Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2011-06-14Approved by ILPC – 10/11/11 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes – June 14, 2011 Present: Susan Stein, Chair Nancy Brcak Ed Finegan Michael McGandy Leslie Chatterton, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff Chair Susan Stein called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. and read the legal notice for the public hearings. L. Chatterton indicated that, given that only four of the six Commission members were present, the approval of any resolutions at the meeting would require a unanimous vote. As a result, the applicants would be given the option of requesting a straw poll of Commission members, so that the applicants have the choice of returning before the Commission and officially submitting their projects to a vote at a future meeting. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 100 West Buffalo Street, Cayuga Apartments, DeWitt Park Historic District Frost Travis and Chris Hyde, Ithaca Rentals, were present to address the Commission regarding the proposal. F. Travis noted that the proposal was initiated by the catastrophic failure of the building’s parapet wall, several weeks before. The applicant’s insurance claim was subsequently denied, due to the insurance company’s assertion the parapet wall had been incorrectly constructed. F. Travis noted that the applicant never established any kind of formal maintenance program for the wall, due to the way the parapet wall was originally constructed. F. Travis went on to note that, after the failure of the wall, the Building Department had instructed the contractor to obtain a building permit, which the contractor failed to do in time. The Building Department then issued a stop-work order. Furthermore, the applicant was informed by the City that for the wall to be rebuilt to the original existing height, it would require iron reinforcements, which would involve the complete reconstruction of the entire wall. As a result of these findings, and given that the applicant does not have sufficient financial resources to reconstruct the entire parapet wall, the applicant is proposing rebuilding the wall at a slightly lower height to avoid the iron reinforcements and associated work. F. Travis indicated the applicant does not believe lowering the parapet wall by 16 inches would be significant enough of a drop to deleteriously impact the appearance of the building from street-level. C. Hyde added that reducing the height of the parapet wall would also allow for the re-use of many of its bricks, which would otherwise have been extremely difficult to find acceptable substitutes for. 1 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 N. Brcak asked when the wall was constructed, to which F. Travis replied, circa 1933. F. Travis reiterated that the construction method used at the time was flawed, and it did not incorporate enough structural support. L. Chatterton remarked that the impact of the proposed reduction in the wall’s height is strictly visual, but that it is a little difficult to determine from the one photograph just how noticeable the change would turn out to be. M. McGandy noted that, judging strictly on aesthetic grounds, there is really no case to be made for reducing the wall’s height (although he appreciates the unique circumstances that led to the current proposal) and he would be inclined to vote against the proposal. E. Finegan agreed that the circumstances the applicant finds itself in do indeed make it very difficult to reconstruct the wall as originally constructed. He indicated that he does not believe it would be unduly noticeable and he would be inclined to vote to approve the proposal. S. Stein indicated she agreed with everything E. Finegan expressed and she would likewise be inclined to vote to approve the proposal. N. Brcak noted that she believes the proposed project might work and that it would be very good to be able to re-use the original materials. Her only reservation would be in establishing a precedent that might encourage other applicants to allow certain features of historic buildings to deteriorate to the extent that repairing them and returning them to their original state becomes cost-prohibitive. Despite her reservations, N. Brcak indicated she would be inclined to vote to approve the proposal. S. Stein noted that, given the Commission members are not all in agreement, the applicant is free to bring the proposed project back to the ILPC at a later date, to which F. Travis agreed. B. 221 Eddy Street, East Hill Historic District (consideration of this project was deferred until later in the meeting) C. 108-110 Eddy Street, Grey Court, East Hill Historic District Applicant Ike Nestopoulos reiterated the salient details of the project, noting that the project in fact already received ILPC approval in 2005 for a small 5-car parking lot, and that the current proposal merely seeks to substitute engineered Unilock® cement blocks for the railroad ties in the original proposal (since railroad ties are no longer permitted). I. Nestopoulos displayed some samples of the cement blocks, indicating they are as close a match to the original stucco on the retaining wall as he could find. N. Brcak asked how long the retaining wall is, to which I. Nestopoulos replied approximately 60 feet, with a height ranging from 0” –5’11”. E. Finegan noted the proposed retaining wall appears to be a reasonably good option, compared to landscape ties. 2 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 I. Nestopoulos indicated that passers-by should not really be able to see the retaining wall, with the existing and proposed plantings serving as a screen. S. Stein asked if concrete would be poured behind the wall, to which I. Nestopoulos replied that, yes, the engineers would most likely do that or something comparable, but that it would not be visible. He added that the wall would also be staggered one inch for every 6 inches. Public Hearing On a motion by N. Brcak, seconded by E. Finegan, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no one to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by N. Brcak. RESOLUTION C: Moved by N. Brcak, seconded by E. Finegan. WHEREAS, 108-110 Eddy Street, Grey Court, is located within the East Hill Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated 5/19/11, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by applicants Matthew (“Ike”) Nestopoulos and John Puglia, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Change(s); (2) an e-mail dated 6/2/11, further elaborating on the two aforementioned narratives; (3) a Survey Map, dated January 28, 2002, issued by T.G. Miller, P.C., Engineers & Surveyors, depicting the property; and (4) an e-mail from John Puglia dated 6/2/11, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 108-110 Eddy Street, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, at the regular meeting held on 4/28/05, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission adopted a resolution to approve a 5-space parking area with a terraced retaining wall constructed of railroad ties, and WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the substitution of engineered interlocking Unilock® cement units for the previously approved railroad ties, 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 applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and 3 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 RESOLUTION C (continued): 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 6/14/2011, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is 1820-1932. As indicated on the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the building is historically and architecturally significant through its association with William H. Miller, Ithaca’s best known local architect practicing in the later 19th and early 20th Centuries. Constructed in 1909 within the period of significance for the East Hill Historic District, historically and architecturally significant through its association with W.H. Miller, and retaining a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District. The purpose of the current proposal is to substitute Unilock® cement units for the railroad ties for durability and to create a visual unity between the gray stucco exterior of the residence and the gray coloration of the Unilock® cement units, as stated in the e-mail from John Puglia, dated 6/2/11. 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 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 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 Standard #9, the substitution of the Unilock® cement units for the railroad ties will differentiate the work as new construction. The Unilock® cement units will be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment; and be it further 4 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 RESOLUTION C (continued): 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 the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further, RESOLVED, that the ILPC 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: 4-0-0 Yes M. McGandy N. Brcak E. Finegan S. Stein No Abstain E. Finegan departed at 6:09 p.m. D. 120 Heights Court, Cornell Heights Historic District Bill Hugill (representing applicant Doug Hanauer) presented a general overview of the proposed project, noting that the intention is to replace the three existing adjacent single-glazed casement windows, located on the second floor at the rear of the property, with double-glazed, aluminum-clad, low-energy Marvin replacement casements. He indicated that the final result should appear identical to the original. E. Finegan returned at 6:11 p.m. S. Stein inquired into the condition of the current windows, to which Hugill replied that they are wooden single-pane windows that neither seal, nor operate correctly. L. Chatterton affirmed that she had examined the windows in question in person and they do not appear to fit into the openings properly. She certainly believes they merit replacement. (This project very much resembles the case of the 212 Fall Creek Drive property in the Cornell Heights Historic District which was approved in February 2011.) The windows are located in an unheated portion of the house, towards the rear of the building. L. Chatterton added that she believes the proposed windows match the old ones fairly well. Moreover, the architect, Carol Brenner, is well-known to the Commission and has a history of being sensitive to these kinds of details. Likewise, applicant Doug Hanauer also has worked extensively on historic buildings. N. Brcak indicated she is a little uneasy with the aluminum-clad nature of the proposed windows, but she understands the circumstances that led to that decision. She asked if the applicant had explored other materials that would more closely reflect the construction of the original, to which D. Hugill replied, no, but he does not believe they would be recommended in this case. 5 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 E. Finegan noted that he agrees that the Commission should be sensitive to the homeowner’s need in this case. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by N. Brcak, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no one to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed on a motion by N. Brcak, seconded by E. Finegan. RESOLUTION D: Moved by N. Brcak, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 120 Heights Court is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated 5/26/11, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by applicant Doug Hanauer, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Change(s); (2) four photocopied pages of Marvin window section details and specifications, excerpted from the Marvin Architectural Detail Manual; (3) a copy of the City of Ithaca 120 Heights Court property file photograph, depicting three existing adjacent exterior windows on the second floor at the rear of the north side of the subject property, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 120 Heights Court, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, the proposed project involves replacing the three existing adjacent single-glazed casement windows on the second floor at the rear of the subject property with double-glazed, aluminum- clad, low-energy Marvin replacement casements. The muntins will have the same grill pattern as the existing windows with exterior muntins projecting from the exterior window glass. 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 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 the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on 6/14/2011, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: 6 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 RESOLUTION D (continued): As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights Historic District is 1898-1937. As indicated on the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 120 Heights Court is historically and architecturally significant as a representative example of the Prairie style, one of a variety of styles popular in the early years of the 20th Century, when Cornell Heights was developed. Constructed circa 1909-1913, within the period of significance for the Cornell Heights Historic District, and retaining a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell Heights Historic District. The purpose of the proposal is to accommodate conversion of the room from an unheated to a heated space, such that retention of heat by means of well-functioning windows will be of greater consideration. 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 Standard: #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. With respect to Standard #6, the existing casement windows, as described on the Application for a Certificated of Appropriateness Form, no longer fit the window openings and are difficult to operate and, in this case, require replacement. With respect to Standard #6, the proposed replacement window as described on the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness Form, and the accompanying excerpts from the Marvin Architectural Detail Manual, will match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. 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 the Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further, 7 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 RESOLUTION D (continued): 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: 4-0-0 Yes N. Brcak E. Finegan M. McGandy S. Stein No Abstain E. 512 East Seneca Street, East Hill Historic District (consideration of this project was deferred until later in the meeting) F. 427 East Seneca Street, East Hill Historic District Applicant, the property owner, recapitulated the salient details of the project and indicated he had spoken to L. Chatterton about the project. He noted he and his wife would be happy to make any necessary adjustments, in response to Commission feedback at this meeting. The property owner indicated that the “Part 1” fence would not be visible from any of the neighboring properties. E. Finegan asked if the “Part 2” fence was currently built on railroad ties, to which the property owner replied, yes. He also noted that a portion of the current “Part 3” fence may not be structurally sound, so the applicants decided to simply complete it using Delaware fencing. The “Part 3” fence will not be visible from any other property. L. Chatterton asked if the grade would remain constant along the “Part 3” fence, to which the property owner replied that they would match the height of the fence to the grade of the hill. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by E. Finegan, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. Neighbor Joseph Giordano, 116 Schuyler Place, indicated that the applicants are extremely responsible property owners and neighbors and that he supports the proposed alterations. Closure of Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by N. Brcak, the public hearing was closed. 8 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 RESOLUTION F: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by N. Brcak. WHEREAS, 427 East Seneca Street is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated in 1988 under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, and listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated 5/31/11, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by the owners of the property at 427 East Seneca Street, including the following: (1) a description with illustrations for each of three project components as follows: “Part 1: Installation of black woven wire deer fencing through the woods at bottom (south) border of the lot; Part 2: Installation of additional picket fencing to complete the Giordano side of the yard (116 Schuyler Place); Part 3: Continuation of Delaware fencing along west property line; (2) a site plan created by Reagan Land Surveying, dated 9/20/03, marked to show the location of proposed fencing for each project component, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 427 East Seneca Street, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, at the regular meeting held on April 13, 2010, the applicants requested and received Commission approval to have installed a 7-foot tall wooden “Delaware” style privacy fence on a portion of the western property line, and WHEREAS, At the regular meeting held on May 10, 2011, the applicants requested and received Commission approval to have erected ornamental steel fencing from the west side of the house to the west property line and from the east side of the house across the driveway to the east side neighbor’s retaining wall, and WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the three-part completion of fencing around the property, 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 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 the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on 6/14/2011, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: 9 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 RESOLUTION F (continued): As identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is 1830-1932. As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the residence at 427 East Seneca Street was constructed prior to 1850. Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District, significant as one of a group of residences constructed prior to 1850, and retaining sufficient integrity to reflect its historic and architectural significance, the residence at 427 East Seneca Street is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District. The purpose of the current request is to complete fencing of the rear yard to accommodate the introduction of a dog to the household. 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 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. #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 respect to Standard #9, the introduction of the woven wire fence as illustrated and described in Part 1 of the proposal accompanying the Certificate of Appropriateness Application, dated May 31, 2011, will be unobtrusive in its location at the south end of the rear property line as shown on “Site plan: Fencing at 427 East Seneca Street Parts 1-3” and will be difficult to see in the wooded locations. As such, the installation will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The introduction of the woven wire fencing as described and illustrated in Part 1 of the proposal will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the massing, size, and architectural features to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 RESOLUTION F (continued): With respect to Standard #9, the installation of a section of 6-foot high wood picket fencing to complete a portion of the neighboring fencing, as illustrated and described in Part 2 of the proposal accompanying the Certificate of Appropriateness Application, dated May 31, 2011, and to be located behind the stone shed as shown on “Site plan: Fencing at 427 East Seneca Street Parts 1-3,” will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The section of wood picket fencing as described and illustrated on Part 2 of the proposal will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the massing, size, and architectural features to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #9, the installation of additional “Delaware” style fencing so as to meet the woven wire fencing as illustrated and described in Part 3 of the proposal accompanying the Certificate of Appropriateness Application, dated May 31, 2011, and shown on “Site plan: Fencing at 427 East Seneca Street Parts 1-3,” will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The additional fencing to be located on the shared lot line will be differentiated from the old and would be compatible with the massing, size, and architectural features to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, as illustrated and described on Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the proposal accompanying the Certificate of Appropriateness Application, dated May 31, 2011, the additional fencing will be installed in a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 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 the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further, 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: 4-0-0 Yes N. Brcak E. Finegan M. McGandy S. Stein No Abstain G. 116 Schuyler Place, East Hill Historic District Applicant Joseph Giordano presented a general overview of the proposed project. He noted that the current retaining wall at the rear lot line of the property is caving in, onto his neighbors’ property, so something needs to be done about this a soon as possible. He noted he was informed that the existing stone is too fragile to reuse; and he indicated that replacing the original stone with similar stone would be cost-prohibitive for him. After consulting with his neighbors, the applicant decided to opt for 11 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 constructing an entirely new retaining wall out of concrete blocks, incorporating some evergreen bushes around the wall. S. Stein asked if the stone being removed is supporting the slope, to which J. Giordano replied, no. E. Finegan indicated that he was supportive of the project. Public Hearing On a motion by N. Brcak, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. The owner of the property located at 427 E. Seneca Street spoke in support of the project. He noted that the wall is visible from the backyard of his property. Although the installation of concrete blocks is not necessarily ideal, he supports it, given that there are no other cost-effective alternatives. J. Giordano reiterated that it would in fact represent a financial hardship for him to employ matching stone. M. McGandy indicated that his only concern would be that the concrete blocks may not be easily removed in the future. L. Chatterton remarked that the wall is not an actual part of the residence and thus does not strictly fall within the ILPC’s purview. N. Brcak noted that, given the distance of the wall from the residence and the public view, she would support the project. Closure of Public Hearing The public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Jones. RESOLUTION G: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 116 Schuyler Place is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated 5/31/11, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner, Joseph Giordano, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Change(s); (2) a sketch prepared by builder Edward Merrick of the proposed wall showing the dimensions of the concrete blocks, and the relationship between the blocks, the property line, and the existing wall; and (4) photocopied photographs showing condition of the existing stone wall and the proposed concrete blocks, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 116 Schuyler Place, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and 12 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 RESOLUTION G (continued): WHEREAS, as stated in the Description of Proposed Change(s), and shown in the photocopied photographs accompanying the application, the proposed project involves the replacement of the existing 4-foot high, 30-foot long stone retaining wall (estimated at more than 100 years old), located on the rear lot line of the property with concrete blocks, and the addition of evergreen bushes to improve its visual appearance, 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 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 the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on 6/14/2011, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is 1830-1932. As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the house was constructed c 1875 and is a good example of a modest stick-style home. As shown on the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the property retains sufficient integrity to reflect its architectural significance. Constructed within the period of significance for the East Hill Historic District, the property at 116 Schuyler Place is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District. As described in the Certificate of Appropriateness Application, and shown in the accompanying photocopied photographs, the purpose of the proposal is to replace the deteriorated retaining wall. 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 Standard: 13 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 RESOLUTION G (continued): #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. #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 respect to Standard #6, as stated in the narrative Reasons for Change(s) and shown in the photocopied photographs, the severity of deterioration will not require replacement. As shown in the sketch prepared by Edward Merrick, and in the photocopied photograph of the proposed replacement block, the concrete blocks will not match the existing stone in design, color texture, visual qualities, or material. In this case, the potential adverse affect of replacing the stone wall with concrete is mitigated by the fact that the wall proposed for replacement is not visible to the public. With respect to Standard #10, the replacement of the deteriorated portion of the wall 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. 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 the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further, 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: 4-0-0 Yes N. Brcak E. Finegan M. McGandy S. Stein No Abstain H. 40 Ridgewood Road, Cornell Heights Historic District Applicant David Ruff presented a general overview of the details of the proposed project. He noted that the project was conceived as a result of finding extensive damage underneath some of the old asbestos siding. Determining the true extent of the damage required removing some additional siding. The plan is to repair the roof, which had been leaking and causing the damage in question. The repairs would 14 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 include adding new insulation, as well as a rubber membrane that would be identical to the existing membrane. Currently, three contractors are bidding on the work. Once the project is complete, the work should appear identical to the rest of the building. N. Brcak asked when the addition was put in, to which D. Ruff responded approximately 1950. D. Ruff indicated he did not have any material samples to present to the Commission at this time; the applicant is considering several different brands, although all of them are cementitious. S. Stein asked if the Commission could ask the applicant to consider materials more consistent with those used on the original house. L. Chatterton replied that this had been considered, but that it would not satisfy the standard. S. Stein asked if the applicant intended on installing appropriate flashings, to which D. Ruff replied, yes. Public Hearing On a motion by N. Brcak, seconded by E. Finegan, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no one to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by E. Finegan. RESOLUTION H: Moved by N. Brcak, seconded by E. Finegan. WHEREAS, 40 Ridgewood Road is located in the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated 5/31/11, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by applicant David Ruff, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Change(s); (2) five copies of photographs, depicting: (a) the view of Ridgewood Road from the street, (b) a side view of the subject area of the house, (c) an image of the area of missing shingles, (d) an image of the underlying rotted sheathing and studs, and (e) an image of the existing rubber membrane roof to be replaced with like material, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 40 Ridgewood Road, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, As described in the Description of Proposed Change(s), the proposed project involves the removal of the old asbestos siding to reveal the extent of structural damage underneath (already partially visible, where some shingles have fallen off), as well as the repair of the leaking roof, characterized as the source of the problem. The roof repair will consist of adding insulation and a new rubber membrane, made of the same material as currently exists. Once the repairs are complete, the structure will be re-sided with the a cementitious siding material that will match the existing siding except for the lack of asbestos, and 15 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 RESOLUTION H (continued): 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 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 the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on 6/14/2011, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights Historic District is 1898-1937. As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the house was constructed sometime after 1924, is an architecturally significant as a representative example of the Colonial Revival style, and retains a sufficient architectural integrity to reflect a modest level of integrity. As described on the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the proposed roof work consists of “in-kind” replacement of a rubber membrane, and as such, requires no further review. The proposed alteration of the siding material will affect a later addition to the original structure and is not easily visible to the public. 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 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. 16 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 RESOLUTION H (continued): With respect to Standard #9, as shown on photocopied photographs attached to the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the proposed re-siding will affect an area of the structure that is a later addition. The proposed replacement of “asbestos shingles” with cementitious shingles will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. With respect to Standard #9, as stated in the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the proposed replacement of “asbestos shingles” with cementitious shingles that constitute the new work will be differentiated from the old, and will be compatible with the massing, size, and scale and material to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment; and be it further 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 the Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further, 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: 4-0-0 Yes N. Brcak E. Finegan M. McGandy S. Stein No Abstain B. 221 Eddy Street, East Hill Historic District (The applicant not was not present to address the Commission.) M. McGandy remarked that the project illustration depicts picketing that is wider than the existing picketing on the site. L. Chatterton agreed, noting that there are also some discrepancies associated with the latticework that is depicted. She added that when writing the resolution for the project she had presumed that all of the details of the proposed new work would be identical to the details on the current porch. E. Finegan noted that there is no indication from the illustration that the trim work would be done to match the existing trim. L. Chatterton noted that she suspected that would not be a problem, given that it is not a great deal of work. She suggested the Commission could move to approve the project, on the condition that Planning staff would perform a complete review of the detailing work. 17 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by E. Finegan, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no one to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by E. Finegan. RESOLUTION B: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by N. Brcak. WHEREAS, 221 Eddy Street is located within the East Hill Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, in e-mail form, dated 4/24/11, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by builder Michael Cohen, Rent An Artisan, LLC, including the following: (1) a bulleted project description; (2) a digital copy of a Survey Map, dated December 27, 1994, issued by T.G. Miller, P.C., Engineers & Surveyors, depicting the location of a set of proposed new steps to adjoin the existing raised exterior door on the building’s south side; (3) ten photographs of the property depicting a variety of views from both the street and the south side, and close-up views of the existing south side door and roof; and (4) two sketches titled New Landing & Stairs for Exterior Side Door at 221 Eddy Street created by builder Michael Cohen, Rent An Artisan, LLC, and dated 4/23/11, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 221 Eddy Street, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, the proposed project, as described in the bulleted project description, shown in the accompanying photographs and depicted in the two sketches titled New Landing & Stairs for Exterior Side Door at 221 Eddy Street, involves construction of a new landing outside an existing raised exterior door on the south side of the building, as well as a new stairs and handrails from the landing to the ground. Using pressure-treated lumber and painted to match the adjacent rear porch, the design details such as the rear porch latticework, the “picket” size, and spacing will match the adjacent rear porch. The existing roof above the door will be re-painted, 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 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 the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on 6/14/2011, now therefore be it 18 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 RESOLUTION B (continued): RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is 1820-1932. As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the property was constructed c. 1910 and is architecturally significant as a skillful example of the manner in which architectural elements from a variety of styles popular in the late 19th and 20th Centuries were combined. As shown in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the property retains a high level of integrity. Constructed with the period of significance for the East Hill Historic District, and retaining a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District. As described in the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness narrative, Reason for Change(s), and shown on the two sketches entitled New Landing and Stairs for Exterior Side Door at 221 Eddy Street, Ithaca, the purpose of the proposal is to construct a new landing and stairs to an existing exterior door. 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 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 Standard #9, as indicated in the bulleted project description dated 4/24/11, and shown in the accompanying sketches, dated 4/23/11, and in photocopied photographs, 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; and be it further 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 the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), now, therefore be it further, 19 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 RESOLUTION B (continued): 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: Planning and Development Department staff shall perform a complete review of the detailing work. RECORD OF VOTE: 4-0-0 Yes N. Brcak E. Finegan M. McGandy S. Stein No Abstain E. 512 East Seneca Street, East Hill Historic District (Commission members reviewed the application and conducted an informal discussion of the proposal, in light of the applicant’s absence.) E. Finegan inquired how the Commission generally handles proposed projects that involve installing new gutters, when the original gutters they replace are inferior to the new ones. E. Finegan remarked that the “K” style gutters purportedly trap and distribute water more effectively. L. Chatterton indicated that the Commission needs more information before it can make a determination (e.g., determine if there are any studies that recommend particular gutter styles for particular roof configurations and materials). Some kind of industry standard must exist that might inform the Commission’s decision. Further discussion and review of the proposed project were deferred to a later date. II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR A. Administrative Matters L. Chatterton indicated that the advertisement for her position had been published; although it has been limited to a half-time position, focusing primarily on the historic preservation portion of her current position, and focusing little, if any, on the neighborhood planning portion. L. Chatterton informed the Commission that the Collegetown historic resources survey Certified Local Government Grant Application to the state Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation had been approved. Mary Tomlan and Historic Ithaca would be responsible for its implementation. B. Communications (no discussion) 20 of 21 ILPC Minutes June 14, 2011 C. Public Comment on Matters of Interest (no comments) III. MINUTES As moved by M. McGandy and seconded by N. Brcak, Commission members unanimously approved the following meeting minutes: • March 8, 2011 (Regular Meeting) • March 22, 2011 (Special Meeting) • May 10, 2011 (Regular Meeting) IV. OLD BUSINESS (no old business was discussed) V. NEW BUSINESS (no new business was discussed) VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. by Chair S. Stein. Respectfully Submitted, Leslie A. Chatterton, Secretary Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 21 of 21