Loading...
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