatterton, Preservation Planner M Local Designation - Cornell Heights August 24, 1989 In accordance with city regulations, please file the enclosed documents (local historic designation of Cornell Heights) from the, Planning and Development Board. LC/mc Enclosures _ V,z• e 0-LC#2-LocalDes.Clk "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14050 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607 Local Designation Cornell Heights Reviewed by the Board of Planning and Development In accordance with Section 32.6c of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, "the Planning Board shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the master plan, the zoning laws, projected public improvements and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved. The following report has been prepared to address these considerations. 1. Relation to the master plan Local designation of Cornell Heights strengthens neighborhood objectives stated in Ithaca, N. Y.: A General Plan, 1971 (p. 26) as follows: "Efforts should be made to control the growth, to retain the quality of the residential stock and to maintain the medium—density residential character of the Cornell Heights neighborhood." 2. Relation to zoning laws The greatest area of the proposed historic district is zoned for residential use and includes R -2a, R -3a, and R—U districts, (see appendix Item 1). The only other classification is P-1 which totals less than 2% of all the acreage, all under the ownership of Cornell University. It is not the intent of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance to prohibit uses permitted by zoning. In practice the Commission reviews proposals to insure that any change in exterior appearance is compatible with the structure and surrounding improvements. Zoning regulations specifying minimum lot coverage and yard dimensions for the R -2a, R -3a and R—U districts are compatible with the existing character of the Cornell Heights neighborhood. Regulations in the P-1 zone are also "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Local Designation/Cornell Heights -2- generally compatible with existing neighborhood character except for the- absence of a height limit. When considering an application for alteration or new construction in the P-1 zone, the Commission would evaluate matters such as the applicable regulation and existing character of neighboring buildings, any special conditions of the site, and characteristics of the proposed design to determine an appropriate height. 3. Relation to projected public improvements Although there has been general discussion concerning the advantages and disadvantages of straightening Triphammer Road south of Sisson P1 -ace, this proposal has not appeared in the Five Year Capital Projects Plan and has not been placed on the agenda of any appropriate city board or committee. No other public improvements have been proposed for this area. 4. Relation to plans for renewal of the site or area. The overall high quality and good condition of the building stock in this residential neighborhood and the prevalence of middle to upper -middle income property owners precludes consideration by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency of Cornell Heights as a target area. Overall the process serves to: • provide property owners with informed recommendations regarding design, materials, and technical procedures appropriate to the rehabilitation of historic properties, prevent hasty demolition or inappropriate alterations to the city's designated architectural and historic resources, ensure that new development will not depreciate the value of significant structures and/or areas located nearby. As a final note, local designation has led to stabilization of neighborhoods and improvements to building stock and can increase property value and sales potential. August 22, 1989 O-LC-LocalDes.PBd. .108 H LL -H AGA :0..LE GE LEGEND R -la R•2a =:T R•3a C :3 R•U °°°° R1b uz R -2b R -3b CSU gCtSU B -la B•2a/l� B -2c B-4 �,A'iildilddi B1b W.7. B-2 b�//l B•3 W.0.4 B•5 P.1 r_ i MH -1 landmark -1 i 1 district i ZONING MAP CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK ADOPTED 5/25/77 CERTIFIED: 4• CITY CLERK As Amended Thru 4/1/87 .SkiAVbt:4a'iw's i.f: 1:►:.y �a..1. ST •T V 1= it MMMMMM NMI' ME MMMMMM CITY CEMETERY O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 !i0 0_0 u.•,Iven•lTY I 1:1I • o• •� _ • _•_'ILS• • • • • •r • • • FALLS p, W 4 4 I O CORNELL I4/ UNI "EF-SITY TOw E A —.• FORE • fs:dt;., 11 II II 1 1 •lam•.•.. •.r _ 4 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Common Council Resolution August 22, 1989 Re: Local Designation of Cornell Heights WHEREAS, in July 1986, Common Council authorized the Director of Planning and Development to submit an application to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation for a Certified Local Government Subgrant to conduct a historic and architectural resources survey and prepare a National Register nomination for the Cornell Heights neighborhood, and WHEREAS, the findings of the survey and nomination showed that the significance and integrity of the Cornell Heights survey area meets criteria for listing on the New York State and National Register of Historic Places, and WHEREAS, the New York State Commissioner on Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation has concurred with the City's finding and on May 12, 1989 recommended listing on the New York State and National Register of Historic Places, and WHEREAS, the Cornell Heights neighborhood is extremely vulnerable to development pressure, and WHEREAS, local designation serves to protect the existing character of neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, following the public hearing held on August 14, 1989, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission as lead agency determined by unanimous vote that local designation of Cornell Heights will result in no major impacts, and therefore, is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment, and, WHEREAS, following the public hearing the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously recommended local designation of all Cornell Heights properties included within the boundary of the State and National Register Districts, and WHEREAS, local designation will not conflict with the master plan, existing zoning, projected public improvements or any plans for renewal of the site and area involved, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Ithaca Board of Planning and Development, in accordance with provisions and procedures set forth in Section 36.6C of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance recommends local designation of the Cornell Heights Historic District, effective September 7, 1989. Vote: A:ResoCorH.LAC 5 - Yes 1 - No (Gooding) 1 - Abstention (Cookingham) CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION. Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes Meeting Held May 14, 1992 TELEPHONE: 7Yy1 g b Present: John Benson; Joe Daley, Council Liaison; Barclay Jones; Nancy Meltzer; Martha Preston, Chair; Frank Smithson; Mary Tomlan; Leslie Chatterton, Staff. The May 14, 1992 meeting of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission was called to order at 7:40 p.m. M. Preston read the legal notice of the Public Hearing. It was noted that proposal I.