Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2010-04-13Approved by ILPC – 05/11/10 1 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes – April 13, 2010 Present: Nancy Brcak Ed Finegan Susan Jones David Kramer Sylvia Sheret Newman Susan Stein Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison Leslie Chatterton, Staff Megan Gilbert, Staff Acting Chair S. Stein called the meeting to order at 5:34 pm and read the legal notice for the public hearings. I. PUBLIC HEARING A. 427 East Seneca St, East Hill Historic District – proposal to install privacy fence on west property line Property owner Rajit Manohar was present to address the Commission regarding the proposal. He explained that the proposal is to install a privacy fence along the west property line. The proposed fence was selected because the property owners felt it was similar to others in the neighborhood and because it is finished on both sides. Staff reported to the ILPC that an adjacent property owner had sent an email indicating that he and his wife had not been aware of the proposal, that he is currently out of town and that he requests a postponement of the hearing until the May meeting which they would attend. The neighbors are concerned that the fence is too high and could block one of their windows. R. Manohar acknowledged that site conditions, amounting to a sharp drop in grade from the applicant’s to the neighboring property, resulted in a condition that increased the impact of the fence. Staff explained that the ordinance requires that the ILPC act on any application within 45 days of its submission. If no action is taken the application is automatically approved. Staff suggested three options for ILPC action: 1) approval if ILPC members are comfortable with the fence, 2) seek consent from the applicant for postponement. 3) approval by the ILPC conditioned on staff review and approval of other aspects of the fence, such as height. D. Kramer noted that he had some concerns about the height of the fence and asked how the applicant would feel about postponing the application. R. Manohar stated that they would prefer conditional approval, because his wife will be leaving to work out of town and wants to arrange for a fence before leaving. He said that the fence would not interfere with light coming into the house through the window in question, though it may obstruct the bottom portion of the window. E. Finegan stated that he felt that neighboring property owners should be notified if a property owner is proposing an alteration. Staff responded that the public is notified through a legal advertisement in the Ithaca Journal as required by the Landmarks ILPC Minutes April 13, 2010 -2- Ordinance. Staff had suggested that the neighboring property owner be contacted by the applicant prior to consideration by the ILPC. N. Brcak stated that she was comfortable voting in favor of the proposal because it didn’t seem to have an adverse impact on the property or the district. She added that the height seemed appropriate for a privacy fence. Public Hearing On a motion by S. Jones, seconded by N. Brcak, Acting Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no one to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed on a motion by S. Jones, seconded by D. Kramer. RESOLUTION RA: Moved by S. Jones, seconded by S. Sheret Newman WHEREAS, 427 East Seneca Street is located in the East Hill Historic District as set forth in Section 228-3 and 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by property owners Deidre Newberry and Rajit Manohar for review by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, (ILPC), and WHEREAS, the action under consideration is the installation of a privacy fence on the west property line, and WHEREAS, the project is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the submitted documentation dated April 13, 2010 including an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Deidre Newberry, and a two page description with photographs of the proposed fencing and a site map showing proposed location of the fencing, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on Tuesday, April 13, 2010, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: ILPC Minutes April 13, 2010 -3- The period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement as 1820-1930. The residence at 427 East Seneca Street was constructed prior to 1851, within the district’s period of significance. Despite later alterations the residence retains sufficient integrity to reflect its historic and architectural significance and is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District. As addressed in the narrative description and in the photocopied photographs, the privacy fence will be constructed of 6 – 7 foot vertical boards butted against each other and set between posts with post caps. As addressed in the narrative description, in the photocopied photographs and on the site map, the fence will be located on the west side of the property and substantially set back from the front façade of the residence. The fence will not be easily visible from the street. The property owners will plant a hedge that will serve to mask the east side of the fence. The purpose of the proposal is to increase privacy. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination the Commission is guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this case specifically the following Standards: #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be ILPC Minutes April 13, 2010 -4- differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. With reference to Standard #9, as described in the submitted materials dated April 13, 2010, the proposed fence will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. . With reference to Standard #10, as described in the materials dated April 13, 2010, the installation of the proposed fence will be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired, in keeping with Standard #10. WHEREAS, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following condition: Staff shall work with the applicant to evaluate and minimize impact on the historic property and its environment. RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0 Yes N. Brcak E. Finegan S. Jones D. Kramer S. Sheret Newman S. Stein No 0 Abstain 0 ILPC Minutes April 13, 2010 -5- B. 2 Ridgewood Rd, Cornell Heights Historic District – proposal to re-shingle a portion of the roof No one was present to address the ILPC regarding the proposal. Staff explained that the ILPC has authorized staff to approve certain colors of roof shingles. The applicant has proposed “terracotta”, a color that is outside of the range but seems an appropriate choice for this particular property. Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Sheret Newman, Acting Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no one to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed on a motion by S. Jones, seconded by D. Kramer. RESOLUTION RB: Moved by N. Brcak, seconded by D. Kramer WHEREAS, 2 Ridgewood Road, Phi Delta Theta Fraternity, is located in the Cornell Heights Historic District as provided for in Section 228-3 and 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted on behalf of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity by Bojan Petek, of Petex Restoration Ltd for review by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, (ILPC), and WHEREAS, the action under consideration is the replacement of roof shingles, and WHEREAS, the project is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the documentation submitted with the Certificate of Appropriateness application received April 8th, 2010, including a narrative description of the proposal, photographs of the existing condition and a material sample of the proposed replacement shingle, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on April 13, 2010, and ILPC Minutes April 13, 2010 -6- WHEREAS, the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: The period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights Historic District is identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary as 1898-1937. Constructed between 1921 and 1922 the architecture combines elements of revival styles of the first quarter of the 20th century and is a contributing element of the Cornell Heights Historic District. The proposal involves replacement of asphalt roofing shingles on the “bedroom” wing. The remainder of the roof will be completed to match at a later time (2-3 years). The purpose of the proposal is to replace deteriorated shingles. The ILPC has authorized staff to review and approve replacement shingles in cases where the following conditions apply: 1) The roofing being replaced is an asphalt/fiberglass shingle materially similar to the proposed replacement and not roofing that is of a different material such as metal or slate. 2) The shingle color is within a range of tan, brown, black, or gray or some combination of those materials. These colors reflect the colors of many historic roofing materials such as wood, metal and slate. In the present application, the color of the proposed shingles is terra cotta, and is not within the range of colors that staff is authorized to approve. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination the Commission is guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this case specifically the following Standards: ILPC Minutes April 13, 2010 -7- #3 Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. The terra cotta color was selected to suggest the color of clay tile, a material appropriate to the architectural style and the age of the building. With reference to Standard #3, while the proposed material may suggest clay tile in color the new roofing is clearly differentiated as a material of the 21st century. WHEREAS, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0 Yes N. Brcak E. Finegan S. Jones D. Kramer S. Sheret Newman S. Stein No 0 Abstain 0 II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR A. Administrative Matters 1. New Commission Member – Ed Finegan Staff introduced new Commission member Ed Finegan and thanked him for agreeing to serve on the Commission. B. Communications None C. Public Comment on Matters of Interest None III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None ILPC Minutes April 13, 2010 -8- IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Presentation of dEIS for the Collegetown Terrace project Kathryn Wolf of Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects presented an overview of the Collegetown Terrace project with an emphasis on impacts to buildings in the East Hill Historic District. Members of the project team who were present included: John Novarr, property owner and project developer; Alan Chimicoff of Ikon.5 Architects; John Bero of Bero Architects; and Kim Michaels of Trowbridge & Wolf. K. Wolf gave an overview of the project and project site. A. Chimicoff discussed the architectural design of the proposed buildings. J. Bero discussed the historic context of the site and the inventory of existing buildings on and around the site. He discussed the historic significance of buildings proposed for demolition, noting that most have had extensive alterations and are not exceptional examples of their respective architectural styles. The dEIS discusses costs to stabilize and perform minimum renovations (to meet building codes, not full restoration) to the existing buildings (not in an historic district). He encouraged Commission members to review Appendices C and D of the dEIS. The project team will create an information package with sections specifically relating to ILPC concerns after a determination of adequacy has been made. Commission members and staff asked questions about the location of entries on E. State Street, access to underground parking, and plantings. No action was taken. B. 119 East Buffalo Street, Dewitt Park Historic District – proposal for partial replacement of roof surface to match recently replaced roof on the east portion of the building. Staff explained that the proposal was submitted too late for inclusion as an application, but asked the ILPC to consider whether or not the matter that could be subject to staff review. It was explained that George Patte owns the east side of the building, and Ted Papperman owns the west side. The ILPC approved the replacement of George Patte’s metal standing seam roof with a manufactured metal roofing alternative. Ted Papperman now needs to replace his roof, though part of the existing roof can be saved. Since the same proposal was recently approved by the ILPC, there was agreement to delegate the review to staff. C. Landmark Society of Western New York Annual Preservation Conference, Palmyra New York, Saturday April 24, 2010 Staff reported that information on this conference had been sent via email and encouraged all ILPC members, particularly new members, to attend. The conference is affordable at $45-$55 and is only an hour and a half away. D. Kramer indicated that he was interested in attending. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Former Ithaca Gas Works a.k.a. Markles Flats, local landmark – NYS Supreme Court Decision and Order on the Article 78 appeal by the Ithaca City School District The Commission discussed the decision and order by the NYS Supreme Court. The decision focused only on whether a school district is subject to local land use regulation ILPC Minutes April 13, 2010 -9- and the Court decision supported the contention that the City of Ithaca and the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission lacked authority to regulate use of property of the Ithaca City School District. The Court did not comment on the merits of the case. The City’s Common Council has delegated the decision on whether to appeal to the Mayor. No decision has been made to date. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m. by Acting Chair S. Stein. Respectfully Submitted, Leslie A. Chatterton, Secretary Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission