HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2013-09-10Approved by ILPC: 10/8/13
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – September 10, 2013
Present:
Sue Stein, Chair
Ed Finegan, Vice Chair
Michael McGandy
Stephen Gibian
David Kramer
Katelin Olson
Christine O’Malley
Lynn Truame, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and welcomed new Commission member, Katelin
Olson.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 220 Eddy Street, East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Stone Sidewalk
The applicant did not appear. Discussion was deferred until later in the meeting.
B. 523 E. State Street, East Hill Historic District ― Request for Retroactive Approval of Altered
Windows & Downspout
Applicant Hwa Suk Choong recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting she installed
four new windows in response to a tenant who had been complaining of high heating bills.
S. Stein asked the applicant if she obtained a building permit for the work. H. Choong replied no.
C. O’Malley asked which windows had actually been replaced. H. Choong replied, the windows in the
bays at the first floor on the main façade overlooking State Street.
E. Finegan asked about the other windows that had been replaced. H. Choong replied, she had nothing to
do with those. She only replaced the ones in front. Finegan asked if any original windows were left in
the building. H. Choong replied, she does not know.
D. Kramer asked if she had are any photographs of the original windows, before they were replaced. H.
Choong replied, no.
E. Finegan asked who actually performed the work of replacing the windows. H. Choong replied, she
and her husband did. E. Finegan asked if the applicant had considered applying for a Building Permit at
all. H. Choong replied, no. She was not aware one was required.
L. Truame indicated the Commission will need to decide whether they can approve the replacement of
the windows, consistent with Standard #6, and, if so, whether the windows which were installed are
historically appropriate. If the Commission chooses to deny the application, the City would handle the
situation in the same way it handled the 123 Roberts Place application (through the City Attorney’s
office).
1 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
H. Choong remarked that many houses in her neighborhood have replaced their windows, so she did not
think anything of it. She added that she did not notice any Building Permit signs on any of those
properties, either.
L. Truame noted that all property owners need to obtain Building Permits for any work that they do in
the historic districts that affects the exterior or site of the property.
E. Finegan indicated the work that had been done by the applicant is a problem. He does not see any
way that the Commission could approve it.
S. Gibian observed that there are also other windows on the property which appear to have been stuffed
with insulation and plastic bags. The newly installed windows are not the same size as the others and do
not even match each other. He would have a hard time supporting the application, for many reasons. K.
Olson agreed.
D. Kramer remarked that the pvc downspout section is not appropriate, either. C. O’Malley agreed.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being
no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by E. Finegan, seconded by M.
McGandy.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 523 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 August 13, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Hwa Suk Choong,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed
Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) a sketch of the main elevation of the
house, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
523 East 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
replacement of original wood windows throughout the building with insulated-glass
windows and infilling of windows with insulation, and
WHEREAS, the work has already been completed and the new windows are of a smaller size than the
original windows, resulting in partial infilling of the original window openings where
new windows were installed, and
2 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
WHEREAS, although not described in the application, it is apparent that a section of PVC pipe, which
is white in color and extends to a height of several feet above grade, has been installed to
receive the termination of the downspout that serves the front porch of the house, and
WHEREAS, neither a building permit, nor a Certificate of Appropriateness was requested or issued
prior to commencement of the above-described work, in violation of Sections 146-5 and
228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, when alerted to this omission by the City of Ithaca Building Division on August 8, 2013,
the property owner did apply for a retroactive building permit and this retroactive
Certificate of Appropriateness, 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
September 10, 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, 523 E. State
Street was constructed sometime prior to 1893, in a late interpretation of the Italianate
style.
As noted in A Field Guide to American Houses, by Virginia and Lee McAlester, the
Italianate style was popular during the period 1840-1885, and among its identifying
features are two- or three-stories; a low-pitched roof with widely overhanging eaves
having decorative brackets beneath; and tall, narrow windows.
Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and
retaining a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill
Historic District.
3 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
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 #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
Standard #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the
new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities,
and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be
substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #5, the original wood windows
are distinctive, character-defining features. The removal of the original wood windows,
therefore, did remove distinctive materials and did alter features and spaces that
characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, the applicant has not demonstrated that the
severity of the deterioration the original windows required their replacement. The new
windows do not match the old in design, color, texture, material, and other visual
qualities.
Also with respect to Principle #2, the proposed new windows and the new PVC
downspout extension are not compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural
features of the property and its environment.
4 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal did 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 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: 7-0-0
Yes
M. McGandy
D. Kramer
S. Stein
K. Olson
S. Gibian
E. Finegan
C. O’Malley
No
Abstain
L. Truame indicated she would follow up with both the City Attorney’s office and the applicant, to
determine how the situation would be handled from this point forward.
C. 121 Heights Court, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Deteriorated
Wood Shingle Roofing with Architectural Shingles
The applicant did not appear. Discussion was deferred until later in the meeting.
D. 55 Ridgewood Road, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Alter Attached Garage
The applicant did not appear. Discussion was deferred until later in the meeting.
E. 333 S. Geneva St., Henry St. John Historic District ― Proposal to Install Fence
Applicant Chris Moody recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting the purpose of
the application was to enclose the property on all sides and replace the existing wire fence at the south
property line, which is dangerous. He is proposing a wood privacy fence to match what exists on the
north and east property lines.
D. Kramer remarked it is a beautiful house and front fence. His impression was that the kind of privacy
fence the applicant is proposing would be very visible at the south property line, exposed to the south as
it would be. As a result, it does not seem in keeping with the beauty of the home and the picket fence in
front. He would like to see a more attractive fence design.
5 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
S. Gibian observed the property line is only 3.9 feet from the house; so if the applicant installs a 6-foot
high fence, he would effectively create a 3-foot ‘tunnel’. He does not see any real purpose for the
privacy fence in this location.
M. McGandy noted it seems sensible to want to take the existing wire fence out.
E. Finegan asked if it would be possible to install a fence similar in height to the existing wire fence at
the south property line. C. Moody replied, yes, he would certainly be open to that idea.
D. Kramer observed it would make sense to continue the design of the picket fence in front. C. Moody
replied he had looked into that, but it would be extremely expensive.
M. McGandy agreed with D. Kramer, noting that if the applicant is going to install a fence, he will need
to propose a different design. K. Olson agreed.
S. Gibian asked if there would be a gate where the new proposed section of picket fence crosses the
driveway at the east property line. C. Moody replied, yes.
C. O’Malley noted that she agrees with S. Gibian’s earlier comment about installing a lower fence at the
south property line.
L. Truame indicated that the Commission has previously approved six-foot tall fences in the rear of
certain properties. She asked if the Commission would feel comfortable approving the proposed new
section of privacy fence in the rear and the new section of scalloped picket fence at the front property
line. S. Gibian replied he would not have a problem with that. C. O’Malley agreed. No objections were
raised. The applicant agreed to submit a new application for the south property line fence, taking into
account the Commission’s comments about reduced height and increased transparency.
Public Hearing
On a motion by E. Finegan, 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 M. McGandy.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 333 South Geneva Street is located within the Henry St. John Historic District, as
designated under Sections 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2013, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated August 22, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Corinne Lloyd Moody,
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 and extent of
the existing and proposed fence; (3) five photographs showing existing conditions at the
property; and (4) one image of the proposed new privacy fence, and
6 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
Henry St. John Historic District for 333 South Geneva Street, and the City of Ithaca’s
Henry St. John Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
replacing a section of existing picket fence that was removed for water line work, which
constitutes in-kind replacement and requires no further review by the ILPC; installation
of approximately 10 feet of new picket fence along the front property line, including
gates at the driveway crossing; and installation of a new six-foot tall shadow-style cedar
privacy fence along the east and south property lines to match an existing fence that is
located at the north property line, and
WHEREAS, at the September 10, 2013 ILPC meeting, the Commission indicated it could not approve
a six-foot tall privacy fence along the south property line, due to its high visibility and
negative impact on the character of the district, and
WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to delete the fence along the south property line from this application
and will return at a future date with a lower and more transparent design for that portion
of fence, 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
September 10, 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 Henry St. John Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the Henry St. John Historic District
is 1830-1932.
As indicated in the individual property entry in the annotated list of properties included
within the Henry St. John Historic District, 333 S. Geneva Street was constructed circa
1875 and is an excellent intact example of a modest Italianate style residence.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Henry St. John Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Henry
St. John Historic District.
7 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
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.
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 Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of the new privacy fence
along the rear property line and a new section of picket fence at the front property line
will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that
characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #3 and Standard #9, the proposed new privacy fence and picket
fence are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the
property and its environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the new fences 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 Henry St.
John Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further,
8 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
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, as revised at
the September 10, 2013 ILPC meeting.
RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0
Yes
M. McGandy
D. Kramer
S. Stein
K. Olson
S. Gibian
E. Finegan
C. O’Malley
No
Abstain
A. 220 Eddy Street, East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Stone Sidewalk (cont.)
The applicant did not appear. In the applicant’s absence, the Commission proceeded with reviewing
and discussing the proposed changes.
L. Truame reported that she and the Commission had met on-site with Assistant Civil Engineer Lynne
Yost and had a constructive conversation. The Commission should now have sufficient information to
act on the application.
S. Stein asked if the Public Hearing had already been held for the application. C. Pyott replied, yes. It
was held at the Commission’s July 2013 meeting.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by E. Finegan.
WHEREAS, 220 Eddy 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 June 5, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner John O’Connor, including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Changes(s); and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the materials sent by the City of Ithaca to the property owner
concerning the condition of the existing sidewalk at 220 Eddy Street, including: (1) the
Sidewalk Notice of Defect; (2) the 2013 Sidewalk Notice of Complaint FAQ; (3) the
2013 Information about Sidewalk and Driveways in the City of Ithaca sheet; and (4) the
Stone Sidewalks in the City of Ithaca information sheet, and
9 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
220 Eddy Street, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement,
and
WHEREAS, this application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was tabled at the July 9, 2013 ILPC
meeting for lack of sufficient information and because the site had not been posted in
accordance with Section 228-6D of the Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC reviewed the condition of the sidewalk and the Notice of Defect with City of
Ithaca Assistant Civil Engineer, Lynne Yost, at a site visit on August 1, 2013, and
WHEREAS, at that site visit, Ms. Yost clarified that a rating of “failed” for any stone is merely
indicative of a condition that requires correction and is not necessarily an indication that a
stone requires replacement, and
WHEREAS, this application was scheduled to be heard at the August 13, 2013 regular meeting of the
ILPC, but was postponed at the request of the property owner, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the proposal involves
replacement of the existing stone sidewalk in its entirety with concrete, 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
September 10, 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, 220 Eddy Street
was constructed between 1882 and 1893 for the Cook family, owners of the adjacent
“Orchard Lot,” a 12-acre former fruit orchard that was developed into residential lots in
the 1880s and 1890s. It is a Free Classic Queen Anne style residence.
10 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District, 220 Eddy
Street, despite the unfortunate loss of some original features, retains its original form and
massing, as well as numerous original architectural elements and details, and is a
contributing element of the East Hill Historic District.
The proposal in question concerns the stone sidewalk in front of 220 Eddy Street. Stone
sidewalks were installed throughout the City of Ithaca in the 1800s and early 1900s. The
walk in front of 220 Eddy Street is continuous from property line to property line. The
property owner has received a Notice of Defect from the City of Ithaca, requiring him to
correct the sidewalk’s deficiencies. A rating of “failed” for any given stone is an
indication that a condition exists at that stone that requires correction and is not
necessarily an indication that the City Engineer considers the condition of the stone to be
such that its replacement is required. The City of Ithaca’s information sheet on the
appropriate treatment of stone sidewalks was included with the Notice of Defect received
by the property owner.
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 #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
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.
11 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
As indicated in the City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines,
stone walks are a character-defining feature of Ithaca’s historic districts, constituting a
distinctive construction technique and example of craftsmanship. They provide insight
into the history and development of the historic district. Therefore, with respect to
Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #5, the replacement of the existing stone walk in
its entirety with concrete will remove distinctive materials and features and will alter
features and spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, based on personal inspection made by the
members of the ILPC and information provided by Assistant Civil Engineer Lynne Yost,
and as documented in the Notice of Defect issued by the City of Ithaca, certain conditions
that require correction exist at 10 of the 12 stone slabs comprising this sidewalk;
however, replacement of the walk in its entirety is not required to correct those
conditions. The severity of deterioration of only three existing slabs (two at the driveway
crossing and one indicated on the Notice of Defect drawing as being split in half) do
require their replacement. The proposed new concrete material will not match the old in
design, color, texture, material, and other visual qualities.
The ILPC recognizes that stone walks typically cannot support regular vehicular traffic
without breaking; therefore, as indicated in the City of Ithaca Historic District and
Landmark Design Guidelines, the use of concrete to replace severely deteriorated stone at
driveway crossings is approved.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal to replace the stone walk in its
entirety with concrete will 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 to
replace the stone walk in its entirety with concrete 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. In accordance
with the City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines, the applicant
may replace with concrete those two stone slabs that comprise the driveway crossing.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-1
Yes
M. McGandy
D. Kramer
S. Stein
S. Gibian
E. Finegan
C. O’Malley
No
Abstain
K. Olson
12 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
C. 121 Heights Court, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Deteriorated
Wood Shingle Roofing with Architectural Shingles (cont.)
The applicant did not appear. In the applicant’s absence, the Commission proceeded with reviewing
and discussing the proposed changes.
L. Truame recapitulated the salient details of the application.
S. Gibian observed that there is some question in his mind as to whether the wood shingle roofing
should be treated as siding or as roof. Furthermore, what really appears to be missing, more than
anything, is some flashing at the juncture with the pent roof. S. Gibian added that installing architectural
shingles on the pent roof would cause a visual conflict with the existing three-tab shingles on the porch
roof -- he would prefer not to have the three-tab shingles on the porch and he wondered if that could be
included as a recommendation in the Commission resolution (i.e., ask the applicant to consider replacing
the existing three-tab shingles on the front porch roof to match the new architectural shingles on the
adjacent pent roof).
Public Hearing
On a motion by C. O’Malley, seconded by D. Kramer, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being
no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by C.
O’Malley.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 121 Heights Court is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated
under Sections 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as listed on the
New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated August 26, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Bill Demo, including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) four photographs showing the existing condition of the
shingles proposed for replacement, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 121
Heights Court, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
replacement of deteriorated wood shingles on the pent roof of the house with asphalt
architectural shingles to match those located elsewhere on the house, 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
13 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
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
September 10, 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.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 121 Heights
Court was constructed c. 1914-1915 in the Classical Revival style.
As noted in A Field Guide to American Houses, by Virginia and Lee McAlester, the pent
roof form is typical of Georgian period homes in the Middle Colonies, and is found on
classical revival homes with designs derived from those original Middle Colony
structures.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell
Heights Historic District.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district.
In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-5
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to
the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
14 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 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 #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, Standard #5, and Standard #9, the wood
shingles on this pent roof are a distinctive, character-defining feature. Replacing the
wood shingles with the proposed asphalt architectural shingles will remove distinctive
materials and will alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as shown in the submitted photographs and
based upon personal observations made by Commission members, the severity of
deterioration of the wood shingles requires their replacement. The proposed new work
will match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Although the new
shingles will not match the old in material, the Commission has consistently found that
architectural shingles are an acceptable modern substitute for wood shingles.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new shingles are
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the new shingles 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 Cornell
Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further,
15 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
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. Though not
a condition of approval, the Commission encourages the owner to consider replacing the
existing three-tab shingles on the front porch roof to match the new architectural shingles
on the adjacent pent roof.
RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0
Yes
K. Olson
M. McGandy
D. Kramer
S. Stein
S. Gibian
E. Finegan
C. O’Malley
No
Abstain
D. 55 Ridgewood Road, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Alter Attached Garage
(cont.)
The applicant did not appear. In the applicant’s absence, the Commission proceeded with reviewing
and discussing the proposed changes.
L. Truame indicated that the applicant has already removed the garage doors, but they can be reinstalled.
A current resident of the property indicated the garage doors that were originally in place were in very
poor condition and non-functional, which was part of the reason for their removal. He believes the
applicant intended to duplicate their appearance, but not retain their functionality as doors.
D. Kramer remarked he thought the applicant was proposing duplicating the T-111 door infill on the
right, which is what was done.
L. Truame responded, no, the door on the right represents an existing condition, which is not being
considered. It is the door on the left that is in question and how that existing opening should be treated
when it is infilled.
E. Finegan noted that the Commission was not given the opportunity to see the doors, so he wonders
how it can make any kind of determination about their condition.
S. Gibian observed that the application makes no reference to the glazing on the original doors. He
would also be concerned with the two-by-four studs, in terms of quality of the finish. Broadly speaking,
it does not seem the application was thought through very well.
16 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by C. O’Malley, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There
being no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by E.
Finegan.
L. Truame indicated that the Commission certainly has the option of denying the application and asking
the applicant to return with a new application that substantiates the applicant’s contention that the
original doors cannot be salvaged and reused in this new non-operable configuration.
RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 55 Ridgewood Road is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated
under Sections 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as listed on the
New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated August 21, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Greg Linder on behalf of property
owner Pi Kappa Phi Properties, Inc., including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2)
three photographs of existing conditions at the property; (3) a site plan; (4) an
architectural drawing showing the proposed reconstructed door, taken from the original
1916 architectural plans; (5) a letter from Greg Linder, in his capacity as President of
Summit Contracting, commenting on the condition of the original door; and (6) 8 sheets
of architectural drawings related to the larger interior renovation project at the property,
and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 55
Ridgewood Road, 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 an original tri-fold garage door, enclosure of the opening, and installation of a new
fixed exterior panel that replicates the appearance of the original door, 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 not provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate
impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, now therefore
be it
RESOLVED, that the application is tabled, pending the submission of additional information
concerning the physical condition of the original doors. Staff will contact the owner to
arrange a time for the ILPC to inspect the doors, which are currently in storage on-site.
17 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0
Yes
K. Olson
M. McGandy
D. Kramer
S. Stein
S. Gibian
E. Finegan
C. O’Malley
No
Abstain
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
• August 15, 2013 Letter from Ken Vineberg
Ken Vineberg, 122 Roberts Place, explained that he wrote the letter because of some major concerns he
has with the house across the street (123 Roberts Place, where windows were replaced without approval)
which now has a mixture of new vinyl windows and other non-original windows. This prompted him to
consider whether a more lenient policy with respect to window replacement might prevent situations like
that from happening.
S. Stein remarked that both the Commission and Planning staff do their utmost to communicate window
requirements for properties in Historic Districts.
S. Gibain observed that with windows one has an entire continuum of available options for full or partial
replacement and the challenge lies in where one would fall, in terms of saying which options are
acceptable and which ones are not in any given situation.
L. Truame noted that the Commission does allow window replacement under certain circumstances but
that our Landmarks Ordinance requires adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, which do
not allow the replacement of significant character defining features when those features can be repaired.
The Commission therefore tries to focus carefully on defining which windows are, in fact, “character
defining” and which are not when evaluating all applications for window replacement.
III. OLD BUSINESS
• 102 E. Court Street Update
L. Truame reported that the 102 E. Court Street legal case is proceeding. The City Prosecutor is moving
forward with it. Acting Building Commissioner Mike Niechwiadowicz issued an order letter requiring
the owner to stablilize the front porch and chimneys, but the owner never responded. The ultimate
intention on the part of the City is not to prosecute the owner, but merely to get him to do something
with the building to halt the continued deterioration.
18 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
• Landmarks Ordinance Revisions: Proposed New §228-14
L. Truame noted that during the last meeting the Commission did not discuss the new public safety
provision that is being proposed for the Landmarks Ordinance. She explained that there are two
versions of proposed language being considered. The proposed language will be formally presented at
the October 2013 Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting. The Committee would be
informed what the Commission’s preference is and would be asked which of the two options it prefers.
The Commission expressed its preference for the second, alternate, version of the new provision.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
• Early Design Guidance: New Construction at 150 & 152 Highland Place (Ridgewood Road
Apartments)
Applicants Steve Bus, Campus Acquisitions, Nathaniel Finley, Shepley Bulfinch, and Peter Trowbridge,
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, appeared before the Commission to present the initial proposed design
for the project, including the following highlights and point-of-interest:
• 70 units, 192 beds
• four stories, wood-framed student housing, built atop one level of underground parking
• significant change in grade of the site from one side of the building to the other
• building placement is at the low side of site, minimizing cutting into the hill
• heavily wooded areas are located on periphery of the site, minimizing any disruption to existing trees
• tree survey was performed
• visibility from all public roads would be very minor
• garage would open up on west, from Ridgewood Road
• applicants tried to break down building massing so it reads as three separate buildings
• building sections would be clad in different materials
• parking area would have green roof and be largely submerged
• natural stone would be used for some landscaping elements
• design includes balconies
• parapet roof would screen mechanicals, including angled form on one building
E. Finegan observed that he understands the City has been trying to discourage the use of balconies in
buildings like this.
M. McGandy asked if the applicant could provide some rendered drawings from the perspectives of the
adjacent properties (i.e., what neighbors would see from their windows, both in warm and cold seasons).
N. Finley agreed to do so.
M. McGandy noted he would like to see minimal tree loss from the construction process and
accompanying erosion. S. Bus replied that the applicant’s engineering consultant indicated the
disturbance should be limited to less than one acre.
S. Stein noted the building seems too large for the neighborhood.
19 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
C. O’Malley explained to the applicant that another similar large project recently came before the
Commission. That project ultimately had to be reduced in overall size and broken down into smaller
units, precisely because the original proposal was too large and monolithic.
S. Bus asked the Commission what kind of balance it would like to see, between a single larger building
with less site disruption vs. multiple smaller buildings spread over a larger portion of the site. He noted
that ― given the slope and lack of visibility of the building ― the applicant believed the design it came
up with was appropriate and sufficiently decreased the visual impact of the project on the neighborhood.
E. Finegan asked for further details on the roof. S. Bus replied the roof would house some mechanicals,
but they would be screened by parapet walls. They are not massive mechanicals: they are lower and
relatively easy to screen.
D. Kramer remarked that the massing, scale, size, and style of the building do not appear to have
anything in common with the surrounding neighborhood. S. Stein agreed.
S. Gibian noted that the façade recesses could be recessed much more. They do not really break the
building up into three separate-looking buildings very much.
K. Olson noted it would be helpful to see a rendering that is more head-on.
M. McGandy strongly suggested reducing the scale of the building (e.g., fewer rooms/beds, smaller
buildings, etc.).
P. Trowbride indicated it should be possible to blur the edges of the project, with more creative
landscaping, which would help.
D. Kramer reiterated he would like to see more effort made to reflect the styles of the surrounding
buildings.
E. Finegan noted that what is seen on the roof from the upper edges of the site would be very important.
C. O’Malley agreed and asked if they had considered a green roof. S. Bus replied he would explore that.
S. Gibian noted the building could also be more harmonious with the topological contours of the site.
M. McGandy noted his principal concerns are the size, massing, scale, and visual compatibility of the
building.
S. Gibian suggested more creative fenestration.
K. Olson noted that refining the coloration would help, as well (i.e., if the building blended more into its
surroundings), which would mitigate the impact of the building’s large size.
N. Finley indicated the applicant would like to make some revisions and return to the Commission for
additional Early Design Guidance. There were no objections.
20 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST (cont.)
Barbara Ley, 110 Highland Avenue, spoke in opposition to the Ridgewood Road Apartments project,
noting that she cannot imagine the building would really fit appropriately on the site. Something much
smaller would be far better. She noted that people have cherished the project site over the years and
many people have been startled at the prospect of losing it. The overall character of the neighborhood
should be preserved, consistent with the Commission’s mission.
Kim Weeden, 202 Fall Creek, spoke in opposition to the Ridgewood Road Apartments project, noting
that the project is not in keeping with character of Cayuga Heights (e.g., footprint-to-land ratio, massing,
viewshed, etc.). Additionally, the character of the neighborhood fundamentally changes when one adds
so many students in a small area (e.g., traffic, noise, parking, public urination, trash, etc.). Eventually,
the property values would decrease for single-family homes. She observed that the Commission is not
obligated to facilitate prospective developers making a profit.
Ken Vineberg, 122 Roberts Place, spoke in opposition to the Ridgewood Road Apartments project,
noting that the potential to make a profit has little to do with the size of a building. There is no reason
the developer has to proceed with a project of this size. The Commission could instruct the developer to
cut the project in half and it would still generate a significant profit.
IV. NEW BUSINESS (cont.)
• Informal Discussion of Design Details: 312 Thurston Avenue
Applicant Graham Gillespie noted that the applicant attempted to respond to the Commission’s
comments about the detailing of the project and would now like some guidance on the treatments of the
facades.
S. Gibian noted the entrance door does not look ideal; it looks more like a fire exit. He suggested adding
a strip of glazing across the top to make it look less like an institutional kind of door. C. O’Malley
agreed.
C. O’Malley asked about the wood timbering. G. Gillespie replied it would comprise textured
cementitious boards and battens (with trim over the top).
L. Truame asked Commission members what they thought of the doors. To her, the entrance seems a
little odd, placed off-center and partially behind a column.
C. O’Malley agreed that is not ideal. G. Gillespie explained that the door’s design should have been
corrected to reflect the same treatment as the doors on Buildings 2 and 3.
G. Gillespie indicated the applicant would consider the comments it has heard and return before the
Commission.
21 of 22
ILPC Minutes
September 10, 2013
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by E. Finegan and seconded by D. Kramer, Commission members unanimously approved the
following meeting minutes, with two modifications, and K. Olson abstaining.
• August 13, 2013 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• None
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:05 p.m. by Chair S. Stein.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
22 of 22