HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2012-05-08Approved by ILPC – 6/12/12
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – May 8, 2012
Present:
Susan Stein, Chair
Christine O’Malley
Stephen Gibian
Ed Finegan, Vice-Chair
Michael McGandy
David Kramer
Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison
Lynn Truame, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chris Peters, Guest, New York State Historic
Preservation Office
Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and read the legal notice for the public hearings.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 116 Osmun Place, East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Construct Dumpster Screen
L. Truame noted that the application resulted from the Building Department’s citing the property owner
for the absence of screening for the dumpsters. She indicated the applicant would not be able to appear
before the Commission today, but that he had indicated to her he would be very open to any requests and
recommendations the Commission may see fit to make, regarding the application.
S. Gibian asked why the screening is required to be 6 feet high. L. Truame replied she does not believe
it is absolutely required to be (it is possible the proposed screening is only manufactured in those
dimensions).
S. Gibian asked why the dumpsters need to be in the proposed location rather than behind the building.
L. Truame responded that she thinks the alley may be too narrow to accommodate the trucks that service
them.
M. McGandy asked if the dumpsters could simply be screened with vegetation. E. McCollister indicated
she does not believe so. More generally, she added, there appears to be a growing and disturbing
number of dumpsters in certain parts of the City. E. McCollister does not believe they are a desirable
solution for the city, particularly in front of buildings. In this particular case, she is not sure why the
dumpsters are necessary in the first place.
M. McGandy observed it is probably because there are 6 apartments in the building; and E. Finegan
noted he believes it houses 15 people. M. McGandy remarked he regrets the applicant was not able to
attend today’s meeting, since that would have facilitated the process considerably.
1 of 9
ILPC Minutes
May 8, 2012
C. O’Malley indicated the proposed stockade fencing is not acceptable, as it is not compatible with the
surrounding district.
M. McGandy agreed, although some type of screening is required by the City, which needs to be taken
into consideration.
S. Gibian suggested possibly approving a 3-sided enclosure of some kind, as a more acceptable
alternative. D. Kramer suggested a clapboard fence.
L. Truame remarked that the Commission would be within its rights to deny the application if they feel
that none of the proposed options is acceptable. M. McGandy asked if the applicant would be fined, as a
result. L. Truame indicated she could speak to the Building Department about it.
E. Finegan observed that, if the City is genuinely cracking down on dumpsters, this issue will
undoubtedly arise again on a regular basis. The Commission will need to identify an acceptable solution
for these kinds of cases.
Staff note: The Commission did not formally open a public hearing, there being no one present to
address the Commission.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, second by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 116 Osmun 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 May 2, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Dave Blanton of CSP Management on behalf of
property owner MSW Management, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively
titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a site sketch
showing the proposed dumpster and screen location, (3) a site sketch showing the existing
dumpster locations; and (4) a photo showing the existing dumpster locations, and
WHEREAS, subsequent to submission of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness the
applicant submitted by e-mail, dated May 7, 2012, product information for both a stockade
style fence panel and a shadowbox style fence panel, and indicated a willingness to use either
of those two styles, or another style if a different one were preferred by the ILPC, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 116
Osmun Place, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and
2 of 9
ILPC Minutes
May 8, 2012
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves installation
of a 4’8” wide, 6 foot high fence panel extending east from the southeast corner of the
house toward the driveway to block the view of garbage and recycling dumpsters, as required
by City code, 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 May 8, 2012,
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, the
period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is 1830-1932.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 116 Osmun Place
was constructed between 1898 and 1904 and is a vernacular structure that displays some
simplified detailing in Colonial Revival style.
Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill 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 install a dumpster screen, as required by City code.
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:
3 of 9
ILPC Minutes
May 8, 2012
#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 proposed wood fence panel will be freestanding and will
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.
Also with respect to Standard #9, the proposed 4’8”x6’ fence panel in the either of the two
submitted styles is not compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of
the property and its environment. The six foot height would exceed the height of the porch
railings and window sills and is excessive. The pressure-treated pickets and/or dog-eared
vertical boards are not in keeping with the architectural features and finishes of the historic
structure.
With respect to Standard #10, the freestanding fence panel can be removed in the future
without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and 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 116 Osmun Place and 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.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
D. Kramer
M. McGandy
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
C. O’Malley
S. Stein
No
Abstain
4 of 9
ILPC Minutes
May 8, 2012
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
(none)
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Preliminary Concept Review, 312 Thurston Avenue
Applicants Graham Gillespie (HOLT Architects), Nathan Brown (HOLT Architects), Tom Hoard
(HOLT Architects), and Greg Martin (RABCO Highland House, LLC) appeared before the
Commission.
G. Gillespie recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project and walked Commission members
through a detailed presentation, including site plans and architectural renderings. Some of the details of
the proposed project include:
• would be student housing
• would cover 1.55 acres, with 26 units (84-88 beds)
• would use 16% of the 30% allowable lot coverage
• would include 36 parking spaces
• parking would be situated between Highland House and the proposed project, for screening
purposes
• would employ permeable pavement as much as possible
• project design is intended to break down the massing of the buildings and incorporate vertical
elements
• would retain much of the existing vegetation, with intent of preserving as much as possible
E. Finegan asked if the red oak tree on Thurston Avenue would be retained, to which G. Gillespie,
replied, yes. He added that the stand of pine trees would also be largely preserved.
S. Gibian indicated he has serious concerns with the proposed height of the project. Gillespie responded
that he understands his concern. The applicant has attempted to address it through a variety of means,
such as retaining a pitched roof, sinking the buildings down into grade, and bringing the roofline down
from head-height at the windows.
M. McGandy remarked that he, too, is concerned with the overall scale of the project; it certainly
appears as though it would tower over the surrounding neighborhood. D. Kramer agreed.
S. Gibian indicated it would be helpful if the buildings could be placed further apart. N. Brown
responded that, when the applicant attempted to set the buildings further apart, they ended up being
pushed over the allowable setback.
S. Stein asked if the project includes the maximum number of living units allowed by zoning, to which
G. Gillespie replied, yes. S. Stein suggested that the architects look at reducing the number of units to
address the ILPC’s concerns about the size and scale of the project while still meeting setback
requirements.
5 of 9
ILPC Minutes
May 8, 2012
M. McGandy observed that the front of the buildings is not broken up enough, either; it is not just a
matter of the excessive scale. It is difficult to see how any amount of vegetative screening would make
enough of a difference. Something definitely needs to be substantially modified to address the
Commission’s concerns.
E. McCollister indicated that the use of the lighter colors also lends to the overall looming effect of the
building’s massing. G. Gillespie responded that the colors currently depicted are only draft colors, so
they could be changed.
D. Kramer remarked that he appreciates the applicant’s saving the larger trees. The more trees that can
be saved, the better.
At this juncture, S. Stein asked the applicant team if it could return before the Commission at its next
meeting with some proposed adjustments to the project design, to address the Commission’s concerns
about the size, scale, and massing of the project. N. Brown replied they could see what they might be
able to do.
G. Gillespie cautioned that the applicant will need to balance any potential changes it makes to the
project design with the economic constraints associated with keeping the project financially viable.
M. McGandy indicated the balconies appear jarring to his eye. C. O’Malley agreed, noting they are not
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. If the project absolutely must have balconies, perhaps a
simple open railing could be employed instead.
E. McCollister observed that the City generally discourages balconies, primarily due to safety concerns,
but also due to their propensity for producing significant noise pollution.
S. Gibian indicated he also objects to the corner ‘gatehouse’ building, as it is depicted. It is just a large,
white block of a building.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Update on Status of Landmarks Ordinance Revisions & Resolution in Support
L. Truame indicated that Commission members had been provided with another draft set of Landmarks
Ordinance revisions that includes changes made since the last time changes were proposed. The most
recent changes sought to incorporate: (1) some concerns Cornell University articulated about the
original revisions, and (2) some revisions intended to mirror the State’s pending new Model Ordinance
(currently in draft stage). L. Truame noted that Cornell’s primary concerns were with the early design
guidance portion of the document. As a result, the draft revisions now call for a mandatory, but non-
binding early design guidance.
6 of 9
ILPC Minutes
May 8, 2012
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer.
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 were
reviewed by this Commission in November 2011 and a resolution was passed
recommending their adoption by Common Council, and
WHEREAS, additional revisions to these chapters are now proposed, including the following:
…changes made for the purpose of clarification:
• Clarification that, in addition to routine repair and maintenance or replacement in
kind, staff may approve any type of work that has been previously determined by the
ILPC to be appropriate for delegation to staff;
• Clarification that the ILPC recommends designation of historic resources to
Common Council, while Common Council designates such resources;
• Clarification that a Finding of Economic Hardship may be issued at the same
meeting as, though subsequent to, denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness; and
…changes made for the purpose of aligning Ithaca’s ordinance with the upcoming
revised New York State Model Ordinance:
• A new statement that one of the purposes of the landmarks ordinance is to insure
the harmonious, orderly, and efficient growth and development of the City;
• A new subsection that enumerates and elaborates on the principles and criteria used
by the Commission in evaluating applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness;
• A new statement that any person in charge of a property who alters or demolishes it
without appropriate approvals is required to restore the property to its appearance prior to
the violation;
• A new statement that demolition of a local landmark is prohibited unless and until a
Finding of Economic Hardship has been made by the ILPC or the Building Department
has made an express finding that the structure presents an imminent threat to the public
health, safety, and welfare;
• A new statement that enumerates, and distinguishes between, the criteria applicable
to for-profit owners and the criteria applicable to non-profit owners who are seeking to
demonstrate economic hardship sufficient to justify demolition of a designated historic
structure; and
7 of 9
ILPC Minutes
May 8, 2012
…changes made in response to specific issues raised by Cornell University, with the
agreement of the Office of the City Attorney:
• A revision to the new Early Design Guidance process, making it non-binding;
• A reduction in the allowable time period for notifying the applicant, City Clerk, and
Building Commissioner of ILPC decisions from 30 days to 10 days;
• A new requirement that subcommittees of the ILPC consist of no fewer than three
current members of the commission; and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the proposed additional revisions to the ordinances and finds that
said revisions will better effectuate the goals of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC supports the proposed additional revisions to Chapters 73 and 228 of the City
Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC recommends the adoption of the proposed revised ordinance by the Common
Council.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
S. Gibian
D. Kramer
E. Finegan
M. McGandy
C. O’Malley
S. Stein
No
Abstain
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by S. Gibian and seconded by D. Kramer, Commission members unanimously approved the
following meeting minutes, with 4 minor corrections:
• April 10, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
VI. STAFF REPORT
A. 123 Roberts Place
L. Truame remarked that the property owner had replaced all the windows ― without Building
Department approval or ILPC review. As a result, the ILPC will now need to retroactively review the
changes that were made. The owner stated that only the windows on the first floor were replaced and
that the other windows had been replaced by a previous owner. Conflicting accounts of what occurred
when have been received from a neighbor. The owner has asked that the ILPC defer its review of the
changes until its June 2012 meeting. No objections were raised.
8 of 9
ILPC Minutes
May 8, 2012
9 of 9
B. D. McClure E-Mail re. Fall Creek Drive Fence
L. Truame indicated she received an e-mail from Cornell facilities project manager, Dan McClure,
regarding the Fall Creek Drive fence. It appears that Cornell University still hopes to install a barrier of
some kind in this location, utilizing the already-installed posts.
E. McCollister remarked that she recently attended a City-Cornell University Working Group meeting.
She noted that Cornell’s Vice President for HR and Safety Services Mary Opperman was present at that
meeting and appeared determined to install a fence.
S. Gibian observed that Cornell has now extended the fence all the way to the tennis courts.
L. Truame reminded Commission members that a memorandum had also been sent to the
Superintendent of Public Works, as requested, and that a traffic count of the drive would be conducted
as an initial step in determining the feasibility of converting the road to one-way.
VII. COMMISSION TRAINING SESSION
A. 1-Hour “Commission Basics” Webinar, Presented by Julian Adams
(deferred until the next meeting, due to time constraints)
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, and as moved by M. McGandy and seconded by E. Finegan, the
meeting was adjourned at 7:06 p.m. by Chair Stein.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission