Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2011-11-08Approved by ILPC – 12/13/11 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes – November 8, 2011 Present: Susan Stein, Chair Nancy Brcak David Kramer Ed Finegan Michael McGandy Lynn Truame, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff Chair Susan Stein called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and read the legal notice for the public hearings. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2 Ridgewood Road, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Replace Three Existing Doors. (Tabled at meeting held on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.) The applicant did not appear before the Commission. Consideration of the project was deferred until later in the meeting and then finally tabled, when the applicant failed to appear. B. 121 Heights Court, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Construct Garden Shed. Applicant Bill Demo recapitulated the salient details of the application. Noting that his attached garage is too small to contain anything more than a single vehicle, he explained he would like a place to store other items, such as a wheelbarrow, lawnmower, etc., and is proposing constructing a garden shed for that purpose. B. Demo noted he does not believe there would be much, if any, visual impact from the project, given that his backyard is enclosed by surrounding lots/buildings and is entirely concealed from the road. B. Demo remarked he is proposing SmartSide paneling for the shed, due to its light weight, durability, ease of installation, and resistance to impact damage. SmartSide is an engineered wood product. B. Demo indicated that he had explored rough-cut pine, arranged in a board-and-batten style, as an alternative to the SmartSide siding, but he would prefer to use SmartSide. He remarked that he is impressed with SmartSide’s overall aesthetic appearance and the board-and-batten siding would not be appreciably more attractive, while being more difficult to install. D. Kramer asked if the applicant had an image of the proposed siding which the Commission might examine, to which B. Demo replied, yes, and proceeded to distribute it to the Commission. N. Brcak asked if the shed had been drawn to scale on Attachment 1 of the application. B. Demo replied that had been his intent and the drawing should be very close to scale. S. Stein asked if the SmartSide siding were similar in appearance to T 111 siding. B. Demo replied it is similar, but when he compared T 111 with SmartSide, the Smartside looked more finished. 1 of 9 ILPC Minutes November 8, 2011 E. Finegan inquired into the nature of the roofing material, to which B. Demo replied it would be standard asphalt shingles. D. Kramer asked if the Building Department expressed any concerns with the project, to which B. Demo replied, no. The Building Department indicated no building permit would be required because the shed is so small. N. Brcak asked if the SmartSide would be horizontally installed, to resemble clapboards, or vertically, to resemble board-and-batten. B. Demo replied, vertically to resemble board-and-batten. Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by E. Finegan, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed on a motion by E. Finegan, seconded by M. McGandy. S. Stein indicated she sees no problem with the proposed shed, assuming there are no setback requirements. E. Finegan agreed, as long as it complies with zoning regulations. D. Kramer and M. McGandy both expressed agreement. N. Brcak indicated the proposed shed does seem well-differentiated from the house. In fact, she would have preferred it to resemble the house a little more, but that simply represents her personal preference and is not something the Commission requires. RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 121 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 October 23, 2011, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Bill Demo, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Change(s); (2) a site plan showing the proposed location of the new shed on the property; (3) a construction diagram of the proposed shed; (4) a product information sheet for LP SmartSide, the proposed sheathing material for the shed; and (5) a construction detail labeled “fig. 3,” illustrating the installation method for board and batten siding, which is a proposed alternative sheathing material, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 121 Heights Court and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative, Description of Proposed Change(s), and shown on the submitted site plan, the proposed project involves construction of a 6’x8’ garden shed at the far southeast corner of the property, and 2 of 9 ILPC Minutes November 8, 2011 WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness 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 11/08/2011, 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, 121 Heights Court was constructed c. 1914-1915 in the Classical Revival style. Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell Heights Historic District. The purpose of the proposal is to construct a 6’x8’ shed for the storage of gardening tools and equipment. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this case specifically the following Standards: #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be 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. 3 of 9 ILPC Minutes November 8, 2011 #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 construction of the new garden shed in the far southeast corner of the property does not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. With respect to Standard #9, the simple 6’x8’ gabled-roofed shed, sheathed with LP SmartSide, is differentiated from the old and is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, the new shed, which will be supported on pre-cast concrete deck blocks, can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property or its environment. 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: 5-0-0 Yes D. Kramer M. McGandy N. Brcak E. Finegan S. Stein No Abstain II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR A. Administrative Matters 1. Revisions to Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, Resolution in Support Approximately two years ago, L. Truame recounted, her predecessor, Leslie Chatterton, started exploring possible revisions to Chapter 73, “Landmarks Preservation Commission” and Chapter 228, “Landmarks Preservation,” of the City Municipal code. Over that time, multiple revisions were considered, including several based on the Preservation League of New York State’s model ordinance. L. Truame noted that Ithaca’s landmarks preservation ordinance was among the first in the state to be adopted and has been amended several times. It seemed time for a complete review to ensure the ordinance remains up-to-date with current preservation practice. 4 of 9 ILPC Minutes November 8, 2011 L. Truame noted that two of the principal items added to the ordinance during the revision process were the early design guidance and affirmative maintenance sections. L. Truame indicated the Building Commissioner expressed concern with the proposed affirmative maintenance revisions, given that her department currently does not have sufficient staff to enforce the requirement. L. Truame indicated she had scheduled a meeting with the Building Commissioner to discuss modifications to the language of this section that would address the Commissioner’s concerns. Community member Nancy Schuler had also suggested that Commission members themselves might each “adopt” a historic district and perform periodic visual surveys of its properties, to help lighten the work load for City staff. Those Commission members in attendance indicated their support for this suggestion. N. Brcak asked how the City handles the enforcement of sidewalk repairs — they surely have an established mechanism for handling that. L. Truame responded, yes, the City has established mechanisms for handling sidewalk repairs, as well as enforcement of garbage-related ordinances, and so on. No doubt, however, some ordinances are more rigorously enforced than others, depending on how difficult they are to enforce and how many staff are available to do so, among other factors. N. Brcak indicated she hopes the Building Commissioner might be persuaded to see the merit in the proposed maintenance and repair section. It would ultimately be fairer to both the community-at- large and individual property owners to have that language included. D. Kramer asked about the language in §228-6 D. that states: “Upon application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, a public notice of the proposal shall be posted on the property for a minimum of 10 days.” He asked who would be responsible for putting up the signs. L. Truame replied she would need to ask Planner Megan Wilson, but it is probably something that is routinely conducted for other City ordinances such as site plan review, so a similar process could be followed. D. Kramer asked how many properties would constitute “so many owners that individual notice is infeasible,” in the §228-3 D. language that states: “Notice of a proposed designation shall be sent to the owner or owners of the property or properties proposed for designation, describing the property proposed, or if in a district, the proposed district boundary, and announcing a public hearing by the Commission to consider the designation. Where the proposed designation involves so many owners that individual notice is infeasible, notice may instead be published at least once in the City’s official newspaper at least 15 days prior to the date of the public hearing.” L. Truame replied this would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. For example, it would likely not be feasible for a historic district as large as the East Hill Historic District, given the sheer number of properties it contains, but certainly it would be feasible for the proposed Henry St. John Historic District, containing only 77 properties. D. Kramer indicated he likes the proposed ordinance, to which S. Stein agreed. The Commission then proceeded to review the language of the resolution. 5 of 9 ILPC Minutes November 8, 2011 RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by N. Brcak WHEREAS, Chapters 73 (“Landmarks Preservation Commission”) and 228 (“Landmarks Preservation”) of the City Municipal code, collectively known as the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, were first enacted in 1975 and have since been periodically amended, most recently in 1998, and WHEREAS, substantial revisions to Chapter 228 and certain related changes to Chapter 73 have recently been suggested, including the following: 1. replacement of the requirement for two members of the Commission to specifically represent the cultural interests of the community and two members to specifically represent the commercial interests of the community with the less stringent requirement that those four members simply represent the community at large; 2. relocation of the sub-section that enumerates the powers and duties of the commission from Chapter 228 to Chapter 73; 3. broadening the permissible charge of Commission sub-committees to include any assignment delegated by the full Commission, rather than restricting that charge solely to review and action upon Certificates of Appropriateness; 4. relocation of the sub-section requiring the cooperation of city departments from Chapter 228 to Chapter 73; 5. general reorganization of Chapter 228 to improve clarity; 6. elimination of a separate definitions sub-section and incorporation of definitions, as needed, into the text of the ordinance itself; 7. creation, and detailed explanation of the process for, an action titled Finding of Economic Hardship that will be the basis for permitting demolition or exterior alterations for which the Commission has previously denied a Certificate of Appropriateness; 8. deletion of the current City Improvements sub-section and addition of the requirement that all changes to City-owned property affecting a landmark or located within an historic district be subject to the provisions of the landmarks ordinance; 9. creation of a sub-section explicitly stating that the basis for decisions by the Commission in ruling on Certificates of Appropriateness is the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation; 10. insertion of new language extending the deadline for Commission action on Certificates of Appropriateness when environmental review for a project is also required; 11. addition of a new sub-section creating an expiration date for Certificates of Appropriateness and a process for extensions; 12. addition of a new requirement for, and detailed description of, an Early Design Guidance process, affecting large projects; and 13. addition of a new sub-section requiring appropriate maintenance and repair of properties to prevent their physical deterioration; and 6 of 9 ILPC Minutes November 8, 2011 WHEREAS, these revisions are intended to better effectuate the goals of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, namely to: 1. Promote the educational, cultural, economic, and general welfare of the public through the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance; 2. Safeguard the city’s historic, aesthetic, and cultural heritage by preserving landmarks and districts of historical and cultural significance; 3. Stabilize and improve property values; 4. Foster civic pride in the legacy of beauty and achievements of the past; 5. Protect and enhance the city’s attractions to tourists and visitors and the support and stimulus to business thereby provided; 6. Strengthen the economy of the city; and 7. Promote the use of landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance as sites for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of the city; and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the proposed revisions to the ordinances and finds that said revisions will, in fact, better effectuate the goals of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance as stated above, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC supports the proposed revisions to Chapters 73 and 228 of the City Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC recommends the adoption of said revisions by the Common Council. RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0 Yes M. McGandy N. Brcak E. Finegan D. Kramer S. Stein No Abstain B. Public Comments on Matters of Interest None. C. Communications None. III. MINUTES As moved by M. McGandy and seconded by D. Kramer, Commission members unanimously approved the following meeting minutes, with one minor change: • October 11, 2011 (Regular Meeting) • October 25, 2011 (Special Meeting) 7 of 9 ILPC Minutes November 8, 2011 IV. OLD BUSINESS None. V. NEW BUSINESS Cornell Means Restriction Project L. Truame remarked that before L. Chatterton, her predecessor, had retired, she indicated to Planning Department staff that she did not believe the ILPC would need to review any of the proposed alterations to the seven bridges on which means restrictions were to be installed, therefore the ILPC was not listed as an Involved Agency for the purpose of environmental review of the project. However, when L. Truame subsequently asked Commission members whether they felt they should review the project — since two of the bridges appear to terminate within the boundaries of the Cornell Heights Historic District — at least one Commission member indicated he thought the Commission should review it. As a result, L. Truame is recommending the ILPC should now be listed as an Involved Agency for environmental review and should indicate its support for the Planning and Development Board taking the role of Lead Agency. L. Truame then furnished a letter to this effect and, there being no objections, Chair S. Stein signed the letter. Historic District Notifications S. Stein asked when property owners in the historic districts were last notified of the status of their properties and the associated ramifications of that status. L. Truame replied she recently asked Planner Megan Wilson about this and discovered the last time this had been done was in 2008. L. Truame will determine how best to provide this notification in a cost-effective manner and will move forward with doing so as soon as possible. She hopes to notify property owners annually in the future. Student Commission Members Proposal L. Truame indicated she recently spoke to professors in the Cornell University Historic Preservation Planning program about the prospect of appointing a second-year or Ph.D. student to the Commission. She indicated the idea was well-received. If the Mayor is amenable to the idea, L. Truame will move forward with the proposal. N. Brcak indicated she likes the idea. In fact, she recalled that eight or nine years ago a couple of students sat on the Commission. 8 of 9 ILPC Minutes November 8, 2011 Prospective Commission Members Regarding the two new prospective Commission members that were introduced to the Commission at the last regular meeting (Stephen Gibian and Christine O’Malley), L. Truame noted the Mayor is currently examining their applications and would likely appoint them in December 2011, with their terms beginning January 2012. L. Truame added that Ed Finegan had agreed to serve another term, however, Susan Jones has announced she would be retiring from the Commission, in addition to Nancy Brcak. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, and as moved by D. Kramer and seconded by E. Finegan, the meeting was adjourned at 6:21 p.m. by Chair S. Stein. Respectfully Submitted, Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation and Neighborhood Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 9 of 9