HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2013-12-10Approved by ILPC: 1/14/14
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – December 10, 2013
Present:
Sue Stein, Chair
Ed Finegan, Vice Chair
Michael McGandy
Stephen Gibian
David Kramer
Katelin Olson
Christine O’Malley
Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison
Megan Wilson, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 55 Ridgewood Rd. (Pi Kappa Phi), Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Add
Through-Wall Heating/Cooling Unit & Bathroom Exhaust Fan, & Widen Door
Applicants Wayne Brennan, LeChase Construction, LLC, Project Manager, and Pam Kingsbury,
Kingsbury Architecture, LLC, recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project.
S. Stein indicated that several concerns were expressed at the last Commission meeting about destroying
the archway and stonework.
W. Brennan responded that not widening the existing man door opening and providing access at the
front of the building would require a change in elevation. The applicants would have to construct a
large ramp on the exterior of the building and a landing space on the interior. He does not know if there
would be enough space to allow that. K. Olson indicated she would find more acceptable than
irrevocably removing the stonework.
S. Gibian asked if the NYS Building Code requires the applicants to comply with ADA regulations. P.
Kingsbury replied, yes, as long as it is reasonably feasible.
M. McGandy agreed with K. Olson that the stonework is one of the most crucial elements of the
structure, although he understands that certain trade-offs are involved. It would be helpful to see
drawings depicting a variety of options.
P. Kingsbury noted that the detail on the head of the door would remain. The only stone which would
be removed would be on the sides. M. McGandy reiterated that removing the original stonework is a
serious concern for him. K. Olson agreed.
S. Stein noted the Commission has not seen any drawings of what the stonework would look like, if it
were treated in some way.
1 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 2013
E. Finegan noted that widening the door is not the most serious issue for him. Installing the new PTAC
unit through the masonry below the existing rear window is a far greater concern, since it would remove
so much stonework (and any potential future changes to the building would also be complicated, with a
hole in the wall). He would personally prefer to see an alternative solution.
S. Gibian asked how the main house is heated. W. Brennan replied it is a hot-water heating system;
however, it is already at-capacity and could not be used to heat the garage. It would be conceivable,
however, to install a heating-only unit that would not penetrate the stone.
S. Stein asked Commission members if the majority of them agreed that they could accept the
entranceway alterations as proposed and accept either a heating-only unit or the PTAC unit installed in
T1-11 at the front of the building. No objections were raised. Seeing no objections, S. Stein indicated
the Commission could move forward with approving the alterations to the entranceway and one of the
alternate proposals for heating. C. O’Malley and E. Finegan both agreed.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by E. Finegan, S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being
no public comments, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Gibian.
K. Olson indicated she would vote against the proposal, as modified, for the same reason expressed
earlier.
S. Stein asked why Pi Kappa Phi would be interested in housing someone in a space not accesssible to
the rest of the house. P. Kingsbury replied the applicants are required to make the space ADA-
compliant, regardless of what is done with it.
M. Wilson reported that she confirmed the ADA compliance requirement with the City Building
Division.
S. Gibian observed that the resolution does not describe the bathroom exhaust fan in any detail. W.
Brennan explained that the submitted drawings illustrate that the bathroom exhaust would face the
breezeway, in order to conceal it. The exhaust would be a wall-mounted exterior unit (through a stucco
wall), since it is not feasible to run it through the bedrooms and the roof.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by C. O’Malley.
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
2 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 2013
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated October 28, 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 sheets of product literature describing the three PTAC units that are under
consideration; (3) two sheets of product literature for the proposed Broan bathroom
exhaust fan; and (4) two sheets of product literature and one shop drawing of the
proposed nine-lite, wood, stile and rail door, and
WHEREAS, the applicant subsequently submitted an architectural drawing, dated 10/7/13, showing
the proposed location of the PTAC unit and the bathroom exhaust, and the proposed
changes to the man door opening, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC reviewed this application at its regular meetings on November 12, 2013 and
December 10, 2013, and
WHEREAS, at that meeting, questions arose which the individual representing the applicant was
unable to answer and the application was therefore tabled for lack of information, 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
installation of a new PTAC heating and cooling unit through the masonry below an
existing rear window in the former garage, widening of the existing man door opening to
the former garage and installation of a new code-compliant door, and installation of a
new bathroom fan that will exhaust into the existing covered walkway area between the
former garage and the house, and
WHEREAS, at the December 10, 2013 ILPC meeting, concerns were raised about the installation of
the PTAC heating and cooling unit through the masonry wall and other options were then
suggested, such as moving it to the garage opening, using the heating system from the
property’s primary structure, or only installing a heating unit that would not penetrate the
masonry, 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
December 10, 2013, now therefore be it
3 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 2013
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, 55 Ridgewood
Road was constructed circa 1918 in the English Revival style. It was originally known as
Green Trees and was the home of Frank L. Morse, president of Morse Chain. The
inventory form states that Morse commissioned Walter Burley Griffin, the well-known
Prairie style architect, to design the house, but Griffin did not complete the commission.
Instead, the home was designed by the New York architectural firm of Trowbridge and
Ackerman, designers of Killenworth, the George DuPont Pratt house in Glen Cove, NY,
and of the 1916 addition to Harvey Firestone’s estate, Harbel Manor, in Akron, OH.
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.
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.
4 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 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.
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 installation
of the proposed wider man door and the installation of the new bathroom exhaust fan will
retain and preserve the historic character of the property. The proposed alterations will
remove distinctive materials and will alter distinctive features and spaces that
characterize the property. The Commission notes that as a result of the unique location of
this house, as well as the location of the proposed changes on secondary elevations, the
proposed alterations are not significantly visible to the public, but do result in the
removal of original masonry material.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new nine-lite man door that
will replace the narrower existing door is compatible with the massing, size, scale,
architectural features, and historic character of the property and its environment.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, Standard #5, and Standard #9, the installation
of the new PTAC unit in front of the building in the T1-11 siding, or installation of a
heating-only unit that would not penetrate the masonry, will retain and preserve the
historic character of the property. Either of these proposed alterations would not remove
distinctive materials and will not alter distinctive features and spaces that characterize the
property.
With respect to Standard #10, if in the future the proposed alterations were removed, the
essential form of the historic property would be unimpaired; the essential integrity of the
property and its environment would be unimpaired. The removal of masonry for the
installation of the man door would be located on a secondary façade that is not easily
visible, leaving the essential form and integrity of the property unimpaired.
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, as amended,
with the following condition:
5 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 2013
The applicant will submit for staff-level approval the final choice of PTAC or heating
unit.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-1-0
Yes
S. Stein
E. Finegan
M. McGandy
S. Gibian
D. Kramer
C. O’Malley
No
K. Olson
Abstain
B. 422 E. State St., East Hill Historic District ― Request for Retroactive Approval of Re-
Roofing
Applicants Alicia Freedman and Anthony Guarneri recapitulated the salient details of the proposed
project. They bought the property a year ago, but it only recently became clear that it needed a new
roof. S. Stein asked if the applicants received a Building Permit for the work. Anthony Guarneri
replied, yes. At that time, he was informed that they needed to identify the roof color, but he was
confused with which colors need staff approval and which ones require Commission approval.
Wilson explained that Historic Preservation Planner Lynn Truame approved the “Burnt Sienna” color,
but the applicants ultimately installed the “Shakewood” color, which L. Truame did not believe she was
authorized to approve at staff-level.
S. Stein asked if Commission members had any objections to the “Shakewood” color. No objections
were raised.
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 D. Kramer, seconded by E. Finegan.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 422 East 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 November 19, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Anthony Guarneri on behalf of property
owner Alicia Freedman, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) two photographs
showing “before” conditions at the house, prior to removal of the previously-existing roof
shingles; (3) one manufacturer’s product sheet showing the appearance of the GAF
Timberline shingles in the color Shakewood that were used to re-roof the building;
6 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 2013
(4) two “after” photographs showing the new shingles in place; and (5) one sample of the
shingle material that was used for the project, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
422 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 the previously-existing green three-tab shingles with architectural
shingles in the color Shakewood, which color has been determined by staff to fall outside
of the color range eligible for approval at the staff level, 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
December 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, 422 East State
Street was constructed before 1851 and is one of the oldest homes on East Hill, originally
featuring a tall exposed masonry basement story, which has since been obscured by re-
grading. The existing front porch (the balustrade of which has since been altered)
replaced the original Greek Revival front porch just before the turn of the twentieth
century, with the distinctive dormers added about the same time.
Constructed and altered 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 previously-existing roof covering was green, asphalt, three-tab shingle, dating to well
outside the district’s period of significance. These shingles did not constitute a character-
defining feature.
7 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 2013
The applicant’s representative applied for a Building Permit prior to commencing the re-
roofing project and received permission from ILPC staff to replace the existing green
asphalt shingle with Certainteed architectural shingles in the color Burnt Sienna. Staff
later observed that GAF shingles in the color Shakewood had actually been installed.
The applicant’s representative was therefore advised he would need to request retroactive
approval from the ILPC, since the product that was ultimately used was not what had
been approved at the staff level and the color that was installed did not fall within the
range of colors staff could approve.
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:
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 #9, the installation of the new shingles did not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new asphalt architectural shingles, in the
color Shakewood, 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 did 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.
8 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 2013
RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0
Yes
S. Stein
E. Finegan
M. McGandy
S. Gibian
D. Kramer
C. O’Malley
K. Olson
No
Abstain
C. 402 University Ave., University Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Construct Main
Entrance Deck
Applicants Jay Shapiro and Tyler Parseghian, Jay Shapiro & Associates, Inc., recapitulated the salient
details of the proposed project. J. Shapiro indicated he is an interested party to owner (it is a family
investment for his mother). Jay Shapiro & Associates, Inc. would serve as the general contractor for the
project. He distributed some previously unsubmitted color images of the building and the front
walkway.
He is proposing the alterations, because the existing stairs are both unsightly and the applicants’ insurer
instructed him to improve their safety. He would like to install a deck/landing that includes a 6’x8’
landing area outside and eliminate the steps. He would grade the existing bluestone walkway, so it is
more level from the sidewalk to the front door; and he would install a railing around the edge. The color
scheme of the house would be replicating with the proposed AZEK product, which is not natural wood,
but is a top-of-the-line composite material, so it would be compatible with the gray/blue and white of the
rest of the house.
C. O’Malley asked why the applicant is proposing a loop-rail on the stairs. J. Shapiro replied it would
simply help people stabilize themselves; but it does not have to be a loop-rail. C. O’Malley
recommended against the loop-rail, from an aesthetic point-of-view.
E. Finegan asked if AZEK would ever be acceptable in a Historic District. D. Kramer remarked he only
ever remembers the Commission approving a composite material on two steps of in a heavy-traffic
location, in a senior living property. On the whole, he does not believe the Commission ever has
approved composite materials.
E. Finegan asked what other options exist, besides AZEK. J. Shapiro stressed it is a very high-quality
wood composite and passers-by would really not know the difference. The color is suffused throughout
the product, so there would be no peeling and no need to repaint it, so it would have an exceedingly long
life. Alternatives would be more traditional wood surfaces, like pressure-treated lumber or cedar, but
the he believes AZEK would lend itself more to the rest of the house, because of the color scheme.
M. McGandy asked why the applicant is so keen on installing a deck. J. Shapiro replied it does not
necessarily need to be a wooden deck; it could also be some kind of masonry.
9 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 2013
S. Gibian remarked the design seems a little ‘busy’ to him; the house already has a great deal going on
architecturally. He asked why the applicant needs a guardrail and suggested something simpler would
be more appropriate. J. Shapiro responded that he could certainly dispense with any railing that is not
required.
M. Wilson suggested the Commission provide the applicant with some guidance on the style of railing,
if it turns out to be required.
C. O’Malley inquired into the nature of the balusters. J. Shapiro replied they would be consistent with
the steps.
S. Gibian indicated he does not believe NYS Building Code would require a guardrail, in this instance.
He suspects it may simply be the insurance company that requires it. J. Shapiro noted he could simply
create a slow pitch on either side of the landing, if railings are not required.
T. Parseghian asked the Commission what kind of handrail would be acceptable. K. Olson replied,
metal. S. Gibian agreed. D. Kramer noted the color would not matter. J. Shapiro responded he would
most likely install a white railing, in that case.
E. Finegan asked if AZEK is paintable. J. Shapiro responded he believes not. T. Parseghian added he is
not sure how porous AZEK is, so he is unsure.
M. Wilson remarked that she understood the Commission to say that it wants the porch width decreased
and would prefer not having the handrail. She asked if Commission members were generally
comfortable with the depth of the landing and the material. E. Finegan remarked that he thinks making
the deck graded-in would be a simple solution. His principal concern is the deck material itself, which
would undoubtedly set an undesirable precedent.
T. Parseghian asked if landscaping could be employed to screen the decking material. E. Finegan
reiterated that for the Commission to approve the decking material for this project, it would set a
precedent for using elsewhere. J. Shapiro noted that M. McGandy suggested a landscaped stone
landing, which seems reasonable. M. McGandy replied, yes, or even poured concrete.
S. Stein asked the Commission if the proposed resolution should be tabled, anticipating that the
applicant would return to the Commission with alternative proposals for the deck (e.g., stone, wood,
pressure-treated wood, concrete).
M. McGandy indicated a simple stone stoop with a metal tube-rail would probably be ideal.
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 M. McGandy, seconded by S.
Gibian.
10 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 2013
D. 604 E. Buffalo St., East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Install Radio Antenna, Install
Wall-Mounted Air Conditioning Unit, Increase Chimney Height, Rebuild Foundation Wall, &
Alter Windows
Kevin Boyle, IT Director, WVBR FM radio station (operated by Cornell Media Guild), and Anthony
Guarneri, ASI Renovations, recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. K. Boyle indicated
that the applicant recently purchased the property and has been performing renovations, including a
couple of exterior alterations. He explained that in order to relay the radio signal from the station to
transmitter on Hungerford Hill, some kind of intermediary connection is needed. The most cost-
effective method would require mounting the microwave Studio Transmitter Links (STL) and antenna
on the studio building. An 18-inch wide antenna would then be erected, just over the peak of the lowest
part of the roof (supported by the tower structure directly adjacent to the chimney and the back wall of
the building).
K. Boyle noted that the other proposed alterations are more routine, including installing an air-
conditioning unit on the back of the building (only visible as one approaches the back door). Three
windows would also be replaced with new windows, designed to look identical to the originals. The
foundation wall on E. Buffalo Street side of building would also need to be rebuilt, since it is beginning
to fail, using existing stacked rock to appear the same as the original. Furthermore, the furnace chimney
on the back roof of the building needs to be extended two feet higher to meet Building Code. The front
porch’s membrane roof is also old, failing, and causing leaks, so that needs to be replaced.
K. Olson asked if anything precluded placing the antenna on the other side of the chimney. K. Boyle
replied the antenna actually needs to be as close to East Buffalo Street as possible, to maintain the line-
of-sight for the signal.
A. Guarneri remarked that the chimney forms inside the corner, against the house, so the antenna would
not be visible from the front entrance of the building.
C. O’Malley observed the antenna does appear above the roof-line, at least in one image. K. Boyle
stressed that it cannot be seen from Stewart Avenue.
M. McGandy asked if the existing windows are original to the house. K. Boyle replied, he does not
know. A. Guarneri added they are single-pane, double-hung windows and they appear old. He
explained that the fact they are single-pane initiated the proposal to replace them with something more
sound-proof.
M. McGandy asked if the windows could be stored, once they were removed. K. Boyle replied, yes.
S. Gibian indicated he could not support replacing three double-hung windows.
M. McGandy asked if the applicant could not simply install some sound-proofing inside the building, in
some way, without altering the windows. K. Boyle replied that any sound-proofing installed inside
would most likely block the light from the windows. M. McGandy reiterated he would like to see an
interior solution.
11 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 2013
D. Kramer noted he feels comfortable with all the proposed alterations, except the windows. K. Boyle
responded he would be willing to explore alternative options (although time is somewhat of a factor for
the applicants).
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 K. Olson, seconded by C. O’Malley.
RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by K. Olson.
WHEREAS, 604 East Buffalo 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 November 26, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Anthony Guarneri on behalf of property
owner Cornell Media Guild, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a list of the proposed
materials to be used; (3) one photograph of existing conditions in the location of the
proposed new antenna paired with a Photoshopped photograph showing the antenna in
place; (4) one photograph of the proposed air conditioning unit paired with a drawing
showing the proposed location of that unit; (5) two photographs of the existing windows
that are proposed for replacement; (6) two photographs of the porch roof that is proposed
for replacement; (7) written statements concerning the required location for placement of
the antenna and justification for removal of an existing tree; (8) fourteen sheets of
architectural plans for the project, dated November 11, 2013; (9) seven sheets of product
literature for Marvin All-Ultrex windows; and (10) four sheets of product literature for
the Versigard EPDM roofing system, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the annotated list entry for 604 East Buffalo Street from the
National Register Nomination for the East Hill Historic District, 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 a radio antenna, replacement of five windows to reduce noise transmission
from Stewart Avenue, reconstruction of a deteriorating original foundation wall,
installation of air conditioning equipment, and increasing the height of an existing
chimney, for the purpose of converting the existing building to its new use as a radio
broadcasting facility, and
WHEREAS, at the December 10, 2013 meeting, Commission members expressed serious concerns
with the proposed replacement of five windows to reduce noise transmission from
Stewart Avenue and the applicant agreed to seek an alternative interior soundproofing
solution, and
12 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 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
December 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 annotated list entry from the National Register Nomination for the
East Hill Historic District, 604 East Buffalo Street was constructed circa 1850 in the
Greek Revival style. It received additions circa 1880 and circa 1920, both during the
period of significance for the district. Certificates of Appropriateness were issued in
1996 for the addition of a second story to the north wing of the building and in 1998 for
the replacement of existing windows.
Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and having
retained a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill
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.
13 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 2013
Standard #1 A property shall be used for its intended historic purpose or be placed
in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the
building and its site and environment.
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 #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 radio
antenna, reconstruction of a deteriorating original foundation wall, installation of air
conditioning equipment, and increasing the height of the existing chimney will not
remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the
property.
With respect to Standard #1, the proposed new use of the building as a radio broadcasting
facility is a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the
building and its site and environment.
With respect to Standard #6, the existing stone foundation wall at the south elevation is
an historic feature that characterizes the property. Its reconstruction as proposed does
constitute repair in compliance with Standard #6.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new EPDM porch
roofing, rear-wall air conditioning equipment, and increased chimney height are
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment. The proposed radio antenna is sufficiently compatible with the massing,
size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and
its environment.
14 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 2013
With respect to Standard #10, the air conditioning equipment, added chimney section,
and radio antenna can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form
and integrity of the historic property and its environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the property and
the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE: 7-0-0
Yes
S. Stein
E. Finegan
M. McGandy
S. Gibian
D. Kramer
C. O’Malley
K. Olson
No
Abstain
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
• Steven Smolyn, 55 Ridgewood Rd., spoke in opposition to Ridgewood Road Apartments, noting
the lack of satisfactory and accurate documentation of the project design. He indicated he
believes the applicants are being misleading in terms of how they are portraying the project’s
impact.
III. OLD BUSINESS
• 1 Ridgewood Road Apartments (Cornell Heights Historic District) — Continuing Preliminary
Design Review
Nat Finley, Shepley Bulfinch Architects, Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP, and Adam
S. Walters, Esq., Phillips Lytle, LLP recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project,
summarizing how the project has changed since the Commission last reviewed the design.
N. Finley explained that the applicants explored three different site plan designs: (1) 1 building; (2) four
smaller buildings; and (3) three separate buildings. At the 11/12/13 Joint ILPC-Planning and
Development Board meeting, the consensus appeared to be that three separate buildings was the best of
the available options; so that is what the applicants have developed and are presenting today.
N. Finley noted that among the concerns expressed at the last meeting was the extent of surface parking
and a desire to see more parking accommodated under the buildings; so the applicants attempted to
address that in the new design, but there remain approximately 17 surface-level parking spaces.
15 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 2013
N. Finley also noted the applicants have now accentuated the distance of the project from Highland
Avenue, with approximately 160 feet from Highland Avenue to the first building. The applicants also
made considerable effort to preserve open space, trees, and slopes. The third building was moved
further south, helping to obscure the view from Highland Avenue to the surface-level parking. The
applicants also added a green roof to the easterly building (except for a small mechanical area).
N. Finley pointed out that the garage level is mostly concealed underground and there is now an
accessible pathway on the north side of the project, linking the buildings together. The building
footprints have been made less rectangular and there is considerably more articulation on the façades.
The shape of north building line was designed to harmonize with existing topography; and the steepest
grades would remain unaffected by the development.
N. Finley presented an updated graphical rendering of the site, looking from Ridgewood Road onto the
property, similar in style as to what was presented in the past. The applicants carefully examined all the
Historic District’s varying architectural styles and determined that the building materials should be
native to the site (e.g., stone, natural wood siding, shingles, horizontal lines and Prairie Style-like
features, etc.), which they believe would be most compatible with the site and surrounding area.
N. Finley stressed that the three building are almost identical in footprint to the three largest neighboring
buildings. From the applicants’ initial calculations, the current proposed project should also be
compatible with the forthcoming R3-aa re-zoning of the site. Comparing the R-U and R-3aa zoning
requirements, the project is anticipated to be about 50% under the permitted lot coverage. The project
has now been reduced from 70 units/190 beds to 45 units/114 beds.
The next step in the process will be the Site Plan Review application process. The applicants hope to
ascertain from Commission members the extent to which the current proposal would be acceptable to
them.
A. Walters emphasized that a lot of work remains to be done with the details of the project.
P. Trowbridge noted that, at the last meeting, Senior Planner Lisa Nicholas appeared to support moving
forward with the project review process, including a comprehensive environmental review.
D. Kramer noted the current design clearly reflects a lot of work and appears to be moving in the right
direction (e.g., the green roof); however, he still thinks it is far too big. He would prefer to see
Buildings 1 and 2 eliminated altogether, with Building 3 moved over to preserve as much of the site as
possible. It would otherwise risk destroying too much of a precious and irreplaceably unique site.
E. Finegan noted the Historic District does not contain a conglomeration of similarly-large buildings
anywhere else. There should only be two buildings (at the far end). He would also support formally
preserving the rest of the site, as part of the project. He likes the green roof.
M. McGandy asked the applicants for a perspective rendering overlooking the lot, from the hillside
looking down. The design appears to be getting very close to something the Commission could
conceivably approve. He would like to see more of a 360° perspective and understand how the project
would work with its environment, in a broader sense.
16 of 17
ILPC Minutes
December 10, 2013
P. Trowbridge noted that the City’s environmental review process would require those kinds of
examinations and he agrees that will be an important part of the project’s evaluation. He added that the
applicants would like to obtain a reasonably firm sense from the Commission that the applicants’
investment of time and resources would not be wasted, should the project move forward.
C. O’Malley remarked that it would be far more helpful if the applicants could provide the Commission
its designs, elevations, plans, etc., further in advance than the day of the meeting. She agrees the current
design is a big improvement over earlier ones, although she still believes there is one building too many.
S. Stein agreed.
K. Olson stressed that Commission members can only provide the applicants with their preliminary
opinions of the project, without seeing a complete application and set of drawings. She agreed the
project should be reduced to 2 buildings (that are not then simply enlarged to compensate for the
reduction). She would also like to see the buildings moved to the west and all of the buildings given
green roofs.
S. Gibian agreed with C. O’Malley about the need to receive the design materials. He does not object to
the surface-level parking, as presented, but he encouraged the applicants to further reduce the numbers
of rooms.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
• None
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by C. O’Malley, and seconded by E. Finegan, Commission members unanimously approved
the following meeting minutes, with no modifications.
• November 12, 2013 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• None
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:02 p.m. by Chair Stein.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
17 of 17