(D) had been withdrawn from the agenda. I. PUBLIC HEARING A. 118 Eddy Street, East Hill Local Historic District - proposal to replace shingles on south roof slope. Staff referred Commission members to the application form and to the New York State Building Structure Inventory form for 118 Eddy Street. Neither the owner, Tim Terpening, nor representative was present to address the proposal. Existing shingles are asbestos composition. Asbestos shingles have been replaced by asphalt shingles on the roof's north slope. J. Benson noted that shingles on the north slope also appear in need of replacement. J. Daley stated that because of local weather patterns it is common for shingles on the northern slope to deteriorate more quickly. M. Tomlan and B. Jones agreed that the asbestos composition shingles probably date from the period of the 1910s or 1920s. Staff referred Coiurission members to the sample proposed replacement shingle submitted by the applicant. Commission members questioned the applicant's choice of white. B. Jones and M. Tomlan concluded that given the style and date of the property the original shingles would have been wood. M. Preston questioned whether or not the applicant would attend the meeting. In response to questions from Commission members staff confirmed that the applicant had been informed of the time and place of the hearing. B. Jones noted that design of the property is attributed to W.H. Miller. M. Tomlan stated that the house was constructed CODE 607 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes Meeting Held May 14, 1992 2 for W.H. Miller's mother-in-law and that it is next door to Miller's own house. B. Jones stated that the residence exhibits a great deal of architectural character. He added that much effort and cost has gone into restoration of the adjacent Miller -Heller House. The Commission speculated that the applicant selected white either for its reflective quality or to approximate the color of the existing shingles. It was noted that selection of a color more visually similar to wood shingles does not involve any cost difference. MOTION: J. Benson moved to pass the resolution to approve the material change to Mark 80 fiberglass shingles with the condition that the color is within the range of brown tones shown on the submitted sample. The motion was seconded by B. Jones. DISCUSSION: The Commission determined that the brown would be most visually similar to what would have been the original roofing material. The Commission felt it was important to stipulate color of the shingles given the significance and character of the residence. VOTE: The motion carried by unanimous vote. B. McGraw Hall, Arts Quad Local Historic District - proposal to install louvre in upper portion of arched window on west facade of tower at McGraw Hall. Gary Wilhelm of Cornell's Architectural Services was present to address the proposal. He distributed photographs of the west elevation of McGraw Hall and indicated the locations of the proposed louvre on the southside of the tower and an existing louvre on the west facade north of the tower. The application is the result of a change in use of interior space. The purpose of the louvre is to increase air intake. Exhaust will be vented through the existing louvre. The window is currently blocked -in from the inside with dry wall. A suspended ceiling on the interior also blocks the window. G. Wilhelm noted that the alteration is reversible. B. Jones asked the architect to consider designing the louvre with an exterior "muntin" which would be visually similar to the muntin on the window's lower part. It was also noted that the window is not on a very visible part of the building. In response to a question from M. Tomlan it was noted that the louvre will be recessed at the same plane as the glass below. The louvre will be painted the same color as existing sash and trim. CITY OF ITHACA 1OB EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK' 14850 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 15, 1992 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 Mr. Tim Terpening 207 West King Road RE: 118 Eddy Street, East Hill Local Historic District Dear Mr. Terpening: At the regular meeting held May 14, 1992, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission passed the attached resolution concerning the Certificate of Appropriateness application for the above noted property. The type of replacement shingle shown on the submitted sample was approved. It was the Commission's determination, however, that the white color selected bears no visual relationship to what would have been the original wood shingles and the white color is not "consistant with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district" as stated in Section 32.6,(1) of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. The Commission has therefore approved your application on the condition that you select one of the brown tones on the submitted sample. If you would like to pursue this issue further you may either submit a revised proposal for Commission review or appeal the Commission's decision to the Common Council by contacting the City Attorney. In closing the Commission would like to extend its appreciation for your cooperation in protecting the historic and architectural character of the East Hill Local Historic District. Sincerely, Martha Preston, Chair Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission xc: Rick Eckstrom, Building Commissioner ILPC Meeting - May 14, 1992 Resolution - RA RE: 118 Eddy Street, East Hill Local Historic District - proposal to replace roof sheathing on south roof slope WHEREAS, 118 Eddy Street is located in the East Hill Local Historic District, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 32.E of the Municipal Code, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, all proposals for material change/alteration must be reviewed and granted a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, and WHEREAS;- a public hearing was scheduled for the May 14, 1992 meeting of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission to consider the proposal to replace asbestos composition shingles with asphalt shingles on the south roof slope, and WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, specific elements of the proposal as shown which may have a substantial adverse effect on the significance and value of 118 Eddy Street or the East Hill Historic District include composition, design, color of proposed replacement material and the method of application, particularly with regard to the roof ridge, roof edge and treatment of any projecting elements including but not limited to vents, chimneys or dormers NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal as shown meets criteria for approval under Section 32.6E of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission approves the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the roof shingles with the following conditions: applicant shall select from the range of brown color shingles shown on the submitted sample CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR TO: Mayor Ben Nichols Common Council Members CODE: 607 TELEPHONE: 274-6550 FAX NO.: 272-7348 FROM: Leslie Chatterton, Staff, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission v"" RE: Appeal by Timothy & Jennifer Terpening re: 118 Eddy Street DATE: August 26, 1992 Introduction At the May 14, 1992 meeting the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission met to consider the application from Timothy Terpening, 207 West King Road to replace asbestos composition shingles on the residence at 118 Eddy Street, East Hill Local Historic District. Replacement material proposed was "white", tab style, fiberglass shingles. The appellant was not denied a building permit for 118 Eddy Street as claimed in the appeal, however, because this property is locally designated and because the subject of the application was a material change as defined in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, the permit application was referred to the Landmarks Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Certificate of Appropriateness was granted at the May 14, 1992 meeting with the condition stipulating color of the replacement material. As shown in the Minutes of the May 14, 1992 meeting the Commission limited color choice to a range of brown tones that would resemble original wood shingle material and be more compatible with the architectural design. Significance of 118 Eddy Street The design of the property is attributed to William Henry Miller, one of Ithaca's most prolific and best-known architects. During the 50 years of his practice, beginning in 1872., he is known to have designed over 70 buildings within the City alone, with an additional four residences attributed to him. The greatest concentration of his work is in the East Hill Historic District. This finding was cited as a basis for National Register listing in 1986 and expansion of the City designation in 1988. The attribution of the design of 118 Eddy street is based on historical i, Printed on Recycled Paper "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" 4P - information information and stylistic comparison. Immediately north of 118 Eddy Street is the Miller -Heller House, Miller's own residence. The first owner of 118 Eddy Street was Miller's mother -in -law. It is characteristic of Miller's approach to borrow and combine elements of a variety of late 19th c. and early 20th c. styles as evident in the synthesis of Queen Anne, Shingle style, and Colonial Revival elements seen in the design of 118 Eddy Street. While on first glance the building may appear simple, on closer look the asymmetrical massing and attention to detail reveal a more architecturally sophisticated design. Was the Commission's decision within the scope of the Ordinance? Section 228-4(E) states that it is the duty of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to review all plans for any and all material changes to designated properties. Among the definitions of material change "is any change or reconstruction or alteration of the size or external appearance of a structure or memorial." Replacement of asbestos composition shingles with tab style fiberglass shingles, as proposed by the applicant, falls within this definition. While in practice the Commission does not consider paint color a material change in light of its reversibility, it is not within the Commission's discretion to consider color of a roof material that will affect the visual appearance from 20 to 40 years in the same vein as paint color. The Commission feels it was acting within the intent and spirit of Chapter 228 in stipulating the color of roofing material. Was the decision arbitrary and capricious? Using the general criteria outlined in Section 228-4(E)(1) & (2) the Commission evaluates each application on a case by case basis. Findings are not based on previous decisions but on presentation of the facts of a specific case, on an evaluation of historic and architecturally significant elements and on knowledge of historic practices. While the appellant has stated that the basis for the decision "lies in the Commissioner's assumption that old fashioned cedar shingles would be brown in appearance", the Minutes of the May 14, 1992 meeting demonstrate the rational process of the design review and that the Commission did not act "capriciously in the extreme" as stated by the appellant. Did the ILPC act in a timely manner? While Section 228-5 (D) states that the Commission shall meet within fourteen days after notification by the Building Department, Section 301(2)(a) of the Commission Rules of Procedure stipulates regular monthly meetings. In practice the Commission frequently holds special meetings in between regular monthly meetings at the request of an applicant. Most importantly, the Commission acted within forty five days of the date of the application as stipulated in Section 228-5(G) of the Code. The appellant's application for a Certificate of Appropriateness is dated April 9, 1992, the same day as the Commission's regular monthly meeting. Because of public notice requirements, the application was scheduled for the May 14, 1992 meeting. Following Terpening Appeal Commission Response 08/26/92 3 usual processing procedures, staff informed the appellant of the date and time of the hearing. There was no objection from the appellant. Is composition of the Commission in accordance with the Rules of Procedure? The Commission consists of seven members and, as stipulated in the Code, is composed as follows: Expertise in Architecture, City Planning, Conservation John Benson, Barclay Jones, Ken Jupiter, Mary Tomlan Representing Cultural Interests Ken Jupiter, Barclay Jones, Nancy Meltzer Representing Business Interests Martha Preston, Ken Jupiter, Frank Smithson The Ordinance does not state that each member must be limited to one category. Individuals such as Ken Jupiter or Barclay Jones, may represent a variety of community interests. In addition to representation stipulated in the Ordinance, the Commission finds it useful to have a member with legal expertise, currently Frank Smithson; a member familiar with the local real estate market, Martha Preston; a representative from the local historic districts, Nancy Meltzer; and a City native Martha Preston. While information was presented to the applicant showing that all areas of representation were filled, representation of all Commission members was not provided. The paragraph above should clarify this issue. Response to other issues raised by the appellant. In response to the appellant's statement that the roof should be considered in its entirety it should be noted that the application was for the south side only. Difference in the treatment of north and south roof slopes was a pre-existing condition. Earlier application of asphalt roof shingles on the north slope occurred prior to designation. Commission consideration of the condition and treatment of the whole roof is reflected in the Minutes. In response to the appellant's statement concerning the absence of roof color in documentation of buildings in the East Hill Historic District it should be noted that all documentation, including black and white photographs, meets standards of the New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation and the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. Photographs are neither the basis for designation or design review but, as stated by the appellant, a method of cataloging resources in the district. Documentation forms such as the New York State Building -Structure Terpening Appeal Commission Response 08/26/92 4 Inventory Form are not considered to be inclusive listings of every architecturally significant element but are intended as a tool for the Commission. The Commission also derives information from staff, expert witnesses, site visits and from the applicants. The appellant is correct in asserting that within the 28 months of Minutes reviewed there is no case in which the Commission stipulates the color of roofing material. In fact, most applications for re -sheathing constitute replacement in-kind. In cases where replacement is not in-kind, applicants have either proposed colors within Commission criteria for approval, or have changed color at recommendation of staff prior to the meeting. In this case, the appellant refused to discuss color choice prior to the meeting. The appellant's citing of Commission decisions for 214 North Cayuga Street and 121 North Quarry Street are irrelevant as those decisions were based on an entirely different set of facts. Lighter color roof sheathing used on a great many residences on the East Hill was applied prior to the designation of the District. There is nothing in the Municipal Code or the Cornmission Rules of Procedure indicating that Commission minutes must be transcribed. All minutes requested by the appellant were assembled and made available either in written form or on tape. In addition City staff offered to transcribe a limited number of reviews at the appellant's request and to make copies of existing tapes for a fee to cover expenses. The appellant is correct in stating that there has been no annual report filed by the Commission. This report would be included with the annual report of the Department of Planning and Development, but in practice no Department report is filed. The Commission questions why, in the interest of participating in the democratic process the appellant chose not to attend the meeting at which his application was heard. In processing the application staff made the recommendation, as is normally made, that the applicant attend. The Commission feels that had the applicant attended there would have been opportunity to express objections, present information for discussion and to gain a better understanding of the Commission's process. Because this was not the case, considerable staff time, 30+/- hours, has been spent assembling information for the appellent's appeal. CITY OF ITHACA 1 08 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF CODE: 607 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE: 274-6550 H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR FAX NO.: 272-7348 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes Meeting Held November 17, 1992 Present:• John'Benson; Barclay Jones; Ken 'Jupiter, Martha Preston, Chair; Frank Smithson; Leslie Chatterton, Staff The regular meeting scheduled for November 12, 1992 was canceled. The special meeting held November 17, 1992 was scheduled under the direction of the Common Council. The application was first presented at the July 9; 1992 Commission meeting at which -time the application was denied;' (see Minutes 07/09/92). The Commission passed a resolution stating that the work would have a substantial adverse effect on the: -aesthetic, historical or architectural significance and value of the district and that the proposed change is not consistent with the historic value and spirit '.of the architectural style. The Commission heard additional information from the applicants at the August 13, 1992 .meeting but found no reason to reopen review of. the application, -(see Minutes 08/13/92). The applicant's appealed the Commission's decision at the October 6, 1992 meeting of Couunon Council stating that the Commission failed to consider whether denial of the application would prevent the.owner.from earning a reasonable return on the property as put forth in Section 228-4(E)(1)(b) of the Municipal Code. The Commission was directed by the Coiuuuon Council to give further consideration to the application in conjunction with the second criteria. I. OLD BUSINESS 110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park Local Historic District proposal to apply vinyl substitute siding M. Preston referred Commission members to materials distributed prior to the meeting. Applicant and property owner Arthur Kuckes, 114 East Court Street, was present to address the proposal. The history of the application was reviewed. Staff reported that after speaking with a historic preservation lawyer and a real estate lawyer it became clear that there is no single way to evaluate reasonable rate of Printed on Recycled Paper return. It was decided that the Commission would undertake the evaluation based on figures presented by the applicant. M. Preston clarified that resolution RA (attached) is the same as the resolution passed by the Commission at the July meeting. In discussing resolution RA it was determined that there is no new information concerning compatibility of the alteration. F. Smithson disclosed that he has not attended previous meetings at which the application was reviewed but felt well enough informed to act at the present meeting. MOTION: J. Benson moved to pass the resolution to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness based on criteria of 228-4(E) (1) (a) . The motion was seconded by F. Smithson. DISCUSSION: It was agreed by the Commission to eliminate from the resolution the finding that substitute siding may exacerbate existing moisture problems. VOTE: The motion carried by unanimous vote. Commission members referred to figures submitted by the applicant. Figures show the cash on cash return anticipated,. comparing expense of applying substitute siding with expense of routine painting. Rate of return after siding is shown as 5.4% and the rate of return after painting is 4.8%. The •applicant stated that the figures presented reflect a 25 year lifetime for the substitute siding, and should reflect the product guarantee of 50 years. He also questioned why the highest estimate for vinyl siding was chosen as the basis for the. evaluation. He added that earning any return on the property presents a problem. He stated that currently the City is experiencing an oversupply of rental housing, causing the rental market to be highly competitive. B. Jones stated that the figures looked reasonable and relatively conservative. He added that neither set of figures take inflation into account. The applicant stated that inflation will not affect the one time cost of applying substitute siding but will increase the cost of successive paint jobs. Smithson focussed on the question of whether either 4.8% or 5.4% represents a reasonable return. The applicant stated that the ability to make a reasonable return on this particular property will depend on more than a permit for vinyl siding, but that because of inflation he can anticipate coming closer to earning a reasonable return as time passes. M. Preston suggested that although the current paint job has to be scraped to bare wood, the scope of the next paint job will probably not be as labor intensive. r Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 3 Minutes Special Meeting Held November 17, 1992 Referring to figures submitted by the applicant, J. Daley suggested that, using the usual method of figuring return on investment property, if there was a mortgage the applicant would be losing approximately $500 a month with the vinyl option and approximately $550 a month with the paint option. He added that, in general, a property owner would measure the amount of the added investment against whether it would add to the value of the asset and the ability to increase rents. J. Benson asked whether expenses shown were anticipated by the applicant at the time of purchase, adding that the applicant knew the property was in the historic district prior to purchase. The applicant stated that the increased percentage of the return with vinyl siding, as shown on the submitted financial statement, represents significant progress toward in attaining reasonable return. He added that there is no chance of earning .a reasonable return if required to paint. In addition he stated that many owners of rental property have switched to substitute sidings and as a result have a competitive edge in a market where there is a surfeit of rental housing. B. Jones referred to other income producing properties in the district that have undergone meticulous restoration including Westminster Hall on North Tioga Street. The applicant responded that each property should be evaluated on its own merits and. that the character of properties referred to by B. Jones is different that the character of 110 Sears Street. He questioned its qualifications for designation. The applicantstated his feeling that the community places a financial burden onowners of rental -property located in historic districts. He added that it is not only the district that shares benefits and burdens, but the entire City and therefore the City should assist with added costs of complying with the Landmarks Ordinance. J. Daley stated his feeling that rate of return is low because of the relationship between the value of the property in terms of potential income, which is limited, and the high purchase price. He added that, in comparison, the issue of vinyl siding vs paint appears minor and suggested that the Commission was being asked to improve what was originally a bad investment over which they had no control. He noted that the loss of an additional $50 per month seemed insignificant given the overall loss of $500 per month. The applicant responded that his own residence at 114 East Court Street' is contiguous to 110 Sears Street and indicated his investment was in part prompted by his concern for maintaining the character of neighborhood. Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 4 Minutes Special Meeting Held November 17, 1992 In response to continued discussion regarding whether inflation of maintenance costs is off -set by ability to charge higher rents, Staff recou«rended that either the discussion remain based on figures presented or the Commission postpone further action until preparation of a different analysis. In response to a question from K. Jupiter, J. Daley stated that, as an owner of investment property, he would expect to "break even" ,in the first year, unless there were extenuating circumstances. J. Benson suggested that whether 110 Sears Street "breaks even" could depend on the method of financing. J. Daley stated that it is clear from the outset that this particular property will not yield the greatest financial return on initial investment and includes a high degree a risk. He concluded that the applicant must have had other reasons for making such an investment. In response to additional questions from the Commission, J. Daley stated that he would not expect to make any return on a monthly basis for the first five years, given maintenance, escalatingtaxes, insurance, etc. The real investment return is either long term, allowing substantial time for expenses to stabilize, say 10 years, or through financing the investment. He observed that the financial statement submitted by the applicant did not serve the Commission well. He addedthat he would consider the additional $50 per month significant if it made the difference between breaking even or not. B. Jones referred to financial burdens resulting from meeting other ordinance requirements such as the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code or the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant responded that those Ordinances are applied uniformly throughout the City. J. Benson responded that different zones have different impacts on property value. Commission members focussed on the question of whether the applicant has successfully demonstrated that denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness to apply vinyl siding prevents the owner from earning a reasonable return. F. Smithson stated his feeling that although the applicant has demonstrated he is not making a reasonable rate of return, he has not demonstrated that denial of the permit prevents him from earning a reasonable return. B. Jones stated his feeling that there is not much difference shown between costs related to application of vinyl siding and those related to paint. F. Smithson noted that he has not been convinced that the difference in the cost of paint and vinyl will affect the applicant's ability to break even. Commission members reviewed and discussed proposed resolution RB, (attached). The applicant added that the fact that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 5 Minutes Special Meeting Held November 17, 1992 assessed value is close to the purchase price shows that the property is not overvalued. M. Preston and J. Daley disputed the notion of any relationship between the assessed value and the market value. After discussion concerning the accountant's method of figuring rate of return, Commission members reached the conclusion that the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness to apply vinyl siding does not have a significant impact on the property owner's ability to earn a reasonable return. The independent variable is one over which the Commission had no control and the investor bears the responsibility of the rate of return. MOTION: B. Jones move to pass the resolution to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness under 228- 4(E) (1) (b) . The motion was seconded by K. Jupiter. DISCUSSION: It was agreed that the financial statement submitted by the applicant would be made a part of the resolution. Commission members discussed findings of fact. VOTE: The motion carried by unanimous vote II. NEW BUSINESS 111 Osmund Place, East Hill Local Historic District The property owner has applied for a permit to replace metal roof sheathing with a substitute material. While the proposal involves a material change, the roof is flat and is not visible except by aerial view. The present roof is leaking and the applicant wants to proceed with the project immediately. Staff inquired about whether to schedule the item for review at the December meeting or whether the Commission would refer the item for staff review. Because the alteration is not visible the Commission referred the item for staff review. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, # C%/( -- Leslie Chatterton Preservation/Neighborhood Planner ILPC Meeting - 11/17/92 Resolution - RA RE: 110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park proposal to apply vinyl siding WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, Local Historic District - 110 Sears Street is located in the DeWitt Park Local Historic District, and in accordance with Chapter 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, all proposals for material change/alteration must be reviewed arid granted a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, and a public hearing was scheduled for the July 9, 1992 meeting of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission to consider the proposal to apply vinyl siding, and the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal, The property is architecturally and historically significant as a representative example of the modest "worker" residences constructed in this area in the late 19th century. ▪ The structure retains a modest level of integrity. ▪ The visual,,relationship of existing clapboards and trim are an integral part of the historical and architectural character of the structure. ▪ Existing clapboards and trim are components of the original• historic.fabric and ._although in need of painting are in relatively good condition. The building is located within ten feet of the pedestrian right of way and the proposed alteration is highly visible. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Commission finds that the proposal as shown does not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-4(E)(1)(a) of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission denies the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness under Section 228-4(E)(1)(a). Record of Vote: Aye John Benson Barclay Jones Ken Jupiter Frank Smithson Nay ILPC Meeting - 11/17/92 Resolution - RB RE: 110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park Local Historic District proposal to apply vinyl siding WHEREAS, 110 Sears Street is located in the DeWitt Park Local Historic, District, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, all proposals for material change/alteration must be reviewed and granted a Certificate of Appropriateness ` by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, and WHEREAS, a meeting was scheduled for November 17, 1992 to reconsider the July 9, 1992 decision of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission regarding the proposal to apply vinyl siding, and WHEREAS the Commission has made the following findings of fact and determinations concerning the property and the proposal, • The applicants were aware prior to purchase earlier this year that the property is located in the DeWitt Park Local Historic District and that such designation would entail review of all exterior alterations. • The applicant has submitted a financial statement showing acquisition costs, projected revenue, expenses and net operating income which is made part of this record: • The applicant has suggested that the rate of return be determined by considering the net operating income as measured against the total cost of the investment including major repairs planned to be made over the first three years. ▪ The financial statement shows that by measuring the net operating income against the total cost of the investment the applicant will earn a 5.4% return if permitted to apply vinyl siding, and will earn a 4.8% return if required to use paint. • The projected rate of return does not show that denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness will prevent the applicant from earning a reasonable return. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal as shown does not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-4 E(1)(b) of the Municipal Code, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission denies the Certificate of Appropriateness under Section 228-4 E(1) (b) Record of Vote: • :..Aye John Benson Barclay Jones Ken Jupiter Frank Smithson Nay frederick J. Craschi, C.P.A. John H. Dielershagen. C.N.A. John E. little. C.PA. Jerry E. Mickelson, C.P.A. Thomas K. Van Derzee, C.PA. Debbie A. Conley. C.P.A. Roginale E. Malley, C.P.A. Arthur & Martha Kuckes 114 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 re: 110 Sears Street Projection of Cash Flow & Income with 25 year Siding Cash Flow Monthly Revenue $ 1,170/rnth * 95% 1112 Expenses R.E. Taxes Insurance Utilities Management Fees Maintenance & Repair Exterior Maintenance * ;:r,:.t re.uvvc Net Cash Flow Investment Cost Rate of Return $ 9,500 over 25 years. 187 24 131 125 167 32 446 P. 1 27 2. 73 Claschi • Dietcrshagen • Little • Mickelson Certified Public Accountants and Consultants Annually Projection of Cash Flow & Income with 7 yea' Pairltin( Monthly Annually Cash Flow Revenue 13344 $ 1,170/rnth * 95% 2247 288 1569 1500 2000 380 5360 98885 5.4°/Q Expenses R.E. Taxes Insurance Utilities Management Fees r. 1112 187' 24 131 125 Maintenance & Repair 167 Exterior Paint Allowance * 83 Net Cash Flow Investment Cost Rate of Return * $ 7,000 over 7 years. The reduction in the rate of return from 5,4% to 4.8% represents an 1 1% decline in your rate of return. CORTLAND 18 Toml)kirts Street Cortland. New York 1:4nd' Sincerely, Thomas Van Derzee, CPA ITHACA Terracci Hill 395 WATKINS GLEN 1334 224 28. 156! 1501 200( 100( 474C 9888€ 4.8°A 291 M t=ranvlin Cr.aol ILPC Meeting - 07/09/92 Resolution - RA RE: 110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park Local Historic proposal to apply vinyl siding WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, NOW BE District - 110 Sears Street is located in the DeWitt Park Local Historic District, and in accordance with Chapter 32.E of the Municipal Code, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, all proposals for material change/alteration must be reviewed and granted a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, and a public hearing was scheduled for the July 9, 1992 meeting of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission to consider the proposal to apply vinyl siding, and the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal, The property is architecturally and historically significant as a representative example of the modest "worker" residences constructed in this area in the late 19th century. ▪ The structure retains a modest level of integrity. ▪ The visual relationship of existing clapboards and trim are anintegral part of the historical and architectural character of the structure. ▪ Existing clapboards and trim are components of the original historic fabric and although in need of painting are in relatively good condition. • The structure exhibits characteristics of a moisture problem which may be exacerbated by the application of synthetic siding. ▪ The building is located within five feet of the pedestrian right of way and the proposed alteration is highly visible. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Commission finds that the proposal as shown does not meet criteria for approval under Section 32.6(E)(1) of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, and IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission denies the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR CODE: 607 TELEPHONE: 274-6550 FAX NO.: 272-7348 TO: Mayor. Ben Nichols Members of Common Council FROM: Martha Preston' DATE: February 22, 1993 RE: 110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park Historic District - Appeal At the meeting held October 7, 1992, the Council directed the ILPC to schedule a re -hearing of the application by Martha and Arthur Kuckes to apply vinyl siding to their rental property at 110 Sears Street. The Commission had previously denied the application under Section 228-4(E)(1)(a) as shown on the attached resolution dated August 9, 1992. The Commission scheduled the second hearing'for November 17, 1992. After hearing from the applicant and discussing the financial statement the Commission voted to deny the application on the basis that the applicants failed to demonstrate that denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness prevents them from earning a reasonable rate of return as stipulated under Section 228-4(E)(1)(b). The resolution and minutes of the meeting are attached. The applicants then requested that the Commission reconsider the decision at the January meeting on the basis of new information provided in the revised financial statement. The Commission again denied the application as shown on the attached resolution and minutes dated January 14., 1993. In summary the Commission discussion has focussed on the following issues: The application of vinyl siding has a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical and architectural significance and value of historic buildings. The sample applied to 110 Sears Street