Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2013-05-14Approved by ILPC: 6/11/13 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes – May 14, 2013 Present: Sue Stein, Chair Ed Finegan, Vice Chair Christine O’Malley Stephen Gibian David Kramer Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison Lynn Truame, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 420 E. State Street, East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Install Two Ground-Mounted Air Conditioning Condenser Units Applicant Teresa Halpert recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. She stressed that someone looking from the sidewalk would not be able to see the condenser units. D. Kramer asked if the condenser units would be visible from any of the other neighboring buildings. T. Halpert responded, yes. They would probably be visible from the Queen Anne style house on Schuyler Place (but only when their parking space is empty). S. Gibian asked if there were plans for any kind of screening. Halpert responded, no; however, she could certainly plant a bush or similar planting. Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by E. Finegan, S. Stein opened the public hearing. Neil Schill, 206 Schuyler Place, indicated he and his family want to make sure there is some kind of sound bafflement in place to attenuate the noise of the condenser units. T. Halpert responded she would be willing to do that (probably a fence of some kind). C. O’Malley asked if it would be a wooden fence. T. Halpert replied she is not sure. L. Truame noted the Commission is not charged with considering sound-related issues, only visual impacts. She indicated that in the absence of a specific design for the proposed baffle the Commission should proceed without considering this issue. If the applicant decides to move forward with a noise- attenuation proposal, she can bring it back to the ILPC for review. There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by C. O’Malley, seconded by S. Gibian. 1 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Gibian. 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 April 1, 2013, 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 copy of a proposal from E.N.R. Heating, Air Conditioning, and Plumbing, describing the proposed work; (3) a drawing showing the locations of the proposed exterior condenser units on the site; and (4) three photographs showing existing conditions in the location proposed for placement of the condenser units, and two condenser units located elsewhere that are similar to the proposed units, 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 the introduction of air conditioning to the building, which will require the placement of two ground-mounted exterior condenser units, 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 14, 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. 2 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 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 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 add air conditioning to the building. 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. 3 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the addition of two ground- mounted condenser units and associated tubing in the proposed location, which is not visible to the public, will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. With respect to Standard #10, the proposed condenser units and associated tubing 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: That a bush be planted to the north of the condenser units to provide visual screening for adjacent property owners. RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0 Yes C. O’Malley E. Finegan S. Gibian D. Kramer S. Stein No Abstain B. 302 & 308 Wait Avenue, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Alter Windows Applicant Lisa James, Manager of Facilities Operations, Cornell University, recapitulated the salient details of the proposed alterations. The owner would like to remove these fire escapes, but that would necessitate some window alterations. The owner met with City Acting Building Commissioner Mike Niechwiadowicz and Fire Chief Tom Parsons, both of whom agreed with the owner’s approach. D. Kramer remarked that removing the fire escapes is a wonderful plan. He asked how the applicant plans on infilling and restoring the space for the door that will be removed at 308 Wait Avenue. L. James replied, they would fill it in with cedar shakes and create a fixed window to match the existing windows. 4 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 S. Gibian asked if the applicant would remove the dormer extension from 308 Wait Avenue. James replied, yes. S. also Gibian asked if the applicant would restore the roof overhang on 302 Wait Avenue. L. James replied, yes. Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Gibian, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer seconded by E. Finegan RESOLUTION: Moved by C. O’Malley, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 302 and 308 Wait Avenue are 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 April 26, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Lisa James, on behalf of property owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) an expanded project description, including photographs of existing conditions at the affected locations; and (3) product literature for Marvin Ultimate wood windows, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Forms for 302 and 308 Wait 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 alteration of existing windows and reinstallation of missing windows to allow the removal of existing exterior fire escapes, 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 14, 2013, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: 5 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 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, 302 Wait Avenue was constructed in 1899 in the Queen Anne style for Cornell University professor John L. Stone. 308 Wait Avenue was constructed in 1905-06 for Cornell University professor James E. Rice and features elements of the Queen Anne and Colonial Revival styles. Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, both properties are contributing elements of the Cornell Heights Historic District. The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to remove existing exterior fire escapes. Removal of these fire escapes will require the alteration of one existing window opening at 302 Wait Avenue, reinstallation of two additional windows at 302 Wait Avenue, and reinstallation of two windows at 308 Wait Avenue. 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 #4 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 6 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 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 Standard #4, the existing exterior fire escapes that are proposed for removal have not acquired historic significance in their own right. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of an existing double-hung wood window unit at 302 Wait Avenue with the proposed Marvin Ultimate double-hung wood window insert in the existing opening, which allow this window to meet egress requirements, will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the Marvin Ultimate wood windows proposed to be used, at 302 Wait Avenue to meet egress requirements and at 302 and 308 Wait Avenue to replace previously-removed window units, are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the 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 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: 5-0-0 Yes C. O’Malley E. Finegan S. Gibian D. Kramer S. Stein No Abstain C. 103 Highland Place, East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Install New Electrical Meters Applicant Tom Nix recapitulated the salient details of the proposed alterations. S. Gibian asked if the electrical equipment could be painted over. Architect Claudia Brenner replied she does not think it is permitted to paint NYSEG utilities. 7 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 E. Finegan cautioned the proposed white cedar bushes may not endure winter salt conditions. Nix replied he could explore a better species for salt conditions. C. O’Malley asked if the planting would be purchased at full-size to the height of the molding, as depicted, covering the full basement story. T. Nix replied the applicant would not plant something full- grown. C. Brenner added there are currently some bushes in place, as shown in the existing photo, which perform some degree of screening. D. Kramer remarked he would be just as happy to see a more robust version of the plantings that are already there, while S. Gibian suggested installing a vertical trellis with vines on it. E. Finegan suggested boxwood. D. Kramer asked how the location of NYSEG utilities has generally been handled before. L. Truame replied that ordinarily, utilities are situated on the side of a building, as is the case here. However, because of the location of this particular building, the side location is highly visible. Regarding the issue of painting the NYSEG utilities, Owner Pam Johnston indicated she would be willing to explore the option (which she herself would prefer), although she doubts it is permitted. Public Hearing On a motion by S. Gibian, 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 O’Malley. D. Kramer asked why the NYSEG meter boxes require Commission approval. L. Truame replied that, since it is an exterior alteration, it requires a Certificate of Appropriateness, as with any other proposal. E. Finegan questioned why telecommunications utility boxes are not required to undergo a similar approval process. C. Brenner replied she believes telecommunications industries may be exempted from those kinds of requirements. L. Truame indicated she would research the issue. RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 102 Highland Place 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 April 25, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Tom Nix, on behalf of property owner, Pam Johnston, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) one photograph of existing conditions at the property; (3) one photo-shopped photograph showing proposed screening plants; (4) two site maps, one showing existing conditions and one showing the 8 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 addition of screening plants; and (5) a copy of an e-mail from NYSEG concerning the location of the new electrical service, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed photographs and the listing in the annotated property list from the East Hill Historic District National Register Nomination for 102 Highland Place, 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 the installation of new electrical meters and plantings to screen those meters from view, 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 14, 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 National Register annotated property list, 102 Highland Place was constructed around 1900, in the 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 new electrical meters and associated screening plants. 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 9 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 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, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of the new electrical meters will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new electrical meters are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. The addition of plantings to screen the new meters sufficiently reduces their visual impact. With respect to Standard #10, the new meters 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 conditions: 10 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 • The proposed addition of three columnar white cedars is not approved. • The existing barberry hedge shall be maintained as needed and new plantings of the same or a similar type shall be added as needed to provide a dense visual barrier to screen the meters. • The owner will investigate whether it is permitted by NYSEG to paint the meter box and, if allowed, will paint the box the color of the wall behind it. RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0 Yes C. O’Malley E. Finegan S. Gibian D. Kramer S. Stein No Abstain D. 203 Williams Street, East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Alter Basement & First-Floor Fenestration Applicant Tom Nix recapitulated the salient details of the project, noting the alterations would be to the west façade of the building (downhill). Architect Claudia Brenner remarked that this is the first of many applications that will be brought before the Commission for properties on Williams Street. She stressed that the houses have suffered considerably over the years thorugh lack of maintenance and inappropriate alterations. On the west elevation of 203 Williams, it has been particularly challenging to determine exactly what has been altered and when those alterations may have occurred. E. Finegan asked what kind of siding was planned. Owner Pam Johnston replied that eventually everything would be clapboard, although not immediately. C. Brenner indicated that initially they would simply repair the existing siding, for budgetary reasons. Public Hearing On a motion by E. Finegan, seconded by D. Kramer, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer seconded by E. Finegan. RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by E. Finegan. WHEREAS, 203 Williams 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 11 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated April 25, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Tom Nix, on behalf of property owner, Pam Johnston, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) one photograph of existing conditions at the property; (3) one photo of existing conditions with the proposed alterations sketched in; (4) product literature for the proposed half-light Simpson wood door; and (5) 23 sheets of architectural drawings, dated April 22, 2013 and April 26, 2013, showing existing conditions and the proposed alterations, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed photographs and the listing in the annotated property list from the East Hill Historic District National Register Nomination for 203 Williams 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 relocation of one first-floor window and reconfiguration of the basement fenestration on the west elevation related to reconfiguration of the existing apartments in the building, 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 14, 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 annotated property list from the East Hill Historic District National Register Nomination, 203 Williams Street was constructed circa 1905. It is an early 20th century vernacular style building that incorporates elements of the Colonial Revival. 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. 12 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 The purpose of the proposal is to reconfigure the interior floor plan. These interior changes require the relocation one first-floor window and reconfiguration of basement fenestration on the west elevation. 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. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the proposed alteration of the basement level fenestration, much of which was previously altered, will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The proposed relocation of the first-floor level fenestration will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the new Marvin Ultimate wood windows and Simpson wood half-light doors proposed for use at the basement level are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. 13 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 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: 5-0-0 Yes S. Gibian D. Kramer E. Finegan S. Stein C. O’Malley No Abstain E. 423 E. Lincoln Street, Individual Landmark – Retroactive Review of Siding Replacement Applicant Robert Terry noted that he submitted a Building Permit application to replace deteriorated siding on the west elevation, approximately one year ago. Once work began it became apparent that not only this elevation but the north (main) elevation really needed to be replaced. Also, he had not realized how deteriorated the underlying insulation was throughout the house when he began the project, and he had not realized that there was no sheathing on the building; so while the contractors were on-site, he had them replace the insulation, add sheathing, and complete the additional siding replacement. The other portion of the project was that the entry to the basement was deteriorated and unsafe. The steps were covered with a deteriorated sheet of plywood and water was just draining into the basement. R. Terry did not think that portion of the project was of any historic relevance. He had the contractor build barn style doors to cover that basement entry. L. Truame indicated that the alterations to the steps would be considered interior changes, so would not fall within the Commission’s purview. It is really the siding and trim alterations that the ILPC needs to assess at this meeting. L. Truame inquired into the trim. R. Terry replied that, when the zip board sheathing was installed, it brought the siding out past the original wood trim, so they applied wood over the existing trim to build up the profile. R. Terry indicated that one cannot really distinguish the difference between the original trim and the new work since the original trim was plain 1 x boards. Public Hearing On a motion by C. O’Malley, seconded by S. Gibian, S. Stein opened the public hearing. Bojan Petek, Croton, NY, remarked that it sounds like the owner’s actions were practical and conscientious (even if he neglected to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness). 14 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by S. Gibian seconded by D. Kramer. S. Gibian observed that he examined the alterations himself and it looked quite good, with good-quality siding. D. Kramer agreed. RESOLUTION: Moved by C. O’Malley, seconded by E. Finegan. WHEREAS, 423 E. Lincoln Street, the Ithaca Pottery, is an individual local landmark, as designated under Sections 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1984 and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1979, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated April 26, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner, Robert Terry, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s), and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed relevant portions of the National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for 423 E. Lincoln Street, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the replacement of original wood siding on the north and west elevations with new wood siding, the addition of sheathing, the replacement of deteriorated insulation in these two walls, the addition of new wood trim over the original window trim and corner boards to retain the proportional relationship between the new siding and trim details, and replacement of a deteriorated plywood bulkhead cover with wood bulkhead doors, 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 14, 2013, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: 15 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 As indicated in the National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, 423 E. Lincoln was constructed circa 1840 as a workshop and warehouse for Ezra Cornell’s father’s, Elijah, Ithaca Pottery. The pottery continued in operation under various owners until the 1890s, at which time it was converted to housing. The site is of both architectural and archeological significance. The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to replace deteriorated siding, insulation, and a modern bulkhead door. 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 #1 The historic features of an individual landmark shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with the historic character of the landmark. 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 #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 #8 Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 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. 16 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 With respect to Principle #1, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of the original siding on the north and west elevations and the application of new wood trim to the face of the existing trim did not remove distinctive materials and did not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The removal of the plywood bulkhead cover did not remove distractive materials, or alter features and spaces that characterize the property. With respect to Principle #1 and Standard #6, as documented in photographs presented at the hearing, the severity of deterioration of the existing siding did require its replacement. The new siding does match the old in design, color, texture, material, and other visual qualities. Also with respect to Principle #1 and Standard #9, the new wood trim that was applied to the face of the existing wood trim to maintain the proportional relationship between siding and trim is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. The new wood bulkhead doors that were constructed to replace the plywood bulkhead cover are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #8, the project involved no ground disturbance, therefore, no protective or mitigation measures would have been required. 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 423 E. Lincoln Street, 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: 5-0-0 Yes C. O’Malley S. Gibian D. Kramer E. Finegan S. Stein No Abstain (D. Kramer departed at 7:10 p.m.) 17 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST • 204 N. Cayuga St. & Proposed Right-Side Front Entry Jason Henderson, Real Estate Manager, Travis Hyde Properties, announced he is working with prospective tenants, who are interested in both portions of the 204 N. Cayuga Street property. They would very much like to provide an accessible private entrance to the upper story of the property for a prospective tenant. They are proposing to install a wheelchair lift, which would not be visible from the street, and constructing new front steps to the north porch. J. Henderson indicated that City Historian Mary Tomlan had tentatively indicated the property may well once have been a double house when it was first built, in which case the other porch would have functioned as a separate entrance. L. Truame indicated that this proposal came to her too late to be put on the agenda for a public hearing this month. At this time the application is just requesting preliminary feedback on the proposal. E. Finegan asked how much investigation was done on whether there was in fact a separate entry. J. Henderson replied nothing substantive, as yet. S. Stein remarked the proposal appears reasonable to her. C. O’Malley agreed it probably would not be objectionable. E. Finegan agreed. III. OLD BUSINESS • 2 Ridgewood Road (Phi Delta Theta Fraternity) L. Truame reported that when the Commission issued a Certificate of Appropriateness on 12/13/11 for the replacement of two sets of rear doors with fixed multi-light panels at 2 Ridgewood Road (Phi Delta Theta Fraternity), the approval was issued on the following condition: “Staff will work with the applicant to ensure the muntin and mullion layout and proportions of the new fixed panels approximate, as closely as reasonably possible, the layout and proportions of the central door sidelights.” As of the date of this meeting, L. Truame indicated she cannot say the condition has been satisfied, so she invited the applicant to appear tonight to argue his case before the Commission. She stressed the decision itself is not being revisited; the only matter to consider at this time is whether the condition was satisfied. Bojan Petek, Petex Restoration, Ltd. reported that the impasse with L. Truame appears to be that she was looking for something that exactly matches the sidelights; however, if the owner ends up replacing the central doors, as it intends, that particular configuration would not be aesthetically ideal. S. Stein asked if anything has been replaced yet. Petek replied, no. L. Truame explained that the owner’s overarching plan conflicts with the approval condition, requiring that the “muntin and mullion layout and proportions of the new fixed panels approximate, as closely as reasonably possible, the layout and proportions of the central door sidelights.” The central door was not part of the discussion at all. 18 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 B. Petek responded that the crucial issue is whether the heavier top and bottom rails would be aesthetically appropriate with the doors the owner anticipates getting, which would be wooden doors, with simulated divided lights and aluminum cladding on the outside. S. Gibian asked if the owner could not use a more residential-scale door, with smaller rails and stiles. Petek replied, no. L. Truame explained that she had asked B. Petek multiple times to explore alternative products for the fixed panels, and had suggested looking at fixed windows, which would have the smaller rails that could satisfy the Commission’s condition; however, she grew mildly frustrated when he did not seem to be providing any alternatives. At this point, she cannot state with any confidence that he did in fact looked at any alternatives. S. Gibian observed that the answer to the question of whether the condition has been met is probably, no. He does believe that there exist products, including fixed windows, that would more closely match the light layout of the existing sidelights. However, he observed that it does not seem to be in all parties’ best interest to consider the flanking panels and the future center doors separately. He suggested it would probably make more sense for the applicant to submit an entirely new application. B. Petek agreed that may be the case. L. Truame indicated she needs to review the language of the ordinance to determine what the correct procedure for that approach would be. Some new information is probably needed, in order to reconsider the work that was proposed in the original application. She observed that, procedurally, it would be cleanest if the Commission found that the condition had been satisfied (if, in fact, they felt comfortable that it had been). Victor Aprea, Alpha Phi Theta Alumni Club Board, Chairperson, remarked that the applicant could have done a better job of providing information about the alternatives that had been considered. RESOLUTION: Moved by C. O’Malley, seconded by E. Finegan. WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) determines that the following condition associated with Resolution RA-1, as approved at the regular 12/13/11 ILPC meeting, and relating to the property at 2 Ridgewood Road (Phi Delta Theta Fraternity) in the Cornell Heights Historic District, has been met: “Staff will work with the applicant to ensure the muntin and mullion layout and proportions of the new fixed panels approximate, as closely as reasonably possible, the layout and proportions of the central door sidelights.” RECORD OF VOTE: 3-1-0 Yes C. O’Malley E. Finegan S. Stein No S. Gibian Abstain 19 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 IV. NEW BUSINESS • Discussion of Designation of 310 & 314 W. State Street L. Truame announced that a question recently arose as to whether 310 and 314 West State Street should be designated as local landmarks. E. Finegan expressed it would be good to be proactive and designate them, so they can be protected. L. Truame noted 310 and 314 West State Street also happen to be across the street from the old AFCU building, 301 West State, which is also of architectural interest, so the Commission may even consider exploring the designation of all three. C. O’Malley agreed it would be good to research them all. E. McCollister noted it would be helpful if the Commission could provide her with enough guidance so she could convey its intentions to Common Council. L. Truame remarked that someone would need to be assigned to research and draft the nomination. C. O’Malley agreed to do so, in conjunction with Historic Ithaca. L. Truame observed that if all three buildings are found to be significant, they might be considered as a small historic district, rather than individual landmarks. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by C. O’Malley, and seconded by S. Gibian, Commission members unanimously approved the following meeting minutes: • April 9, 2013 (Regular Meeting), with no modifications VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS • Adoption of City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by C. O’Malley. WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) is charged under Section 73-4H of the Municipal Code with increasing public awareness of the value of historic, cultural, and architectural preservation, and WHEREAS, the ILPC is authorized under Section 73-4D of the Municipal Code to adopt criteria for the evaluation of Certificates of Appropriateness, and WHEREAS, the ILPC is further authorized under Section 73-4L of the Municipal Code to delegate work to its staff as necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission, and 20 of 21 ILPC Minutes May 14, 2013 21 of 21 WHEREAS, it has long been the intent of the ILPC to publish design guidelines for the treatment of locally-designated historic resources with the specific goal of increasing public awareness of the value of historic, cultural, and architectural preservation, clearly articulating the criteria for approval of Certificates of Appropriateness, and streamlining the Certificate of Appropriateness review process by delegating certain approvals to the staff level, and WHEREAS, drawing on the work of previous consultants, interns, and staff, a complete final document entitled the City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines has now been completed, and WEHREAS, the ILPC has carefully reviewed this document and finds that it will achieve the aforementioned goals, in compliance with the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC does adopt the City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Guidelines as its own, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC and its staff will begin immediately to process and evaluate applications for Certificates of Appropriateness in accordance with these Design Guidelines, and be it further resolved RESOLVED, that staff is directed to disseminate this document via the City’s web site and in any other way staff may find appropriate within the constraints of the Planning Division’s budget. RECORD OF VOTE: 4-0-0 Yes S. Stein E. Finegan S. Gibian C. O’Malley No Abstain • 604 E. State Street, East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Replace Side Porch L. Truame reported that the contractor for this project had called to ask about installing some lattice that was not part of the original application. She asked if the Commission would like to review the proposal, or whether she could resolve the issue at the staff level. The Commission directed L. Truame to review the work at the staff level. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:22 p.m. by Chair Stein. Respectfully Submitted, Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission