HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2010-06-29Approved by ILPC – 09/29/10
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Special Meeting Minutes – June 29, 2010
Present:
Nancy Brcak
Ed Finegan
Susan Jones
David Kramer
Susan Stein, Acting Chair
Ellen McCollister, Common Council
Liaison
Leslie Chatterton, Staff
Megan Gilbert, Staff
Acting Chair S. Stein called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm..
I. SPECIAL BUSINESS
A. Collegetown Terrace – Review of and comment on the draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Colleetown Terrace project.
Staff addressed the Commission stating that the meeting is an opportunity for Commission
members to discuss possible comments on the DEIS for submission to the City of Ithaca Board
of Planning & Development. Staff will write up comments based on tonight’s discussion for
review by the ILPC at the July 13th ILPC meeting. Comments agreed upon by the Commission
should focus on impacts on cultural resources and neighborhood character component. Members
are also able to submit individual comments on any topic of the draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
Staff noted potential issues for ILPC:
1. Demolition of 17 properties along East State Street
2. Demolition of Jane A. Delano House
3. Historic significance of the quarry
In response to a comment from N. Brcak concerning the boundary of the East Hill Historic
District. Kim Michaels of Trowbridge and Wolf, representing the developer, made reference to
the map on page 1-15. N. Brcak concurred with the boundary shown on the referenced map.
D. Kramer asked how ILPC should comment on buildings not in the district. Staff explained that
the ILPC could reexamine the boundaries drawn for the 1986 National Register nomination. She
added that the ILPC could also comment on impacts the project could have on the character of
the neighborhood. D. Kramer noted that the project is immense the document is immense, as is
the proposed demolition. He added that since the houses proposed for demolition could easily
have been within the district boundaries, their loss is hard to imagine. Scraping the streetscape
of all of those buildings would have a huge impact on character. He also noted that the costs of
rehabilitation shown in the dEIS do not line up with his knowledge of and experiences with
rehabilitation costs.
S. Jones noted concern about the impact on character not only on East State Street, Mitchell and
Eddy Streets as well. She felt that removal of so many mature trees will have a big impact
1
ILPC Minutes
June 29, 2010
adding that although new trees will be planted it would be many years before they reach
maturity.
N. Brcak noted that the dEIS provides grade level views of the buildings but does not show
views if the application for a zoning varience were to be granted. Buildings on the street had no
stoops and detracted for a sense of community. The proposed buildings seem to turn away from
E. State Street as opposed to the existing buildings that engage the sidewalk and street. The
project ignores the visual character of the East Hill Historic District.
S. Stein stated her agreement adding that it didn’t seem that there was any foresight on the
appearance of buildings. The buildings look like boxes a-- the scale is immense and drastically
different from the existing character of the street.
E. Finegan asked what could happen if buildings proposed for demolition are identified as
historic assets. He asked if it was too late for designation? Staff explained that the dEIS has
been deemed adequate but it is understood that there is room for changes that will mitigate
impacts. She added that the ILPC can initiate the process but that there would be a need to
enhance documentation on which designations would be based. She added that she is seeking
the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Office. Staff explained that the designation
process takes some time (as intentionally designed). In response to a question about possible
designation in light of the project’s progress she restated that the ILPC can proceed with
designation but that there would likely be legal implications. Staff asked members to look at
Chapter 4, alternatives for proposed action. The ILPC comment could ask for more information
about resources proposed for demolition and discuss possible designations at next meeting.
N. Brcak stated that she can’t understand why the Delano Home is slated for demolition. The
property is in good condition and the architectural design has the elements that a landmark
should have – architectural pedigree and historic significance to the community. She was
astonished to learn that the Home would be torn down when John Novarr seemed to like the
building and it had 100% occupancy. Staff noted that Chapter 4 provides more information on
why the house will not be retained. E. McCollister stated she believed it is because the building
is in the way. Staff added that the idea seems to be that the project site should be cleared noting
that even the newer buildings are being demolished.
D. Kramer – Speaking of changing the character of the neighborhood, the dEIS states that the
project is targeted for graduate students. He questioned how one can favor one group over
another in access to rental housing. K. Michaels stated that J. Novarr is not going to bar anyone
from renting the apartments. Graduate students rent most apartments in this area and the
apartments will be designed to appeal to graduate students. Undergraduates tend to live in the
center of Collegetown where “the action is.” Michaels acknowledged that “aimed toward” or
“marketed to” graduate students would have been better wording.
E. McCollister said the doubling of renters will have an impact on neighborhood character
adding that price points are also higher than Ithaca’s traditional graduate student rents.
-2-
ILPC Minutes
June 29, 2010
Staff noted that if members had specific properties in mind that deserve a second look in the
fEIS, a specific list would be helpful. Properties mentioned included
1. 811 East State Street – Martha Van Renssalaer House a nationally significant person
lived in half of the double house.
2. 717 and 719 East State Street, the Driscoll family properties – architecturally notable
properties associated with a family influential in Ithaca’s physical development
3. The Jane A. Delano Nurses Home – 113-115 Valentine Place
4. Residential buildings on the eastern end of property
Staff asked the Commission about the assessment in the dEIS of the changes in the environment
brought on largely by rapid introduction and growing dependence on the automobile. The dEIS
states that heavy traffic on East State Street and loss of lawn and landscape to asphalt parking
suggests that the properties have lost integrity of setting and feeling as construed in the National
Register criteria for listing. The dEIS claims that changes to the street over time have caused
buildings to lose the historic context. If regular change over time of the historic setting were
cause to rule out measures of protection, then many significant buildings would not meet the test.
