Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2021-01-19Approved by ILPC: 16, February 2021 1 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes — January 19, 2021 Present: David Kramer, Vice Chair Stephen Gibian, Member Katelin Olson, Member Avi Smith, Member Donna Fleming, Common Council Liaison Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Anya Harris, City of Ithaca staff Absent: Ed Finegan, Chair Susan Stein, Member Pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Order 202.1, this meeting was conducted remotely via the online meeting platform Zoom. Acting Chair D. Kramer called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Caldwell Hall, 121 Reservoir Ave, Individual Local Landmark – Proposal to Remove a Utility Chimney on the North Side of the East Roof Slope Campus Architect James Shermeta appeared on behalf of Cornell University to present the proposed project. Caldwell Hall is on the National Register and is also a locally designated landmark. J. Shermeta said that the chimney they are proposing to remove is a utility structure connected to a boiler room in the basement, and upon removal, they propose to repair the slate roof with attic stock slate. He said the chimney in question is not visually prominent, and he provided a brief presentation. S. Gibian said that the chimney appears to need repointing, and he asked if it is structurally sound. J. Shermeta said they haven’t found any structural issues yet, but over time, they expect they would. He said the reason behind removing it is due to long-term life-safety concerns, noting that several other chimneys on campus have developed structural problems and required significant repairs. S. Gibian said that in looking at the scope of work, it seems like it would be less work to repoint it. J. Shermeta said yes, but they think long term, it would be less work and less expense not to have that issue. A. Smith said that he agrees that the chimney doesn’t look like a significant architectural feature, and he would be okay with its removal. Approved by ILPC: 16, February 2021 2 K. Olson agreed, saying that while she’s not usually in favor of removing chimneys, this one is not highly visible, and is secondary to the architectural characteristics of the building. Acting Chair D. Kramer agreed. Public Hearing On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by S. Gibian, Acting Chair D. Kramer opened the Public Hearing. There being no members of the public appearing and wishing to speak, and no written comments submitted to be read aloud, Acting Chair D. Kramer closed the Public Hearing on a motion by K. Olson, seconded by A. Smith. RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by K. Olson. WHEREAS, Caldwell Hall, 121 Reservoir Ave, is an individual local landmark, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1985, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1984, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated January 4, 2021, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Benjamin James Shermeta on behalf of property owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) seven sheets of architectural drawings prepared by Facilities Engineering at Cornell University, dated January 4, 2021, and titled “Title Sheet,” (T-001), “General Notes, Symbology, and Abbreviations” (A-001), “Roof Plan,” (A-101), “Exterior Images,” (A-201), “Exterior Images,” (A-202), “Elevations and Exterior Images,” (A-203) and “Elevations and Exterior Images,” (A-204), and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for Caldwell Hall, 121 Reservoir Ave, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the removal of a utility chimney on the north side of the east roof slope, and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and Approved by ILPC: 16, February 2021 3 WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on January 19, 2021, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, Caldwell Hall, 121 Reservoir Ave, was constructed in 1914. One of thematically related group of buildings constructed to house the rapidly expanding College of Agriculture under the leadership of Liberty Hyde Bailey, Caldwell Hall was constructed for the Department of Soil Technology, which, along with several others, had initially been housed in Stone Hall. The general character of Caldwell Hall is based upon the compositional principles of Renaissance architecture but features typical of the Arts and Crafts movement are also present. Overall, the design achieves a dignified yet practical character, appropriate to the building’s function as part of an agricultural school. The project under consideration involves the removal of a utility chimney that is likely original to the property. The four-story height of the building’s central block and the location of the chimney on the north side of the east roof slope (rear side of a secondary elevation), the chimney is not significantly visible from the Ag Quad or other publicly accessible vantage points. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards: Principle #1 The historic features of an individual landmark shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with the historic character of the landmark. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Approved by ILPC: 16, February 2021 4 Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. With respect to Principle #1, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the removal of the chimney will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of Caldwell Hall, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: S. Gibian Seconded by: K. Olson In Favor: S. Gibian, K. Olson, D. Kramer, A. Smith Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: E. Finegan, S. Stein Vacancies: 1 Notice: Failure on the part of the owner or the owner’s representative to bring to the attention of the ILPC staff any deviation from the approved plans, including but not limited to changes required by other involved agencies or that result from unforeseen circumstances as construction progresses, may result in the issuance by the Building Department of a stop work order or revocation of the building permit. Approved by ILPC: 16, February 2021 5 II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST Acting Chair D. Kramer opened Public Comment. There being no members of the public appearing and wishing to speak, and no written comments submitted to be read aloud, Acting Chair D. Kramer closed Public Comment. III. NEW BUSINESS • Cascadilla Boathouse Exterior Rehabilitation Project Jennifer Ahrens from Bero Architecture and Susan Holland from Historic Ithaca appeared in front of the ILPC to give a presentation on the proposed Cascadilla Boathouse rehabilitation project. S. Holland gave some background on the Boathouse, which was designed by Clinton, Vivian, and Gibb, built in the period 1890-1894, and is on the National Register. S. Holland explained how she applied for and was awarded an Environmental Protection Fund grant of $367,182 from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and secured a funding pledge of $122,391 from the City for a total project budget of $489,563. She said the proposal is to restore the exterior of the building and add an ADA accessible restroom on the ground level. She explained that in February of 2020 they issued an RFP, and out of the eight responses received, awarded the bid to Bero Architects. She said the design specifications and project manual are currently under review by SHPO, and if all goes well, they hope to go to bid for a construction company in February of this year. S. Holland added that the current timeline is to complete the work by December, which is ambitious, but the grant is good for another two years beyond that. J. Ahrens from Bero Architecture next reviewed the proposed scope of work, which includes repairing/ replacing exterior wood elements, including preparation and finishing, repairs to the west elevation foundation wall and stormwater management, repairs to windows and doors, creating an ADA accessible bathroom entrance, and replacement of the water closets. After the conclusion of the presentation, Acting Chair D. Kramer invited questions and comments from the Commission. Approved by ILPC: 16, February 2021 6 K. Olson thanked them, and said that she and B. McCracken had been part of one of the last rounds of work to be done to the property back in 2008. She noted that the veranda had originally wrapped around the west side as well but was destroyed in a hurricane. She asked if these repairs would still allow for its future replacement. S. Holland said, yes, this round of work is about sealing the envelope of the building, and even though they don’t have definitive plans to do further phases of work at this time, that is the long- term goal, and was how the grant was written. They would like to restore that section so that the egress issues can be resolved and the second floor be made usable again. She said they are looking for additional funding sources and may apply for another grant in the future. S. Gibian said he was hoping they would replace the second turret. S. Holland laughed and said that’s not in this round either. She said it is also a long-term goal. S Gibian asked if they could do something about the posts supporting the second story. J. Ahrens said that Bero was involved in the structural report back in 2000, and they determined the brackets weren’t sufficient, so the posts are necessary. B. McCracken said the posts were installed within about a decade of the building’s construction, so while they are unfortunate, they are necessary and almost as historic as the structure itself. A. Smith said he excited about the project, and is looking forward to seeing the building in better condition. Acting Chair D. Kramer thanked S. Holland for her work on procuring the funding and thanked both her and J. Ahrens for their work on the project. He said he’s excited to see the project move forward. The Commission members thanked them for their time and moved on to the next agenda item. Approved by ILPC: 16, February 2021 7 • 401 E. State/MLK Jr. St. Redevelopment Project – Advisory Review Jeff Githens of McKinley Development Group, James Trasher of CHA Companies, and Tim Fish and Donny Kim of Cooper Carey Architects appeared in front of the Commission and provided them with a presentation giving an overview of the proposed mixed-use development and then took questions and comments from the ILPC. One written comment on the proposed development was received, and read into the record so the development team could respond. It is included below: Thomas J. Shelley Tue 1/19/2021 12:13 PM Dear Bryan and Anya--Below are comments I have on the 401 E. State St. project. 1. the project is across E. State St. from the East Hill Historic District. It is completely out of character with the architectural styles of the District. 2. The building's mass and scale is out of proportion to the site itself, almost filling the entire site, with very little open/green space for a project of this size. 3. 6 Mile Creek is a Tompkins County designated Unique Natural Area (up to the Aurora St. bridge). The 25 foot buffer required by the City is subminimal. How does the project plan on protecting the Creek from salt and motor vehicle products impacting the Creek? Thank you for considering my comments. Tom Shelley 118 E. Court St. J. Githens said that the project site is currently home to a parking lot and a manufacturing facility, and that the project will result in little if any net loss of greenspace. He said the project will relocate the green space closer to the creek. He said they have been working closely with the Planning Board and Fire Chief Tom Parsons to develop the project, and a big reason for the roadway back there relates to fire access. He said they have included a significant planting area between the drive aisle and the creek walk, as well as other plantings closer to the building. He said that in terms of mass and scale, they are complying with the Downtown Design Guidelines and the zoning requirements. He said that the slope of the site helps hide much of the building at the east end, and that they feel like they are keeping with the feeling of the industrial building to the west. Acting Chair D. Kramer thanked them for their time and said it seems that their role is to weigh in on the impacts this project would have on the historic district across the street. He asked Commission members to weigh in. Approved by ILPC: 16, February 2021 8 A. Smith, who owns the historic Argos Inn across the street, said he’s concerned about the impacts to his business. He also asked about the creek walk and if it will have any seating places or other amenities. T. Fish said that the creek walk would match the already completed sections farther west. J. Trasher said they are also working with the City to determine other trail improvements they could make, either improving the city owned sections of the trail as far to the east as they can, or providing an overlook somewhere near the middle of the project site. He said that at the eastern end of their property they would also have a seating area and an informational plaque about Six Mile Creek. A. Smith asked about seating areas. J. Githens said there are benches all along the creek walk. A. Smith said it looks like the creek walk has been shrunk to as small as possible, which is sad because it’s a beautiful area. He also said that it’s too bad that due to the size of the buildings, all views of the creek from State Street will be cut off. He also said that he doesn’t see it fitting in all that well with the historic properties around it. T. Fish pointed to the fenestration, and said that it’s more of a nod to the Gateway industrial style more than to any of the residential buildings nearby. A. Smith asked if they were proposing divided lights. T. Fish said yes, the windows would have muntins. K. Olson said she appreciates the step backs, and she appreciates the elevation changes. Then, she noted that it doesn’t make much difference in what they say, as they don’t have any real authority over the project, She also noted that the industrial inspiration doesn’t really have any basis in history, as there wasn’t really any significant industrial activity downtown, nor does it relate to the residential nature of East Hill. She said it’s a better project than she might have anticipated, but she doesn’t see it as particularly responding to the historical neighborhood. S. Gibian says it seems like the drawings are done. He asked what they can say, except it’s pushing every setback to the minimum and maxing out the coverage of the site. He said there are some nice courtyards here and there, but those are probably to let some light and air into the interior units as much as anything. He said that even if the massing is pretty well determined, maybe the designers could at least try to make the four sections each look different, with different colors, different siding materials, varied rooflines and balconies. Acting Chair D. Kramer agreed with K. Olson and S. Gibian that their purview is pretty limited on this item. He said it’s a better building than he was anticipating, but he also suggested they vary the buildings a bit, especially the middle two which just mirror each other. He said they Approved by ILPC: 16, February 2021 9 could even look up the street at the various architectural styles represented to find something to respond to. He said he thinks it’s too big, especially bordering the historic district, and he said tens of thousands of people enter the City there, and it’s a shame they won’t be able to see the creek now. D. Fleming asked about the fraternity memorial mentioned. S. Githens said the owner of the site has proposed selling a portion of the land to a group for the purpose of a memorial to the first black fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha, at Cornell. S. Gibian said that there are only 20 trees proposed on the site. J. Trasher said that’s 20 more than what’s there now, and they have been working hard with a lot of stakeholders to develop a robust landscaping plan. B. McCracken said that he would put together a memo to the Planning Board based on the ILPC members’ comments. The memo and related materials is included as an addendum to these minutes. III. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS B. McCracken said Historic Ithaca would be presenting a National Registration nomination application workshop on February 4, and said the Commission members are invited. He said he would send more information. K.Olson told D. Fleming she was sad to hear that she would not be running for another term on Common Council and thanked her for her time working with the ILPC. D. Fleming thanked her and said 10 years was enough, and it is time to give someone else a turn. She asked the Commission members to spread the word of the vacancy to any friends who live in the Third Ward. IV. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by S. Gibian, the meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner MEMORANDUM From: Bryan McCracken, Secretary of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission To: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development, Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, and Members, Planning & Development Board Date: January 25, 2021 Subject: Advisory Comments – 401 East State/MLK, Jr. Street Development Project At their regular monthly meeting on January 19, 2021, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission conducted an advisory review of the development project at 401 East State Street. The project site is located immediately adjacent to and across the street from the East Hill Historic District, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1986 and locally designated in 1988. In advance of the meeting, the Commission had the opportunity to review project design materials submitted to the Planning and Development Board in December as well as the draft minutes for the December Planning and Development Board meeting. The project team attended the ILPC meeting and gave a brief presentation on the design’s development over the past month. The Commission chose to focus their review on the north elevation as it faces the historic district and has the greatest potential to negatively impact the historic character of the district. The Commission’s observations and recommendations are noted below: • Size, scale, and mass: In general, the building is too large in terms of size, scale, and mass, and creates an abrupt change between the residential character of the East Hill Historic district and the commercial Downtown. One Commission member’s thoughtful and thorough analysis of the size of the building is attached for reference and consideration. While the Commission appreciated the division of the north elevation into four separate modules, members observed that the uniformity of each modules’ design created the visual appearance of a single monolithic block that was out of scale with residential buildings to the east and the commercial buildings to the west. The Commission recommended varying the architectural vocabulary of each module to help create the sense of individual buildings along East State Street. This would help the transition between smaller-scale residential buildings and larger-scale commercial blocks. CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning & Economic Development Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565 E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org • Materiality, form, and detailing: The Commission agreed this transition could be further improved by incorporating some of materials, building forms, and architectural details found in the historic district into the design of the new building’s modules. As an example of the success of this approach, the Commission referenced the buildings that front East State Street at the Collegetown Terrace site, particularly those at the eastern end of the development. The use of clapboard siding, stucco, sloped roofs, residential scale windows, traditional trim elements, and brick accents ease the transition between the old and new and avoid a jarring juxtaposition of the large and small. • Industrial design: The Commission observed that the building’s unarticulated industrial design did not relate to the residential buildings in the East Hill Historic District nor the commercial downtown buildings. To improve the building’s compatibility with adjacent historic buildings, the Commission recommended adding architectural details around doors and windows, at corners, and along the cornice. • Connection of East State Street and the East Hill Historic District to the gorge: Views of Six Mile Creek gorge from the residences on East State Street are an important characteristic of the East Hill Historic District. The Commission recommends exploring ways to maintain this connectivity by introducing views of the gorge through the building. The Commission also recommends adding additional physical connections to the gorge from East State Street. • Rhythm of East State Street: The regular placement of houses along East State Street in the historic district creates a characteristic rhythm that will abruptly end at the project site. The gap between the City-owned retaining wall along East State Street and the building will further disengage the building from East State Street and interrupt this important rhythm. The Commission recommends exploring ways to continue this rhythm in the new building to ease the transition between old and new. The project team might consider adding more entrances at regular intervals along the East State Street façade, with bridges or stairs to connect them to the public sidewalk, to replicate this rhythm. • Building immediately behind historic structures: The materials reviewed did not allow the Commission to fully assess the impact of having a large new building directly behind several historic residences on the south side of East State Street. To complete their advisory review, the Commission would appreciate the opportunity to review a rendering showing a head-on view of 505, 507, 515, and 517 East State Street with the proposed new building behind them. Any mature vegetation that will be removed as part of the project should not be included in the rendering. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and provide advisory comments. Re: Draft Text for Memo to PB re: 401 E State St. stephen gibian <s_gibian@yahoo.com> Sun 1/24/2021 12:31 PM To: Avi Smith <avi@argosinn.com>; Edward Finegan <efithaca@me.com>; Katelin Olson <keo24@cornell.edu>; Susan Stein <ses10@cornell.edu>; David Kramer <dkramer196@yahoo.com>; Bryan McCracken <BMcCracken@cityofithaca.org>; Donna Fleming <DFleming@cityofithaca.org>; Bryan McCracken <BMcCracken@cityofithaca.org> Cc: JoAnn Cornish <JCornish@cityofithaca.org>; Lisa Nicholas <LNicholas@cityofithaca.org> HI again, I paced off the (3) parking garages which I cited on Thursday as comparisons to the proposed State Street Apartments. The approximate length of the existing garages is as follows: Seneca Street: 230 feet, South Cayuga Street: 270 feet, Schoellkopf Field: 450 feet. (That is a big garage!) The width of all three based on double loaded up and down ramps is 120 to 130 feet. The length of the proposed western double loaded parking ramp and building above it at State Street scales approximately 250 feet, or in between the lengths of Seneca Street and Cayuga Street. However, when the apartments at the west and service spaces at the east are added to the ramp, the length of the western main block jumps to about 350 feet. That is about 130% of the length of the South Cayuga Street garage. The length of the eastern angled wing of the proposed building scales approximately 290 feet. When that is added to the western block, the proposed building is about 640 feet long. That is 280% of the Seneca Street garage, 240% of the Cayuga Street garage, and 140% of the Schoellkopf field parking garage. That is a very large building. Steve Stephen Gibian, R.A. 1379 Coddington Road, Brooktondale, NY 14817 (607) 277-6200 On Thursday, January 21, 2021, 2:57:30 PM EST, Bryan McCracken <bmccracken@cityofithaca.org> wrote: All, I've pasted below the draft text for the memo to the Planning Board regarding the 401 E. State St project. Please review and let me know if you would like anything changed or added. I will be out of the office for the remainder of the day and tomorrow, so please send your comments by Sunday evening. I plan to send the memo the to the PB Monday morning. Thanks At their regular monthly meeting on January 19, 2021, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission conducted an advisory review of the development project at 401 East State Street. The project site is located immediately adjacent to and across the street from the East Hill Historic District, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1986 and locally designated in 1988. In advance of the meeting, the Commission had the opportunity to review project design materials submitted to the Planning and Development Board in December as well as the draft minutes for the December Planning and Development Board meeting. The project team attend the ILPC meeting and gave a brief presentation on the design’s development over the past month. The Commission chose to focus their review on the north elevation as it faces the historic district and has the greatest potential to negatively impact the historic character of the district. The Commission’s observations and recommendations are noted below: https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGQzMmIyYjIxLWM... 1 of 3 1/25/2021, 12:23 PM Size, scale, and mass: In general, the building is too large in terms of size, scale, and mass, and creates an abrupt change between the residenƟal character of the East Hill Historic district and the commercial Downtown. While the Commission appreciated the division of the north elevaƟon into four separate modules, members observed that the uniformity of each modules’ design created the visual appearance of a single monolithic block that was out of scale with residenƟal buildings to the east and the commercial buildings to the west. The Commission recommended varying the architectural vocabulary of each module to help create the sense of individual buildings along East State Street. This would help the transiƟon between smaller- scale residenƟal buildings and larger-scale commercial blocks. Materiality, form, and detailing:The Commission agreed this transiƟon could be further improved by incorporaƟng some of materials, building forms, and architectural details found in the historic district into the design of the new building’s modules. As an example of the success of this approach, the Commission referenced the buildings that front East State Street at the Collegetown Terrace site, parƟcularly those at the eastern end of the development. The use of clapboard siding, stucco, sloped roofs, residenƟal scale windows, tradiƟonal trim elements, and brick accents ease the transiƟon between the old and new and avoid a jarring juxtaposiƟon of the large and small. Industrial design: The Commission observed that the building’s unarƟculated industrial design did not relate to the residenƟal buildings in the East Hill Historic District nor the commercial downtown buildings. To improve the building compaƟbility with adjacent historic buildings, the Commission recommended adding architectural details around doors and windows, at corners, and along the cornice. ConnecƟon of East State Street and the East Hill Historic District to the gorge: Views of Six Mile Creek gorge from the residences on East State Street are an important characterisƟc of the East Hill Historic District. The Commission recommends exploring ways to maintain this connecƟvity by introducing views of the gorge through the building. The Commission also recommends adding addiƟonal physical connecƟons to the gorge from East State Street. Rhythm of East State Street:The regular placement of houses along East State Street in the historic district creates a characterisƟc rhythm that will abruptly end at the project site. The gap between the City-owned retaining wall along East State Street and the building will further disengage the building from East State Street and interrupt this important rhythm. The Commission recommends exploring ways to conƟnue this rhythm in the new building to ease the transiƟon between old and new. The project team might consider adding more entrances at regular intervals along East State Street façade, with bridges or stairs to connect them to the public sidewalk, to replicate this rhythm. Building immediately behind historic structures:The materials reviewed did not allow the Commission to fully assess the impact of having a large new building directly behind several historic residences on the south side of East State Street. To complete their advisory review, the Commission would appreciate the opportunity to review a rendering showing a head-on view of 505, 507, 515, and 517 with the proposed new building behind them. Any mature vegetaƟon that will be removed as part of the project should not be included in the rendering. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and provide advisory comments. Bryan McCracken Historic PreservaƟon and Neighborhood Planner https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGQzMmIyYjIxLWM... 2 of 3 1/25/2021, 12:23 PM