has not altered the Commissions opinion on this matter. The original wood clapboard siding is in good condition and simply needs routine maintenance. The applicants knew that the property was located in the DeWitt Park Historic District at the time of purchase, 'and knew there would be restrictions on exterior alterations. over %a Printed on Recycled Paper 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program' The applicants acknowledge that the property was purchased with the intention of repainting the wood siding. The applicants acknowledge that they will not earn a reasonable return even if permitted to apply vinyl siding. Under the Ordinance the application can only be approved if the applicants demonstrate that denial prevents them from earning a reasonable return. There is no provision which allows the Commission to approve the application because the •applicants can earn a slightly higher rate of return. xc: Chuck Guttman, City Attorney H.M. Van Cort, Director Planning & Development ILPC Meeting - January 14, 1993 Resolution - RA RE: 110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park Local Historic District WHEREAS, WHEREAS,. WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, 110 Sears Street is located in the DeWitt Park Local Historic District, and in accordance with Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, all proposals for material change/alteration' must be reviewed and granted a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission prior 'to the issuance of a Building Permit, and a public hearing was scheduled for the January 14, 1993 meeting of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission to consider the proposal to apply vinyl siding, and the Commission finds that the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and at meetings held July 9, 1992 and November 17, 1992 the Commission denied the application finding that the proposed work will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical and architectural significance and value of the landmark and neighboring improvements in the district WHEREAS, at the meeting held on November 17, 1992 the Commission denied the application findingthat the applicant had failed to show denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness will prevent the applicant from earning a reasonable rate of return, and WHEREAS, the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal, The property is architecturally and historically significant as a representative example of the modest "worker" residences constructed in this area in the late 19th century The structure retains a modest level of integrity The applicants were aware prior to purchase last year that the property is located in the DeWitt Park Local Historic District and that such designation would entail restrictions on exterior alterations The applicant has submitted a revised financial statement attached and dated 12/18/92 which is make part of this record NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal as shown does not meet the criteria for, approval under Section 228-4 E(1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness would prevent the owner from earning a reasonablereturn on the property in accordance with Section 228-4 E(1)(b), BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission denies the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Frederick J. Ciaschi, C.P.A. John H. Dietershagen, C.P.A. John E. Little, C.P.A. Jerry E. Mickelson, C.P.A. Thomas K. Van Derzee, C.P.A. Debbie A. Conley, C.P.A. Reginald E. Malley, C.P.A. Arthur & Martha Kuckes 114 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 re: 110 Sears Street Ciaschi • Dietershagen • Little • Mickelson Certified Public Accountants and Consultants Based upon review and discussion of the preliminary projection we have corrected the projections of cash flow and income for 110 Sears Street. The projection was prepared to give you an understanding of the cost and potential savings from installation of siding at 110 Sears Streetrather than painting. Projection of Cash Flow & Income with 50 year siding installed at $ 8,960 as part of the acquisition cost. Cash Flow Revenue $ 1,170/mth * 95% . Expenses R.E. Taxes thsurance Utilities - Management Fees Maintenance & Repair Net Cash Flow. Investment Cost Rate of Return Annually 13344. 2247 288 -. 1569 1500 2000 5740 100845 5.7% Projection of Cash Flow & Income with 7 year painting. The 1992 painting at $ 7,000 is part of the acquisition cost; the projected 1999 painting cost is adjusted for a 4% annual inflation rate. Cash Flow Annually Revenue $ 1,170/mth * 95% 13344 Expenses R.E. Taxes Insurance Utilities Management. Fees Maintenance & Repair Exterior Paint Allowance Net Cash Flow Investment Cost Rate of Return 2247 288 1569. 1500 2000 1316. 4424 98885 4.5% The installation of vinyl siding represents an increase in the rate of return from 4.5% to 5.7%. This is a 27% increase in your rate of return and an increase in annual cash flow cf $ 1,316. December 18, 1992 CORTLAND ITHACA Sincerely, G oU� Thomas VanDerzee, CPA WATKINS GLEN 18 Tompkins Street Cortland; New York 13045 607-753-7439 Terrace Hill - Ithaca, New York 14850 607-272-4444 221 N. Franklin Street Watkins Glen, New York 14891 sn7_SZc_4443 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 4 Minutes Meeting Held January 14, 1993 reasonable return. M. Tomlan expressed agreement with J. Benson's comment and suggested that reordering of issues in the report could also cause a shift in tone or emphasis. These issues were identified as rescinding local. designation and issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Common Council. In response to a comment from J. Benson,J. Daley stated that the City has total control over the Strand in virtually every way and has been acting as owner for at least five years. He noted that the highest bidder has included the contingency that a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition be granted prior to sale of the building. Staff explained that at the present time it appears that the contingency is for the City to either rescind designation or demolish the building. B. Jones. referred Commission members to the Council resolution of December 4, 1993, in which Council resolved to act as owner for purposes of the City's Landmarks Ordinance, and lists issues to be considered in the Commission's. report. M. Tomlan noted that issues proposed by Council provide the opportunity for broader discussion in the report and addressing those issues would more fully express opinions of the Commission. J. Daley stated that the Council is looking for a recommendation about City-wide impacts of demolition of the Strand. He referred to the Common Council resolution of 12/04/93. J. Benson questioned whether the Commission is considering the report at the proper time given that the City has no authority to request an advisory report unless it clearly owns the building. Commission members directed staff to revise the report so that it more closely responds to issues listed in the 12/04/92 Council resolution. The Commission agreed to meet again on January 19, 1993 at 12:00 p.m., City Hall, to review the revised draft. A. 110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park Local Historic District - proposal to apply substitute siding. Commission members reviewed the revised financial statement showing the cash on cash return of the paint and vinyl alternatives. (See Minutes November 17, 1993). Neither the property owner or representative was present to address the proposal. Principal revisions include calculating the cost of the siding as a permanent capital improvement to be depreciated with the house and Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes Meeting Held January 14, 1993 5 adjusting the cost of painting the house every seven years for a 4% annual inflation rate. Commission members referred to the earlier discussion where it was agreed that the owners should have a figured the rate of return prior to purchase, given their knowledge that the property is located in the historic district. The Commission agreed that it appeared that the principal reason for the inability to earn a higher return is the result of an overal high investment cost and not denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Commission members maintained the determination the applicant has failed to show that it is the denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness to apply vinyl siding that prevents the property owner from earning a reasonable rate of return. MOTION: B. Jones moved to pass the resolution to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness to apply substitute siding. The motion was seconded by M. Cannon. VOTE: The motion carried by unanimous vote II.. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR A. Meeting Time - Discussion. After discussion Commission members agreed by consensus to set a new meeting time for the first Tuesday of the month. B. Public Conuuent on Matters of Interest None C. Communications 1. 12/22/92 - Correspondence from Martha & Arthur Kuckes re: 110 Sears Street 2. 12/20/92 - Correspondence from Gus Lambrou re: 106 Highland Place III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 17, 1992, December 11, 1992 IV. Minutes were approved as corrected by unanimous vote of the Commission OLD BUSINESS A. 106 Highland Place, East Hill Local Historic District - Discussion 're: re-evaluation of the application to apply vinyl siding OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET. ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 MEMORANDUM TO: Cookie Paolangeli, Clerk FROM: Chuck Guttman, City Attorney DATE: March 8, 1993 RE: 110 Sears Street - Kuckes TELEPHONE: (607) 274-6504 FAX: (607) 272-7348 At the March Council meeting Councilheard an appeal by Mr. & Mrs. Kuckes regarding a decision by the ILPC. At that time I read to Council proposed findings of fact, determination and a resolution which Council adopted. I am enclosing herewith that information in written form for you. CG/cv Enclosure cc: Leslie Chatterton, Planning "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" to, Recycled Paper WHEREAS, Martha Kuckes and Arthur Kuckes, hereinafter referred to as "Kuckes" have appealed to the Common Council in the City of Ithaca from a decision of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission dated January 14, 1993 denying a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing clapboards with vinyl siding on the residence at 110 Sears Street, Ithaca, NY in the DeWitt Park historic district; and WHEREAS, both Kuckes and the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, hereinafter referred to as "ILPC" have had an opportunity to present their positions to the Common Council NOW THEREFORE, after due deliberation, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca makes the following findings of fact and determinations: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Kuckes applied for a building permit for their property at 110 Sears Street, Ithaca, NY to apply vinyl siding to the property. 2. The property at 110 Sears Street is within the DeWitt Park Local Historic District. 3. The permit application was properly referred to the ILPC to consider the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness since the proposed plans involved a material change of appearance of a structure within the Historic District as provided in Section 228- 4(E) of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code. KuckesILPC.rem 11/03/92 4. The Commission met on July 9, 1992, at which time it considered the application. 5. The Commission determined that the property is architecturally and historically significant as a representative example of the modest "worker" residences constructed in that area in the late Nineteenth Century. 6. The Commission further determined that the structure retains a modest level of integrity. 7. The Commission further determined that the visual relationship of existing clapboards and trim are an integral part of the historic and architectural character of the structure and that the existing clapboards and trim are components of the original historical fabric and, although in need of painting, are in relatively good condition. 8. The Commission further determined that the structure exhibits characteristics of a moisture problem which might be exacerbated by the application of synthetic siding. 9. The Commission further noted that the building is located within ten feet of the pedestrian right-of-way and that the proposed alteration would be highly visible. 10. The Commission voted and determined that the proposal by Kuckes did not meet the criteria for approval under the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance and denied the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. 11. The Commission, pursuant to Section 228-5, stated its reasons for denying the Certificate of Appropriateness and KuckesILPC.rem 11/03/92 2 transmitted a record of such action and the reasons therefor to the Building Commissioner and to the applicant. 12. Kuckes appealed the decision of the ILPC to Common Council. 13. Common Council on October 7, 1992 determined that the Commission did not properly consider and make findings of fact regarding applicants ability to earn a reasonable return on the property and other relevant financial considerations. 14. Common Council remanded the matter to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission to reconsider the request by Kuckes. 15. ILPC reheard the matter on November 17, 1992, at which time financial factors were considered. 16. ILPC on November 17, 1992, voted and determined that the proposal by Kuckes did not meet the criteria for approval under the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance and denied the request for Certificate of Appropriateness. 17. Kuckes requested ILPC to reconsider its decision at its January 1993 meeting, on the basis of new information provided in a revised financial statement. 18. ILPC on January 14, 1993 reviewed the revised financial statement and reconsidered its decision. 19. On January 14, 1993, the ILPC again determined that the Kuckes proposal did not meet the criteria of the ordinance for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness and denied Kuckes' request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. KuckesILPC.rem 11/03/92 3 20. The Commission, pursuant to Section 228-5, stated its reasons for denying the Certificate of Appropriateness and transmitted a record of such action and the reasons therefore to the Building Commissioner and to the applicant. DETERMINATIONS 1. That the Commission duly considered the application by Kuckes. 2. That the decision of the Commission was not outside the scope of their authority and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby affirm and uphold the decision of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and does hereby deny the appeal of Martha Kuckes and Arthur Kuckes. KuckesILPC.rem 11/03/92 4