HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2014-07-08Approved by ILPC: 8/12/14
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – July 8, 2014
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
Christine O’Malley
David Kramer
Stephen Gibian
Michael McGandy
Gabriela Brito, Staff
Megan Wilson, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 306 N. Cayuga St., DeWitt Park Historic District ― Request for Retroactive Approval of
Replacement of Gutters & Downspouts, Roofing, Flashing, & Drainage Over Main Entrance, &
Change of Back Porch Windows & Doors; & Proposal to Repair or Replace Skylight Flashing &
Glazed Panels
Applicants Brian Buttner and Jeff Kalnitz recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. B.
Buttner noted the repairs and upgrades made to the existing building were the result of a long state of
disrepair, remaining from prior owners. Two years ago, the boiler failed causing the pipes to freeze and
burst, which precipitated a partial cave-in. The owner believes the affected rooms required a critical
emergency repair, so he performed what he believed was necessary work, for which he was not aware
any permission from the City was required. B. Buttner indicated some of that work was subject to a
Stop Work Order, so it was halted in the midst of repairs to gutters (which precipitated further damage).
B. Buttner noted additional work remains to be done to the exterior. He then explained that, over the
course of repairing the water damage, the owner made some improvements to the house, being unaware
of the City’s Landmarks Preservation Ordinance requirements. He installed a French door with a
stained glass opening out onto the first-floor of the porch.
B. Buttner noted there has been some question regarding how old the porch is. It was certainly not part
of the original building (although it was part of the building when the DeWitt Park Historic District was
designated). The railings on those two porch levels were painted numerous times, so the wood was
chipped and rotting, which the owner restored in-kind. Hot-dipping the railings would not have been
possible, given the toxicity of that process, so they needed to be replaced.
E. Finegan explained that since the porches were installed circa 1910-1919, the Commission would
consider them part of the historic structure.
D. Kramer asked if the applicant applied for City permission to make any of the repairs (especially since
some of it involves some major structural work). E. Finegan added that the installation of the new porch
doors would have especially required a Building Permit. J. Kalnitz replied the French doors had been
there for many years.
E. Finegan asked the other Commission members how they would suggest handling this retroactive
application.
1 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
S. Gibian observed the Commission does not have any images or drawings to refer to from before the
work was completed.
E. Finegan asked the applicant to address the “Reasons for Proposed Changes” #4, “Modify Second
Floor Access to Porch” portion of the application. J. Kalnitz indicated there is one example left of an
existing door to the billiards room porch. Before he bought the property, they modified that and he
imagines it had more of a pitch, since the flashing is not correct. The door to the rear porch was actually
a very large window, which could be opened as a door, but which he felt was dangerous and had a crack
in it. When the flooding took place, it disintegrated the door, so he installed the current door.
E. Finegan asked the applicant to elaborate on “Reasons for Proposed Changes, #(8) Patch or Replace
Skylight Window Flashing and Glazed Panels.”
B. Buttner explained that the skylight has leaked for many years. There is a second-level painted glass
ceiling. Anyone could conceivably get in the space between the ceiling and the skylight. The skylight
may not have much more time before it deteriorates completely. When the Building Inspector examined
it, he realized it was a unique situation/problem. B. Buttner noted that one cannot even see the skylight,
unless one is on the fourth floor of the adjacent building.
C. O’Malley noted that, other than the proposed repair process, the Commission will not be making a
decision on the future of the skylight this evening. That decision will be made at some point when a
specific proposal is received from the applicant.
J. Kalnitz remarked that one would have to be on the fifth floor of the nearby bed and breakfast to see
the skylight. Almost the entire roof is slate, except where the skylight is located. A specialist explained
what would be necessary to do that work, which is when he decided to obtain a construction loan. He
knows he would need to install a sprinkler system. E. Finegan responded all of that could be reviewed
another time.
S. Gibian remarked that some mention was made about making the guardrails on the rear porch higher
than 30 inches. B. Buttner replied that if the building were going to be expanded to be more than just
two dwellings, the railings would need to be made higher.
D. Kramer observed the new railings are very similar to the original ones.
E. Finegan noted there are four sets of alterations the Commission needs to make a decision on this
evening, as enumerated in the application: (1) Gutters & Downspouts; (2) Roof Flashing & Drainage
Over Main Entrance; (3) Modified First Floor Access to Rear Porch; and (4) Modify Second Floor
Access to Porch. G. Brito responded they could be discussed in groups: (1) and (2), and then (3) and
(4).
S. Gibian observed that from street-level one cannot really see the rubber roofing; so he would not have
a problem with that. C. O’Malley agreed.
E. Finegan asked if both the gutters and the downspouts were new. B. Buttner replied, only the
downspouts.
2 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
S. Gibian responded that the resolution states that the gutters were also replaced. B. Buttner explained
that a portion of the rubberized area in the front functions essentially as a gutter. Also, he did not want
to completely exlude the possibility of using gutters for getting the water off the building.
E. Finegan suggested the Commission proceed with (3) Modified First Floor Access to Rear Porch and
(4) Modify Second Floor Access to Porch.
S. Gibian noted the styles of the terrace door and the oval door do not match. D. Kramer agreed. The
door on the first floor is the more appropriate of the two. M. McGandy remarked that the original
materials have been lost, so he is not sure how the Commission would make a determination. J. Kalnitz
noted every room in the house has a different style of stained glass.
E. Finegan noted that the upper-porch door looks like a very standard contemporary door. The doors in
the kitchen are more unusual-looking.
E. Finegan asked how the rest of the Commission feels about the railings. D. Kramer replied he thinks
they are reasonably acceptable. The replacement is very close to the original.
E. Finegan asked how the rest of the Commission feels about the French door. After examining images
12 and 13, C. O’Malley noted that, while the house itself is an American Renaissance Colonial Revival
style house, the door looks more like Frank Lloyd Wright; so that would not be appropriate. J. Kalnitz
replied that any number of different styles can actually be inserted into that door opening.
E. Finegan suggested something more appropriate be used for the second-floor door.
D. Kramer suggested the applicant return with examples of other inserts for the French doors and
another kind of door on the second floor.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded
by M. McGandy.
E. Finegan asked for the Commission’s opinion of the rails. S. Gibian replied that they would be fine if
their height is maintained.
E. Finegan inquired about the door insert. C. O’Malley replied that could be left for staff-level approval.
M. McGandy noted the issue of the penalty for the unpermitted work still needs to be addressed. In the
past, the Commission has referred these kinds of matters to the City Attorney’s Office.
S. Gibian noted that the work on the rear of the building is not really visible from the public view. C.
O’Malley added it probably would never be.
D. Kramer expressed serious disappointment with the way the applicant handled the process, including
the removal of some very distinctive features of the house. He adjured the applicant to contact City staff
before initiating any future alterations.
3 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 306 N. Cayuga St. 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 May 22, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Brian Buttner and property owner Jeffrey Kalnitz,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed
Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) one narrative titled Project Overview for 306
North Cayuga Street, Ithaca, NY; (3) eleven sheets of photographs showing existing
conditions of the property; (4) four sheets of general exterior photographs; (5) two sheets
of historic photographs showing construction work on the property, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
306 N. Cayuga Street, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves repair
or replacement in-kind of several features (enumerated in the application), which work
does not require ILPC review but must be approved at staff level; repair of existing
gutters and replacement of downspouts, which work has already been initiated;
replacement of roofing material and change of flashing and drainage over main entrance,
which work has partially been completed; and modification of first- and second-floor
access to rear porch by changing existing openings and installing new doors and
windows, 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
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
July 8, 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
1820-1930.
4 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 306 N. Cayuga
Street, known as the Williams-Speno-Fisher House, was constructed in 1906 for Roger B.
Williams, a prominent Ithaca businessman, and was designed by locally prominent
architect Clinton L. Vivian. It is an important example of American Renaissance design.
