Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2010-07-13Approved by ILPC – 09/29/10 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes – July 13, 2010 Present: Nancy Brcak Ed Finegan 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 5:33 pm and read the legal notice for the public hearing. I. PUBLIC HEARING A. 618 Stewart Avenue, University Hill Historic District – proposal to replace slate roof with asphalt shingle Melissa Baldassarre of Cornell Real Estate and Maria Maynard of SB Ashley Management was present to address the Commission regarding the proposal on behalf of property owner Cornell University. M. Baldassarre explained that they are seeking to replace the existing slate roof with asphalt shingle. There have been many repairs to the roof that is has now deteriorated to a point where it needs to be repaired. Excessive moisture has caused damage to the substrate. The roof decking has deteriorated, causing slate shingles to fall off. The remaining slate shingles are flaking from the excessive moisture. The proposed replacement material is CertainTeed Hatteras shingles, similar to the roof on an adjacent property. The cost of a new slate roof is approximately $440,000; the assessed value of the property is $525,000. If financed for ten years, the property will lose money for more than 10 years. Given planned capital improvements, the property will already not be generating a profit. M. Maynard indicated that the property is currently operating at a loss and expenditures to other repairs and renovations would add more value to the property. Other properties in the area have slate roofs. D. Kramer noted that slate roofs typically last for 100 years and this roof has lasted this long. He also added that if three asphalt shingle roofs are installed over the next 100 years, the cost over time would be the same. M. Baldassarre responded that while this may be true, the funding is not available at this time. The university will not fund a slate replacement and will continue to make band-aid repairs, which will not resolve the problem. N. Brcak asked how many estimates the owner received. M. Baldassarre responded that there are two estimates, one from a contractor and one from an architect. M. Maynard added that these are rough estimates based on square footage only, and the estimates 1 ILPC Minutes July 13, 2010 would like increase because the installation will be complex due to the pitch of the gables. E. Finegan asked what estimate they are using for the asphalt shingle. M. Maynard responded that they are using the cost from installing an asphalt roof on a similar property last year. This was approximately $130,000. S. Stein asked if they had looked at other replacement products than asphalt shingles. M. Maynard stated they had not and asked what products they should consider. S. Stein noted that other property owners had looked at other replacement products that are a closer match aesthetically to slate. Staff added that while these materials have been looked at, they have never been approved. While they are more durable than asphalt shingles, they are also almost as expensive as slate. The Commission discussed the purchase date of the property in relation to designation of the district. The property was purchased in 2001, and the University Hill Historic District was designated in 2003. D. Kramer asked at what price point the university would consider replacing the roof with slate. M. Baldacci responded that she did not know. Contractors have a set price and the university utilizes trade labor. The university has approved $168,000 for the project. Staff stated that the concern is that the application does not contain all of the information that the applicant discusses. There is not contradictory information, but some of the factors that were mentioned are not clearly spelled out. M. Maynard agreed that some additional information could be presented. D. Kramer asked whether the property is under rented. M. Maynard responded that while the university does not want to price gauge, the property could earn higher rents. N. Brcak discussed the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the importance of in- kind replacement when replacement is necessary. She noted that while the replacement of the slate roof with asphalt shingle will not alone destroy the property’s character, it is the individual changes that over time add up to change the character. M. Maynard explained that a large portion of the roof is not visible from the ground, but the property’s gables are. The contractor has said that it is not possible to do a partial slate replacement. Public Hearing On a motion by N. Brcak, seconded by D. Kramer, Acting Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. J. Schroeder, resident of 618 Stewart Avenue, stated that he believes that over 100 years, the cost of asphalt shingle versus slate roof will be comparable. Looking at 10 years only -2- ILPC Minutes July 13, 2010 distorts the cost comparison. He presented a printed aerial photograph of houses in the area of 618 Stewart Avenue that illustrated six of the twelve properties have either clay tile and slate roofs. The slate and clay tile roofs are a characteristic of the district, and loss of the slate roof would be a tremendous loss. For the integrity of the historic district and the integrity of the individual property, he asked the Commission to not approve an asphalt shingle replacement. John Novarr noted that the life span of asphalt shingle has increased over the years and now come with a manufacturer’s guarantee. The life span of slate varies with the quarry where it originates. He has some 60 year old slate on a property he owns, and it has already deteriorated. The issue of cost is not the durability; it is the labor. Cornell University uses union labor and this also makes it very expensive. The public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by N. Brcak. S. Stein asked staff about next steps. Staff responded that the Commission can probably agree that the roof needs to be replaced. If it cannot be replaced with asphalt shingle, the Commission will likely need to consider a hardship appeal. This will look at the revenues and expenditures of the property and determine if the property can earn a positive rate of return with the slate replacement. D. Kramer asked why only the financial information from this property alone is considered when the owner is a larger entity. Staff explained that with an income generating property, the hardship appeal focuses on the individual property alone, not the resources of the owner. It is hard to determine how the university manages its properties and whether the property is expected to sustain itself. S. Stein asked if the Commission could ask for this information, and staff said they could. D. Kramer said he would also like to see additional financial information for this property including some bids on the roof. Staff is willing to work with the applicant to obtain the necessary information. Staff also noted that, as J. Schroeder has pointed out, there are many properties with clay tile or slate roofs in the area, and if the Commission studies this property thoroughly now, it may be helpful in the future. Acting Chair S. Stein requested that the applicant present additional information including clarified financial data and additional estimates. M. Maynard said they are currently obtaining a scope of work for the project and this will help provide a better estimate. The applicant agreed to postpone the proposal until the additional information is provided. -3- ILPC Minutes July 13, 2010 II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR A. Administrative Matters B. Communications C. Public Comment on Matters of Interest III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 14, 2010; June 8, 2010 On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by E. Finegan, the minutes from the January 14, 2010 and June 8, 2010 meetings were approved with corrections. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of potential local designation of Jane A. Delano House, 113-115 Valentine Place Staff reported that the Commission has received a rough draft of the historic resources inventory of the Jane A. Delano House. This draft was received about a week ago, and several inaccuracies and errors have already been identified. Once the corrections are made and the Commission approves the document, it will be made available for public review. This remains a proposed designation. If the designation moves forward, the Commission will need to hold a public hearing. This could be as soon as early August. The Commission could be in a position to proceed with designation that night. It will then go to the Codes Committee of the Planning & Development Board, followed by the full Planning & Development Board. Once the Planning & Development Board makes its report, the proposed designation will also need to go to the Planning & Economic Development Committee of Common Council prior to going to the full Council. The soonest date for designation would likely be September 1, 2010, and the designation cannot go into effect until the Common Council votes to approve it. Mary Tomlan is preparing comment on the dEIS of the Collegetown Terrace project and provided those comments to the ILPC, including some regarding the Delano House. Staff is also expecting some documentation from the state historic preservation office. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Collegetown Terrace, East Hill Historic District – Review of and comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Collegetown Terrace project Staff reported that work continues on compiling the Commission’s comments from the last meeting. This will be distributed via email to Commission members and submitted by Friday. The Commission identified the following topics for inclusion in its coments: the impact of new architecture, impact of the round building on existing designated historic resources, the Jane A. Delano Home (to be treated separately but also part of comments on dEIS), and cost estimates for rehabilitation of existing properties. -4- ILPC Minutes July 13, 2010 Commission members were pretty comfortable with stabilization costs, but rehabilitation costs seemed to be consistently high. This could be because the developer indicated a desire to go above and beyond code requirements, but the Commission would like to know more about the methodology behind cost estimates. Commission members questioned whether there had been a determination if properties other than the Delano Home deserve designation. A conclusion was never reached. D. Kramer said that 809- 811 E. State Street is a prime candidate for designation due to its relationship with Martha Van Renssalaer. Staff will compile the comments into a document and the Commission will determine what it would like to submit. Individuals can always submit additional comments on their own. Comments would carry more weight from the ILPC but the questions of building integrity must be weighed with historic significance. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m. by Acting Chair S. Stein. Respectfully Submitted, Leslie A. Chatterton, Secretary Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission -5-