Loading...
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-