HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2014-05-13Approved by ILPC: 6/10/14
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – May 13, 2014
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice-Chair
Christine O’Malley
Katelin Olson
Stephen Gibian
Michael McGandy
Lynn Truame, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. First Baptist Church, DeWitt Park Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Windows
L. Truame recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project on behalf of the applicant, noting the
Commission already determined at its 1/14/14 meeting that the severity of deterioration of all six of the
windows does require their replacement. As a result, the Commission’s focus should simply be on
whether the replacement units are acceptable.
O’Malley asked if the windows would be painted. The applicant’s consultant/ contractor, Steve Peck,
responded he does not know; he is only here to observe.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by O’Malley, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There
being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K.
Olson.
RESOLUTION: Moved by C. O’Malley, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, The First Baptist Church 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 April 14, 2014, 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); and (2) one cut-sheet
extract showing the configuration of the proposed new Marvin aluminum clad casement
windows, and
WHEREAS, the proposed replacement windows differ in material and configuration from those
proposed by the Church on January 14, 2014, when the ILPC considered, and denied, the
Church’s application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of these six
existing windows, and
1 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
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 aluminum-clad wood casement
windows with simulated divided lights in a pattern that replicates the existing window’s
light configuration, 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
May 13, 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 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
2 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
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.
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 new windows will
remove distinctive materials, and will alter features and spaces that characterize the
property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, the Commission has found, during its
consideration of new information provided by Steven Peck concerning the physical
condition of the six windows in January 2014, that 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
aluminum-clad wood casement windows with simulated divided lights in a pattern that
replicates the existing window’s light configuration will sufficiently match the old in
design, color, texture, and other visual qualities.
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 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 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:
3 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
Owner will submit for final staff approval descriptive product information or a sample of
the proposed textured glass that will be used in the new windows.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
C. O’Malley
S. Gibian
M. McGandy
E. Finegan
K. Olson
D. Kramer
No
Abstain
B. 232 S. Albany St., Henry St. John Historic District ― Proposal to Install Solar Panels
Applicant Colin Smith recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting he would like to
install solar panels on his home. He remarked that the south-facing slope is visible from the intersection
of West Clinton and South Albany Streets.
L. Truame noted that solar panels are specifically addressed in the Historic District and Landmark
Design Guidelines and are not excluded from the districts outright.
C. O’Malley asked if the applicant’s solar panel provider consulted him to identify the number of panels
that would be needed. C. Smith replied it would be part of a lease program and Taitem Engineering
would be the installer, so Taitem Engineering performed the evaluation of existing site conditions. C.
O’Malley asked if a daylight study was performed. C. Smith replied he believes Taitem Engineering
already had all the data it needed.
C. O’Malley noted the panels’ visibility is the key issue. She does not believe the rear panel would be
much of a concern; however, it is far more complicated with the panels visible from the sidewalks.
E. Finegan asked how high the panel profiles would be. C. Smith replied he is not absolutely certain,
but he knows they should lie fairly flat on the roof.
K. Olson noted the specifications indicate they would be 1.58 inches in thickness. C. Smith added there
is also the roof-mounting system to consider. L. Truame observed the panels previously approved by
the Commission were in the range of 4-6 inches off the roof surface.
M. McGandy asked the applicant if he informed his consultants/providers of the potential issues
associated with installing the panels on the street-facing façade. C. Smith replied that they did ask if the
property was in an Historic District. They told him it was his responsibility to resolve any issues.
M. McGandy noted he would like to know if the consultants/providers believe more panels could be
installed on the western façade to reduce the size of (or eliminate) the array that is visible from the
street.
4 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
S. Gibian suggested that using the second-story sun roof may be possible and would be far less visible
than the main roof slope.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by McGandy, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Keith Liblick, Sales and Customer Relations, Renovus Energy, remarked he may be able to answer
some of the Commission’s questions.
M. McGandy asked if a satisfactory reconfiguration of the solar panels would be possible. K. Liblick
replied it would be challenging. Installing panels at an angle is more expensive and generally not
compatible with the lease program, since the NYSERDA-funded program requires the panels get a
prescribed minimum amount of sun.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer,
seconded by M. McGandy.
D. Kramer suggested the application could be tabled until the Commission has more information.
L. Truame added it may also be worth the applicant’s time to ask about a ground-mounted solar array, in
the rear yard. C. Smith replied he would ask.
― The Commission proceeded to review other agenda items.
After some time, the applicant returned to respond to the Commission’s questions. ―
C. Smith indicated he had spoken to his solar panel provider, ET Solar, about using the sun porch roof
and they were concerned about its structural soundness. It may be able to hold three panels, at the most.
ET Solar also indicated it would look further into how much sunlight the panels would get at that
location, which may be a problem. It does not appear to be a great option. ET Solar will also explore
the possibility of having the ground-based array in the yard, although C. Smith believes it would be too
shaded.
C. Smith noted that the south-facing slope is the principal sun-receiving roof on the house; but he could
explore limiting the panels to just the west side ― however, that would cut the electricity produced in
half, without cutting the expense in half. Without the south-facing array, C. Smith indicated he probably
would not move forward with the project.
M. McGandy remarked he would prefer not to make a decision based on the quick verbal assessment the
Commission just received; he would prefer to have some hard data from ET Solar. He added he would
dearly love to be able to approve the project.
C. Smith remarked that, in retrospect, installing the panels in the yard is not really an acceptable solution
for him. He uses it too much. On the other hand, he would certainly be willing to explore the second-
floor sun porch roof.
5 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
D. Kramer noted he does not fully understand the Commission’s guidelines, for this application. In
principle, the Commission is certainly very much in favor of solar arrays; and it has approved solar array
installations even when they are visible from certain angles (e.g., for the Clinton House in March 2012).
L. Truame responded that, actually, neither of the two solar panel installations the Commission has
previously approved was particularly visible. They were easier locations to approve. She noted the
Commission will undoubtedly be getting more and more of these kinds of applications, involving more
visible locations and more limited ways of addressing any problems.
S. Gibian referred the Commission to the Secretary of the Interior's Illustrated Guidelines on
Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings for guidance on the matter. One thing in the
application’s favor is that the building does not represent the most significant architecture on the block.
S. Gibian suggested the Commission consider tabling the application.
E. Finegan asked when the work was planned. C. Smith replied, as soon as it is approved.
K. Olson expressed appreciation that the applicant does not want a solar array in his yard; but if that
ended up being a viable option, that should be considered.
L. Truame indicated it sounds like the Commission would like the applicant to obtain more information
from his consultants/providers. She added he could also explore possibly holding some panels back on
the main slope of the roof, in the area above the sun porch, which would reduce their visual impact
somewhat.
The application was tabled.
C. 108 Elston Pl., East Hill Historic District ― Request for Retroactive Approval of Window &
Siding Replacement
Applicant Kathryn March recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting she originally
received approval for replacement of deteriorated wood siding on three sides. When the work was being
performed, the contractors said the windows were in terrible shape and suggested they be replaced at the
same time. She believes the windows that were replaced were aluminum-clad. They tried to make them
look exactly like the ones they replaced. She apologized for the fact the work was completed without
Commission approval.
L. Truame remarked that the Commission does not have documentation showing the windows that were
replaced. (She would guess that the majority were single-paned wood windows with aluminum storm
windows.) K. March noted that the wood was rotten.
L. Truame noted the Commission does have the contractor’s statement to consider. The new windows
are all one-over-one windows; however, they are vinyl windows and, to the best of her knowledge, the
Commission has not previously approved vinyl windows for use in the districts.
6 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
D. Kramer noted that approving them would constitute a precedent for approving vinyl. L. Truame
responded that the Commission would be approving the windows based on their visual compatibility
with the windows that were replaced; and that would be made clear in the resolution.
M. McGandy remarked that he feels comfortable with the windows and it is an exceptional
circumstance; however, the Commission cannot ignore the fact that procedures were not followed.
K. Olson noted that the principal issue is whether the Commission would have approved the windows if
they had been presented to the Commission originally.
D. Kramer responded the Commission would not have approved the installation of aluminum cladding
over the existing trim.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Jess Cisco, 117 Triphammer Road, spoke in support of the application.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy,
seconded by S. Gibian.
L. Truame noted the Commission is required to certify that the relevant principles and standards have
been met. If a particular feature is missing, however, then it cannot substantiate the standard. In such a
case, the violation is referred to the City Attorney for resolution.
D. Kramer asked if anyone knows of any other historical photographs of the house. E. Finegan replied,
there could be.
E. Finegan remarked that the alterations do not make a significant visual difference.
K. Olson responded that the use of vinyl, on the other hand, is a problem, if the Commission is stating it
can be used in the future.
S. Gibian noted another issue is whether the Commission accepts the contractor’s letter that the windows
were not repairable.
M. McGandy responded that this post facto consideration of the entire issue is somewhat unusual. He
suggested adding language to the resolution, further highlighting the exceptional nature of the
application and that the Commission’s decision on the matter should not serve as a precedent.
L. Truame observed that the Commission also has two corroborating personal observations by two
Commission members about the severely deteriorated condition of the building prior to its purchase by
the current owner.
7 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
K. Olson agreed that documenting the details of the Commission’s reasoning would help prevent people
taking advantage of any precedent that may be set.
L. Truame suggested the Commission could also choose to make a determination that the building is a
non-contributing element of the Historic District, given its once-dilapidated state and resulting loss of
physical integrity.
K. Olson and C. O’Malley both agreed. There was agreement that this was an appropriate action under
the circumstances, given that there was personal knowledge of the deteriorated physical condition of the
building on the part of two Commission members.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson.
WHEREAS, 108 Elston Place 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 April 20, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Kathryn March, including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Changes(s); (2) one letter, including a before-and-after photograph, explaining
why the work under consideration was done in the absence of required approvals; (3)
specifications for the product that were used for the work; and (4) a survey map of the
property, and
WHEREAS, in a subsequent e-mail, dated April 25, 2014, the applicant provided a statement regarding
the condition of the windows that were removed from the contractor who replaced them,
and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the annotated property list entry for 108 Elston Place from the
original National Register nomination for the 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
replacement of deteriorated wood siding on the east elevation and replacement of windows
throughout the building, which work has already been completed, 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 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 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 May 13,
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 annotated property list entry from the National Register nomination, 108
Elston Place was constructed circa 1900. It is a modest vernacular residence typical of the
turn-of-the-twentieth century period.
Although constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District, the
Commission finds that due to significant physical deterioration the building no longer
possesses a sufficiently high level of physical integrity to be considered a contributing
element of the district. As a non-contributing element, alterations to the property will be
reviewed for their impact on adjacent contributing structures and on the Historic District as
a whole.
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 #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.
9 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #2, in its October 12, 2010 evaluation of the
replacement of siding on the north elevation of this house, the Commission found that the
existing wood siding was not a character-defining feature, therefore, the replacement of the
same clapboard siding on the east elevation of the house with cementitious siding did not
remove distinctive materials and did not alter features and spaces that characterize the
property.
With respect to Standard #6, the owner has stated that the severity of deterioration of the
wood clapboard siding on the east elevation required its replacement. The Commission
notes that at its October 12, 2010, meeting the ILPC approved replacement of the existing
wood clapboard siding on the north elevation, with the resolution approving that work
stating that “The project will be phased […]. Remaining siding will be replaced incrementally
and with further Commission approval.” On October 16, 2010, ILPC staff approved the
replacement of siding on the west and south elevations. Based upon these facts, the ILPC
does accept the owner’s evaluation of the condition of the east elevation siding as being so
severely deteriorated that replacement was required. The siding installed on the east
elevation matches the appearance of the new siding that was previously approved by the
ILPC or its staff for use on the remaining three elevations.
Based on the personal knowledge of two current Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission members concerning the severely deteriorated condition of the building prior
to its purchase by the current owner, the Commission finds that:
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #2, the replacement of original wood windows
throughout the house did not remove distinctive materials and did not alter features and
spaces that characterize the property.
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 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: 6-0-0
Yes
C. O’Malley
S. Gibian
M. McGandy
E. Finegan
K. Olson
D. Kramer
No
Abstain
10 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
D. 413 S. Albany St., Henry St. John Historic District ― Proposal to Install Solar Panels
Applicants Robert Sparks and Holly Gump appeared before the Commission. Consultant Keith Liblick,
Renovus Energy, recapitulated the salient details of the proposal. K Liblick explained that the panels
would have black frames and black hardware. K Liblick noted there is a very large tree to the southwest
of the house, so it is the southeast portion of the roof that would be used, in harmony with the roofline.
K. Olson remarked that if it were not a corner lot, she would have no problem with it.
M. McGandy asked if the panels could be installed on the garage. H. Gump replied she does not think
the garage gets much sun. K Liblick agreed, noting it would also be too small an area.
E. Finegan observed it is clear there are very few options in terms of where to install the panels.
H. Gump remarked that the applicants already took the first step of insulating the house.
M. McGandy noted this proposal definitely seems different than the prior proposal. He asked if the
panels could be reconfigured in any way. K Liblick replied that all other options would produce
significantly less electricity. NYSERDA requires 80% or more of optimal sun. The currently proposed
locations are more or less optimal, but if they were moved that would no longer be the case.
S. Gibian noted it seems the applicant has followed all the recommended practices in the Secretary of
the Interior's Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, which he
proceeded to enumerate.
K Liblick noted that a low-profile system would be used and the panel colors would be very dark so that
they would better blend with the existing black roof shingles.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Jess Cisco, 117 Triphammer Road, expressed support for the application.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer,
seconded by C. O’Malley.
D. Kramer noted he would be willing to approve the proposal, as long as the Commission can clearly
elucidate the criteria it followed. M. McGandy agreed. L. Truame replied that could be incorporated
into the language of the resolution.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 413 S. Albany Street is located within the Henry St. John Historic District, as designated
under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2013, and
11 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated April 28, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Renovus Energy on behalf of property owner Robert
Sparks, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a statement from the owner
authorizing submission of the application; (3) a photograph showing the proposed
location of the solar array; (4) a layout showing the configuration of the proposed array;
(5) one sheet of technical information for the proposed panels; and (6) two photographs
of similar arrays that have been installed elsewhere in the city, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
Henry St. John Historic District for 413 S. Albany Street, and the City of Ithaca’s Henry
St. John Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
installation of twelve solar panels on the south roof slope, facing North Titus Avenue,
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
May 13, 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 Henry St. John Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the Henry St. John Historic District
is 1830-1932.
As indicated in the individual property entry in the annotated list of properties included
within the Henry St. John Historic District, 413 S. Albany St. was constructed circa 1932
in the Colonial Revival style, and was the last building to be built in the Henry St. John
Historic District within its period of significance. It occupies a generous corner lot and as
a result its secondary elevation along N. Titus Avenue is significantly visible to the
public.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Henry St. John Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Henry
St. John Historic District.
12 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
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 #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 solar
panels on the south roof slope 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 solar array is compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
The Commission notes the proposed array is not visible from any point facing the
primary elevation of the building, due to its location on a rear wing behind a cross-gable.
The visual impact of the new installation will be further reduced by the black color of
both panels and frame against the existing black roof shingles, and the presence of
existing mechanicals and skylights in this area of the roof. The owner has explored other
potential locations for the array and determined there are none that would be less visible;
13 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
and the owner has already undertaken interior upgrades to the property to reduce energy
usage.
With respect to Standard #10, the solar array can be removed in the future without
impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Henry St.
John Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines 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: 6-0-0
Yes
C. O’Malley
S. Gibian
M. McGandy
E. Finegan
K. Olson
D. Kramer
No
Abstain
E. 117 Triphammer Rd., Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Windows
Applicant Jess Cisco recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting the windows in the
older addition to house windows are very old and it is impossible to maintain the right heat balance for
all three floors. (In addition, many of the older windows have lead-based paint.)
S. Gibian asked if the windows would feature simulated divided lights. J. Cisco replied that all he
knows is that they would be identical to the ones installed in 2012.
E. Finegan asked if it is a non-contributing building. L. Truame replied, yes. As such, the Commission
is only evaluating the proposal for its impact on its historic surroundings.
L. Truame explained that if the request had been for the replacement of one or two windows she would
have approved it at staff level as being consistent with the Design Guidelines; however, there were so
many windows being proposed for replacement that she wanted the applicant to appear before the
Commission, rather than perform a staff-level evaluation.
Public Hearing
On a motion by C. O’Malley, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded
by D. Kramer.
14 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 117 Triphammer Road is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as
designated under Sections 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as
listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated April 28, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Delta Gamma House Corporation,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed
Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) four sheets of photographs showing
existing conditions at the house, including both original and previously-approved
replacement windows, and indicating which windows are now proposed to be replaced,
and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 117
Triphammer 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
replacement of 24 existing windows with Marvin Ultimate Clad Double Hung “Custom
Insert” replacement units in the color Stone 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 a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on
May 13, 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, 117 Triphammer
Road was constructed in 1941-42. Constructed outside the district’s period of
significance, 117 Triphammer Road is, by definition, a non-contributing feature of the
Cornell Heights Historic District.
15 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to replace 24 existing windows.
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 #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.
As a visually-compatible, but non-contributing, structure, 117 Triphammer Road, by
definition, does not possess historic materials or features that are subject to protection
under the Principles enumerated in Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code or the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards. The ILPC’s evaluation of the proposed work is therefore
limited to the assessment of the impact of the proposed work on adjacent historic
structures in the district and on the Historic District as a whole, with the guiding principle
being that the proposed work must not further reduce the compatibility of the non-
contributing structure with its historic environment.
With respect to Standard #9, the proposed Marvin Ultimate clad window inserts with
simulated divided lights are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural
features of the property and its environment and, therefore, will not reduce the visual
compatibility of this non-contributing structure with its historic 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 the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
16 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, with the
following condition:
Simulated divided lights will be used in the new windows, to match the light
configuration of each existing window being replaced.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
C. O’Malley
S. Gibian
M. McGandy
E. Finegan
K. Olson
D. Kramer
No
Abstain
F. 226 S. Geneva St., Henry St. John Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Windows
L. Truame noted the applicant is not present. She recapitulated the salient details of the proposed
project on his behalf. She explained that the applicant purchased the property after it was designated,
but before the prior owner completed installing the proposed windows. He is now asking for permission
to install them.
E. Finegan noted the Commission does not know what is being installed exactly. L. Truame replied it
would be aluminum-clad wood, with grilles-between-the-glass, as shown in the attached photographs.
K. Olson noted she could approve replacement of the non-original slider window, but not the early two-
over-two window.
M. McGandy noted the Commission is dealing with materials in a contributing structure and there is no
compelling reason to approve the request.
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. Gibian, seconded by
M. McGandy.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by C. O’Malley.
WHEREAS, 226 S. Geneva Street is located within the Henry St. John Historic District, as designated
under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2013, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated April 29, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Lee Kaltman, including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) one sheet of photographs showing the windows to be
17 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
replaced, the windows that are proposed to be used, and the window that was replaced by
the prior owner with the same type of window that is proposed for use in these two new
locations, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
Henry St. John Historic District for 226 S. Geneva Street, and the City of Ithaca’s Henry
St. John Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
replacement of one two-over-two window and one non-original slider window on a
secondary elevation with double-glazed window units that have between-the-glass grilles,
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
May 13, 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 Henry St. John Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the Henry St. John Historic District
is 1830-1932.
As indicated in the individual property entry in the annotated list of properties included
within the Henry St. John Historic District, 226 S. Geneva Street was constructed circa
1845 in the Greek Revival style. The primary façade of the building retains its original
six-over-six windows. Neither the modern slider, nor the two-over-two wood window
proposed for replacement is original to the building; however, the two-over-two window
would have been added during the district’s period of significance.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Henry St. John Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Henry
St. John Historic District.
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.
18 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
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 #4 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired
historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Standard #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
Standard #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the
new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities,
and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be
substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, Standard #5, and Standard #9, the replacement
of the modern slider window will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter
features and spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, Standard #4, Standard #5, and Standard #9, the
replacement of the two-over-two window will remove distinctive materials and will alter
features and spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Standard #6, no evidence has been presented to indicate the condition of
the two-over-two window has deteriorated to the point that its replacement is required.
The nine-over-six window proposed for this location does not match the old in design,
color, texture, materials, and other visual qualities.
19 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal to replace the modern slider
window will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or
architectural significance of the Henry St. John Historic District, as set forth in Section
228-5, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal to replace the historic two-over-
two window will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or
architectural significance of the Henry St. John Historic District, as set forth in Section
228-5, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines the proposal to replace
the modern slider window meets criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the
Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines the proposal to replace
the historic two-over-two window does not meet 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 to replace the
modern slider window, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the
historic two-over-two window.
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-1-0
Yes
C. O’Malley
S. Gibian
M. McGandy
E. Finegan
K. Olson
No
D. Kramer
Abstain
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
• None.
III. OLD BUSINESS
• None.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
• None.
20 of 21
ILPC Minutes
May 13, 2014
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by D. Kramer, and seconded by C. O’Malley, Commission members unanimously approved
the following meeting minutes, with no modifications.
• April 8, 2014 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Conference, Philadelphia, July 16-20, 2014
L. Truame noted this would be an excellent conference for Commission members to attend, should they
choose. She will provide them with more information.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:00 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
21 of 21