Staff added that change to a streetscape over time is a reflection of the historic development of
the City.
It was noted that the dEIS evaluated only the individual buildings. Methodology for determining
significance also allows for consideration of the buildings in the context of an ensemble, where
the significance of the ensemble may be greater that the significance of any individual building
N. Brcak noted that 123 South Quarry Street, the Boiler Plant, an extremely utilitarian building
was included in the National Register listing and local designation of the hospital complex. To
jettison the Delano Home from the hospital complex seems contradictory. The Delano House is
of equal or greater significance to the complex and its exclusion from the complex represents an
inconsistency within dEIS.
Staff explained that to be most useful the ILPC comments would be posed in a manner that
would elicit response from the developer. D. Kramer asked if you could suggest something as
wild as “I’d like to see if buildings can be incorporated into the design.” Staff responded that
ILPC could request information about why some buildings were not integrated into the design.
D. Kramer elaborated on stabilization and rehabilitation costs outlined in Appendix D, noting
that costs for stabilization generally looked good. In contrast he could not understand understand
the $43k to restore windows on A-45. When it comes to rehabilitation costs, - fixing up
bathrooms, kitchens, apartments (A-47), i.e. fix up 5 apartments for 295,900 – the estimates are
not in line with David’s experience with rehabilitations.
-3-
ILPC Minutes
June 29, 2010
In response to relationship of buildings on either side of East State Street, K. Michaels stated that
the buildings on both sides of the street are the same height but the topography is different. E.
McCollister responded that this is not true for 900-blk where the grade difference is not as
dramatic.
E. Finegan noted that he is very familiar with 707 E. State Street. With regard to cost estimates,
E. Finegan stated that if he owned 707 East State Street, he would plan on $80-90k for the
rehabilitation, where the dEIS proposes $160,000.
E. Finegan stated that the upper E. State Street buildings, quite a few are of significance. The
700 block, for example contains a mix: some that are in relatively good condition, and others,
that have been neglected and would be difficult and expensive to retain. The overall project
design of project did not take into consideration some of the more significant buildings. May be
too late to do anything in this case, but this could be lesson to take forward. The Commission
should look at individual buildings throughout the City.
Staff noted that the City was taken by surprise with this project. The Common Council is
looking into zoning alternatives that prevent consolidation of parcels to create large sited that are
out of character of the neighborhood. For this project, the Commission should be aware that its
comments will be taken into consideration as it moves forward. Commission members should
not assume it is too late for their comments and suggestions to have any impact.
Staff noted that Commission members seem to be asking if there was any consideration of
retaining the buildings along E. State Street or incorporating them into the project design? D.
Kramer – added that dEIS notes cost and safety as being the primary reasons
N. Brcak stated costs of rehabilitation for newer buildings are quite high. What will the new
development be like in 25 years? The comment may be outside of the purview of the ILPC, but
it seems that cost estimates for rehabilitating even 30 year old buildings are quite high. She
speculated that the developer may intend to enter into a lease with or sale of the property and
develop a Cornell “village” on the site.
N. Brcak re-stated that the Jane A Delano Home is in fine shape and is well-built. It is clearly
proposed for demolition for other reasons. She is really concerned about that building. She is
not concerned about timing for a nomination of this property and believes designation should
move forward.
D. Kramer state again that he would like to see some buildings preserved and joined to the
project, thereby improving the relationship of the project to the current neighborhood character.
S. Stein solicited comment from members of the Public.
M. Tomlan stated that the Boiler Works was an important building to the hospital complex,
serving as a laundry in addition to cooling and heating. N. Brcak clarified that she did not mean
to imply the Boiler Works was not significant, but that if the Boiler Works was considered to be
important to the complex, then surely the nurses’ residence is too.
-4-
ILPC Minutes
June 29, 2010
Staff summarized the comments raised by the ILPC:
• Compatibility of new design with neighborhood character
• Demolition of so many buildings on south side of E. State Street
o Focus in on some that have a higher degree of significance or are more easily
rehabilitated
• Demolition of the Jane A. Delano Nurses Home
• Buildings assessed on individual basis rather than looking at the buildings as an ensemble
and as part of the development of the City of Ithaca
• Questions about estimated rehabilitation costs
S. Stein noted that in past, Commission has provided guidance on design in order to better fit an
existing neighborhood context, citing the Bridges building in Cornell Heights as an example.
She noted that unfortunately the Commission did not have an opportunity to comment during the
development of the design.
Staff reminded members that the ILPC comments can still have an impact at this phase. The
ILPC has started discussion early enough that this is not the last conversation. Members can
work on and review drafts before submitting comments to the Planning Board. The Planning
Board’s public hearing is tonight and there will be comments that are relevant to the ILPC. If
any Commission members have comments that they think of after the meeting, they should call
Leslie or Megan and those comments will be put on the agenda for the next meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Leslie A. Chatterton, Secretary
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
-5-