Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2014-03-11Approved by ILPC: 4/8/14   Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)  Minutes – March 11, 2014 Present: Ed Finegan, Chair Sue Stein Christine O’Malley Katelin Olson Stephen Gibian Michael McGandy Lynn Truame, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 608 E. Seneca St., East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Construct Fence Applicant Steven Wolf recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting the purpose of the fence is to keep deer out of the yard. The only way he sees to accomplish this would be to build a fence across the driveway, about ⅔ up from the sidewalk. The fence would be constructed from cedar, along with with architectural hardware. The north and east sides of the property already have existing fences. C. O’Malley asked if the applicant plans on staining or painting the fence. S. Wolf replied, yes, but simply with an oil stain, with no color. E. Finegan noted the submitted design does not appear to reflect the final outcome as verbally presented. S. Wolf replied, yes: it would be more open than depicted in the application and would probably be 6 feet high. He stated that he had not made a final decision on the design and would like to be given the latitude to adjust it in the field during construction. S. Gibian observed that if the fence rises above 5’4” it would extend above the height of the porch column base, which would be visually disjunctive. S. Gibian asked if the fence would exclude cars from the lot interior and garage. S. Wolf replied, yes. S. Stein asked if the applicant would consider installing a gate at that location, as opposed to just a fence: it would be more visually appropriate, while retaining the desired barrier. S. Wolf replied there would be a gate, but it would be for people and bicycles, not cars. He noted that the garage is not wide enough to accommodate a modern car. M. McGandy remarked the proposed arrangement is not common. The driveway inherently draws one’s view to the back of the property, so the fence would be visually disjunctive. He suggested mirroring the more open wrought-iron fence further down the street. McGandy added the ILPC does not yet know what the fence would look like; and it really needs a complete drawing to make a decision. S. Wolf replied he does not believe he is required to submit a final drawing. L. Truame responded that the ILPC does need to know exactly what the fence would look like, before coming to a decision. 1 of 12 ILPC Minutes March 11, 2014 S. Wolf noted that he would agree that it should be a more open design. He also plans to feature something above the gate to reflect the curve of the vestibule and garage. C. O’Malley and K. Olson agreed they would feel much more comfortable seeing a drawing of what is actually proposed than trying to work that out verbally on the floor of the meeting. S. Wolf responded that he knows a little about the planning process. He does not believe there is a real need for him to return before the Commission to review the project. He does not believe that would be the best use of time. L. Truame responded the Commission is procedurally obligated to follow the requirements of the Landmarks Ordinance. The Commission is simply asking for more information to make a determination. It is not asking for anything more than what is required in the Ordinance. S. Wolf asked if Commission would consider approving the project, subject to a staff-level review. L. Truame replied a Public Hearing would need to be convened, unless the Commission feels it has enough information to be able to delegate review of the final minor details of the design to staff or provide staff with sufficient parameters to make the determination. She added that the arched feature the applicant proposes may be difficult to accurately define in writing; so she is not sure the Commission currently has enough information to move forward. E. Finegan suggested approving the arch feature over the gate at a later time, if that is feasible. M. McGandy noted he would like a clearer understanding of the actual height of the fence. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by C. O’Malley, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by S. Stein, seconded by M. McGandy. E. Finegan inquired into the width of the vertical boards. S. Wolf replied they would be 4 inches wide. E. Finegan noted the real problem is identifying the arch design. S. Wolf replied the cheapest and simplest option would have been to make it straight, but the architecturally superior choice would be to reflect the line of the building, which he is willing to do. C. O’Malley indicated the Commission could leave the decision on the arch for staff-level approval. E. Finegan agreed. L. Truame responded she would not feel comfortable doing so, without further instruction as to what sort of arched feature the Commission would approve. C. O’Malley noted the project should probably just be split into two phases. S. Gibian remarked he is not convinced the Commission has sufficient documentation to approve anything at all, at this point. 2 of 12 ILPC Minutes March 11, 2014 In terms of the compatibility with the house, C. O’Malley noted her only concern would be the oil- stained cedar and how that would actually work visually. E. Finegan observed the stain could be pigmented to match something on the house. S. Wolf replied that is an interesting idea and it would be easy to maintain. C. O’Malley noted there are a range of pigmented stains the applicant could choose from. K. Olson noted the height still needs to be confirmed. S. Wolf replied the finished fence would be 6-feet high, including the top rail. L. Truame noted the Commission could agree to approve the project in reference to a particular feature on the building and not a specific height. S. Gibian objected to any fence that would rise above the porch railing height. S. Wolf replied the contractor indicated the entire fence would be 6-feet high, with a gap of 0-4 inches at the bottom rail, which a planter bed could conceal. E. Finegan asked Commission members to indicate how they would vote on the proposal. M. McGandy replied he would vote against the project. There is insufficient information and the fence does not have enough of a relationship to the history of the house. K. Olson agreed. S. Gibian responded he does not want to see the top of the fence rise above the top of the pier that forms the column base on the porch. C. O’Malley agreed with S. Gibian about the top of the fence not going above the top of the pier. She would have serious reservations approving the current proposal. S. Stein responded she feels the driveway should not be cut off. She also has reservations and thinks it should be developed in a different way. S. Wolf remarked that this meeting is not a design charrette. He appreciates the comments that have been made, but the proposed fence has been well thought-out. It will not detract from the appearance of the property. C. O’Malley responded the Commission is only following the Landmarks Ordinance. L. Truame asked if the Commission has enough information to make a decision. E. Finegan asked if any Commission member would like to move the resolution. No one agreed to do so. L. Truame remarked it appears the project would not be approved, since no Commission member is willing to approve the 6-foot height. 3 of 12 ILPC Minutes March 11, 2014 S. Wolf asked the Commission to reiterate the details of its objections. S. Stein responded the height is the major problem. She reiterated that the Commission needs to see a drawing of what the fence will actually look like. M. McGandy responded there is a conflict between contours of the house and the desire to keep the deer out. S. Wolf suggested moving the fence further down the driveway to the concrete element past the porch railing to solve the problem. C. O’Malley agreed that would remove the visual interference with the porch columns (although the rear window sightline would then be affected). S. Wolf replied that 6 feet is as low as he is willing to make the fence, if it is to keep the deer out. After further discussion the major design details of the proposal were agreed upon and captured in the language of the resolution. It was agreed that the applicant would return at a later date with a proposal for the design of the arched feature over the gate. RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by C. O’Malley. WHEREAS, 608 E. Seneca 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 February 25, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Steven Wolf, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) one architectural sketch showing the location and appearance of the proposed new fence, and WHEREAS, subsequent to submission of the application, the applicant provided additional project details in an e-mail to ILPC staff on February 25, 2014, and WHEREAS, at the March 11, 2014 meeting, certain modifications to the proposal were proposed and agreed upon, including the following: the lower portion of the fence will consist of 4”- wide solid cedar slats, spaced approximately 3-4” apart; the fence will be stained a solid color; the height of fence at the east end where it abuts the existing porch and for the first two sections continuing west (which sections are shown on the submitted plans as measuring 1’11” and 4’ 0” in width) will be approximately 5’ 4” to match the height of the pier cap below the north column; and the height of the fence for the remaining two panels (each of which is shown on the submitted plans as measuring 7’ 8” in width) will be 6’ 0”, and 4 of 12 ILPC Minutes March 11, 2014 WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 608 E. Seneca 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) and subsequent e-mail, the project involves installation of a cedar fence, spanning the width of the existing driveway from the northwest corner of the west side porch to the existing privacy screen on the west side of the driveway, 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 March 11, 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 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, 608 E. Seneca Street was constructed around 1864 in the Greek Revival style. It has received a number of additions, including the prominent west side porch, all of which were added during the historic district’s period of significance. Constructed 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. 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 5 of 12 ILPC Minutes March 11, 2014 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 #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 construction of the proposed fence, as modified at the March 11, 2014 meeting, will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed new fence, as modified at the March 11, 2014 meeting, is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, the new fence 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, with the following condition: • The applicant will submit a separate Certificate of Appropriateness application for the arch feature that the applicant proposes to construct over the entry gate section. 6 of 12 ILPC Minutes March 11, 2014 RECORD OF VOTE: 4-2-0 Yes S. Stein C. O’Malley E. Finegan S. Gibian No M. McGandy K. Olson Abstain B. 660 Stewart Ave., University Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Expand Fire Escape Applicants Lisa James, Cornell University, Facilities Manager, Tom Hoard, HOLT Architects, and Catherine Blakemore, HOLT Architects, recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. L. James noted the project is the second phase of a larger project that was initiated when the applicants received a violation notice from the New York State Office of Fire Prevention and Control that they were not regularly using the fire escapes for fire drills. After lengthy consideration, the applicants decided the existing fire escapes would need to be extended to grade. T. Hoard noted that on some other buildings they were able to modify the interiors to enable removing the fire escapes altogether; however, this particular building does not lend itself to that solution (e.g., it is too large, there is only one interior stairway, etc.). He added the building’s exterior windows are also too small to qualify as fire escape windows. The applicants cannot simply leave the two fire escapes the way they are: they would be far too dangerous in the winter. Someone would either have to descend a vertical steel ladder or stay on the roof, neither of which is a good idea in an emergency. So the applicants are proposing installing a steel stairway that reaches all way to the ground. E. Finegan asked how many windows would need to be modified to make them qualify as fire escapes. T. Hoard replied the top floor has dormer windows, so the entire dormers would have to be enlarged. It would be a major change to the exterior of the building. K. Olson asked why the stairs have to project to the sides, rather than the rear. Hoard replied that the property slopes downhill rather dramatically in that direction. C. Blakemore further explained that the south side includes a porch entrance and a pergola that the new section of the fire escape needs to clear; and a certain distance in between the fire escapes and the adjacent windows would have to be maintained, due to fire code issues, which complicates the situation. M. McGandy remarked it is clear the applicants do not have many options. He asked if the applicants are required to install a stairway, as opposed to a ladder. Hoard replied a ladder would be a liability issue for the university. S. Gibian noted that it would be preferable if the fire escapes could be symmetrical with each other and the building, since the building itself is so symmetrical. L. Truame asked the applicant if using an enclosed interior stairway is genuinely not an option. T. Hoard replied it could conceivably be done, but that the building would also no longer be economically viable, since it would eliminate some bedrooms. 7 of 12 ILPC Minutes March 11, 2014 M. McGandy asked if changing the fire escape paint color would make some difference (i.e., making it a lighter color to make it less visible). C. Blakemore replied, yes. It is not required to be black. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by S. Gibian, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by S. Gibian. S. Stein asked if the fires escapes could be removed in the future. K. Beck replied, yes. S. Gibian suggested making the fire escapes slope down to the sides of the building. L. Truame suggested that the Commission could vote on the proposal as presented and, if denied, could direct staff to refer the issue to the Fire Chief and Director of Code Enforcement under the Exceptions in the Case of Public Safety provision in the Landmarks Ordinance. The Commission would not have to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the project could still move forward. RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 660 Stewart Avenue is located within the University Hill Historic District, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2003, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated February 25, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Lisa James on behalf of property owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a narrative titled “Attachment D – 660 Stewart Fire Escape Evaluations;” and (3) one architectural rendering titled “A201.1,” dated 2/25/14, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the University Hill Historic District for 660 Stewart Avenue, and the City of Ithaca’s University Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves extending the existing fire escapes at both the north and south elevations to address code deficiencies, 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 8 of 12 ILPC Minutes March 11, 2014 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 March 11, 2014, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: The period of significance for the area now known as the University Hill Historic District is identified in the City of Ithaca’s University Hill Historic District Summary Significance Statement as 1867-1927. As indicated in the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the University Hill Historic District, 660 Stewart Avenue was constructed in 1902 for Elizabeth Treman Van Cleef. This outstanding example of the Italian Renaissance style was the central of a group of three residences built by the Treman family, one of Ithaca’s most prominent families during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, that were arranged in a rough semi-circle on a common 9-acre designed landscape spanning from Stewart Avenue to University Avenue. 660 Stewart Avenue was designed by William H. Miller, Ithaca’s most renowned architect of the period, and is his only known Italian Renaissance-style residence. Constructed within the period of significance of the University Hill Historic District, 660 Stewart Avenue possesses a high level of physical integrity and visual prominence, and is one of the most architecturally and historically significant contributing structures in the University 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. 9 of 12 ILPC Minutes March 11, 2014 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 Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the two expanded fire escapes will not remove distinctive materials but will alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed expanded fire escapes are not compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, the expanded fire escapes 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 have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the University 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, and be it further RESOLVED, that ILPC staff is directed to refer this case to the Director of Code Enforcement and the Fire Chief for consideration pursuant to Section 228-13 of the Municipal Code, “Exceptions for Reasons of Public Safety.” 10 of 12 ILPC Minutes March 11, 2014 RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0 Yes S. Stein C. O’Malley E. Finegan S. Gibian M. McGandy K. Olson No Abstain II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST • None. III. OLD BUSINESS • None IV. NEW BUSINESS • Preliminary Input on Addition of Accessible Restroom ― Sage Chapel Randy Nesbitt, Facilities Projects Manager, Cornell University, recapitulated the salient details of the proposed future project, noting that Cornell is performing a feasibility study for the project and he would like the Commission’s perspective. The only exterior impacts of the project would be alteration of the existing door and addition of a small vent stack. The plan would be to fix the existing door in place and add obscure glass to the lights. Any alterations would be reversible. R. Nesbitt added that the existing hardware, which is not original, would be removed from the door. E. Finegan asked how the door would look different. R. Nesbitt replied it would simply not include the hardware; and the glass would look different. C. O’Malley asked if there would be any hinges or remnants of door handles left. R. Nesbit replied, no. S. Gibian asked if there has always been a door at that location. R. Nesbitt replied, yes. That is well- documented. S. Gibian asked if the applicant would retain the sidewalk running up to the door. R. Nesbitt replied, yes. R. Nesbitt asked if the Commission thought the proposal would be acceptable. No objections were raised. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by S. Gibian, and seconded by S. Stein, Commission members unanimously approved the following meeting minutes, with no modifications. • February 11, 2014 (Regular Meeting) 11 of 12 ILPC Minutes March 11, 2014 VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS • Proposed Expansion of Local East Hill Historic District: Orchard Place L. Truame noted the proposed expansion of the East Hill Historic District would be on the Commission’s April 2014 agenda. She is not aware of any opposition to the proposal. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:40 p.m. by Chair Finegan. Respectfully Submitted, Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 12 of 12