HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2011-12-13Approved by ILPC – 1/10/12
1 of 16
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – December 13, 2011
Present:
Susan Stein, Chair
Nancy Brcak
David Kramer
Ed Finegan
Michael McGandy
Susan Jones
Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison
Lynn Truame, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Susan Stein called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. and read the legal notice for the public
hearings.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 2 Ridgewood Rd, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Replace Three Existing
Doors. (Tabled at meeting held on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 and on Tuesday, November 8,
2011.)
Applicant Bojan Petek recapitulated the salient details of the project and introduced Alpha Phi Theta
Alumni Club Chairperson Victor Aprea and Chapter House Manager Charles Rose. B. Petek indicated
he consulted with Housing Inspector Bill Holtkamp regarding the fire code regulations and determined
that leaving the middle doors as they are and replacing the two side doors with fixed panels would be
allowed by code. Any change to existing conditions at the center door, however, would trigger
compliance with current egress codes for that door. That would mean that one leaf of the door would
have to be at least 32” wide.
If the Commission does not approve replacing both leaves of the center door with two wider leaves, as
proposed, B. Petek remarked, the following options would remain:
(1) leave the center doors as they are, but repair them; or
(2) install a single 48” leaf that fits the existing opening.
E. Finegan asked if it were acceptable to City Code to take the two leaves off and replace them with a
48” leaf, to which B. Petek replied, yes. B. Petek added that the transom could be left alone.
M. McGandy indicated that his understanding is that the applicant’s principal driving concern is the
issue of energy-loss. Now that the applicant knows the side doors do not need to be operable to comply
with the fire code, it would seem there would be more options to consider.
D. Kramer suggested installing a large double-paned storm in front of the existing side doors, to which
B. Petek replied that the applicant had in fact already employed something similar, which was affixed
with magnetic strips; however, it was very difficult to maintain in place. D. Kramer clarified that his
suggestion was to build a sealed frame on the exterior with double-paned glass. B. Petek responded that
he thought this would visually obscure the existing doors.
ILPC Minutes
December 13, 2011
2 of 16
S. Stein asked if replacing the center doors would solve the problem of water seepage under those doors
(which the applicant had noted was an issue), to which V. Aprea replied, yes. He also noted that the
gutters have been replaced and the roof is being regularly maintained, which appears to have corrected
the problem already.
At this juncture, Chair Stein asked if Commission members would be amenable to a straw poll regarding
the proposed project. No objections were raised.
E. Finegan remarked he does not feel particularly strongly about any of the available options for the side
doors. He added that replacing the middle doors does seem to make sense, as long as the middle door
sidelights and fan light are preserved.
D. Kramer agreed with E. Finegan, noting that the most important consideration for him is to preserve
the sidelights and fan light. He would regret seeing the side doors replaced, since the new units would
not be as good a visual match with the center door assembly; but he agrees the side doors do appear to
be severely deteriorated.
M. McGandy indicated he agrees with E. Finegan; the overriding concern is preserving the integrity of
the center door assembly.
N. Brcak remarked she is primarily concerned with the center door, as well.
S. Jones noted she would like to see as much original material retained as possible, which would mean
retaining the two side doors, the fan light, and the sidelights.
S. Stein indicated that the center doors are her primary concern.
D. Kramer asked if it would be possible to replace the two side doors so they mirror the height and
proportions of the center door sidelights. B. Petek replied that the new side doors would be “stock”
material, so dimension options would be limited, but he would select the closest match It could be that
one would not observe much, if any, difference.
D. Kramer asked if it would be possible to approve the resolution with a condition regarding the
appearance of the replacement units for the side doors and an instruction to work with staff on the final
unit selected, to which L. Truame replied, yes, as long as the condition is specific enough.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Jones, second by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 2 Ridgewood Road 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
ILPC Minutes
December 13, 2011
3 of 16
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated September 26, 2011, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Bojan Petek, of Petex Restoration Ltd. on
behalf of property owner Phi Delta Theta Fraternity, including the following: (1) two
narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Change(s);
(2) photographs of the property, including (a) the existing doors off the library, (b) the view
of the existing doors from the street; and (3) product specifications for the Marvin Clad
Swinging French Door, and
WHEREAS, additional application materials were submitted to the ILPC, including an architectural
drawing titled Front Elevation, Phi Delta Theta, dated 10/4/11, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 2
Ridgewood Road, 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 in the
photographs of the property, the proposed project involves replacement of two sets of
doors which exit from the library at the rear of the building with fixed panels, and
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 10/11/11,
and
WHEREAS, at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on 10/11/11, the proposal was tabled so that the
applicant might further explore alternative approaches to the proposed treatment of the
doors, such that original elements of the complete assembly might be preserved, 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 between 1921 and 1922 and combines elements of revival styles of the first
quarter of the 20th century.
ILPC Minutes
December 13, 2011
4 of 16
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and
possessing a relatively high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the
Cornell Heights Historic District.
The purpose of the proposal is to replace deteriorated original doors.
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:
#2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The
removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a
property shall be avoided.
#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 #2, the two existing doors that flank the central door off the
library, as shown in the photographs of the building, are distinctive features that characterize
the property.
With respect to Standard #2, the replacement of these two doors with aluminum-clad fixed
panels having the same configuration of divided lights as the existing doors will alter features
that characterize the property.
With respect to Standard #6, as shown in the photographs of the existing doors, these two
doors have deteriorated to a condition that requires their replacement.
With respect to Standard #6, as shown in the photographs of the existing doors and the
product specifications for the proposed replacement panels, the new panels will match the
old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities.
ILPC Minutes
December 13, 2011
5 of 16
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 with the
following condition:
Staff will work with the applicant to ensure the muntin and mullion layout and proportions
of the new fixed panels approximate, as closely as reasonably possible, the layout and
proportions of the central door sidelights.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
S. Jones
M. McGandy
N. Brcak
E. Finegan
D. Kramer
S. Stein
No
Abstain
Regarding the proposed replacement of the center door assembly, L. Truame recommended Commission
members review the different options that have been presented by the applicant and consider which ones
they could accept. If Commission members and the applicant cannot agree on any of the options, then
the application could simply be withdrawn and the doors maintained as-is, since there is no requirement
that they be altered for reasons of egress.
D. Kramer asked how the applicant feels about proceeding in this manner. The applicant has the
previously approved resolution for replacement of the side doors and could simply repair the center
doors, rather than replace them. B. Petek replied, yes, that option would be acceptable. B. Petek
withdrew the applicant’s proposal to alter the center door assembly. B. Petek thanked the Commission
members for their time.
B. Cornell Suspension Bridge, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Install Blue Light
Emergency Phone
Applicant John Keefe indicated the proposed project involves the installation of a blue light, security
camera, and emergency phone on a sixteen-foot light pole.
S. Stein asked if Commission members had any questions. No questions were posed.
ILPC Minutes
December 13, 2011
6 of 16
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by N. Brcak, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. There
being no public comment, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S.
Jones.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, second by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, the north terminus of the Cornell Suspension Bridge 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 November 29, 2011, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Andrew Magré on behalf of property
owner, Cornell University, including the following: (1) a narrative titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) that includes a photograph titled “Figure 1: Existing Conditions at the
Suspension Bridge” and an axonometric drawing titled “Figure 2: New Blue Light Pole
Location;” (2) a drawing titled Detail No. 6.6.1, showing the new pole and emergency phone,
with installation details; and (3) a narrative titled Project Description - Revised 11/24/11
that includes an axonometric drawing titled “Figure 1: Axonometric View of the Suspension
Bridge with the Proposed Means Restriction,” and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s) and Project Description -
Revised 11/24/11 and shown in the drawings provided, the proposed project involves the
installation of a blue light, security camera, and emergency phone on a sixteen-foot goose-
neck light pole, and
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 12/13/11,
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
ILPC Minutes
December 13, 2011
7 of 16
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.
The Cornell Suspension Bridge is not identified in the Cornell Heights Historic District
nomination and is not a contributing element in the district.
The purpose of the proposal is to install an emergency phone, security camera, and blue
light.
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.
#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 installation of the new lighted pole, security camera, and
emergency phone at the north terminus of the suspension bridge does not destroy historic
materials that characterize a historic property.
With respect to Standard #9, the new lighted pole, security camera, and emergency phone at
the north terminus of the suspension bridge is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features of the historic district to protect the historic integrity of the
environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the new lighted pole, security camera, and emergency phone
can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the
historic environment.
ILPC Minutes
December 13, 2011
8 of 16
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: 6-0-0
Yes
M. McGandy
D. Kramer
N. Brcak
E. Finegan
S. Jones
S. Stein
No
Abstain
C. Stewart Avenue Bridge, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Install Section of
Chain Link Fence
J. Keefe noted that the proposed project involves the installation of approximately two feet of an eight-foot
tall black chain-link fence at the abutment wall between the bridge and an existing Cornell Plantations fence.
The application for a Certificate of Appropriateness erroneously stated that the new length of fence would
be 20 feet.
S. Stein inquired into the rationale for adding the proposed fencing, to which Keefe replied that the
Planning and Development Board had asked to have everything removed from the bridge deck.
M. McGandy remarked that he believes the Commission should approve this fence, however, he would like
to state for the record that the fencing is fundamentally unattractive and he would look forward to the
prospect of it no longer being thought necessary.
Strictly speaking, applicant Andrew Magré responded, the fencing in question is not a part of the means
restriction project, but is a part of the standard Cornell Plantations safety fencing.
S. Stein agreed with McGandy’s comments. She also hopes the fencing would only be a temporary measure.
N. Brcak agreed with Stein and McGandy.
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 M. McGandy, seconded by N.
Brcak.
ILPC Minutes
December 13, 2011
9 of 16
RESOLUTION: Moved by N. Brcak, second by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, the north terminus of the Stewart Avenue Bridge over Fall Creek 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 November 29, 2011, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Andrew Magré on behalf of property
owner, Cornell University, including the following: (1) a narrative titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) that includes a photograph titled “Figure 1: Existing Conditions at the
Stewart Avenue Bridge” and an axonometric drawing titled “Figure 2: New Fencing
Location;” and (2) a narrative titled Project Description - Revised 11/24/11 that includes an
axonometric drawing titled “Figure 1: Axonometric View, Proposed Means Restriction for
the Stewart Avenue Bridge Over Fall Creek,” and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s) and Project Description -
Revised 11/24/11 and shown in the drawings provided, the proposed project involves the
installation of approximately 2 feet of eight-foot tall black chain link fence at the abutment
wall between the bridge and existing Cornell Plantations fence, and
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 12/13/11,
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.
The Stewart Avenue Bridge over Fall Creek was constructed in 1941, outside the district’s
period of significance, and is a non-contributing element in the district.
ILPC Minutes
December 13, 2011
10 of 16
The purpose of the proposal is to install a 2-foot length of 8-foot tall black chain link fence.
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.
#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 installation of the new black chain link fence at the
abutment wall between the Stewart Avenue bridge over Fall Creek and the existing Cornell
Plantations fence does not destroy historic materials that characterize a historic property.
With respect to Standard #9, the new fence is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features of the historic district to protect the historic integrity of the
environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the new fence can be removed in the future without
impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic 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.
ILPC Minutes
December 13, 2011
11 of 16
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
N. Brcak
D. Kramer
E. Finegan
S. Jones
M. McGandy
S. Stein
No
Abstain
B. 119 Ferris Place, East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Approve Previously Completed
Replacement of Landscape Stair
L. Truame noted that the applicant is out of the country, but he had agreed the Commission could move
forward with its consideration of the proposal. She went on to note that the landscape stairs did not
require a building permit, but were required by the applicant’s insurance provider. Although
construction has already taken place, the applicant understands and accepts he may be required by the
Commission to remove it and/or make modifications to its appearance.
E. Finegan observed that the horizontal handrail is not compatible with the historic resource and that a
railing with vertical balusters would be more in keeping with the house. He remarked that no one is
going to be fooled into thinking the railing is an original feature.
M. McGandy observed that the wooden structure is excessive and appears far too heavy.
N. Brcak agreed, noting it is really incompatible with the building.
D. Kramer asked if it would improve the situation to have the applicant remove the two rails, to which
N. Brcak replied, yes. S. Jones noted they are genuinely obtrusive-looking.
L. Truame noted that the Commission has the option of denying the application and instructing staff to
work on the project with the applicant, leaving what has been done so far as a temporary measure. She
asked if this kind of staff-level review was acceptable to the Commission. No objections were raised.
S. Stein asked why the Commission was not given an opportunity to review the work before it was
installed, to which L. Truame replied that it should have, but that the Building Department had failed to
alert the Commission to the proposal because it did not require a building permit (since the stair is not a
means of egress from the building that is required to bring an occupant to grade).
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, 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 N.
Brcak.
ILPC Minutes
December 13, 2011
12 of 16
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, second by E. Finegan.
WHEREAS, 119 Ferris 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 November 25, 2011, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Rick Huber, including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Change(s); (2) three photographs of the completed landscape stair; and (3) two
file photos from the County Assessor’s office showing the landscape stair prior to
completion of the new work, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed two photographs from the New York State Building-Structure
Inventory Form for 119 Ferris Place, the entry for 119 Ferris Place in the summary property
list from the East Hill Historic District National Register Nomination, and the City of
Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative, Description of Proposed Change(s), and shown in the
accompanying photographs, the project involves replacement of a deteriorated concrete
landscape stair with a wood landscape stair that includes handrails, and
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 12/13/11,
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 entry for 119 Ferris Place in the summary property list from the East Hill
Historic District National Register Nomination, the house was constructed circa 1910 and,
as shown in the photographs from the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form,
it is a vernacular structure typical of the first quarter of the 20th century with a hip roof,
projecting bays, and simple classical revival elements in its porch detailing.
ILPC Minutes
December 13, 2011
13 of 16
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 East Hill
Historic District.
The purpose of the proposal is to replace a deteriorated concrete landscape stair and install
handrails as required by the owner’s property insurance.
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:
#2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The
removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a
property shall be avoided.
#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.
#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 #2, the concrete landscape stair without handrails recedes into the
landscape without interrupting sight lines to the house, as shown in the photographs of the
building taken prior to construction of the new stair, and is a distinctive feature that
characterizes the property. Nevertheless, it is understood that handrails are now required to
be installed on this stair.
ILPC Minutes
December 13, 2011
14 of 16
With respect to Standard #6, as shown in the photographs of the building taken prior to
construction of the new stair, the concrete landscape stair has deteriorated to a condition
that requires its replacement.
With respect to Standard #6, as shown in the photographs taken before and after installation
of the new wood stair with handrails, the new work does not match the old in design, color,
texture, and other visual qualities.
With respect to Standard #9, the construction of the new landscape stair on top of the
existing concrete stair does not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.
With respect to Standard #9, the new wood stair and handrail with horizontal balusters is
differentiated from the old, but is not 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 stair, constructed on top of the existing concrete stair
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 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 does not
meet criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, and be it further
RESOLVED, that staff is directed to contact the applicant and work with him to arrive at a design for this
landscape stair that will be more compatible with the historic property and its environment.
Of particular concern to the ILPC are the visual obtrusiveness, heaviness, and horizontal
orientation of the handrails, which the ILPC finds to be incompatible with the design of the
historic property and its environment.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
D. Kramer
E. Finegan
N. Brcak
S. Jones
M. McGandy
S. Stein
No
Abstain
ILPC Minutes
December 13, 2011
15 of 16
II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR
A. Administrative Matters
1. Amendments to ILPC Rules of Procedure
L. Truame remarked that the Rules of Procedure needed to be revised, including some minor non-
substantive changes (e.g., changing the designated regular meeting day from Thursday to Tuesday),
elimination of redundancies between the Rules of Procedure and the landmarks ordinance itself,
and other minor changes to make the rules compatible with the proposed new language of the
ordinance.
RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, second by N. Brcak.
The Rules of Procedure of the Landmarks Preservation Commission in the City of Ithaca, New
York, were accepted as modified. The full text of the document may be obtained from the Planning
and Development Department.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
D. Kramer
E. Finegan
N. Brcak
S. Jones
M. McGandy
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:
• November 8, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
IV. OLD BUSINESS
None.
ILPC Minutes
December 13, 2011
16 of 16
V. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, and as moved by D. Kramer and seconded by E. Finegan, the meeting
was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. by Chair S. Stein.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission