HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2013-01-08Approved by ILPC: 2/12/13
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – January 8, 2012
Present:
Sue Stein, Chair
Ed Finegan, Vice-Chair
Christine O’Malley
Michael McGandy
David Kramer
Stephen Gibian
Ashima Krishna
Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison
Lynn Truame, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 214 Thurston Avenue, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Construct Shed
The applicant did not appear before the Commission. Consideration of the project was deferred until
later in the meeting.
B. 420 E. State St., East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Address Deferred Maintenance
Issues, Replace Inappropriate Modern Additions, and Install Storm Doors & Windows
Applicants Teresa Halpert Deschanes and Neha Khanna provided a brief overview of the project.
E. Finegan asked for a more detailed description of the proposed new (salvaged) doors. T. Halpert
Deschanes replied they would be half-light doors with two-panels below similar to the one that currently
exists on the balcony.
E. Finegan noted he would like to better understand how the applicant would resolve the potential for
creating a false historical narrative by adding salvaged features to the building which may or may not be
historically accurate. S. Stein remarked she had the same question.
Noting that she is a non-voting member, E. McCollister observed that in her opinion it is possible to be
too literal in one’s interpretation of the Standards as applied to a given property; there is no reason that
salvaged materials could not be appropriate in some situations.
S. Gibian observed that the existing doors are unusual. They are 7.5 feet tall. He asked if the applicants
will be able to locate 7.5-foot salvaged doors. T. Halpert Deschanes replied, yes, there are a number
available at this time.
M. McGandy asked if the applicants might refrain from employing the standard triple-track storm
windows and return to the older wood storm window style. T. Halpert Deschanes replied, she believes
that may be possible. They would look into it, although it may be cost prohibitive due to the size and
lack of squareness in the existing windows and consequent need to custom build the new wood storms.
1 of 15
ILPC Minutes
January 8, 2013
A. Krishna noted she believes the applicants’ proposal represents a positive overall improvement to the
building.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by E. Finegan, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being
no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by C.
O’Malley.
C. O’Malley recommended the applicant do more research, before attempting to reconstruct the terra
cotta panels, since they are so fragile. They are such a unique feature of the house.
E. Finegan noted that the ceiling mounted porch light fixture that is proposed is almost identical to one
that exists on a property he owns that dates to the mid-1800s. C. O’Malley commented that she thought
that fixture might be too ornate for the period, but that it would be preferable to the pendant fixture
proposed as an option.
D. Kramer remarked that since there is no record of what all the features of the house actually were
whatever the applicants can do to return the inappropriate later additions to a more compatible
appearance with the rest of the house would be a great improvement.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 420 E. State 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
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated December 18, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Teresa Halpert on behalf of property owner
Rosetree Properties, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a photocopy of a
historic photograph of the property; and (3) seven sheets of photographs showing existing
conditions at the property and products proposed for use in replacing existing, modern
features; (4) one sheet of product literature for the proposed new wooden storm doors and
triple-track storm windows; and (5) three sheets of photographs showing details of the
existing mosaic gable panels, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 420
E. State 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: repair or
replacement in-kind of several features (enumerated in the application), which work is not
subject to ILPC review; reconstruction of the terra cotta mosaic gable panels; installation of
a balustrade at the main entrance stair; replacement of a modern mailbox and porch light
fixture with reproduction period pieces; replacement of hollow-core doors with salvaged
2 of 15
ILPC Minutes
January 8, 2013
half-light wood doors; installation of new wood storm doors throughout; and installation of
new triple-track storm windows throughout, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has withdrawn the request to install the balustrade at the main entrance stair
and will, instead, install a simple pipe rail, 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 January 8,
2013, 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, 420 E. State Street
was constructed between 1888 and 1893 and is an important example of late nineteenth
century design in Ithaca. Its mosaic gable panels are noted as being particularly significant as
a favorite design motif of the late nineteenth century that is known to exist on only a handful
of buildings in Ithaca.
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 address deferred maintenance issues, replace modern
features with elements that are more compatible with the historic structure, and add storm
doors and storm windows to increase energy efficiency and reduce noise.
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.
3 of 15
ILPC Minutes
January 8, 2013
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 #3 Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time,
place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as
adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not
be undertaken.
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.
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, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of the modern
mailbox, porch light, hollow core doors, and 2 x 4 handrail at the main entrance, and the
installation of new wooden storm doors and triple-track storm windows throughout will not
remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the
property. The Commission notes that triple-track storm windows have been allowed in the
historic districts in the past when they are constructed, so that their meeting rails align with
those of the original window, and when a finish color is selected that minimizes their visual
impact. Storm windows are considered a reversible alteration that benefits the historic
resource by protecting the original windows from impact and weather-related deterioration,
4 of 15
ILPC Minutes
January 8, 2013
while providing increased energy efficiency and noise reduction without compromising the
physical integrity of the original window.
With respect to Standard #2, the mosaic gable panels are a distinctive feature that
characterizes the property. With respect to Standard #6, as described in the application and
depicted in the accompanying photographs, the severity of deterioration of these panels
requires their replacement. The reconstruction of the panels as proposed will match the old
in design, color, texture, material, and other visual qualities. The appearance of the missing
mosaic panels has been substantiated by both pictorial and physical evidence.
With respect to Standard #3, neither pictorial nor physical evidence exists to show the
appearance of the original porch light or mailbox. Physical evidence suggests that two-panel
half-light doors may have originally existed in the locations that now feature hollow-core
doors. Pictorial evidence exists showing the original handrail at the main entrance stairs to
be a simple pipe rail. The installation of the proposed reproduction porch light and the
proposed mailbox, both of which are clearly of modern manufacture, will not create a false
sense of historical development. The use of salvaged half-light doors to replace the hollow-
core doors will not create a false sense of historical development.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed pipe rail at the main entrance
stair, wooden storm doors, storm windows, half-light doors, mailbox, and porch light are
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed pipe rail at the main entrance stair, wooden
storm doors, storm windows, half-light doors, mailbox, and porch light 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.
RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0
Yes
M. McGandy
D. Kramer
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
A. Krishna
C. O’Malley
S. Stein
No
Abstain
5 of 15
ILPC Minutes
January 8, 2013
C. 312 Thurston Avenue, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Construct Five New
Apartment Buildings
Applicant Graham Gillespie, HOLT Architects, agent for the owner, RABCO Highland House, LLC,
presented an overview of the project. He noted that the application is a revision to the conceptual
proposals that were presented to the Commission in May, June, and August 2012.
E. Finegan asked if the only fundamental changes to the project were the reduction of one story for each
of the buildings. G. Gillespie replied, yes.
S. Gibian asked what would be done with the 48-inch oak tree. G. Gillespie replied it would be
removed.
S. Gibian observed he is not sure the exterior elevation drawings accurately depict the actual
configuration of the proposed retaining walls. G. Gillespie explained that the elevation drawings are
representative of the four buildings but do not show the exact grade intersections at each building.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by E. Finegan, S. Stein opened the public hearing.
Chris Proulx, Common Council Alderperson (Ward 5), spoke in opposition to the proposed 312
Thurston Avenue project. While he is keenly aware of the need for more, high-quality student housing
in the city, he believes the proposed project is inappropriate for the historic district as it lacks any real
relationship to the surrounding neighborhood. He acknowledged the incompatibility of the RU zoning
for this site with the visual characteristics of the historic district, and observed that was an issue for
Common Council to address.
Bill Demo, 121 Heights Ct., spoke in opposition to the proposed 312 Thurston Avenue project. He is
primarily concerned with the scale and proportionality of the proposed building. It would be an
inappropriately intensive development of the site that would disrupt the delicate balance between
existing student housing and single-family housing in the surrounding neighborhood.
Kim Weeden, 202 Fall Creek Dr., spoke in opposition to the proposed 312 Thurston Avenue project.
She observed that all the nearby homes are either 1-family houses or small rental units. She noted she
has many of the same concerns as the earlier speakers about inappropriate density and the resulting
impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
Vally Kovary, 101 Brook Ln., spoke in opposition to the proposed 312 Thurston Avenue project. She
is particularly concerned with preserving the large trees on the site and noted there is no green space
available for the project’s residents. She also believes there are simply too many proposed buildings for
such a small parcel.
6 of 15
ILPC Minutes
January 8, 2013
Applicant’s Rebuttals:
Speaking to Alderperson Proulx’ remarks, G. Gillespie observed that, when the City created the R-U
Zoning District, it did so with a clear understanding that part of it lies within an historic district. G.
Gillespie remarked that other projects, such as Bridges, have been approved for the Cornell Heights
Historic District that are also situated in neighborhoods dominated by single-family homes.
Nathan Brown, HOLT Architects, remarked that the proposed project would in fact include some flat,
open-air spaces in front of the buildings, including benches, sidewalks, and a large paved patio, on the
upper plateau of the site.
Regarding the concerns with the trees, G. Gillespie observed that the first conceptual proposal the
applicant submitted to the Commission would actually have saved a greater number of trees than the
current proposal. It is only with the modified orientations of the buildings, required to break up the mass
of the original proposal, that more trees were required to be removed. He also stressed that the current
planting plan attempts to restore that green buffer, though of course it will take time for the young trees
to mature.
There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer,
seconded by A. Krishna.
A. Krishna remarked that she feels the proposed project is an improvement since it was last presented.
She would lean towards approving the project.
M. McGandy remarked there is a fundamental tension between the zoning requirements and the historic
character of the neighborhood. Another tension revolves around how the proposed buildings would
interact with the rest of the neighborhood. The project really represents more of a suburban arrangement
than an urban one. He wondered if there were a way to incorporate interconnecting pedestrian pathways
into the project, perhaps stepping down through the grade. At this time, given the extent to which the
project has evolved since its inception, M. McGandy indicated he would be inclined to vote to approve.
C. O’Malley indicated she agrees with M. McGandy about incorporating some interconnecting
pedestrian pathways, since, in its current form, the project is almost entirely vehicle-centric.
D. Kramer indicated he does not believe the project is ultimately compatible with the historic character
of the surrounding district. It is simply too large.
E. Finegan remarked he agrees with D. Kramer. The site simply does not seem large enough for five
buildings of such large proportions.
C. O’Malley remarked she genuinely appreciates all of the changes made to the project; however, it still
seems far too ‘jam-packed’ for the site. She definitely agrees that one building should be removed.
7 of 15
ILPC Minutes
January 8, 2013
S. Stein indicated the applicants have clearly tried to respond to the Commission’s input, but she agrees
with her colleagues that the development is simply too dense for the site and would most likely be
inclined to vote, no.
Greg Martin, RABCO Highland House, remarked that he does not see how removing a building would
be feasible for the project. There are so many costs associated with its construction that are independent
of the number of buildings involved. He observed that perhaps the Commission would be receptive to
increasing the number of floors, to permit the removal of a building.
G. Martin noted that he assumes the Commission would only be satisfied with the removal of a building
facing Thurston Avenue (and not the small ‘gatehouse’ building, for example). C. O’Malley replied,
yes.
M. McGandy observed that if the project is going to be rethought, it should most likely not be designed
in the Craftsman style, given its size. C. O’Malley concurred.
RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, the proposed new Thurston Avenue Apartments, 312 Thurston Avenue, are located within
the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated under Section 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 December 19, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Graham Gillespie of HOLT Architects, on
behalf of property owner RABCO Highland House, including the following: (1) two
narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s);
(2) twelve sheets of architectural drawings depicting the site (currently vacant), neighboring
properties, zoning requirements, the proposed layout plan, proposed planting plan, proposed
site plan, typical floor plans, exterior elevations for four of the five proposed buildings, and a
proposed exterior color scheme, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed 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 new
construction of 26 apartments in five new buildings, each three stories in height, 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
8 of 15
ILPC Minutes
January 8, 2013
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 January 8,
2013, 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 vacant property located at 312 Thurston Avenue was originally part of the Edward G.
Wyckoff estate. Wyckoff was a partner in the Cornell Heights Land Company, the
developer of Cornell Heights. The Wyckoff mansion, demolished in 1964 for the
construction of the Highland House Apartments, was located immediately north of this site.
No structures are known to have existed historically on the parcel now proposed for
development.
Located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, highly visible to the public, and
adjacent to several contributing elements of the Cornell Heights Historic District (as well as
one non-contributing element, the Highland House Apartments), new development on the
proposed site is subject to review by the ILPC for its impacts on the historic character of the
Cornell Heights Historic District as a whole, and on adjacent contributing elements within
the district.
The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to construct five new apartment
buildings, containing a total of 26 units.
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 #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible
with the historic character of the district within which it is located.
9 of 15
ILPC Minutes
January 8, 2013
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.
With respect to Principle #3 and Standard #9, the proposed new apartment buildings are
not compatible with the historic character of the Cornell Heights Historic District, and more
specifically, with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
Although the three-story height of the proposed new buildings is consistent with the height
of the larger contributing properties within the district, the steeply-sloped topography of the
subject site is such that it magnifies the visual impact of the proposed new buildings, creating
the appearance of greater height, which is not in keeping with the historic character of the
district and surrounding properties. Although the massing of the proposed buildings is
similar to that of the larger contributing properties in the district, those large contributing
properties are surrounded by extensive green space. Only the smaller contributing
properties within the district are placed as closely together as the proposed buildings. This
close spacing results in a visual density on the subject site that is not in keeping with the
historic character of the district.
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 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 does not
meet criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-2-0
Yes
E. Finegan
D. Kramer
S. Gibian
C. O’Malley
S. Stein
No
A. Krishna
M. McGandy
Abstain
A. 214 Thurston Avenue, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Construct Shed (cont.)
L. Truame walked through an overview of the proposed project on the applicant’s behalf. She noted the
applicant is essentially asking the Commission to provide him with approved options for both the style
of the shed and the material that may be used for the siding, since it is unclear exactly which siding
styles may be available in which materials.
10 of 15
ILPC Minutes
January 8, 2013
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by E. Finegan, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being
no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by C. O’Malley, seconded by A.
Krishna.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 214 Thurston Avenue is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated
under Section 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 December 10, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Jeffrey Perry on behalf of property owner
Alpha Zeta Fraternity, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a site plan showing the
location of the existing and proposed new shed; and (3) product information for the
proposed shed, including a cut sheet photograph, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 214
Thurston Avenue 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 removal of
a deteriorated non-historic metal storage shed and installation of a new shed measuring
10’x18’, of wood frame construction, with an asphalt shingle roof, clad with engineered
wood siding in a clapboard style, 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 January 8,
2013, 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.
11 of 15
ILPC Minutes
January 8, 2013
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 214 Thurston
Avenue was constructed in 1901 with a large wing added outside the historic district’s period
of significance. The Dutch Colonial style original residence was designed by a Rochester,
NY architect, Mr. Otis, for Frank Peer, and has been owned and occupied by the Alpha Zeta
Fraternity since 1906. This original structure is no longer extant; the existing building on the
site consists of the added wing referenced above and a more recently constructed wing that
stand in the approximate location of the original structure.
Constructed outside the period of significance of the district, the property is by definition a
non-contributing element of the Cornell Heights Historic District.
The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to replace a deteriorated non-historic
shed at the rear of the property with a new storage shed.
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.
Principle #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible
with the historic character of the district within which it is located.
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.
12 of 15
ILPC Minutes
January 8, 2013
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 and Standard #9, the construction of the
proposed shed will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces
that characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2, Principle #3, and Standard #9, the proposed new shed is
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the historic
environment.
With respect to Standard #10, new shed 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 228-5, 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 conditions:
The shed may be clad with any of the following three materials: DuraTemp or SmartSide
engineered wood, or natural wood. The shed may be clad in any of the following three
profiles: board and batten, clapboard, or shiplap. Shutters are not to be included on the
shed.
RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0
Yes
D. Kramer
M. McGandy
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
A Krishna
C. O’Malley
S. Stein
No
Abstain
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
None.
13 of 15
ILPC Minutes
January 8, 2013
III. NEW BUSINESS
• ILPC Comments on Proposed CBD Zoning Changes
L. Truame noted that City Historian Mary Tomlan will be performing a windshield survey of
undesignated historically or architecturally significant resources in the State Street corridor that would
be affected by the proposed CBD zoning changes. Her work will be complete by the end of January.
E. McCollister observed there has been a recent drive towards establishing greater density in the city;
however, she does not believe enough attention has been paid to some of the finer details of what has
been proposed, and what its overall impact would be.
E. McCollister urged the Commission to review the proposed changes in detail. From a procedural
perspective, she added, she is also concerned that the Commission was not brought into the process in
the beginning.
E. McCollister added that the stepback diagram included in the proposed changes is inaccurate.
M. McGandy observed the entire issue only serves to underscore the need for the City to complete its
Comprehensive Plan.
L. Truame invited Commission members to send comments on the proposed zoning revisions to her for
distribution to members of the Planning & Economic Development Committee, which would be
discussing this issue at their meeting on Wednesday, January 9 (the next day).
• Election of 2013 ILPC Chair & Vice-Chair
Chair
Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, the Commission unanimously approved the
reappointment of S. Stein as Chair.
Vice-Chair
Moved by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer, the Commission unanimously approved the reappointment
of E. Finegan as Vice-Chair.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
None.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by S. Gibian, and seconded by C. O’Malley, Commission members unanimously approved
the following meeting minutes, with no modifications:
• December 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
14 of 15
ILPC Minutes
January 8, 2013
15 of 15
VI. STAFF REPORT
None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, on a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by C. O’Malley, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:40 p.m. by Chair Stein.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission