Loading...
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