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.
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.
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, and Standard #9, the replacement of existing
downspouts with aluminum rectangular downspouts and repair of the gutter system with
membrane, and the replacement of roofing material and change of flashing and drainage
5 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
over the main entrance did not remove distinctive materials and did not alter features and
spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Standard #6, the owner’s architect stated in the application that the
severity of deterioration of the existing downspouts and the existing roofing material and
flashing over the main entrance required its replacement. The Commission does accept
the architect’s evaluation of the condition of the existing downspouts and the existing
roofing material and flashing over the main entrance as being so severely deteriorated
that replacement was required. The proposed new work does match the old in design,
color, texture, and other visual qualities.
Also, with respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the Commission finds
that the existing windows and doors on the rear porch were not a character-defining
feature of the property; therefore, the modification of first- and second-floor access to the
rear porch by changing existing openings and installing new windows and doors did not
remove distinctive materials and did not alter features and spaces that characterize the
property.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the installed new doors and windows
are not currently compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of
the property and its environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on findings set forth above, the repair of existing gutters and replacement of
downspouts, and the replacement of roofing material and change of flashing and drainage
over main entrance did 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 repair of existing
gutters and replacement of downspouts, and the replacement of roofing material and
change of flashing and drainage over main entrance 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 for the repair
of existing gutters and replacement of downspouts, and the replacement of roofing
material and change of flashing and drainage over main entrance.
RESOLVED, that, based on findings set forth above, the modification of first- and second-floor access
to rear porch by changing existing openings and installing new doors and windows did
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 modification of
first- and second-floor access to rear porch by changing existing openings and installing
new doors and windows meets criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal
Code, and be it further
6 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
modification of first- and second-floor access to rear porch by changing existing openings
and installing new doors and windows with the following condition:
The owner will replace the glass inset of the double door on the first floor of the rear
porch and replace the single door on the second floor to match the design of the one
on the first floor, in order to address the requirement in Standard #9 that the new
doors and windows shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment. The owner will submit for final staff approval the proposed glass insets
and door.
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0
Yes
S. Gibian
C. O’Malley
D. Kramer
M. McGandy
E. Finegan
No
Abstain
B. 140 College Ave., John Snaith House ― Proposal to Construct Addition
Applicants Jason Demarest, Betsy Po, and Mark Christofaro recapitulated the salient details of the
proposed project.
Demarest summarized the following features of the project:
• Addition would be an equal-sized dwelling unit addition to the existing dwelling.
• Addition would be distinguished from original building via a glass ‘hyphen’ connector.
• City Planning and Development Board requested differentiation for the siding and lap siding was
chosen.
• Site is constrained by limited parking, so there was no other opportunity for expansion.
• Addition would project 3 feet from the main façade and be set back 3 feet from street.
• Addition would reference the stepping rhythm of the building from right to left.
• One concern from the last ILPC meeting was the brick being covered by the addition. The
original proposal had exposed brick on the first and second floors. In subsequent conversations
with their general contractor, the applicants felt that the top floor, which has a roof needing to be
removed, should contain something to cover the partial demolition, so they built a furred wall.
The applicants are currently proposing furring all the walls, but preserving the brick chimneys.
(There are two inset sections on each chimney, which have the most character, that would be
exposed.) The brick would be preserved for the future.
E. Finegan noted the two principal concerns at the last ILPC meeting were the set-back and the ability to
see the original exterior brick at the new hyphen connecting the existing building to the addition. He
also asked if one would be able see the existing chimney.
7 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
J. Demarest replied that the eastern-most chimney is no more than 6 feet from the glass entry door, so it
would be prominent.
S. Gibian observed that the purpose of the addition seems merely to be to maximize the owner’s profit.
The whole project seems like overkill. Situating the living room and dining room in the basement only
serves to maximize the number of bedrooms on the first floor. The addition is not genuinely subordinate
to the rest of the house, nor is the connector a true hyphen, since it is not set back.
E. Finegan noted the Commission’s purview is only to look at exterior and what impact that would have
on the historic building.
M. McGandy indicated he would support the project. He is convinced by the applicant’s argument
about the modification to the brick design. While the proudness of the addition compared to the original
building is a little unfortunate, that seems to be mitigated by the porch structure to some extent.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by C. O’Malley, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
John Schroeder, 618 Stewart Ave., and Planning and Development Board member, speaking as private
citizen, remarked that he originally strongly felt the original design diminished the historic character of
the building; however, he believes the current design is an elegant solution. In his opinion, the fact that
the addition projects a little bit actually ties it to its historic context (i.e., the stepping forward from one
house to the next). He also believes it is sufficiently differentiated. One thing he had always hoped to
see was that the chimneys would be visible; so he suggested some lighting in the hallways at night to
illuminate the exposed brick.
Nick Lambrou, spoke on behalf of Josh Lower, who owns an adjacent property and strongly supports
the proposal. Lower believes it is very complementary to the existing structure and would be a real asset
to the neighborhood.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer,
seconded by M. McGandy.
D. Kramer indicated he likes the way the addition steps out, and the way it is differentiated and
compatible. He also appreciates the fact that it eliminates the fire escape.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, John Snaith House, located at 140 College Avenue, is an individual local landmark, as
designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2011, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated June 19, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Jason Demarest on behalf of property owner Ching
(Betsy) Po from Po Family Limited Partnership, including the following: (1) two
narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for
8 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
Changes(s); (2) one architectural drawing A2.00 titled “Exterior Elevations” and dated
06/19/14; (3) one architectural drawing “C1.00” titled “Site Plan” and dated 04/08/11; (4)
one sheet of photo-perspectives named “before & after & darker;” (5) one sheet with two
sections comparing the existing brick wall covered and uncovered; (6) one sheet with
photographs of existent conditions; (7) one sheet with floor plans of the proposal named
“Brochure Plans” and dated 9/6/13, and
WHEREAS, in a subsequent e-mail, dated July 2, 2014, the owner provided additional information on
the proposal, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for the
John Snaith House at 140 College Avenue, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
construction of a three-story addition constructed over an existing one-story garage area
that will be also expanded and incorporated into the project, 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
July 8, 2014, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the John Snaith
House was constructed in 1874 and rebuilt in 1894-95 after fire damage. It is the sole
nineteenth century brick dwelling along College Avenue.
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:
9 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
Principle #1 The historic features of an individual landmark shall be altered as little
as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with the historic character
of the landmark.
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 #3 Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time,
place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historic development, such as
adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not
be undertaken.
Standard #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
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 #1, Standard #2, Standard #5 and Standard #9, the proposed
addition will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features, spaces, finishes,
and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property.
The Commission notes that the existing brick wall and chimneys covered by the addition
will remain intact.
Also, with respect to Principle #1 and Standard #9, the proposed addition is compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
With respect to Standard #3 and Standard #9, the proposed addition will not create a false
sense of historical development. The massing of the addition is apparent as a distinct
form and does not falsely appear to be part of the original structure. The addition’s
materials and level of detailing do allow the viewer to readily identify the addition as
such.
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed addition can be removed in the future without
impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment.
10 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
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 John Snaith
House, 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: 4-1-0
Yes
C. O’Malley
D. Kramer
M. McGandy
E. Finegan
No
S. Gibian
Abstain
C. 201 W. Clinton St., Henry Saint John Historic District ― Proposal to Add Windows on Rear
Porch
The applicant did not appear before the Commission.
C. O’Malley noted that she did not see anything particularly unusual with the proposal. It seems
consistent with what the Commission has approved before.
S. Gibian observed it is a better application than the applicant’s earlier proposal.
E. Finegan asked how the Commission feels about the round windows being obtained from Significant
Elements (i.e., from another property).
C. O’Malley replied that they would be installed in a less prominent area of the house, so she has no
major objection to it. D. Kramer agreed. M. McGandy observed the entire building is essentially a
pastiche of historic elements to begin with.
Public Hearing
On a motion by C. O’Malley, seconded by S. Gibian, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There
being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M.
McGandy.
RESOLUTION: Moved by C. O’Malley, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 201 W. Clinton 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 June 24, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owners Zac Boggs and Isabel Fernández,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed
11 of 20
Approved by ILPC: 8/12/14
Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) one sheet with historic pictures from 1977; (3) two pictures
showing location of proposed windows; (4) one sheet of product literature for the
proposed new casement window, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
Henry St. John Historic District for 201 W. Clinton 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 two windows on enclosed rear porch: a double-casement, wood window
with a double transom and fully-integral grills on the east side, and a 18” round, salvaged
window on the west side.
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
July 8, 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, 201 W. Clinton St. was constructed around
1835 and is a good example of a transitional Federal-Greek Revival style.
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.
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
12 of 20
Approved by ILPC: 8/12/14
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 #3 Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time,
place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historic development, such as
adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not
be undertaken.
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, and Standard #9, the installation of the two
windows on the rear porch 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 windows are
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
With respect to Standard #3, the use of the salvaged round window on the west side will
not create a false sense of historical development. The Commission notes that the
proposed location is not significantly visible to the public.
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 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.
13 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0
Yes
S. Gibian
C. O’Malley
D. Kramer
M. McGandy
E. Finegan
No
Abstain
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
John Schroeder, 618 Stewart Ave., and Planning and Development Board member, speaking as private
citizen, remarked that he is concerned with the Salvation Army building carriage house being
demolished. When he sat on Common Council, he strongly advocated that 310 and 315 W. State Street
are an exquisite pair of buildings. The Salvation Army building is probably the finest stick-style
building in Ithaca. At the time, he strongly recommended that they deserve historic designation (as well
as the Integrative Medicine Center building, which comes from the same tradition). It would be absolute
tragedy for that stick-style building to be demolished. Some serious work will need to be done to
designate those buildings; and he would like the ILPC to find a way to do that. J. Schroeder also wanted
to expressly thank Nick Lambrou for preserving 202 Eddy Street. His only recommendation would be
that the leaded glass on the first floor be preserved if at all possible and incorporated into the new
structure. The Commission should ask the applicant to add that to the approved drawings.
E. Finegan responded that he knows Historic Ithaca was conducting research on those three buildings.
G. Brito confirmed that Historic Ithaca is planning on submitting a nomination for a Historic District to
include those buildings.
III. OLD BUSINESS
• 232 S. Albany St., Henry Saint John Historic District ― Update on Proposal to Install Solar
Panels
The applicant was not present. Discussion of the proposal was deferred until later in the meeting.
• 202 Eddy St., East Hill Historic District ― Update on Proposal to Reconstruct Fire-Damaged
House
Applicants Nick Lambrou and Jagat Sharma recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project.
J. Sharma noted the drawings have been updated and are now accurate. The elevations also now reflect
the floor plans. The reconstruction would be on same footprint of the original building; and the floor
plan and placement of the windows would be replicated, with only a few minor changes to the interior
floor plan. The porches would also be reconstructed. The original building featured a bay window and
an entrance on the side; however, the new building will have the entrance in the center of the main
facade, along with a reconstruction of some of the porch. J. Sharma noted the new sidewalk would run
from the old sidewalk (it currently runs from the street to the porch) to the main entrance. The
building’s window details would be replicated.
14 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
J. Sharma noted they will also be reconstructing the gabled roof with the cupola in the middle (but the
cupola would have no interior accessway). There would be one further change to the west elevation.
The old building featured 4-foot covered porches that formed a deck on the top. The sloping roof also
had some built-in doorways with railings; however, the applicants do not believe that is safe, so they
have removed those. Instead of the three windows in the rear, they will be creating dormers. The only
significant portion of the building that would be missing would be the chimney on the top. J. Sharma
indicated the applicants would try to incorporate the leaded glass on the first floor as best they can, as J.
Schroeder suggested earlier in the meeting.
C. O’Malley asked if an additional form of egress would not be required on the third floor. J. Sharma
replied, no, since the building will have a sprinkler system.
S. Gibian asked why the applicants are keeping the northern covered porch ― it appears somewhat low
to his eye. J. Sharma replied that it is an open porch adjoined by an interior glass-enclosed porch, so
they wanted to replicate it. N. Lambrou added that it was just off the kitchen in the old house and
seemed to serve as a good transition area.
C. O’Malley remarked that someone living in the house in 1960s asked Planning staff whether a large
‘shed’ in the back yard remains in place now, and if so, whether it is part of the overall plan. N.
Lambrou replied there was only a burnt structure, which collapsed 15 years ago as a result of a student
gathering of some kind.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by C. O’Malley, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Wayles Browne, 206 Eddy Street, noted he recalls a shed, but does not recall it having any significant
value. He is glad to see the house being reconstructed, but does not support reconstructing the shed.
Regarding the side porch, W. Browne noted the students living in the house always seemed to make
good use of it.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer,
seconded by M. McGandy.
N. Lambrou remarked that while he would not object to eliminating the side porch, in his opinion, it
gives the house more balance.
S. Gibian indicated that the details for a project like this will be critical (e.g., rafter tails, siding, etc.). He
noted it sounds like the applicant will be inventorying the materials of the old structure. J. Sharma
replied, yes.
S. Gibian noted his other potential concern is the center entrance.
C. O’Malley remarked that, in some ways, since the building is no longer a functioning single-family
home, she would not object to that so much. Furthermore, the applicant will not be creating a perfect
replica of the old building.
15 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
M. McGandy noted he feels comfortable with the center entrance, as long as it works with the overall
flow of the interior design. He is not sure if the Commission has enough information on the materials
for the new building, so he would suggest requiring detailed materials information before construction is
allowed to begin.
E. Finegan observed that one of the proposed materials would be Hardie board, which the Commission
has not objected to for new construction, in the past.
J. Sharma responded the applicants would be happy to return to the Commission with complete details
of the proposed materials.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 202 Eddy Street is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under Section
228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New York State
and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated May 27, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Jagat P. Sharma on behalf of property owner Nick
Lambrou, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) one site plan and two architectural
drawings showing proposed changes; and (3) three photographs showing conditions
before and after the fire, and
WHEREAS, the application was tabled at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on June 10, 2014,
pending the submission of revised information reconciling observed discrepancies
between the submitted plans and the submitted elevations, and
WHEREAS, a revised set of architectural drawings was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) on June 23, 2014, by Jagat P. Sharma on behalf of
property owner Nick Lambrou, including the following: (1) Site Plan, dated 5/27/14; (2)
two sheets of Floor Plans, dated 6/24/14; (3) two sheets of Elevations, dated 6/24/2014;
and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
202 Eddy Street, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement,
and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
reconstruction of the fire-damaged house on the original footprint replicating the original
architectural design and details, 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
16 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 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
June 10, 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, 202 Eddy Street
was constructed between 1866 and 1872. It was built by W. H. Perry, who was the
contractor and builder of W. H. Miller’s residence at 122 Eddy Street. It has many
colonial revival details, like the gambrel roofline, the Palladian window on the front
façade, and the fan window in the north gable in what appears to be an older two-story
building.
In March 2014, the historic house was significantly damaged by a major fire. The
Building Division of the City of Ithaca has indicated its demolition will be required due
to the extent of the damage.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district.
In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-5
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible
with the historic character of the district within which it is located.
With respect to Principle #3, the proposed new building, which replicates the existing
building with the exception of a relocated main entrance and the use of cementitious
siding in lieu of wood, is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural
features of its environment.
17 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
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 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 return with further information on exterior materials, windows,
and doors for final approval by ILPC; and the applicant will return with a proposal
to recover and incorporate the leaded glass present on the former structure.
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0
Yes
S. Gibian
C. O’Malley
D. Kramer
M. McGandy
E. Finegan
No
Abstain
• 232 S. Albany St., Henry Saint John Historic District ― Update on Proposal to Install Solar
Panels
The applicant did not appear.
G. Brito reported that the applicant recorded in writing what the Commission had asked for at the last
meeting, in terms of the energy-efficiency upgrades that had already been made to the house and the
examination of potential other locations for the solar array.
E. Finegan noted the Commission would be establishing a precedent in this case, if it approves the
application; however, it is an important subject and there is considerable support for this type of project
in the community.
C. O’Malley added that the entire array could also be removed at any point; and the current roof is not
original to the house.
M. McGandy asked if the Commission would approve future applications, when an applicant cannot
find an alternative site and has performed all possible energy-efficiency upgrades.
C. O’Malley responded that the Commission’s approval would simply be a best faith effort to evaluate
this specific application, so it should not represent a blanket approval of solar arrays in Historic
Districts.
D. Kramer reiterated that solar arrays can be removed with no alterations.
18 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
M. McGandy responded, in that case, using the same reasoning, the Commission could approve any
number of other kinds of mechanicals, like stove pipes, skylights, and so on.
C. O’Malley noted that the Commission has the Secretary of the Interior's Illustrated Guidelines on
Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings to guide it. There is an argument in that document
that supports adding solar arrays, so it should form an important basis for the Commission’s decision.
She also suggested consulting New York's State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) about it. G. Brito
responded she could follow up on that line of inquiry.
D. Kramer agreed those are good suggestions. The Commission will, however, continue to see many
more of these kinds of applications in the future and it needs to develop its own policy. He does not see
how the Commission could realistically reject most of these kinds of applications. He observed that ―
just as the Commission accepts power lines and phone poles in Historic Districts ― it will most likely
need to accept solar energy installations as well.
M. McGandy responded that the important distinction is that these kinds of solar arrays are installed on
the buildings themselves. He asked if the Commission would genuinely feel comfortable with having
solar arrays on every building within a Historic District. The Commission needs to establish a defined
set of criteria it can employ in these cases. He noted he would vote against this particular application,
based on the distinctions that were made at the last meeting and in comparison to the second solar array
the Commission approved.
C. O’Malley asked if an applicant could conceivably plead economic hardship in these cases; and, if so,
how the Commission would proceed.
M. Wilson replied that an applicant would certainly have the right to do so; however, how it is difficult
to imagine how hardship, as defined in the Landmarks Ordinance, could be demonstrated with regard to
denial of permission for a solar array.
M. McGandy noted that in principle applicants have three façades to work with. Even if the
Commission eliminates the principal façade as an option, the applicants would still have two other
options.
C. O’Malley indicated she felt the Commission should obtain more information from SHPO, before
making a decision in this case.
M. Wilson remarked that if the Commission does not vote within 45 days of the completion of the
public hearing for the proposal (that public hearing having been held on May 13, 2014), the application
would be automatically approved; however, G. Brito noted that if the Commission had specifically
asked for more information (which in this case they had), that clock would be set at 90 days from
completion of the public hearing.
S. Gibian noted that after having re-examined the Secretary of the Interior's Illustrated Guidelines on
Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, it seems as though this particular application may
not quite meet those standards (especially if one examines the ‘not recommended’ images).
19 of 20
ILPC Minutes
July 8, 2014
C. O’Malley reiterated that she would definitely be far more comfortable making a decision with more
information to guide her.
E. Finegan observed that the Commission members appear to be in agreement that consideration of the
application should be tabled so that additional information could be gathered. There were no objections.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
• None
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by M. McGandy, and seconded by C. O’Malley, Commission members approved the
following meeting minutes, with no modifications, and with D. Kramer abstaining.
• June 10, 2014 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• Commission Membership
C. O’Malley announced she is resigning from the Commission and will be working for Historic Ithaca.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:44 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Megan Wilson
City of Ithaca Planning Division
20 of 20