Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2014-01-14Approved by ILPC: 2/11/14 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes – January 14, 2014 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 5:31 p.m I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 121 Heights Court, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Install Skylight Applicant William Demo recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He would like to make the two rooms on the third floor more hospitable, so he proposes installing a skylight. (The windows on the east and west sides of the house do not provide enough light.) This would also facilitate better ventilation throughout the house in the warmer months, through the chimney effect. The skylight would open manually, rising approximately four inches above the roof profile and featuring a built-in shade. He stressed that a tree obscures/shields the roof from view. E. Finegan asked if the house has a second means of egress from the third floor. W. Demo replied, yes. S. Gibian observed the skylight cannot be installed on the back roof, because of the solar panels already located there. Mr. Demo confirmed this and stated that the solar array had been installed by the previous owner. 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 D. Kramer. M. McGandy expressed sympathy with the applicant’s need for the skylight, but he is skeptical about its placement. No other properties on that block feature a skylight on a street-facing roof slope. W. Demo responded he believes there may be some on the other streets in the neighborhood. M. McGandy remarked that he believes the skylight would be visible throughout the year, even with the tree in full foliage. S. Gibian asked if the skylight would be centered on the roof. W. Demo replied it would actually be off- center by 3-4 feet, since he wanted it situated above the second-floor staircase landing. 1 of 13 ILPC Minutes January 14, 2014 M. McGandy asked if there were not another way of introducing more light and air-flow that would not require piercing the front slope of the roof. W. Demo replied he could try enlarging the end windows, but that would result in overlarge windows, which would be incompatible with the building. Also, whole house fans, from what he understands, tend to be ineffective. D. Kramer expressed agreement with M. McGandy that the skylight would not be consonant with the rest of the street. Other the hand, it would not destroy historic material and could be removed in future without impairing the integrity of the structure. For these reasons, he would be inclined to approve it. K. Olson asked if the applicant considered installing a second skylight to heighten the symmetry of the project. W. Demo replied, yes, although it would represent a further expense. He was hoping to avoid doing that. C. O’Malley expressed agreement with D. Kramer: she is inclined to approve it, since it could be easily removed in future. RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by C. O’Malley. 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 December 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) two photographs showing existing conditions and the appearance of the proposed new skylight once installed, 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 would involve installation of a 16” wide by 36” long Velux skylight projecting approximately 4” above the roof surface, on the street-facing (north) roof slope, and WHEREAS, subsequent to submission of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the owner submitted product information for the proposed Velux Fresh Air skylight via e- mail, and requested to install a slightly larger unit measuring 21” in width by 37” in length, in the same location as originally proposed, 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 2 of 13 ILPC Minutes January 14, 2014 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 January 14, 2014, 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. 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. 3 of 13 ILPC Minutes January 14, 2014 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 insertion of the proposed skylight into the existing asphalt-shingle roof will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The Commission notes that although the skylight is proposed for the primary, street-facing roof slope, its visibility is reduced by the presence of a large oak tree and its size, placement, and design further minimize its visual impact, in keeping with the City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new skylight, with its minimal projection above the roof plane, is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, the new skylight 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, 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: 6-1-0 Yes K. Olson C. O’Malley E. Finegan S. Stein S. Gibian D. Kramer No M. McGandy Abstain 4 of 13 ILPC Minutes January 14, 2014 B. 308 N. Cayuga Street, DeWitt Park Historic District ― Proposal for New Sign The applicant did not appear. Discussion was deferred until later in the meeting. C. First Baptist Church, DeWitt Park Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Windows Applicant Steve Hilsdorf recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. L. Truame explained that the applicants appeared before the Commission once before with the same proposal, but were denied; however, they have now submitted a professional evaluation of the condition of the windows. This new information enables the Commission to reconsider the proposal. S. Hilsdorf noted the evaluation concludes that repair of the windows would result a loss of so much original fabric that they would, in effect, be almost entirely reconstructed. C. O’Malley asked what material is being proposed for the applied muntins that the applicant indicates can be added to the replacement windows they have already purchsed. S. Hilsdorf replied, thin aluminum strips applied only to the exterior. S. Stein asked if the muntin would have a raised profile. S. Hilsdorf replied, no, it would be only about 1/8th inch off the surface of the glass. E. Finegan asked if the proposed replacement windows were the same ones that were purchased in 2012. S. Hilsdorf replied, yes (Marvin Fiberglass Integrity windows). S. Gibian remarked that, even though the windows need to be replaced, that does not mean they can be replaced with windows that do not closely match the existing windows. He observed there are four casement windows on the first floor, which appear very similar and would be far more appropriate than double-hung windows placed over fixed windows, as currently proposed. S. Hilsdorf responded those particular windows are full-length windows that swing out. S. Gibian remarked that the proposed top double-hung window does not look the same size as the bottom fixed element. S. Hilsdorf responded he was trying to match the divisions of the existing windows. He stressed they would not be very visible from street-level. C. O’Malley expressed concern with the new windows not adequately matching the old. D. Kramer noted the Commission has spent a lot of time on this issue. He suggested scheduling one more walk-through to devise a satisfactory solution. E. Finegan agreed. S. Hilsdorf remarked he would also like to ensure the windows are as maintenance-free as possible and do not require regular re-painting. 5 of 13 ILPC Minutes January 14, 2014 M. McGandy indicated that the Commission will not be able to approve the windows that are currently proposed. 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 E. Finegan, seconded by D. Kramer. RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, The First Baptist Church is located in the DeWitt Park Historic District, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1971, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1971, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated December 27, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Steven Hilsdorf on behalf of property owner the First Baptist Church, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) an invoice from Builder’s Best Design Center describing the proposed replacement windows; and (3) a physical conditions assessment from Steven Peck, “The Wood Doctor,” dated October 21, 2013, itemizing the extent of physical deterioration of each of the six original windows in question, and WHEREAS, the information provided by Steven Peck is new information, not available to the ILPC at the time it originally considered, and denied, the Church’s application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of these six windows, in August 2012, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for the First Baptist Church, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the replacement of six existing wood, eight-light casement windows on the second floor, east elevation, with Marvin Integrity All-Ultrex windows in a double-hung over fixed panel configuration, color white, 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 Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on January 14, 2014, now therefore be it 6 of 13 ILPC Minutes January 14, 2014 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 DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the DeWitt Park Historic District is identified as 1820-1930. As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the Romanesque Revival style First Baptist Church was designed by locally prominent architect, William H. Miller, and was completed in 1890. Constructed within the period of significance of the DeWitt Park Historic District and possessing a high level of architectural integrity, the property is a contributing element of the DeWitt Park Historic District. As described in the Certificate of Appropriateness Application, the purpose of the proposal is to replace six deteriorated wood windows on the east elevation of the church at the second story. 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 shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall 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. 7 of 13 ILPC Minutes January 14, 2014 With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #2, the Commission has found, during its original consideration of this application in August 2012, that the six windows in question are historic, character-defining features of the building. Based upon this finding, the replacement of these six windows with the proposed Marvin All-Ultrex windows in the proposed light configurations will remove distinctive materials and will alter features and spaces that characterize the property. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, based upon based upon the new information provided by Steven Peck concerning the physical condition of the six windows, the severity of deterioration of all six of these windows does require their replacement. Again, with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, the proposed new Marvin Integrity All-Ultrex windows in a double-hung over fixed panel configuration, color white will not sufficiently match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. RESOLVED, that, based on findings set forth above, the proposal will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the property and the DeWitt Park 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 the 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 K. Olson C. O’Malley E. Finegan S. Stein S. Gibian D. Kramer M. McGandy No Abstain B. 308 N. Cayuga Street, DeWitt Park Historic District ― Proposal for New Sign The applicant did not appear. In the applicant’s absence, the Commission proceeded with the Public Hearing, and subsequent review and discussion of the proposed changes. L. Truame recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project on behalf of the applicant. 8 of 13 ILPC Minutes January 14, 2014 Public Hearing On a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by M. McGandy, 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 K. Olson, seconded by C. O’Malley. WHEREAS, 308 North Cayuga Street is located in the DeWitt Park Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1971, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1971, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated October 29, 2013, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owners, Nancy Medsker and Tom Seaney, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a sketch showing the proposed new sign; and (3) a photograph showing the proposed placement and orientation of the new sign, and WHEREAS, the application was not forwarded to the ILPC for consideration pending resolution of questions regarding the proposed color, materials, and method of installation for the new sign, and WHEREAS, in conversation with ILPC staff on December 31, 2013, the applicant indicated that the proposed color for the sign is black text on a white background with a red border, the sign material will be painted wood, and the sign will be mounted flat against the wall, in the same location as the current temporary sign, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 308 North Cayuga Street, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, the proposed project involves installation of a sign advertising the recently opened DeWitt Park Inn bed and breakfast, 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 Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on January 14, 2014, now therefore be it 9 of 13 ILPC Minutes January 14, 2014 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 DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the DeWitt Park Historic District is 1820-1930. As indicated in the New York State Building & Structure Inventory Form, 308 North Cayuga Street, also known as the Beebe-Halsey House, was constructed in 1820 by prominent local businessman, Jeremiah Beebe. It is one of the oldest extant structures in the city of Ithaca and one of the few remaining Federal style buildings. In 1850, the house was sold to another prominent local businessman, William Halsey, who added the south wing. Pictorial evidence appears to suggest the north wing was added sometime after 1895. Constructed within the period of significance of the DeWitt Park Historic District and possessing an unusually high level of architectural integrity, the property is a contributing element of the DeWitt Park Historic District. As described in the Certificate of Appropriateness Application, the purpose of the proposal is to install a sign advertising the business that is now located in the building. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards: Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. Standard #2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 10 of 13 ILPC Minutes January 14, 2014 Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of the new sign in the proposed location will not remove distinctive historic materials that characterize the property and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Also with respect to Standard #9, the new sign is differentiated from the historic structure and is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With regard to Standard #10, the new sign can be removed in future without impairing the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment. RESOLVED, that, based on findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of 308 North Cayuga Street and the DeWitt Park 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 the 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 K. Olson C. O’Malley E. Finegan S. Stein S. Gibian D. Kramer M. McGandy No Abstain II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST L. Truame noted that the Commission received a letter and accompanying attachments from Steven Smolyn, 55 Ridgewood Road, dated January 9, 2014, regarding the Ridgewood Road Apartments project the Commission reviewed at several prior meetings. In his letter, S. Smolyn expresses opposition to the project on the basis of its “non-contextual design and lack of adherence to ILPC Guidelines.” 11 of 13 ILPC Minutes January 14, 2014 III. OLD BUSINESS • None IV. NEW BUSINESS • Proposed R-U Rezoning Discussion L. Truame noted Commission should have received a copy of her draft memo to the Planning and Economic Development Committee, dated January 15, 2014, regarding the proposed RU rezoning of the Cornell Heights Historic District, summarizing the concerns the Commission has articulated to date. E. Finegan noted his primary concern is the portion of the letter that discusses parking. L. Truame explained that Planning and Development Board member John Schroeder had initiated further discussion of parking and suggested that, rather than eliminating parking requirements, the Planning Board should be authorized to reduce the parking requirements on a project-by-project basis. M. McGandy noted the Commission does not have a formal position/role with respect to parking, so the last bullet of the draft letter should reflect that. He added that current assessments of parking’s impact appear highly speculative. He would rather the Commission restrict its comments and focus on building form. C. O’Malley agreed. C. O’Malley remarked that topography, lot size, and building placement are core considerations for potential impacts to the Historic District. Since each site has a unique topography, the letter should mention topography as one of the Commission’s evaluation criteria. L. Truame edited the draft memorandum to reflect the Commission’s comments. • Discussion of 2014 Sidewalk Work Plan L. Truame remarked that she distributed the Sidewalk Improvement Districts Work Plan and Public Input Maps to the Commission. There are a couple of areas proposed for work in 2014 that are located in the East Hill Historic District. L. Truame e-mailed City Assistant Civil Engineer Lynne Yost to ask her what her understanding is of how she and the Commission would be working together on these areas. L. Yost replied that in Historic Districts, L. Yost would follow same process as has recently been followed (ie., meeting with the Commission or staff to arrive at agreement on appropriate approaches to each affected stone slab). If a stone walk is scheduled for replacement in a non-designated area, the City would give the property owner the choice of new sidewalk material (stone or concrete). L. Yost indicated that the Commission would always be welcome to participate in discussions with property owners outside the historic districts. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by M. McGandy, and seconded by E. Finegan, Commission members unanimously approved the following meeting minutes, with 5 minor modifications. • December 10, 2013 (Regular Meeting) 12 of 13 ILPC Minutes January 14, 2014 VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS • Election of Chair & Vice-Chair As nominated by M. McGandy, and seconded by K. Olson, Commission members unanimously approved the election of E. Finegan as Chair. As nominated by M. McGandy, and seconded by K. Olson, Commission members unanimously approved the election of D. Kramer as Vice-Chair. • Retreat L. Truame remarked it would be helpful for the Commission to spend some time in a retreat-like setting and review its processes, procedures, guidelines, and so on. No objections were raised. Commission members will contact L. Truame with their available dates for a retreat in February or March. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Stein. Respectfully Submitted, Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 13 of 13