HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2013-08-13Approved by ILPC: 9/10/13
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – August 13, 2013
Present:
Ed Finegan, Vice Chair
Michael McGandy
Stephen Gibian
David Kramer
Ashima Krishna
Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison
Lynn Truame, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Vice Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 220 Eddy Street, East Hill Historic District ― Consideration of the application was
postponed at owner’s request
Vice Chair Finegan indicated that consideration of this application would be deferred until the next
meeting, at the applicant’s request.
B. 219 Eddy Street, East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Stone Steps
Applicant Kathryn Wolf recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting the front
bluestone stairs have become seriously deteriorated and delaminated. Replacing the steps would impact
the flanking stone walls. Her intent is to restore the walls (e.g., replace loose stones, repoint, etc.), and
replace the steps with concrete. She chose concrete due to the intensity of foot traffic and the
slipperiness of the stairs. The concrete would be stained or integrally colored to be visually compatible
with the bluestone. She also plans on repairing and rehabilitating the adjacent wood stairs, with any
necessary replacement being in-kind.
E. Finegan asked why the applicant is also proposing to replace with concrete the existing stone slab that
serves as a landing between the stone and wood flights of stairs. K. Wolf indicated that the slab is also
seriously deteriorated and she does not believe it can be salvaged. She added she would consider
replacing it in-kind with new stone.
D. Kramer asked if the rationale for concrete is that bluestone is more vulnerable to salt damage than
concrete. K. Wolf replied that the fact that the stone is more slippery means it requires commensurately
more de-icing in winter, which leads to the delaminating.
M. McGandy observed the slate is clearly delaminated, although it has been there for decades. He
questioned if there is a significant difference in the comparable longevity of concrete vs. stone. K. Wolf
remarked that she could not address the potential life-span difference of the two materials, but guesses
the bluestone is also subject to freeze-thaw damage, as well as salt damage.
D. Kramer remarked that, in his experience, bluestone has approximately 80-100 years of life and
concrete has a considerably shorter lifespan.
1 of 8
ILPC Minutes
August 13, 2013
S. Gibian agreed that concrete has a shorter lifespan than stone. He also observed that the landing slab’s
slope probably contributes significantly to its slipperiness. K. Wolf responded that is probably correct.
She had been contemplating flattening the landing out which would require adding a riser at the top of
the stone stair.
S. Gibian asked the applicant if she tried a wide variety of de-icing methods. K. Wolf replied, yes, she
tried numerous methods.
S. Gibian asked how long the color would be retained in the proposed concrete. K. Wolf replied that the
integral color she is most inclined to use possesses a very long life.
M. McGandy noted he would like more testimony of some kind, comparing the use of bluestone to
concrete for this location. He does not think the Commission has enough evidence to support the
contention that bluestone is inferior to concrete. K. Wolf replied that her contact at Finger Lakes Quarry
specifically indicated he did not think the bluestone was suitable for use in this particular location.
E. Finegan expressed concern that approving concrete may set a negative precedent for future
applications and that if there are conditions specific to this particular location that would make bluestone
an inappropriate choice, those should be better documented.
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Gibian, E. Finegan opened the public hearing. There being
no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by A.
Krishna.
E. Finegan asked if the Commission should consider the work on the flanking walls separately from the
rest of the application. L. Truame replied that the work on the wall would be in-kind, so the
Commission should focus on the appropriateness of the work affecting the stair and the stone landing.
K. Wolf noted that the stairs are integrated into the wall, so the work will be done simultaneously; there
would be no advantage to approving work on the wall while delaying approval of the work on the steps
themselves.
E. Finegan asked the applicant when she envisions making the alterations. K. Wolf replied, as soon as
possible.
S. Gibian asked if the existing stairs were to be replaced with concrete, whether they would be wider
than the wall, the way they are currently. K. Wolf replied she would retain the existing appearance of
the stairs as much as possible.
Vice Chair Finegan asked Commission members for their positions on the proposal.
M. McGandy indicated he would vote against the proposal, for the reasons he already expressed.
D. Kramer indicated that he feels the same way, especially considering the negative precedent it may
establish.
2 of 8
ILPC Minutes
August 13, 2013
E. Finegan noted he very much appreciates all the work the applicant has done on the building, but he
would have to vote against the project.
K. Wolf remarked it is clear how the Commission feels at this point and she will withdraw her request to
change the material to concrete and proceed instead with replacement of the stone steps and slab landing
in-kind. She asked if she would be required to return before the Commission to add a riser to the flight
of stone steps so that the slope of the landing can be reduced.
L. Truame responded that the Commission could determine now what it believes would be best and
provide that direction to staff, since in-kind replacement can be handled at the staff level.
S. Gibian remarked the applicant would probably want to coordinate the work on the wooden stairs with
the remainder of the project. K. Wolf indicated that only the treads of the wood steps require
replacement, so the geometry of those steps will be unchanged.
E. Finegan asked how much distance there is from the top of the stone steps to the wooden steps. K.
Wolf replied, approximately 4-5 feet.
L. Truame noted it looks like the capstone of the wall slopes back at the top of the stairs. If it were
leveled up, there may be enough room to install another riser while retaining the existing relationship
between the capstone and top stair tread. She indicated the Commission should define the parameters it
would be comfortable with for the project.
S. Gibian indicated he would be comfortable with the proposal if the new tread were at, but no higher
than, the top level of the capstone. K. Wolf replied she would explore that possibility and determine if it
is feasible. If not, she would simply suggest an alternative proposal to L. Truame.
Vice Chair Finegan asked if there were any objections to this plan of action. No objections were raised.
L. Truame indicated there is no longer a need for a resolution, since the alterations would be in-kind.
The application could now be considered withdrawn.
B. Tjaden Hall, Cornell Arts Quad Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Basement Window
with Exhaust Louver
Cornell University Applicants, Thomas Jordan, Engineer Architect, Facilities Services, and Frank
Parrish, Manager of Technological Services, College of Architecture, Art, and Planning, recapitulated
the salient details of the proposed project.
F. Parish remarked that the College of Architecture, Art, and Planning has a couple of rooms devoted to
silk screen printing. Cornell Environment Health and Safety is requiring that a new sink with exhaust be
installed in this particular location, in order to prevent moisture from escaping into the room when the
screens are cleaned.
3 of 8
ILPC Minutes
August 13, 2013
T. Jordan explained that the applicants explored two options: (1) running exhaust ductwork through the
adjacent window; and (2) running it through the building to the roof. The dark room on the first floor
and the departmental Chair’s office above that made it logistically infeasible to pursue the second
option. As a result, the applicants are now proposing the first option: running the exhaust ductwork
through the adjacent window opening using the proposed louver.
F. Parish indicated there are louvers that match this one elsewhere on the building and, in fact, a louver
had until recently been located in the window in question. The existing sash had been stored and when
that louver was removed, the sash was reinstalled.
S. Gibian remarked that he had imagined the exhaust system would be similar in scale to a bathroom
exhaust fan, so he is not sure why a 3x5 foot louver would be necessary. T. Jordan replied the purpose is
to maintain a certain minimum capture capacity to prevent any water/moisture from escaping into the
room; so they needed something which would handle 600-1,000 CFM (cubic feet per minute). It
definitely needs to be bigger than a simple bathroom exhaust system. He added that the applicants may
have been able to meet their needs with a half-sized louver, but the presiding instructor indicated she
would prefer a full-sized louver to keep all of the light out of the room.
F. Parish observed that a full-sized louver would match the other louvers, while a half-louver would not.
E. Finegan agreed a full-sized louver would be much more visually appealing.
D. Kramer noted that it is fortunate the original window sash will be retained and preserved as it could
be reinstalled at some future date.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer, E. Finegan opened the public hearing. There being
no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, Tjaden Hall is located within the Cornell Arts Quad Historic District, as designated under
Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1990, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated July 29, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Tom Jordan 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); and (2) six photographs showing existing
conditions and the proposed alteration, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for Tjaden
Hall, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Arts Quad Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves replacing
an existing basement-level window with an exhaust louver, and
4 of 8
ILPC Minutes
August 13, 2013
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 13,
2013, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
The period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Arts Quad is identified in
the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Arts Quad Historic District Summary Significance Statement as
1868-1919.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the building now
known as Tjaden Hall was constructed in 1882 as Franklin Hall, to house the first
department of electrical engineering in the country. It was designed by Charles Babcock,
Cornell’s first professor of architecture.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Arts Quad Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell Arts
Quad Historic District.
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.
5 of 8
ILPC Minutes
August 13, 2013
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 #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
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 #5, replacing this basement-level
window with the proposed exhaust louver will not remove distinctive materials and will not
alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
Also with respect to Principle #2, the proposed louver, which will be installed within the
existing window opening, is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural
features of the property and its environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the louver can be removed in the future and the original sash,
which will be retained and stored, can be reinstalled, 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 Cornell Arts Quad
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
A. Krishna
M. McGandy
No
Abstain
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
• None
III. OLD BUSINESS
• None
6 of 8
ILPC Minutes
August 13, 2013
IV. NEW BUSINESS
• Thurston Avenue Apartments ― Informal Discussion of Design Details
L. Truame indicated the applicant is not quite ready to present its design detail submission for review by
the Commission, but should be ready for the September 2013 meeting.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by D. Kramer, and seconded by S. Gibian, Commission members unanimously approved the
following meeting minutes, with no modifications.
• July 7, 2013 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• Landmarks Ordinance Revisions ― Discussion
L. Truame remarked that she drafted a circulation memorandum to provide an explanation of the various
proposed changes.
E. Finegan asked if L. Truame thinks instituting the Certificate of Appropriateness application fees
would be a problem. He thought the original rationale for not imposing fees on applicants was to
acknowledge that applicants are already providing a public benefit by maintaining their historic
properties and should not be required to pay a fee. E. McCollister agreed.
L. Truame responded that many municipalities charge similar kinds of fees, simply to defray the costs of
the staff time and other resources spent on the application process.
M. McGandy indicated he thinks instituting application fees makes sense, but he can certainly appreciate
E. Finegan’s point.
E. McCollister remarked that it is important for the City to convey to the public that it cares about
historic preservation, by refraining from charging property owners application fees. She would prefer
the City explore other ways of generating revenue, if need be.
D. Kramer suggested a compromise ― a waiver for any project under $5,000.
S. Gibian responded that the trouble with establishing a specific dollar amount is that it would likely not
be changed to match inflation.
L. Truame remarked that, if the Commission would prefer to charge fees only for larger projects, the
Commission already has a definition of projects requiring Early Design Guidance, which could also be
made subject to an application fee. She indicated she would revise the fees section of the proposed
Ordinance revisions and the Commission could plan on formally considering them for adoption at its
September 2013 meeting.
7 of 8
ILPC Minutes
August 13, 2013
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 6:50 p.m. by Vice Chair E.
Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
8 of 8