HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2012-08-14Approved by ILPC – 10/9/12
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – August 14, 2012
Present:
Sue Stein, Chair
Ed Finegan, Vice-Chair
Christine O’Malley
Michael McGandy
David Kramer
Stephen Gibian
Ashima Krishna
Lynn Truame, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. and read the legal notice for the public hearing.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 404 E. Seneca Street, East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Construct Decks & Privacy
Fences [CONTINUES ON P.4]
Applicant Martha Walker provided a brief overview of the project. She noted that she was expecting her
husband to appear shortly; and he could answer the Commission’s questions in more detail.
B. 310 Fall Creek Drive, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Replace Deteriorated
Asphalt Shingles with Synthetic Slate
S. Stein disclosed that she is a resident of the building and would need to recuse herself from
deliberation of the application.
Applicant Leslie Sandman presented a brief overview of the proposed project. He indicated the garage
had never had a slate roof but that the existing asphalt shingles needed to be replaced and he is seeking
permission from the Commission to install synthetic slate to better unify the appearance of the garage
and house; the house does have a natural slate roof. He added that there is also a leak in the roof on the
house itself which needs to be fixed and he is also considering synthetic slate for that location. He noted
that the original slate roof in that particular area on the house was replaced with asphalt shingles before
he bought the house.
L. Truame indicated that any proposed alterations to the house itself will not be formally considered at
this meeting ― the applicant is merely seeking the Commission’s general feedback regarding his
intentions. A separate application for the work on the house roof would be submitted at a later date.
D. Kramer inquired if it would be setting a precedent to approve the slate substitute. L. Truame
responded that the applicant is not proposing to replace existing natural slate with synthetic slate, he is
proposing to replace asphalt shingle with synthetic slate. The real question at hand is whether it would
be appropriate to approve synthetic slate for a roof which had never been natural slate.
1 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
In this case, E. Finegan observed, the synthetic slate’s durability vs. asphalt shingle would seem to be a
clear benefit for a historic building.
M. McGandy indicated that there is an actual, observable difference between slate and synthetic slate; so
in his opinion its being confused with natural slate should not an issue.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being
no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by E. Finegan, seconded by S. Gibian.
RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 310 Fall Creek Drive is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated
under Sections 228-3 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 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated July 27, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Les Sandman, including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a product brochure for CertainTeed Symphony synthetic
slate; and (3) a photograph showing the existing condition of the roof covering that is
proposed for replacement, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 310
Fall Creek Drive and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
replacement of deteriorated asphalt shingle roofing on a garage with CertainTeed
synthetic slate roofing, 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
August 14, 2012, now therefore be it
2 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
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, 310 Fall Creek
Drive was constructed between 1927 and 1929 in the Tudor Revival style.
The existing garage is an original feature of the property. The 1940 Sanborn Fire
Insurance map shows a slate roof on the main house and a composition roof on the
garage.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell
Heights Historic District.
The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to replace the deteriorated asphalt
roof shingles on the garage with a synthetic slate product.
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 228-5
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to
the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
3 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
Standard #3 Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time,
place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historic development, such as
adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not
be undertaken.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #2, replacement of the existing, non-original,
deteriorated, asphalt shingle roof covering with synthetic slate will not remove distinctive
materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The 1940
Sanborn Fire Insurance map shows that, although the house at 310 Fall Creek Drive was
roofed with slate, the garage was roofed with “composition.” Retaining this difference in
materials is not important to maintaining the historic secondary relationship of the garage
to the main house.
With respect to Standard #3, replacement of the existing asphalt shingle roof covering
with synthetic slate will not create a false sense of historic development. Although this
garage was not historically roofed with slate, the use of synthetic, rather than natural,
slate for the new roof covering sufficiently differentiates the proposed material from what
would historically have been used, so that the historic development of the property will
remain apparent.
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 228-5, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-1
Yes
D. Kramer
M. McGandy
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
A. Krishna
No
Abstain
S. Stein
A. 404 E. Seneca Street, East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Construct Decks & Privacy
Fences [CONTINUED]
Applicant John Barradas appeared before the Commission.
S. Gibian inquired into the extent of the proposed fencing. J. Barradas responded that the new fence
elements are all designated in red on the drawing.
4 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
S. Gibian asked if the fencing would run north on Parker Street. J. Barradas replied it would only turn
that corner and run north a short distance.
In response to an earlier question about the decking, J. Barradas responded that the decking material
would be composed of pressure-treated 5/4” wood.
D. Kramer asked about the elevation of the decks. J. Barradas replied they would be at-grade.
S. Stein asked why decking was being employed, rather than pavers. J. Barradas replied it would be
cheaper. Furthermore, while he initially considered flagstones, the decking seemed lighter and less
obtrusive. Since it would not be visible from the street, he concluded wood would work well.
M. McGandy remarked that the decks are not congruent with the house (although, he observed, the
house is not uniformly congruent with itself); so they would really stand out, compared to the
surroundings.
E. Finegan observed that the fence resembles a trellis in some respects, so in his opinion it should fit in
reasonably well with the landscaping. He noted that there is considerable pedestrian traffic in the
vicinity, so it is understandable the owner would like more privacy. E. Finegan asked how permanent
the fencing would be. J. Barradas replied that the pressure-treated wood and posts would last 30-40
years.
E. Finegan asked how important it would be to the applicant to have the last two sections of fence along
Seneca Street, which had not yet been constructed. J. Barradas replied it is not absolutely crucial. He
could consider removing them from his proposal.
S. Gibian observed that the rear portion of the fence is virtually invisible. S. Stein asked if the rear
portion would feature the same kind of fence as the other portions. J. Barradas replied, yes.
M. McGandy asked if the applicant would consider lowering the fence height. J. Barradas replied, yes.
He might consider lowering it to 3 feet, on the lower section.
S. Stein remarked she does not like that the fence, as it evokes a building compound; it seems to cut
people off.
(C. O’Malley arrived at 6:34 p.m.)
Since he owns houses on Parker Street, E. Finegan asked if it would be appropriate for him to vote on
the application. L. Truame replied, yes, since he has no financial interest in the proposed alterations.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 404 E. Seneca Street is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under
Section 228-3 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
5 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated July 6, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner John Barradas, including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) one sheet of architectural plans labeled A-101 “Fence
Patio Details;” and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
404 E. Seneca Street, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
construction of a wood privacy fence and two wood decks as shown on the plans
provided, a portion of which work has already been completed without ILPC review, 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
August 14, 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, 404 E. Seneca
Street was constructed before 1851 in the Greek Revival style. Though it has been
unsympathetically altered over the years, notably with the addition of aluminum siding
and replacement of the original second-story porch detailing, the property nevertheless
retains a sufficient level of physical integrity to be considered a contributing element of
the East Hill Historic District.
The purpose of the proposal is to construct two outdoor decks and fence these areas for
privacy from the street and neighboring property, and to construct a privacy fence along
the north property line.
6 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
7 of 21
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 228-5
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to
the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
Standard #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 Principle #2 and Standard #2, the proposed new decks and fencing will
not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize
the property. Although the character of the streetscape in this block is defined by the
shallow set-backs of the houses and vegetated side yards, the relatively dense plantings
that already exist in the side yards of 404 E. Seneca will conceal the proposed new decks
and their fencing; therefore, the introduction of hardscape elements such as this privacy
fence will not significantly alter a space that characterizes the property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed exterior decks and fencing are
differentiated from the old and are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features of the property and its environment. As noted above, privacy
fences are not a part of the streetscape in this area and screening, where it exists, is
provided by plantings. The presence of mature, relatively dense vegetation in the side
Approved by ILPC – 10/9/12
yards of 404 E. Seneca Street will conceal the proposed privacy fence from view such
that, in spite of its location along the street line, its height, and its opacity, it will not be
incompatible with the character of the property or its historic environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed exterior decks and fencing 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 not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the property and
the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, with the
following condition:
The two most westerly sections of fence along Seneca Street toward Parker Street (which
have been proposed, but not yet constructed) are not approved and may not be
constructed.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-1
Yes
S. Gibian
D. Kramer
E. Finegan
S. Krishna
M. McGandy
S. Stein
No
Abstain
C. O’Malley
C. First Baptist Church, DeWitt Park Historic District – Proposal to Install Rooftop Solar
Panels
Applicant Linda Nicholson provided an overview of the proposed alterations.
E. Finegan indicated that the visibility of the solar panel installation is his primary concern. He added
that the Commission would likely encounter this same kind of proposed alteration more frequently over
the coming years.
C. O’Malley asked specifically how far the installation would rise from the roof. L. Nicholson replied
that as a whole, including the thickness of the panels themselves, the installation would rise
approximately 1½ feet from the roof. She noted it might be possible to move the installation back from
the roof edge to further reduce its visibility.
S. Gibian asked if the applicant really needs the panels to tilt 10 degrees from the base. L. Nicholson
replied, probably not; 10 degrees is simply the maximum possible tilt.
8 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
S. Gibian asked if the inverters would be installed on the wall or the roof. L. Nicholson responded that
she believes they would be placed on the roof.
M. McGandy noted it would be helpful to know if the panels could be set back further than originally
proposed and if the inverters could be relocated to a less visible spot. L. Nicholson responded she
believes they could be.
Public Hearing
On a motion by E. Finegan, seconded by C. O’Malley, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being
no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M.
McGandy.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, The First Baptist Church is located in the DeWitt Park Historic District, as designated
under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1971, and as listed on the
New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1971, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated July 29, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Linda Nicholson on behalf of property owner the
First Baptist Church, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s), including a photographic and narrative analysis of
the visual impact of the proposed installation, and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) an aerial
view of the church showing the proposed location and layout of the solar panels; and (3)
5 pages of product information describing the solar panels, mounting system, and
inverter; and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
the First Baptist Church, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the installation of a total of 46 solar panels on two flat
sections of the south-facing roof of the church, along with their associated inverters,
meter, and breaker panel, 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
9 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for Certificate
of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on August
14, 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 DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the DeWitt Park Historic District is
identified as 1820-1930.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the Romanesque
Revival style First Baptist Church was designed by locally prominent architect, William
H. Miller, and was completed in 1890.
Constructed within the period of significance of the DeWitt Park Historic District and
possessing a high level of architectural integrity, the property is a contributing element of
the DeWitt Park Historic District.
As described in the Certificate of Appropriateness Application, the purpose of the
proposal is to install solar panels on two flat sections of south-facing roof.
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 228-5
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to
the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard #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.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
10 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
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.
Standard #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 Principle #2 and Standard #2, the installation of solar panels on two flat
sections of south-facing roof will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter
features and spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the installation of the proposed solar
panels, which utilizes a mounting system that does not require roof penetrations, will not
destroy historic materials that characterize the property.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new work is
differentiated from the old and is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features of the property and its environment. The proposed panels will be
located on flat-roof sections facing a secondary elevation, minimizing the potential for
any significant visual impact on the property or its environment
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed solar panel system 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 findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the property and the
DeWitt Park Historic District as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
the criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following condition(s):
Staff will review and approve final locations of panels, inverters, and associated
equipment, as well as final angle of panels from roof surface, to insure that the visibility
of the system is minimized.
RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0
Yes
M. McGandy
D. Kramer
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
A. Krishna
No
Abstain
11 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
C. O’Malley
S. Stein
D. First Baptist Church, DeWitt Park Historic District – Proposal to Replace Windows
L. Nicholson walked through a brief presentation of the proposed alterations. She apologized that the
application was not submitted at the very beginning of the process ― the applicant had believed the rear
of the building was merely an addition and that the window replacements would not be a problem.
E. Finegan asked if the windows, which have already been purchased, were something the church could
return. L. Nicholson replied, no, they were custom-ordered.
C. O’Malley asked why the applicant ordered windows which were different from those approved by the
Commission in an earlier 2010 application. The applicant replied it was probably a cost issue ―
dividing lights would have been more expensive.
C. O’Malley expressed concern about the replacement of the second story windows, which she would
consider a character-defining feature. D. Kramer indicated he shares that concern.
M. McGandy agreed, noting that his sense is that they simply need to be repaired, not replaced.
E. Finegan observed that it seems the Commission is faced with a potentially precedent-setting situation.
The second story windows are highly visible and possess a high degree of historic character. C.
O’Malley agreed. The basement windows, on the other hand, are not highly visible.
S. Gibian added that Ithaca’s foremost architect, William H. Miller, designed the building. The
applicant can certainly be expected to have known of the significance of the building and the import of
any proposed alterations.
L. Nicholson explained that the last time the church applied to the Commission, the church’s consultant,
ASI Renovations, walked the application through the entire process; so she suspects the church
leadership was simply not aware of everything the process entails.
S. Gibian noted he does not think the proposed windows are appropriate. A. Krishna agreed, noting that
the original windows are such an important component of the character of the building.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by C. O’Malley, S. Stein opened the public hearing.
Rev. David M. Evans, First Baptist Church, remarked that the church has limited financial resources, so
it finds itself in something of a quandary. He stressed that the applicant has been acting in good faith.
He noted that something certainly needs to be done with the current windows, which in his opinion are
unsafe.
12 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
13 of 21
Mary Tomlan, City Historian and former Common Council member, noted that as an architectural
historian she has done a considerable amount of research on William H. Miller. She would certainly be
willing to gather additional research to help solidify the Commission’s understanding of the historical
character and evolution of the church.
There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer,
seconded by A. Krishna.
L. Nicholson indicated she had anticipated this result, so she has been considering ways in which the
applicant may be able to use the new windows it has already purchased. She asked whether the
Commission would allow their use on the interior of the building, maintaining the existing historic
windows but essentially converting them to exterior storms.
D. Kramer responded that the Commission does not regulate interiors, so a project of that sort would not
be subject to ILPC review.
RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, The First Baptist Church is located in the DeWitt Park Historic District, as designated
under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1971, and as listed on the
New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1971, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated July 30, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Linda Nicholson on behalf of property owner the
First Baptist Church, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) two invoices
from Builder’s Best Design Center describing the replacement windows; and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
the First Baptist Church, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, the proposed project involves: the replacement of 13 existing wood, 4-over-4 windows
located in the basement area on the south and east (secondary) elevations, with Marvin
Integrity All-Ultrex windows in a 1-over-1 configuration; the replacement of one existing
wood, 2-over-2 window on the first floor, south elevation, with a Marvin aluminum-clad
wood window in a 2-over-2 configuration; and the replacement of six existing wood,
eight-light casement windows on the second floor, east elevation, with Marvin Integrity
All-Ultrex windows in a 1-over-1 configuration, 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
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
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 Certificate
of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on August
14, 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 DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the DeWitt Park Historic District is
identified as 1820-1930.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the Romanesque
Revival style First Baptist Church was designed by locally prominent architect, William
H. Miller, and was completed in 1890.
Constructed within the period of significance of the DeWitt Park Historic District and
possessing a high level of architectural integrity, the property is a contributing element of
the DeWitt Park Historic District.
As described in the Certificate of Appropriateness Application, the purpose of the
proposal is to replace deteriorated wood windows on the south and east (secondary)
elevations of the church.
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 228-5
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to
the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
14 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
Standard #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.
Standard #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
When 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 Principle #2 and Standard #2, the Commission finds that the single
window on the first floor, south elevation, and the six casement windows at the second
story level on the east elevation are character-defining features by virtue of their
relatively high visibility. The Commission finds that the 13 windows located in the
basement on the south and east elevations are not character-defining features, by virtue of
their relatively low visibility and resulting minor contribution to the overall character of
the historic property and its environment. Based upon this finding:
• the replacement of the six casement windows on the east elevation, and of the single
2-over-2 window on the south elevation, with the proposed Marvin windows in the
proposed light configurations, will remove distinctive materials and will alter
features and spaces that characterize the property; and
• the replacement of the basement windows with the proposed Marvin All-Ultrex
windows in the proposed light configurations will not remove distinctive materials
and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, based upon a visual inspection conducted
by the Commission, the Commission finds that:
• the severity of deterioration of the single 2-over-2 window on the south elevation is
such that its replacement is required and the proposed new work will sufficiently
match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities; and
• the severity of deterioration of the six casement windows on the east elevation is
not such that their replacement is required.
The Commission has found that the basement windows are not distinctive, character-
defining features.
RESOLVED, that, based on findings set forth above:
• the proposal to replace the single 2-over-2 window on the south elevation and the
proposal to replace the 13 basement windows will not have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the property and
the DeWitt Park Historic District as set forth in Section 228-5; and
• the proposal the replace the six casement windows on the east elevation will have a
substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of
the property and the DeWitt Park Historic District as set forth in Section 228-5,
and be it further
15 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that:
• the proposal to replace the single 2-over-2 window on the south elevation and the
proposal to replace the 13 basement windows meets criteria for approval under
Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code; and
• the proposal the replace the six casement windows on the east elevation does not
meet the criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code,
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC:
• approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the single
2-over-2 window on the south elevation and the 13 basement windows; and
• denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the six
casement windows on the east elevation.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-1-0
Yes
E. Finegan
M. McGandy
D. Kramer
A. Krishna
C. O’Malley
S. Stein
No
S. Gibian
Abstain
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
(none)
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Slate Sidewalks
L. Truame remarked that the City has a sidewalk replacement program, which currently includes a
“Policy and Procedure for Retention of Historic Stone Sidewalks,” established by Common Council in
July 2000. The policy states that:
“Where repair and replacement of existing stone sidewalks within historic districts or on
landmark sites is deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, and in-kind repair and
replacement is approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the property owner will be
responsible for the cost as if the work was done in concrete; the City shall defray the added cost
of using stone.”
L. Truame noted that the Engineering Division recently inquired if the policy is still in place. Eddy
Street is scheduled to receive new sidewalks very shortly and it contains a considerable amount of slate;
so this will very shortly become an issue. The City Attorney is in the process of determining whether
the 2000 policy remains binding on subsequent Common Councils and administrations.
16 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
L. Truame noted that because of the recent revisions to the Landmarks Ordinance, all sidewalk
replacement in the historic districts would require a Certificate of Appropriateness. She has been
communicating with Assistant Civil Engineer Lynne Yost about this issue, in an effort to devise a policy
that would allow staff level approval of stone sidewalks if it has been determined that the stone in
question cannot be repaired (for example, by being reset to eliminate a tripping hazard). To date, neither
L. Truame nor L. Yost have been able to locate new stone that is both readily available and appropriate
for use as a replacement material.
At this juncture, L. Truame is asking the Commission to determine if it would be comfortable endorsing
staff-level assessment and approval of this type of work, if a coherent policy could be developed for
such an approach.
M. Tomlan remarked that she served on the Commission when the Common Council policy was created
and concerns were being expressed about losing stone sidewalks. She stressed that Ithaca has a distinct
historical connection to this material. It is a characteristic of Ithaca that should be preserved and
celebrated. (She also clarified that “slate” is simply the commonly used term for native bluestone.)
C. O’Malley responded that staff level approvals for this type of work seem reasonable.
D. Kramer observed that the City sometimes seems to act arbitrarily, regarding sidewalk replacement; so
he would like to ensure Lynne Yost is carefully walked through the process.
Mary Tomlan remarked it might be helpful to explore whether other cities have struggled with the same
kind of issue and how they have handled it.
M. McGandy indicated he would be fine with L. Truame’s proposal, as long as the Commission retains
the ultimate authority in the matter.
B. 210 Thurston Avenue
L. Truame remarked that the owner of 210 Thurston Avenue has not fulfilled all the agreed-upon
requirements from the Commission’s April 10, 2012 meeting. As a result, a permanent Certificate of
Occupancy will not be issued by the Building Department, until all issues have been resolved.
C. 40 Ridgewood Road
S. Gibian reported that the owners of 40 Ridgewood Road do not appear to have pulled the curb back
from the edge of the roof, as had been discussed at the Commission’s June 12, 2012 meeting.
L. Truame clarified that the Commission had only asked them to do so if it was “technically feasible”.
Since. Based on evidence provided by the structural engineer for the project, that did not appear to be
the case, L. Truame approved the location of the curb as it was originally proposed, in accordance with
the language of the resolution.
17 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Third Conceptual Review, Thurston Avenue Apartments
Applicant Nathan Brown, HOLT Architects, walked through a presentation of the project and
highlighted the modifications made in response to the Commission’s past comments. The applicant has:
• reduced the number of units from 36 to 29 (number of beds reduced from 88 to 76);
• reduced the height of the three easterly buildings from 4 stories to 3;
• moved the buildings higher up the slope;
• increased the amount of landscaping for screening purposes;
• reduced the number of parking spaces (corresponding to the new unit count);
• included more communal features, such as a patio, benches, etc.;
• added natural terraced stone walls;
• added knee braces, multi-light windows, and varied wall-cladding materials to recall the Craftsman
style (in deference to one of the neighborhood’s dominant architectural styles); and
• removed the balconies.
L. Truame noted that the applicant has asked the ILPC to provide them with some kind of (non-binding)
indication as to whether or not it could envision approving the project, as presented (in terms of
massing, size, scale, and general character), subject to potential further revision of detailing.
S. Stein remarked that the alterations made to date are a great improvement.
E. Finegan agreed that it is a considerable improvement on the earlier designs. He asked if
neighborhood residents had been consulted, to which N. Brown replied, no, although that is something
they would be willing to explore. E. Finegan observed that the surrounding neighborhood is fairly
active, so he feels certain at some point residents would want to participate in the design process.
Applicant Tom Hoard, HOLT Architects, asked if the ILPC is obligated to consider community opinion
in its decision-making process, to which L. Truame replied, no. M. McGandy noted that the
Commission must apply the standards reflected in the Landmarks Ordinance to every project it
considers.
M. McGandy thanked the applicant for all the work on the modified design, which addresses many of
his concerns with the earlier designs.
S. Gibian remarked he continues to have serious concerns with the odd-seeming configuration of the
buildings and the disconnected relationship between them caused by their placement on the site. He
observed that eliminating one building would allow the remaining buildings to occupy the site much
more comfortably.
At this juncture in the meeting, S. Stein asked each Commission member to express, generally, whether
she/he feels she/he could potentially approve the project on a conceptual basis, in its current overall
configuration.
M. McGandy replied, yes.
18 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
D. Kramer replied, no. Although he very much appreciates the work that has been done and the
improvements made, the aesthetic impact to the surrounding neighborhood and historic district remains
too great.
E. Finegan indicated that although he could conceive of approving the project in its current
configuration, he would strongly encourage the applicant to eliminate one of the buildings. It is a highly
visible and significant site and more could certainly be done to reduce the project impact.
C. O’Malley indicated she is torn ― although she also appreciates the changes, the height of the
remaining 4-story buildings still concerns her greatly and the grouping of the buildings still appears too
cramped.
S. Gibian noted he would also very much prefer to see one fewer building. The project is still not quite
at the point where he would be willing to approve it.
A. Krishna recused herself from voicing an opinion on the project at this time, given that she is a new
Commission member and has not yet fully familiarized herself with the project’s details and history.
S. Stein indicated she likes what has been done with the project. She could generally approve it in
concept; however, she agrees it appears a little crowded and she would also prefer to see more green
space.
N. Brown observed that he cannot see that the results of the Commission’s straw poll will help the
applicant move forward in any way.
Greg Martin, RABCO Highland House, LLC, remarked that some of the issues being mentioned by the
Commission resemble zoning issues; he is having trouble understanding the origin/rationale of some of
the Commission’s comments.
L. Truame responded that the Commission is in fact charged with evaluating the compatibility of the
overall design of a given project with the historic district as a whole, in addition to evaluating discrete
exterior elements of the building. Although size, scale, massing, density, etc., are issues addressed by
zoning, they are also issues that must be considered under the Landmarks Ordinance when evaluating
the compatibility of a project with its historic environment.
S. Stein reiterated that it may be helpful for the applicant to seek out the opinions of the neighborhood
residents. D. Kramer agreed.
Applicant James Fruechtl, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, stressed that the landscaping will certainly
go a long way to making the entire project appear more naturally integrated into its surroundings and
satisfy the potential concerns of community residents.
M. McGandy observed he is not certain if the Commission can claim that green space is categorically a
part of the historic nature of a given neighborhood. He questioned whether green space, per se, would
fall within the Commission’s purview.
19 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
C. O’Malley responded by reading an excerpt from the Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement of Significance, as follows:
The district’s curvilinear street plan, lavish landscape features, dramatic geographical setting,
strictly residential character (developed on large private lots) and its historical pattern of
development place it within the romantic tradition of the “ideal” residence park developed in the
second half of the nineteenth century and popularized by Frederick Law Olmsted after the Civil
War.
She added that, given the prominence of landscape elements in the Statement of Significance for Cornell
Heights, green space would fall within the Commission’s purview, in this case.
N. Brown argued that the proposed project will not appear at all dissimilar from many of the other
buildings in the immediate vicinity, like the fraternity buildings, in terms of the overall massing,
landscaping, and other features.
G. Martin remarked that he is skeptical the owner will ultimately be willing to adjust the project design
very much more than has already been done. He indicated that there is great demand for units in this
area and that failing to provide them on this site would constitute a significant lost opportunity.
N. Brown noted that if a building were removed from the project, the project would likely not be
financially sustainable. The applicant team has probably exhausted the majority of its options and the
owner would probably be taking a substantial risk in moving forward with the project.
T. Hoard proceeded to describe the purpose and origin of R-U zoning, as summarized below:
• Designed to put student housing closer to the Cornell University campus.
• Designed so that residential traffic is directed away from the neighborhood, rather than through it.
• R-U District and 1977 Zoning Ordinance sought to address problems created by 1974 zoning (e.g.,
conversions of large houses in neighborhoods to student apartments/rooming houses).
• Creation of the R-U district included considerable neighbor participation, with a very active
neighborhood association.
T. Hoard observed that the existing Highland House building forms a wall between the proposed project
and the neighborhood. In response to the Commission’s comments that the applicants are headed in the
right direction, he noted that the Commission is essentially asking for a substantial reduction in the size
of the project, which the owner is unlikely to pursue.
Given the comments that had been made, L. Truame observed, the Commission appears to be evenly
divided on the project at this time and could not provide the applicant with the assurance he sought that
the project would or would not ultimately be approved if an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness were submitted.
20 of 21
ILPC Minutes
August 14, 2012
21 of 21
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by E. Finegan, and seconded by D. Kramer, Commission members unanimously approved the
following meeting minutes, with no modifications:
• July 12, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
VI. STAFF REPORT
A. Electronic Distribution of Packets
L. Truame asked if the Commission would prefer to receive its materials packets electronically, rather
than hardcopies. D. Kramer responded he would really prefer to continue receiving the hardcopies. M.
McGandy and E. Finegan both agreed.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. by Chair Stein.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission